Fat Free Mass Index

Topic created · 18 Posts · 962 Views
  • Had my routine (occasional) DEXA today.

    Apparently my FFMI is 31, does this make me a special snowflake?

  • [quote=“Ishitrainbows” pid=‘60189’ dateline=‘1562718237’]
    Had my routine (occasional) DEXA today.

    Apparently my FFMI is 31, does this make me a special snowflake?
    [/quote]

    Oh, u a bigboi, but still not as big as pippy.

  • Bigboi take pippy good. Bigboi not spend the next nine months slipping pippy talk into totally unrelated threads!

  • If you’re fat the scale goes to shit. It really should only be used for those are fairly lean as an indicator imo, sumo wrestlers break the scale and get 31+
    [hr]
    So if you’re not a sumo wrestler then ye you’re big boi, thic solid tight

  • [quote=“propionate” pid=‘60200’ dateline=‘1562725826’]
    If you’re fat the scale goes to shit. It really should only be used for those are fairly lean as an indicator imo, sumo wrestlers break the scale and get 31+
    [hr]
    So if you’re not a sumo wrestler then ye you’re big boi, thic solid tight
    [/quote]

    Aye, you’re right, I’m not all that. My body fat is currently sitting at exactly 20%. Before you obsessive pretty boys chime in I’m happy with that. I pick up heavy things and put them down again. I have perfectly good abs, I just chose to hide them under a layer of chub.

    To be fair though, 211 lbs lean at 20% is still pretty big. Maybe I should go on a diet to see what I can see.

  • 20% isn’t really high enough to destroy the scale so still pretty big. Definitely two seats on the airplane big and strike fear in the hearts of twinks big

  • I haven’t had a DEXA in almost a year (7/26/2018), but my FFMI was a bit under 27 (26.893 or something like that) when I was sitting at ~16% BF.

    Not as big as you (or pippy) lol, but I believe I have gained some FFM over the past year. I hadn’t ever used NPP, Deca, or EQ when that DEXA was taken.

  • Well I appear to have achieved one of the holy grails of AAS over the last 4 months. The fabled Re-Comp!!!

    Up 16 lbs lean, down 8 lbs fat with calories remaining broadly similar with a total weight gain of only 8 lbs. Running 525mg test, 420mg mast and 350mg NPP. Still have 8 weeks to go on this current blast so will be interesting to see where I end up

  • [quote=“Ishitrainbows” pid=‘60271’ dateline=‘1562783074’]
    Well I appear to have achieved one of the holy grails of AAS over the last 4 months. The fabled Re-Comp!!!

    Up 16 lbs lean, down 8 lbs fat with calories remaining broadly similar with a total weight gain of only 8 lbs. Running 525mg test, 420mg mast and 350mg NPP. Still have 8 weeks to go on this current blast so will be interesting to see where I end up
    [/quote]

    Were your before/after DEXAs on cycle both times? IME, there is normally a pretty drastic change when you go from natty/cruising the blasting on DEXAs.

    Either way though, those are some impressive gains.

  • Before DEXA was in late March, on 200 mg test trt dosage. Next one was yesterday. Currently 8 weeks into a 16 week cycle as above. I did however sneak in a little 6 weeks of test prop at double the trt dose immediately after the fist DEXA (for purely scientific reasons of course)

    To be fair I’ve been training hard and heavy for years. Got real strong but just looked fat no matter what I did in the way of cardio, lifting or diet. Liked the lifting so just pushed through. The last four years I had felt more and more beat up and ill. No motivation, no libido and nothing to show for a shitload of hard work. Got tested and found test levels less than 300 with a minor thyroid issue.

    Since going on trt with a low dose of T3 it’s like my body finally has let the brakes off. Keeping diet and exercise the same I’m changing size and shape month by month. Finally thought, I have worked for this and got nothing so fuck it, I’m B & C ing because I can and I’ve paid my dues to do so.

  • [quote=“Ishitrainbows” pid=‘60189’ dateline=‘1562718237’]
    Had my routine (occasional) DEXA today.

    Apparently my FFMI is 31, does this make me a special snowflake?
    [/quote]

    25 FFMI = Leaving humanity behind

  • [quote=“Ishitrainbows” pid=‘60189’ dateline=‘1562718237’]
    Had my routine (occasional) DEXA today.

    Apparently my FFMI is 31, does this make me a special snowflake?
    [/quote]

    FFMI is junk science. Greg Nuckols tore it and the research paper that spawned it a new one long ago:

    https://gregnuckols.com/2016/12/11/ffmi/
    [hr]
    [quote=“dudebro73” pid=‘61846’ dateline=‘1563733104’]
    [quote=“Ishitrainbows” pid=‘60189’ dateline=‘1562718237’]
    Had my routine (occasional) DEXA today.

    Apparently my FFMI is 31, does this make me a special snowflake?
    [/quote]

    FFMI is junk science. Greg Nuckols tore it and the research paper that spawned it a new one long ago:

    https://gregnuckols.com/2016/12/11/ffmi/
    [/quote]

  • FFMI and the ‘natty limit’ is junk science. Greg Nuckols tore it and the so-called research paper that spawned it a new asshole long ago:

    https://gregnuckols.com/2016/12/11/ffmi/

  • [quote=“dudebro73” pid=‘61847’ dateline=‘1563733233’]
    FFMI and the ‘natty limit’ is junk science. Greg Nuckols tore it and the so-called research paper that spawned it a new asshole long ago:

    https://gregnuckols.com/2016/12/11/ffmi/
    [/quote]

    I tend to agree with you Brother, interesting paper, thank you. My FFMI pre gear was 28.9 and I’m not what you folks would call stage ready in a million years!

    I think the thing that messes it up for me is my density. According to the DEXA my bone density is off the charts. I seem to be able to exist on a planet with twice the gravity of earth. So although I’m am truck like I don’t look like a bodybuilder even with an ffmi of 31 at present. I agree with Mr Nichols that the original paper was full of holes.

    Good fun to calculate and take a look at though. Made me feel that all the effort was finally getting me somewhere.

  • [quote=“dudebro73” pid=‘61847’ dateline=‘1563733233’]
    FFMI and the ‘natty limit’ is junk science. Greg Nuckols tore it and the so-called research paper that spawned it a new asshole long ago:

    https://gregnuckols.com/2016/12/11/ffmi/
    [/quote]

    Did you read the paper at all? Or the thread? Or the post that you linked? Or do you have any background about the topic?

    The whole post you linked, and much of the debate about FFMI, is about the natty limit on FFMI. It has long been understood (by most people anyway) that there have been, and could still possibly be, people who have very high FFMIs that weren’t on AAS.

    AAS were not invented an guys were routinely over their ‘natty limit’. That doesn’t discredit the analysis or FFMI; nor does it undermine the notion that people on AAS have a higher FFMI than a normal person.

    All it says is: People who are not using AAS don’e have some hard “natty limit” as certain people keep repeating. There are going to be plenty of people over time who exceed this limit. From his article:

    So in summation: stop talking about the “natty limit.” Just stop it. Odds are very low someone hit it before the advent of steroids, and now that steroids exist and drug tests are imperfect, we’ll never know for sure what it is (or even if it exists as any sort of hard limit in the first place). As such, the entire concept is a silly construct that’s unproven and likely unprovable, and if it exists in the first place, no one has any earthly idea where it is.

    He isn’t arguing that FFMI is fake, a falsehood, or a waste of analytical time. He is just saying that basing your “natty limit” around your max FFMI is dumb as fuck; and I am sure a lot of people here can attest to that.

  • [quote=“DNPstoney” pid=‘62276’ dateline=‘1564028372’]
    [quote=“dudebro73” pid=‘61847’ dateline=‘1563733233’]
    FFMI and the ‘natty limit’ is junk science. Greg Nuckols tore it and the so-called research paper that spawned it a new asshole long ago:

    https://gregnuckols.com/2016/12/11/ffmi/
    [/quote]

    Did you read the paper at all? Or the thread? Or the post that you linked? Or do you have any background about the topic?

    The whole post you linked, and much of the debate about FFMI, is about the natty limit on FFMI. It has long been understood (by most people anyway) that there have been, and could still possibly be, people who have very high FFMIs that weren’t on AAS.

    AAS were not invented an guys were routinely over their ‘natty limit’. That doesn’t discredit the analysis or FFMI; nor does it undermine the notion that people on AAS have a higher FFMI than a normal person.

    All it says is: People who are not using AAS don’e have some hard “natty limit” as certain people keep repeating. There are going to be plenty of people over time who exceed this limit. From his article:

    So in summation: stop talking about the “natty limit.” Just stop it. Odds are very low someone hit it before the advent of steroids, and now that steroids exist and drug tests are imperfect, we’ll never know for sure what it is (or even if it exists as any sort of hard limit in the first place). As such, the entire concept is a silly construct that’s unproven and likely unprovable, and if it exists in the first place, no one has any earthly idea where it is.

    He isn’t arguing that FFMI is fake, a falsehood, or a waste of analytical time. He is just saying that basing your “natty limit” around your max FFMI is dumb as fuck; and I am sure a lot of people here can attest to that.
    [/quote]

    Yes, I read it when it came out. His whole premise is that the paper for the ‘natty limit’ is flawed in it’s applicability from a one-size fits all formula so I’m not really sure what the fuck you’re on about. He points out many things wrong with the original study which is still the only one on the subject. For example the scientific accuracy of using such a low number of candidates, many of whom had only a few years of training, using photographs to judge bodyfat percentages (wtf?) in the calculations of pre-steroid age bodybuilding champions they used to plug into the formula, and including the dropping of one of these champions who scored a 28 (iirc)on the FFMI to fit the trend line.
    The whole notion of FFMI as a tool to judge whether someone may be juicing is based on this one flawed study, he even writes about his surprise that this passed peer review to be published.

  • [quote=“dudebro73” pid=‘63805’ dateline=‘1565002029’]
    [quote=“DNPstoney” pid=‘62276’ dateline=‘1564028372’]
    [quote=“dudebro73” pid=‘61847’ dateline=‘1563733233’]
    FFMI and the ‘natty limit’ is junk science. Greg Nuckols tore it and the so-called research paper that spawned it a new asshole long ago:

    https://gregnuckols.com/2016/12/11/ffmi/
    [/quote]

    Did you read the paper at all? Or the thread? Or the post that you linked? Or do you have any background about the topic?

    The whole post you linked, and much of the debate about FFMI, is about the natty limit on FFMI. It has long been understood (by most people anyway) that there have been, and could still possibly be, people who have very high FFMIs that weren’t on AAS.

    AAS were not invented an guys were routinely over their ‘natty limit’. That doesn’t discredit the analysis or FFMI; nor does it undermine the notion that people on AAS have a higher FFMI than a normal person.

    All it says is: People who are not using AAS don’e have some hard “natty limit” as certain people keep repeating. There are going to be plenty of people over time who exceed this limit. From his article:

    So in summation: stop talking about the “natty limit.” Just stop it. Odds are very low someone hit it before the advent of steroids, and now that steroids exist and drug tests are imperfect, we’ll never know for sure what it is (or even if it exists as any sort of hard limit in the first place). As such, the entire concept is a silly construct that’s unproven and likely unprovable, and if it exists in the first place, no one has any earthly idea where it is.

    He isn’t arguing that FFMI is fake, a falsehood, or a waste of analytical time. He is just saying that basing your “natty limit” around your max FFMI is dumb as fuck; and I am sure a lot of people here can attest to that.
    [/quote]

    Yes, I read it when it came out. His whole premise is that the paper for the ‘natty limit’ is flawed in it’s applicability from a one-size fits all formula so I’m not really sure what the fuck you’re on about. He points out many things wrong with the original study which is still the only one on the subject. For example the scientific accuracy of using such a low number of candidates, many of whom had only a few years of training, using photographs to judge bodyfat percentages (wtf?) in the calculations of pre-steroid age bodybuilding champions they used to plug into the formula, and including the dropping of one of these champions who scored a 28 (iirc)on the FFMI to fit the trend line.
    The whole notion of FFMI as a tool to judge whether someone may be juicing is based on this one flawed study, he even writes about his surprise that this passed peer review to be published.
    [/quote]

    So you read the paper, that’s good, but you didn’t read this thread.

    FFMI is not junk science as you claim.

    My point was that FFMI is still a useful way to describe you LBM. I never said anything about a “natty limit”, and in fact, said that for the most part, it is irrelevant.

    No one made the claim that FFMI is a good tool to judge someone who may be juicing. It can still be a good tool to describe the amount of LBM you have.

  • [quote=“DNPstoney” pid=‘63808’ dateline=‘1565006022’]
    [quote=“dudebro73” pid=‘63805’ dateline=‘1565002029’]
    [quote=“DNPstoney” pid=‘62276’ dateline=‘1564028372’]
    [quote=“dudebro73” pid=‘61847’ dateline=‘1563733233’]
    FFMI and the ‘natty limit’ is junk science. Greg Nuckols tore it and the so-called research paper that spawned it a new asshole long ago:

    https://gregnuckols.com/2016/12/11/ffmi/
    [/quote]

    Did you read the paper at all? Or the thread? Or the post that you linked? Or do you have any background about the topic?

    The whole post you linked, and much of the debate about FFMI, is about the natty limit on FFMI. It has long been understood (by most people anyway) that there have been, and could still possibly be, people who have very high FFMIs that weren’t on AAS.

    AAS were not invented an guys were routinely over their ‘natty limit’. That doesn’t discredit the analysis or FFMI; nor does it undermine the notion that people on AAS have a higher FFMI than a normal person.

    All it says is: People who are not using AAS don’e have some hard “natty limit” as certain people keep repeating. There are going to be plenty of people over time who exceed this limit. From his article:

    So in summation: stop talking about the “natty limit.” Just stop it. Odds are very low someone hit it before the advent of steroids, and now that steroids exist and drug tests are imperfect, we’ll never know for sure what it is (or even if it exists as any sort of hard limit in the first place). As such, the entire concept is a silly construct that’s unproven and likely unprovable, and if it exists in the first place, no one has any earthly idea where it is.

    He isn’t arguing that FFMI is fake, a falsehood, or a waste of analytical time. He is just saying that basing your “natty limit” around your max FFMI is dumb as fuck; and I am sure a lot of people here can attest to that.
    [/quote]

    Yes, I read it when it came out. His whole premise is that the paper for the ‘natty limit’ is flawed in it’s applicability from a one-size fits all formula so I’m not really sure what the fuck you’re on about. He points out many things wrong with the original study which is still the only one on the subject. For example the scientific accuracy of using such a low number of candidates, many of whom had only a few years of training, using photographs to judge bodyfat percentages (wtf?) in the calculations of pre-steroid age bodybuilding champions they used to plug into the formula, and including the dropping of one of these champions who scored a 28 (iirc)on the FFMI to fit the trend line.
    The whole notion of FFMI as a tool to judge whether someone may be juicing is based on this one flawed study, he even writes about his surprise that this passed peer review to be published.
    [/quote]

    So you read the paper, that’s good, but you didn’t read this thread.

    FFMI is not junk science as you claim.

    My point was that FFMI is still a useful way to describe you LBM. I never said anything about a “natty limit”, and in fact, said that for the most part, it is irrelevant.

    No one made the claim that FFMI is a good tool to judge someone who may be juicing. It can still be a good tool to describe the amount of LBM you have.
    [/quote]

    Well discussing the natty limit as it applies using ffmi is more than obvious to anyone who opens the link I shared other than an autist such as yourself. Good day, sir!

Log in to reply