Ishitrainbows
Member
Had my routine (occasional) DEXA today.
Apparently my FFMI is 31, does this make me a special snowflake?
Apparently my FFMI is 31, does this make me a special snowflake?
Last edited:
Oh, u a bigboi, but still not as big as pippy.Had my routine (occasional) DEXA today.
Apparently my FFMI is 31, does this make me a special snowflake?
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+
So if you’re not a sumo wrestler then ye you’re big boi, thic solid tight
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.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
Had my routine (occasional) DEXA today.
Apparently my FFMI is 31, does this make me a special snowflake?
25 FFMI = Leaving humanity behind
FFMI is junk science. Greg Nuckols tore it and the research paper that spawned it a new one long ago:Had my routine (occasional) DEXA today.
Apparently my FFMI is 31, does this make me a special snowflake?
Ishitrainbows" pid='60189' dateline='1562718237:
FFMI is junk science. Greg Nuckols tore it and the research paper that spawned it a new one long ago:Had my routine (occasional) DEXA today.
Apparently my FFMI is 31, does this make me a special snowflake?
https://gregnuckols.com/2016/12/11/ffmi/
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!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/
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?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/
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.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.
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.dudebro73" pid='61847' dateline='1563733233:
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?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/
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:
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.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.
So you read the paper, that’s good, but you didn’t read this thread.DNPstoney" pid='62276' dateline='1564028372:
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.dudebro73" pid='61847' dateline='1563733233:
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?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/
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:
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.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.
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.
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!dudebro73" pid='63805' dateline='1565002029:
So you read the paper, that’s good, but you didn’t read this thread.DNPstoney" pid='62276' dateline='1564028372:
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.dudebro73" pid='61847' dateline='1563733233:
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?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/
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:
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.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.
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.
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.