FFMI and genetic muscular potential

Not sure if this has been done elsewhere, but it seems more relevant in this section.

So, I've been surfing and came across the Fat Free Mass Index as a more effective tool than using BMI (which we know is shite, but I like venturing into being "obsese" every now and then). According to the research there is a point at which it becomes clear if you're a user or natty.

Using the FFMI, the upper limit for natural trainers is 25. Apparently a FFMI above this is indicative of assistance. I've plugged in my stats and come out bang on 25. Initially I was pretty chuffed, then soon realised that if this is correct, I've already reached my peak which is pretty bloody depressing :(

Here's the link http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...ch-review.html

What are your views? Is it a load of bollocks or should I just give up now and venture over to the dark side?

Well prior to venturing to the dark side I was 243lbs at 5"11 and approx 15% BF...plugged those numbers in and it gave me an FFMI of 29...so I would say you still have a ways to go naturally.
P

Im calling Bollocks! kinda..
Im sure the study might have merit.. but i think anyone plugging the numbers is guestimating thier BF%... so id say the calculator is shite... unless you have an accurate BF reading by a reliable method (not a stupid scale from walmart) like.. maybe water displacement or whatever its called...

I dont kow if girl numbers would be different.. but Im like at 20.. better get to growing!!

It's impossible for a person to fully realize their true genetic potential. The calculator is based on elite level bodybuilders. However I think that their estimated FFMI was probably calculated based on their competition weight. For this calculator to be accurate the person would need a reliable way of calculating bf% and I think they would have to have single digit bf%.

If you find your current physique depressing then keep on trucking because an elite level natural physique should be anything but depressing. I figure my FFMI is somewhere between 23-24. Which seems close to 25 but the difference is about 10lbs of muscle...which is a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dryvrgrl

I dont kow if girl numbers would be different.. but Im like at 20.. better get to growing!!

---

Apparently the magic number is 20 for the ladies - looks like you've peaked aswell!

I take the points about BF being key to its accuracy. I've read elsewhere that it is also dependent on joint size - the calculations being weighted towards a medium frame which kind of undermines it as a comparison tool.

I've decided that, after many minutes of careful research and analysis, the 25 (20 for the girls) limit for natural trainers is in fact bollocks. Instead of wasting my time worrying about my genetic potential, I'll just get my arse back to the gym and see what happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O-Train

It's impossible for a person to fully realize their true genetic potential. The calculator is based on elite level bodybuilders. However I think that their estimated FFMI was probably calculated based on their competition weight. For this calculator to be accurate the person would need a reliable way of calculating bf% and I think they would have to have single digit bf%.

If you find your current physique depressing then keep on trucking because an elite level natural physique should be anything but depressing. I figure my FFMI is somewhere between 23-24. Which seems close to 25 but the difference is about 10lbs of muscle...which is a lot.

---

Yep, this calculator would be quite reliable using the same setting. Really only 1 flaw in tha people have a hard time guaging their true body fat levels. Most bodybuilders that are in what I would say 8-9% range brag that they are at 3-4%...People really underestimate their body fat levels then, and in the offseason. However, truly knowing your bodyfat percentage, I don't see too much problem in this scale, and their conclusions. I myself was hovering around 25 if you plug in stage weight...slightly above if you add in 4 pounds of water from what I lost with sodium depleting. I would agree with this being pretty close to a 'natural limit'. 10 pounds of pure beef would only bring me to 27, and another 10 would bring me to 29 still - putting me at a shredded 187 at 5'6...

But then again, this was using my weight when I was as lean as ever, guessing at 5%. If I take off-season, at 15% my FFMI goes up, and 15% is over-estimating my BF by quite a bit. So the scale is probably quite variable again because of the difficulty of guessing true bf%. I could drink 5 litres of water, gain 10 pounds, and my BF% would obviously not change, so its always tough to know your true fat free mass especially using a skin fold - or any method for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxrevs

I've decided that, after many minutes of careful research and analysis, the 25 (20 for the girls) limit for natural trainers is in fact bollocks. Instead of wasting my time worrying about my genetic potential, I'll just get my arse back to the gym and see what happens.

---

I don't think its bollocks as long as you have a good way to guessing your true fat free mass. As I pointed out, my FFMI is higher in the offseason, because of water weight, glycogen, etc, that skews the measurment of your fat free mass, because its not just bf% you need to subtract from your body weight... I probably have 3 pounds of crap and 5 pounds of glycogen/water to get rid of before i even lose a pound of body fat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxrevs

I've decided that, after many minutes of careful research and analysis, the 25 (20 for the girls) limit for natural trainers is in fact bollocks. Instead of wasting my time worrying about my genetic potential, I'll just get my arse back to the gym and see what happens.

---

LOL..I like this!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve_d

15% is over-estimating my BF by quite a bit. So the scale is probably quite Yep, this calculator would be quite reliable using the same setting. Really only 1 flaw in tha people have a hard time guaging their true body fat levels. Most bodybuilders that are in what I would say 8-9% range brag that they are at 3-4%...People really underestimate their body fat levels then, and in the offseason. However, truly knowing your bodyfat percentage, I don't see too much problem in this scale, and their conclusions. I myself was hovering around 25 if you plug in stage weight...slightly above if you add in 4 pounds of water from what I lost with sodium depleting. I would agree with this being pretty close to a 'natural limit'. 10 pounds of pure beef would only bring me to 27, and another 10 would bring me to 29 still - putting me at a shredded 187 at 5'6...

But then again, this was using my weight when I was as lean as ever, guessing at 5%. If I take off-season, at 15% my FFMI goes up, and variable again because of the difficulty of guessing true bf%. I could drink 5 litres of water, gain 10 pounds, and my BF% would obviously not change, so its always tough to know your true fat free mass especially using a skin fold - or any method for that matter.

I don't think its bollocks as long as you have a good way to guessing your true fat free mass. As I pointed out, my FFMI is higher in the offseason, because of water weight, glycogen, etc, that skews the measurment of your fat free mass, because its not just bf% you need to subtract from your body weight... I probably have 3 pounds of crap and 5 pounds of glycogen/water to get rid of before i even lose a pound of body fat.

---

I agree, people are out to lunch when it comes to bf%. When I did my 2nd show I had the 2nd best conditioning of anyone and I figure I was 5%..and based on stage weight my FFMI was only 21.3. Hitting a FFMI of 25 would mean a shredded 187. Which at 5' 11'' doesn't seem huge but it means I'd be fairly ripped at 200lbs. You just don't see a lot of (if any) natural guys walking around fairly ripped at 200lbs.

In the past I really wanted to compete naturally at 200lbs but I've become more realistic since. If I could compete in middleweight (176-187) with good conditioning I would be really happy.

The index is accurate if used appropriately.