Post: #1

Saw an article on Lyle McDonald's BodyRecomposition.com site that cited a journal article where they documented that the MAXIMUM possible FFMI (Fat-Free Mass Index) for a male, without using steroids, was about 25 for a low bodyfat percentage (sub-10, perhaps 6-8).

FFMI is calculated by taking your weight in kg, subtracting fat weight in kg, and then dividing by your height in meters squared.

For a 200lbs, with 10% BF, 6' that would be:

(90-9)/(1.83^2) = 24.4

What do you the resident experts (MikeCF??) say on this?

I personally derive some comfort from the idea there's a natural limit you can strive for and, once you've reached it, you can be pretty sure any marginal effort for hypertrophy will be generate very little gain.

My current FFMI is above 25, but my BF% is quite high.

Given my height of 5'10'', my "ideal" weight sans roids would be at 187lbs at a BF% of 7%. My MAX Fat-Free Mass is 174lbs. That's useful to know.

Right now I'm taking it pretty easy. Am supposed to be recomping but I havent got the science down so far.

Post: #2

I've heard slightly less than this, but I suppose that was also based upon a natural bodybuilder being stage ready. At 6 foot, 183 lbs of lean mass is the most a genetically gifted individual could be, but there are not that many gifts out there that can reach this potential. Steroids even out the playing field in the end, but still, those outliers will always win shows.

Not too many of us want to step on stage, and in all honesty I think most men look better at around 7-9% than being really dry, I'll definitely settle for 200 lbs at 10%.

Post: #3

(11-04-2014 05:54 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  Saw an article on Lyle McDonald's BodyRecomposition.com site that cited a journal article where they documented that the MAXIMUM possible FFMI (Fat-Free Mass Index) for a male, without using steroids, was about 25 for a low bodyfat percentage (sub-10, perhaps 6-8).

FFMI is calculated by taking your weight in kg, subtracting fat weight in kg, and then dividing by your height in meters squared.

For a 200lbs, with 10% BF, 6' that would be:

(90-9)/(1.83^2) = 24.4

What do you the resident experts (MikeCF??) say on this?

I personally derive some comfort from the idea there's a natural limit you can strive for and, once you've reached it, you can be pretty sure any marginal effort for hypertrophy will be generate very little gain.

My current FFMI is above 25, but my BF% is quite high.

Given my height of 5'10'', my "ideal" weight sans roids would be at 187lbs at a BF% of 7%. My MAX Fat-Free Mass is 174lbs. That's useful to know.

Right now I'm taking it pretty easy. Am supposed to be recomping but I havent got the science down so far.

I find that body fat is often overestimated. Meaning a dude will say I'm about 10% and he' s really 15%.

A true 10% BF is a visible six pack in most cases - without lighting tricks.

I don't know your build or muscle insertions but I like how nattyornot does it. Pick a 70's professional bodybuilder with similar dimensions and use that as your barometer.

So say you have a frame like Frank Zane- ecto/meso. Well Frank was about 190LBS at 5'9" and 5% body fat as a chemically assisted and genetically gifted Bodybuilder. As a natural it's highly doubtfull that you would carry that kind of Lean body mass unless you were some kind of genetic freak.

Again most of us are fatter than we'd like to think.

Post: #4

Yeah, Zane is usually the comparison I go buy. But he's chemically enhanced. He's probably packing 10-12lbs more muscle than he could without the steroids, since a max FFMI of 25 implies a lean weight of 169lbs. With a BF% of 5% @ 190, he's got 12lbs more muscle than what could be reasonably expected.

Post: #5

^ The above poster mentioned that he was chemically enhanced. I think that was his point.

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #6

(11-05-2014 09:18 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  ^ The above poster mentioned that he was chemically enhanced. I think that was his point.

He mentioned that in this thread?

Post: #7

(11-05-2014 09:57 AM)rhodey Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 09:18 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  ^ The above poster mentioned that he was chemically enhanced. I think that was his point.

He mentioned that in this thread?

(11-04-2014 10:15 PM)rhodey Wrote:  So say you have a frame like Frank Zane- ecto/meso. Well Frank was about 190LBS at 5'9" and 5% body fat as a chemically assisted and genetically gifted Bodybuilder. As a natural it's highly doubtfull that you would carry that kind of Lean body mass unless you were some kind of genetic freak.

Again most of us are fatter than we'd like to think.

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #8

I could've wasted half a sentence saying "as rhodey" mentioned, but I decided to give you boys the benefit of the doubt for being able to deduce that for yourselves.

In addition, rhodey's wrote two contradicting things:

"I find that body fat is often overestimated."

"Again most of us are fatter than we'd like to think."

So I guess he was just really tired when he wrote it

Post: #9

No formula is going to give you that, unless the input to the formula is "your entire genome".

I have a mate who looks like a tank, same height, and does very little to cultivate that body.
Meanwhile I look like a mantis.

The only way to know would be to go all-out with gym+sleep+diet, plot your lean mass on a chart, and see at what level it starts to asymptote out.

Post: #10

It was obvious when reading his post that he actually meant "underestimated".

Post: #11

(11-05-2014 12:23 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  It was obvious when reading his post that he actually meant "underestimated".

This. Thanks Phoenix.

Post: #12

The problem with the method in the OP is that it doesn't take into account frame size.

Try Casey Butt’s Frame Size Model

Quote:Based on an analysis of some 300 class and overall title winning drug-free bodybuilders and strength athletes from 1947 to 2010 the following equation, predicting the maximum lean body mass someone of a given height and bone-structure can achieve without the use of anabolic drugs, was derived. It describes a "normal" state of nutrition and fluid retention in the trainee.


where,
H = Height in inches
A = Ankle circumference at the smallest point
W = Wrist circumference measured on the hand side of the styloid process.
(The styloid process is the bony lump on the outside of your wrist.)
%bf = The body fat percentage at which you want to predict your maximum lean body mass

Post: #13

thanks for that, Deluge.

I did a few calculations, and the orginal formula and the one you shared actually give very close results. Did you try it for yourself?

I'm 5'10'' and get a FFM max of 174lbs rather consistenty (for a low bf%), even accounting for the frame. Because the inputs are squared (except height), there's a diminishing return to bone size (heh).

For a higher BF% it's 0.4% for each additional percentage point BF.

so there's a high degree of correlation. In any case, this is enlightening for me - goal is now to recomp until I hit the "goal" weight.