Highest FFMI possible natty?

[N0M3RCY]

Im just curious what you guys think most people agree its around 25 but omar isuf did a video a while back compiling data from the 20s/30s and said its probably around 27 and Ive even heard certain people claiming 28 is possible, now this is considering freak genetics of course but Im about 23.5 FFMI and Ive only been training consistently for about a year and a half whats your guys thoughts?

[TheJizzle]

The first 5 years are easy, and you will gain fast. After that things slow way down as a natty, and everything between 1-2 lbs og lean mass in a year is a great result. I was DEXA'd at ~26 FFMI myself last year (202lbs, 6,5%, 182cm) after working out for 12 years. I dont think I will ever hit 27, which will require me to hit 210lbs at 6%.

[Big Slim DaDDy]

27-28 sounds like one big natural motherfukker. I don't think anyone would believe you were natural at that size.

[Dystopia1980]

Did Omar consider the fact that the the average male's testosterone has dropped 22% in the last 20 years alone? Even higher decline if you go back to the 1900's.

Men in the 20's and 30's had way higher natural testosterone levels. Men are just less virile today; lower test, lower sperm counts. I've heard something to the tune of a 400% decline in male test levels in the past 100 years.

If you look at strongmen from the late 19th to early 20th century they performed crazy feats of strength and without any anabolics, because they likely had natural test levels equivalent to being on a cycle.

Also have to take into account FFMI was calculated in the 90's so if anything it would be even more difficult to reach 25 as a natty today as test levels have dropped since then.

Obviously this is the "average" and there are always outliers, but they would be relatively rare.

[Big Slim DaDDy]

If you look at strongmen from the late 19th to early 20th century they performed crazy feats of strength and without any anabolics, because they likely had natural test levels equivalent to being on a cycle.

.

I don't think so Tim.

[smblkolds]

Why not Slim Daddy? Any proof? Bro science? Are you an expert? Your pretty quick to disprove. Their were some pretty jacked guys back then that were incredibly strong. Or are you just an *******?

[stickinmyeye]

Who cares. This is a professional bodybuilding board. Why talking about "naturals"

Go jack off together about how proud you are to be natural

[flangmasterj]

Go jack off together about how proud you are to be natural

I'm proud to be natural.

[Big Slim DaDDy]

Why not Slim Daddy? Any proof? Bro science? Are you an expert? Your pretty quick to disprove. Their were some pretty jacked guys back then that were incredibly strong. Or are you just an *******?

Proof? You want proof guys in the 19th century did not have steroid cycle like testosterone levels?



*honk honk*! The special bus just pulled up. Time for you to leave.

[brendanh32]

Did Omar consider the fact that the the average male's testosterone has dropped 22% in the last 20 years alone? Even higher decline if you go back to the 1900's.

Men in the 20's and 30's had way higher natural testosterone levels. Men are just less virile today; lower test, lower sperm counts. I've heard something to the tune of a 400% decline in male test levels in the past 100 years.

If you look at strongmen from the late 19th to early 20th century they performed crazy feats of strength and without any anabolics, because they likely had natural test levels equivalent to being on a cycle.

Also have to take into account FFMI was calculated in the 90's so if anything it would be even more difficult to reach 25 as a natty today as test levels have dropped since then.

Obviously this is the "average" and there are always outliers, but they would be relatively rare.

srs? If you have some sauce on that I'd love to read. That is actually really interesting.

[brendanh32]

Who cares. This is a professional bodybuilding board. Why talking about "naturals"

Go jack off together about how proud you are to be natural

I'd proud to Jack off.



and b natty.




#kony2012

[AManofGrit]

Did Omar consider the fact that the the average male's testosterone has dropped 22% in the last 20 years alone? Even higher decline if you go back to the 1900's.

Men in the 20's and 30's had way higher natural testosterone levels. Men are just less virile today; lower test, lower sperm counts. I've heard something to the tune of a 400% decline in male test levels in the past 100 years.

If you look at strongmen from the late 19th to early 20th century they performed crazy feats of strength and without any anabolics, because they likely had natural test levels equivalent to being on a cycle.

Also have to take into account FFMI was calculated in the 90's so if anything it would be even more difficult to reach 25 as a natty today as test levels have dropped since then.

Obviously this is the "average" and there are always outliers, but they would be relatively rare.

This is a bad argument all around.



For starters, the statistics are for the average man that eats fast food all of the time, doesn't take care of his body, has no drive, no wife, no motivation to become better. The average man drinks all the time and is lazy, unmotivated, and watches porn all the time. There are many success stories where men increase their test from 400s to 1100s, which is where most people peak unless they are super manly.


As for the natural limit, I am supersized at how few people give our bodies credit. The natural limit for most people is about 25ish, but I see no reason to believe that 25 is the limit for everyone. I would say 28 is a little too high though, that is O'Hern level at that point.


Eat healthy foods, optimize testosterone levels, lift well, get plenty of sleep. Do that for 10 years and you will have an ffmi of at least 25.



Edit: My ffmi is 20. I would have to gain 40+ pounds of muscle to reach a ffmi of 25. You are a big guy if you have an ffmi of 25.

[Dystopia1980]

Proof? You want proof guys in the 19th century did not have steroid cycle like testosterone levels?



*honk honk*! The special bus just pulled up. Time for you to leave.

I'll try to find the source but I'm pretty sure it was a 400% decrease in test levels since the early century....increasing your natty test by 400% today sounds like a cycle to me.

This is a bad argument all around.



For starters, the statistics are for the average man that eats fast food all of the time, doesn't take care of his body, has no drive, no wife, no motivation to become better. The average man drinks all the time and is lazy, unmotivated, and watches porn all the time. There are many success stories where men increase their test from 400s to 1100s, which is where most people peak unless they are super manly.


As for the natural limit, I am supersized at how few people give our bodies credit. The natural limit for most people is about 25ish, but I see no reason to believe that 25 is the limit for everyone. I would say 28 is a little too high though, that is O'Hern level at that point.


Eat healthy foods, optimize testosterone levels, lift well, get plenty of sleep. Do that for 10 years and you will have an ffmi of at least 25.



Edit: My ffmi is 20. I would have to gain 40+ pounds of muscle to reach a ffmi of 25. You are a big guy if you have an ffmi of 25.

The more current research done showing a 20+ percent drop since the 80's concluded that it was independent of age and was inferred to be outside factors, not that men are less active or lazy now. Something like more chemicals from plastics, shampoos, stuff in the environment like dioxins and xenoestrogens.

[Dystopia1980]

Also this article covers some of the more recent declines:

http://www.menshealth.com/health/tes...e-under-attack

"90 percent of American men have evidence of chlorpyrifos in their urine. This shouldn't be surprising, since up to 19 million pounds of the stuff was distributed across the United States in 1999 alone, much of it in household products like tick-and-flea powder for pets, lawn treatments, and common insecticides. Though residential use is now restricted, chlorpyrifos is still common in agriculture, as well as in some professional applications; for most people, diet is now the main source of exposure. In a recent Harvard study, men with the highest chlorpyrifos exposure typically had 20 percent less testosterone than those with the lowest exposure.

Carbaryl is another possible culprit. Detectable levels turn up in 75 percent of American men, and having it in your urine appears to be associated with reduced sperm count and liveliness, or motility, as well as increased DNA damage. And yet we still apply carbaryl to lawns and gardens at a rate of up to 4 million pounds a year, mostly by way of an insecticide known as Sevin."

All kinds of random chemicals you've never even heard of chopping down test levels

[Canuck77]

This is interesting. This study is also from 9 years ago. I would assume levels are possibly even lower now.

I would also assume that foods / hormones / pollution / environment play a role.

A population-level decline in serum testosterone levels in American men. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 92:196–202.

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newsc...visonetal.html


"The crucial comparison to make is from one cohort to the next, comparing men of the same age. For example, 60 yr old men during the first measurement period (red line, 1987-1989) had total testosterone levels over 500 ng/dL. Men aged 60 yrs old in the third cohort (blue line, measured 2002-2004) had TT below 450 ng/dL. There is no overlap between the confidence bands of T1 vs T3: T3 (measured 2002-2004) is always lower than T1.

The trend holds regardless of the men’s age. Similar declines over the 17 years were seen in all ages of men in the study.

Travison et al. note that the decline within the cohorts related to age is less than the decrease observed across cohorts. For example, men aged 70 in T1 had TT only 6% less than men aged 45 in the same cohort. But 60 yr old men in T3 had TT concentration approximately 13% lower than men the same age in T1."

[ZidaneValor]

I got my FFMI up to 30.9 once as a natty, but I was 425 lbs and 48% bodyfat. Would not recommend, lol.

Right now my FFMI is probably 26.7 being 280 lbs and 32% bodyfat. Still have about 90 pounds left to lose.

[pryme]

Lifting regularly for 19 years natural always.

Never heard of this but according to ffmi calc I'm 25.4. @ 14% est. I actually may be a little less bf then that currently.

I just cut down from 248 and at est of 20% I would be 26.7

Guess I'm about maxed out.

[Thebear1496]

I was sitting at 234lb @17% BF, according to the calculator, I am sitting at 27 FFMI and 27 for adjusted FFMI and I am natural. Seems a bit high judging by the information going around of 25 being about the limit of natural...

[CarltonLoth]

I'm around 26.5, sounds about right.

Having a concrete limit is physically impossible and should only be used as a general guide lol, don't take things out of context.

[Dovertech6200]

Did Omar consider the fact that the the average male's testosterone has dropped 22% in the last 20 years alone? Even higher decline if you go back to the 1900's.

Men in the 20's and 30's had way higher natural testosterone levels. Men are just less virile today; lower test, lower sperm counts. I've heard something to the tune of a 400% decline in male test levels in the past 100 years.

If you look at strongmen from the late 19th to early 20th century they performed crazy feats of strength and without any anabolics, because they likely had natural test levels equivalent to being on a cycle.

Also have to take into account FFMI was calculated in the 90's so if anything it would be even more difficult to reach 25 as a natty today as test levels have dropped since then.

Obviously this is the "average" and there are always outliers, but they would be relatively rare.

I agree with you. I also believe FFMI for upper limit individuals are around 25.

Actually, I have also read that low testostorone stuff. I read about it, it suggests that in the past, men had more testostorone.

For example in 1920-1930's , as I know, Herman Goerner and Bert Assirati was able to deadlift around 800 lbs.

In fact, German Hoernerr was able to do single hand 700 Lbs deadlift too.

800 Lbs deadlift is huge number. Without steroids it is hard to achieve, but than again,

There are two guys come to my mind. Pete Rubish and Tom Martin. I dont know, but these two guys look natural. And they both can deadlift 800 Lbs.

Are they really stronger than Herman Goerner ? I dont know.

[AManofGrit]

I agree with you. I also believe FFMI for upper limit individuals are around 25.

Actually, I have also read that low testostorone stuff. I read about it, it suggests that in the past, men had more testostorone.

For example in 1920-1930's , as I know, Herman Goerner and Bert Assirati was able to deadlift around 800 lbs.

In fact, German Hoernerr was able to do single hand 700 Lbs deadlift too.

800 Lbs deadlift is huge number. Without steroids it is hard to achieve, but than again,

There are two guys come to my mind. Pete Rubish and Tom Martin. I dont know, but these two guys look natural. And they both can deadlift 800 Lbs.

Are they really stronger than Herman Goerner ? I dont know.

Herman Goerner was a beast of nature. Probably had the strongest grip ever.

[Dovertech6200]

Herman Goerner was a beast of nature. Probably had the strongest grip ever.

Yes he was very strong.

In 1920's he had 800 lbs deadlift.

I think if he lived today he can achieve 1000 Lbs deadlift with todays steroids.

He was 6 Ft 1" 250 Lbs and kind of ripped. I think %12 BF or something like that, but he is still smaller than Mariuzs Pudzianowski, which is 6 Ft 1" but around 320 Lbs.

I dont think Goerner had worse genetics than Mariuzs, but Mariuzs has more testostorone.

But , also, testostorone levels was more in the past. Today men have low natural testostorone, so if Goerner lived today I think he could still hit 650-700 lbs naturally deadlift. Which is quite strong.

[Hawk48]

I got my FFMI up to 30.9 once as a natty, but I was 425 lbs and 48% bodyfat. Would not recommend, lol.

Right now my FFMI is probably 26.7 being 280 lbs and 32% bodyfat. Still have about 90 pounds left to lose.

FFMI isn't accurate till you are at 10% body fat, so I hate to be the one to tell you this, but no you didn't.

[Hawk48]

Also this article covers some of the more recent declines:


"90 percent of American men have evidence of chlorpyrifos in their urine. This shouldn't be surprising, since up to 19 million pounds of the stuff was distributed across the United States in 1999 alone, much of it in household products like tick-and-flea powder for pets, lawn treatments, and common insecticides. Though residential use is now restricted, chlorpyrifos is still common in agriculture, as well as in some professional applications; for most people, diet is now the main source of exposure. In a recent Harvard study, men with the highest chlorpyrifos exposure typically had 20 percent less testosterone than those with the lowest exposure.

Carbaryl is another possible culprit. Detectable levels turn up in 75 percent of American men, and having it in your urine appears to be associated with reduced sperm count and liveliness, or motility, as well as increased DNA damage. And yet we still apply carbaryl to lawns and gardens at a rate of up to 4 million pounds a year, mostly by way of an insecticide known as Sevin."

All kinds of random chemicals you've never even heard of chopping down test levels

I can tell you all about that, though this is true, now you know what you need to avoid. You don't need to worry about some random persons numbers, yours only matters. I plant a garden every year with organic heirloom crops just so I don't have to eat that GMO crap sprayed with pesticides like Round Up and Seven Dust.

I have an Orchard, my oldest tree is 9 years old, a pear tree. I was sent a free Red Delicious Supreme Dwarf Tuesday, and I planted it yesterday morning. I had to cut down my Fuji number 3 last year, it got diseased, because of my stupid neighbors Apple Trees and they spray that crap on theirs.

Right now, I have 2 Red Delicious Supreme apple trees, a Yellow Delicious, and a Galla Apple tree. I got a White Princess Peach, a Sweet Cheery, a Sweet Rush Plumb tree, and 2 pear trees. I planted onions of different types, garlic and Asparagus, and these stay in year round. Also I have a red and green grape vine, and 2 types of berry bushes.

In the summer I plant herbs and all manor of crops to eat and save for winter.

OK, here's my point. Do something about it. Stop eating all that junk and compromised food.

For meat, I mostly eat lean Deer meat, fish, squirrels and rabbits I catch or kill myself.

I started a permanent change with my body on Christmas, and I been working on it since then. I am going to Crush that 25 FFMI number, get back with me in a few years, and I will do it drug free, no ROIDS.

I don't care what most people are doing, I have zero control over that, but I do have some level of control over what I eat, and what I expose myself too. So fix your situation, don't worry about some random people in a study, which is usually funded by the way, by people with agendas.

By the way, I like how this page sais I can'tpost links because my post count is below 50, yet it wasn't even my link, it was in that quote.

[Hawk48]

This is a bad argument all around.



For starters, the statistics are for the average man that eats fast food all of the time, doesn't take care of his body, has no drive, no wife, no motivation to become better. The average man drinks all the time and is lazy, unmotivated, and watches porn all the time. There are many success stories where men increase their test from 400s to 1100s, which is where most people peak unless they are super manly.


As for the natural limit, I am supersized at how few people give our bodies credit. The natural limit for most people is about 25ish, but I see no reason to believe that 25 is the limit for everyone. I would say 28 is a little too high though, that is O'Hern level at that point.


Eat healthy foods, optimize testosterone levels, lift well, get plenty of sleep. Do that for 10 years and you will have an ffmi of at least 25.



Edit: My ffmi is 20. I would have to gain 40+ pounds of muscle to reach a ffmi of 25. You are a big guy if you have an ffmi of 25.

"There are many success stories where men increase their test from 400s to 1100s, which is where most people peak unless they are super manly."

I'm interested on looking at any links you have on that, Thank You.

[Hawk48]

Lifting regularly for 19 years natural always.

Never heard of this but according to ffmi calc I'm 25.4. @ 14% est. I actually may be a little less bf then that currently.

I just cut down from 248 and at est of 20% I would be 26.7

Guess I'm about maxed out.

Sounds good, but like I told that other guy, you have to cut down to 10% or less before that FFMI calculates correctly, so do that then you will know exactly where you are at, and how much muscle you need to gain to surpass 25 FFMI. You would ideally want to do an accurate fat, bone and muscle scan then do the numbers into FFMI when proven you are at 10%.

Speaking for myself, I only have to get to 194 at 10% and I bust that 25 FFMI number and go into BEAST MODE. I'm working on it, but first I got to shed most of this fat, unfortunately, I am losing muscle too.

I will get down to 10%, find my number then once I know it, I can worry about what to do about it, but first things first right?

I tested mine a few weeks ago, it said my FFMI was at 24.5%, but it's not accurate yet, However, I hadn't touched a set of weights for the last ten years, so I'm carrying a lot of muscle for doing virtually nothing. I think I can bust that 25 FFMI number after I put in the work. I had a discussion about my number with a Pro Body builder, and he said if I tested at that number even though it's not accurate yet, he concluded based on what I told him, I am gifted.

[Hawk48]

I'm around 26.5, sounds about right.

Having a concrete limit is physically impossible and should only be used as a general guide lol, don't take things out of context.

I believe you, great job, just went and looked at that pic with the younger you then 3 years latter, but that 25 number is only a real number anyway if you are Natty, are you Natty?

[Hawk48]

I believe you, great job, just went and looked at that pic with the younger you then 3 years latter, but that 25 number is only a real number anyway if you are Natty, are you Natty?

I can't post a link yet, nut Google the following and read that page, "What Everyone Gets Wrong About FFMI and the “Natty Limit”, it's an article by Greg Nuckols.

Here's the first red flag from how they got that number.

"What the Researchers Did

From the study:

“One hundred fifty-six men in a large controlled study of athletes recruited at gymnasiums in the Boston and Los Angeles areas, were administered physical examinations as part of a larger study (14). These physical examinations included determinations of height, body weight, and body fat, the latter computed from the sum of six skinfold measurements using an equation derived from the data of Jackson and Pollock.”

That doesn’t tell you all that much about the people included in the trial, so I tracked down the prior study that expanded upon the inclusion criteria:

“We advertised in four gymnasiums in the Boston, Mass, area and in three gymnasiums in the Santa Monica, Calif, area to recruit subjects. We offered $60 for a confidential interview to any male aged 16 years or older who had lifted weights for at least 2 years.”"

And here was his response to that:

"This is our first red flag: If you’re designing to study to see what the limits of drug-free muscularity are, you’d want to make sure your subjects are actually at least near their own genetic ceilings. As it is, the only requirements were being at least 16 years old, and lifting weights for at least two years. I hope we can all agree that a) most gym-goers don’t train particularly effectively and b) most people aren’t closing in on their genetic limits after just 2 years of training.

Now, it’s likely that there were a few subjects who were actually pretty close to their muscular limits. However, odds are very good that most of the participants were just typical gym-goers – not the population you want to study if you’re interested in the limits of drug-free muscularity. At the very least, there was an incentive for anyone to participate (getting paid $60), and no methods in place to specifically screen for people who were nearing their limits.

It’s not uncommon to re-analyze data that had been collected for a separate study. However, it’s important to make sure the data are equipped to answer the research question proposed in the new study. In this case, they aren’t.

The next few paragraphs discuss how some of the men didn’t have skinfold measurements and couldn’t be included in the analysis, and how an extra batch of subjects from a study in progress were added, leaving them with a pool of 157 subjects. “Of these, 74 (47%) had never used steroids (henceforth called ‘nonusers’) and 83 (53%) had used steroids (‘users’).”"

So just go read the whole thing and all the sub links. I don't think taking people at 2 years regular lifting and probably nowhere near their upper Natty limit, then saying 25 FFMI is the upper natty number is right.

[Hawk48]

Disregard what I said earlier about 10%, because that's another misconception I myself bought into about that FFMI study, here's what I learned off that link.

"What do they mean by “fat?” The nonuser group had an average body fat percentage of 12.5 ± 5.5%, so it should apply to people down to at least 7% body fat, and up to people with at least 18% body fat. I often see people say that the FFMI “limit” only applies to very lean people (i.e. sub-10% body fat), but that’s not something that can be taken away from this study."


So that means it doesn't have to be 10 percent body fat to work, anything between 7 and 18 is fine, then I see no reason to drop below 12% before calculating that ****. In fact, once I have the money to do a proper DEXA scan and I know I'm under 13%, I may do it then. IMHO, 12% Body Fat is where people should be that are not competing, even then, maybe it should be a 12% competition, because they should be promoting health.

Any body fat below 12% is supposed to mean strength and health suffers, that's how I came up with 12% as being optimal in case anyone is wondering. They say health and strength suffers under 12%.