Have I reached my genetic potential?

[z1ggy]

Purely from a muscle mass standpoint, not strength. Honestly, I'm not particularly strong but that doesn't bug me that much anymore.

Currently, 29yo male, 192lb, ~18%BF and 5 foot 9 inches. Accord to the FFMI calculator, I have an index of ~23.8
https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/natural_bodybuilding.htm

From reading most fitness websites on this matter, the "natty limit" seems to be 23-25 FFMI, with anything over 25 meaning you're a total genetic freak, and over 23 means you're extremely gifted. Now, I do tend to have a more "stocky" or medium type of build, but just looking at myself in the mirror, I look and feel nowhere even close to maxed out muscularly. My arms are maybe 14-15 inches, chest/back measurement around 44-46... I just don't feel like I'm done gaining mass.

This is all coming about because I'm really having trouble deciding what I want to do physique wise. I want bigger arms. I want bigger traps & shoulders. Bigger forearms.... Basically I want to grow out my "yoke" if you are familiar with that term. But being at 18% fat.... I need to cut, too. I don't want to spend the next 3-4 months cutting then only leave myself a few months before I'll need to cut again for summer, to gain what little muscle I might be able to gain. Most of these sources say once you're over the 21 FFMI, muscle gains will come extremely slow for a natty lifter. I'm somewhat discouraged here because I'm still not happy with how I look.

Could I truly be very close to my limit of how much muscle my body holds? Should I just cut until Im around 10-12% fat and accept I won't be growing my much desired areas any time soon?

 

[Davidpaul007]

Long time no see Z1ggy!

I realize what we all want to look like is very subjective and can vary alot from person to person. However, I think that if you have anywhere near the % of FFM you think you have then getting to sub 10% BF will make you very happy.

From your posts over the last couple of years it sounds to me like you've never been able to master yourself enough to get truly lean. I don't say that to be mean and it's not a knock, most people never get to this point.

Very biased and personal opinion incoming...
I tried a couple years of bulking/cutting cycles (granted, my weight would only vary by about 12-14lbs total) but after all said and done I've personally realized I'd rather stay relatively lean all the time even though it can hamper my growth a little. And by relatively lean I mean very visible 6 pack. Not a "hint", not a 2 pack, but a clearly defined 6 pack (or 4 pack, whatever you genetically have). For me, whenever I would go into a purposeful bulk phase my eating quality would suffer and I'd get lax. Then you start losing striations, veins, abs, and your motivation drops (at least mine does). With all that said, I have also finally got to the point where I can honestly say I don't do this for other's benefit, even my wife's. It's solely about looking in the mirror and appreciating the work I've done to look the way I do, and that is enough to keep me going.

If you want to PM me a progress pic I'll give you my honest evaluation and maybe reality check.

 

[z1ggy]

Well, my numbers are pretty accurate. I have a pretty high quality scale and while I do realize maybe the BF% may be off by a few %, that only change my FFMI by a few tenths. It's the difference between say 23.8 and 23.1.

And you'd be correct about myself over the years. The leanest I've ever been is around 13.5-14%, taken by calipers. At that point I was about 181lb or so, which means since then (about 2 yrs ago) I've only gained maybe 1-2lb muscle despite still being i the gym fairly consistently, especially last year. This year I had a lot of life change... got a new job.. moved... 3x longer commute... gym is different and not as good.

My biggest problem is I seem to hit brick walls when I cut. Instead of going on and on about it here I'll just PM you.

 

[Pantlegz]

How long have you been bulking? If it's been a while a cut would do you good for a few reasons. If you're really above 15% body fat you're carrying more fat than is recommended for optimal muscle growth 15% is the high side, 10% is ideal. So if you cut down to ~10% in 12 weeks that takes you at around the first of the year for a 12-15 week massing phase ending mid-March-ish and at ~15% body fat giving you more than enough time to cut ~5% before summer (depending on where you are and when summer actually begins).

 

[SNC]

I never looked at that number, but I'm a 29.5 natty. Gains are SUPPER SLOOOOOW for me after 43.

 

[MikeJone]

I’ve been training for a year. Gained 10 pounds of muscle l, lost 20 pounds of fat but I only weigh 130 pounds. Is it possible to put on 20 pounds of muscle in the second year if my training and diet is spot on?

 

[SNC]

I’ve been training for a year. Gained 10 pounds of muscle l, lost 20 pounds of fat but I only weigh 130 pounds. Is it possible to put on 20 pounds of muscle in the second year if my training and diet is spot on?

Simple answer, sure.

 

[z1ggy]

How long have you been bulking? If it's been a while a cut would do you good for a few reasons. If you're really above 15% body fat you're carrying more fat than is recommended for optimal muscle growth 15% is the high side, 10% is ideal. So if you cut down to ~10% in 12 weeks that takes you at around the first of the year for a 12-15 week massing phase ending mid-March-ish and at ~15% body fat giving you more than enough time to cut ~5% before summer (depending on where you are and when summer actually begins).

Technically I've been bulking ever since I lost a bunch of weight about 2 yrs ago. Probably didn't gain much muscle though, maybe 3lb? It was more like eating whatever and just keeping up with the gym as I've always done.

I'm going through a cut right now. Davidpaul helped me come up with a more sustainable diet that includes more carbs so I won't feel the need to binge on them which has always been my downfall. So far so good.

 

[ArchAngel777]

I never looked at that number, but I'm a 29.5 natty. Gains are SUPPER SLOOOOOW for me after 43.

Stats? Honestly, this is extremely difficult to believe. Not the number itself perse, but even 5'10" 200lbs @ 5% BF (that is HUUUUGE) is 27.5. If I had to guess your are either underestimating your BF, not natural (maybe now, but not always) or are indeed one of the most natural freaks of nature the world has ever seen. Being that this is the internet, the most likely scenario is that you are overestimating weight and underestimating body fat. Tom Venuto, one of the most jacked natural (purportedly) BBers was high 180's on stage... If he was hydrated, probably hitting that mark of 195 @ 5%. Obviously, if he can do it, so could you. But I still consider it suspect. Not that it matters anyway, if true, good for you.

■ 16 – 17: below average

■ 18 – 19: average

■ 20 - 21: above average

■ 22: excellent

■ 23 – 25: superior

■ 26 – 27: scores considered suspicious but still attainable naturally

■ 28 – 30: highly unlikely scores to be obtained naturally without steroid usage

Also, Lyle does a great job addressing this topic... Basically taking the best of both non-users and users.

https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/r...bolic-androgen-steroids-research-review.html/

 

[SNC]

Stats? Honestly, this is extremely difficult to believe. Not the number itself perse, but even 5'10" 200lbs @ 5% BF (that is HUUUUGE) is 27.5. If I had to guess your are either underestimating your BF, not natural (maybe now, but not always) or are indeed one of the most natural freaks of nature the world has ever seen. Being that this is the internet, the most likely scenario is that you are overestimating weight and underestimating body fat. Tom Venuto, one of the most jacked natural (purportedly) BBers was high 180's on stage... If he was hydrated, probably hitting that mark of 195 @ 5%. Obviously, if he can do it, so could you. But I still consider it suspect. Not that it matters anyway, if true, good for you.

■ 16 – 17: below average

■ 18 – 19: average

■ 20 - 21: above average

■ 22: excellent

■ 23 – 25: superior

■ 26 – 27: scores considered suspicious but still attainable naturally

■ 28 – 30: highly unlikely scores to be obtained naturally without steroid usage

I'm 285 6'1 23% I used the calc at http://www.naturalphysiques.com/28/fat-free-mass-index-ffmi and get 29.5
If I use the one at bodybuilder.com https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/natural_bodybuilding.htm its 24.16
I assumed all calculators were the same, guess not!
I would like to get into the teens in BF but with my eating habits and progressive age I doubt that will ever happen.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Yeah, I did read that the calculator may be off with some of the inputs. No idea how... Anyway, not bad. I myself have trained for years, and am only, at best, a 23 and even that number I am not certain of. I find that even creatine and being fully glycogen supercompensated can throw the number higher than normal, versus not taking creatine and being depleted.

I have not been able to gain any lean mass since about 19 where I appear to have peaked. I did start lifting early (12) and haven't focused on bulking perse, but still. I can't go much higher. I am now 36. That said, I am determined to never let age stop me. There is still so much more for me to do. My son is running cross country at 11 and I need to keep up with him as long as I possible can. One of my goals is to be able to run a 100m and 400m and keep up with him well into his high school years.

I hit some major depression this summer and gained some weight. So I am barely keeping up with my 11 year old @ my current 184lbs @ 13% BF. But, in about two months I should be back down to 7% or 8% and that should allow me to keep up with him for a few more years, hopefully. Low body-fat is key to sprinting and running fast.

Even at 43, if you want too, you can easily cut down to low teens, but it is something you have to want. Don't let age get you down! My Dad had a stroke at 61 before he turned his life around. He trains with me now, proud of him. Amazing what even a 66, almost 67 year old can do. Heck, 80 year old people can still run marathons. While people want to think these people are 'gifted' I think that is just an excuse for them to not have to get off the couch and start training.

TLDR - I think people blame 'age' and use it as an excuse to let themselves go. While you certainly do start losing strength and endurance and you do get weaker with age, it isn't like a drop off graph. It is a very, very slow downward curve, if you continue to train. For the record, I was not and am not suggesting you were using age as an excuse... You are right, you are likely not going to gain mass post 40, I was just writing this to encourage you to continue training and not to let yourself go!

 

[Blackjack200]

I'm 285 6'1 23%

So if you went from 23% to 13% body fat, i.e. lost 10% of your weight, you'd weigh 256 at 13%?

That's as big as Arnold. Maybe bigger.

Edit: Math was a little off, you'd weigh 256.5 at 14.4% bf

 

[SNC]

Yeah, I did read that the calculator may be off with some of the inputs. No idea how... Anyway, not bad. I myself have trained for years, and am only, at best, a 23 and even that number I am not certain of. I find that even creatine and being fully glycogen supercompensated can throw the number higher than normal, versus not taking creatine and being depleted.

I have not been able to gain any lean mass since about 19 where I appear to have peaked. I did start lifting early (12) and haven't focused on bulking perse, but still. I can't go much higher. I am now 36. That said, I am determined to never let age stop me. There is still so much more for me to do. My son is running cross country at 11 and I need to keep up with him as long as I possible can. One of my goals is to be able to run a 100m and 400m and keep up with him well into his high school years.

I hit some major depression this summer and gained some weight. So I am barely keeping up with my 11 year old @ my current 184lbs @ 13% BF. But, in about two months I should be back down to 7% or 8% and that should allow me to keep up with him for a few more years, hopefully. Low body-fat is key to sprinting and running fast.

Even at 43, if you want too, you can easily cut down to low teens, but it is something you have to want. Don't let age get you down! My Dad had a stroke at 61 before he turned his life around. He trains with me now, proud of him. Amazing what even a 66, almost 67 year old can do. Heck, 80 year old people can still run marathons. While people want to think these people are 'gifted' I think that is just an excuse for them to not have to get off the couch and start training.

TLDR - I think people blame 'age' and use it as an excuse to let themselves go. While you certainly do start losing strength and endurance and you do get weaker with age, it isn't like a drop off graph. It is a very, very slow downward curve, if you continue to train. For the record, I was not and am not suggesting you were using age as an excuse... You are right, you are likely not going to gain mass post 40, I was just writing this to encourage you to continue training and not to let yourself go!

No way Ill be doing any marathons any time soon. I'm actually just shy of 49, I just commented that I gains have been supper slow since 43. I have no intention of slowing down. I'm 3 years into my shoulder recovery and am planning on competing in a raw tested 275 pound masters division for bench press. I think a new record was posted but cant find it, the old one was 324.5. I'm not to far off right now, and the 1.25 years I have to go are both a blessing and curse.

EDIT: Sorry, the record is 424.5

 

[Blackjack200]

Nice, what are you benching now?

 

[SNC]

Nice, what are you benching now?

The record is 424.5 I'm comfortably benching 350 without pain on the flat bench, 385 was done on my lifesaving machine the Smith. I'm not ready to push it yet, but if I can get to 400 by this time next year Ill push on, if not.......

 

[Blackjack200]

Wow, I'm benching 285 for 5, that's close to my highest ever. Can't imagine 350. Are your numbers paused?

 

[SNC]

So if you went from 23% to 13% body fat, i.e. lost 10% of your weight, you'd weigh 256 at 13%?

That's as big as Arnold. Maybe bigger.

Edit: Math was a little off, you'd weigh 256.5 at 14.4% bf

I'm no where near Arnold. I really dont understand the calculation, but I believe my BF is right and I know my height and weight. I making an appointment with a nutritionist to see if there is anything I can do food wise to assist my bench attempt. That will include a BF measurement, I'll update this post when I get a verified number.

 

[SNC]

Wow, I'm benching 285 for 5, that's close to my highest ever. Can't imagine 350. Are your numbers paused?

Yes, for competition it requires a couple seconds pause after unracking, a second pause when it hits the chest (I have found this amount of time differs with each judge and how slow you descend the weight) then a pause at lockout before the rack command is given. I train exactly like the comp requires. No need in committing bad habits to memory. Right now I am doing 5x5 at 285 on the flat and 5x5 at 320 on the smith, sometimes I'll squeese out a couple more on the last set if I'm feeling good., but if I can do that a couple times in a row Ill add a 2.5 to each side next time and use that as my starting weight. I think what has really helped is a shit ton of back and lat work and the 120 lb dumbbells I bought a couple months ago, they are great for flat and decline.

 

[Ackmed]

Some people around here believe that genetics don't play a part. I don't agree.

TLDR - I think people blame 'age' and use it as an excuse to let themselves go. While you certainly do start losing strength and endurance and you do get weaker with age, it isn't like a drop off graph. It is a very, very slow downward curve, if you continue to train. For the record, I was not and am not suggesting you were using age as an excuse... You are right, you are likely not going to gain mass post 40, I was just writing this to encourage you to continue training and not to let yourself go!

I agree. I am 43 years old and far more cut and built than most 20 years my youth. I am 6' at 225lbs. Which puts me at over 30bmi, which is "obese", yet I have under 10% body fat. Have a very good hip to chest ratio too. My veins are crazy, I can see muscle strands when doing movements. At least 6 pack abs, usually 8. I have a pretty good VO2 max also. All those scales and formulas are mostly bullshit. At 30bmi I am supposed to be a fattie. Excuses are bullshit too. People are just too lazy most of the time in todays world.

I do notice my endurance is not as good, and when I get sore, I stay sore longer. Such as from doing an exercise I don't normally do. Used to be sore a day or two, I can be sore for several days now. I don't foam roll and stretch as well as I should though. Did a pretty extensive hike a few weeks ago, at a pretty good pace. Afterwards and for the next few days, very sore.

 

[z1ggy]

^ BMI only applies to untrained fatties. Anybody who has even sniffed a gym for more than 6 months throws that scale all out of wack. I stopped getting physicals because the idiot nurses would take my weight and go OOOHHH BOY YOU OVERWEIGHT W THAT BMI!!!! Almost told some tubby to f herself because she's lecturing me on my weight. They even gave me a pamphlet.

I still can't believe from both of those calcs, my FFMI is ~24. Maybe I have body dismorphia but I feel like I look pathetic. Davidpaul has my most recent pics and said if i dropped to 10% fat I'd look really good, but I'm assuming it's due to my high (18.5% now, was %20 when I first did this thread) body fat.

 

[ArchAngel777]

^ BMI only applies to untrained fatties. Anybody who has even sniffed a gym for more than 6 months throws that scale all out of wack. I stopped getting physicals because the idiot nurses would take my weight and go OOOHHH BOY YOU OVERWEIGHT W THAT BMI!!!! Almost told some tubby to f herself because she's lecturing me on my weight. They even gave me a pamphlet.

True, however, I do think many people under estimate their body fat.The closer you get to the high teens, the more difficult it is to truly know. I know my skinfold readings are far less reliable when I am in the high teens especially the abdominal skinfold.

I find the suprailiac the single most accurate measurement, though I typically follow the jackson-pollock 3-site which is abdominal, thigh and chest.

The difference between 12% and 7% is staggering as well, especially if you have specific spots that disproportionately store bodyfat.

In many cases, sub 10% BF would require a lot of muscle (FFMI 22+) to be regarded as overweight with the BMI scale. But yes, BMI is bogus for individuals. It was never intended to be used on an individual basis, but on a population scale.

Still, people are fatter than they think.

 

[SNC]

^ BMI only applies to untrained fatties. Anybody who has even sniffed a gym for more than 6 months throws that scale all out of wack. I stopped getting physicals because the idiot nurses would take my weight and go OOOHHH BOY YOU OVERWEIGHT W THAT BMI!!!! Almost told some tubby to f herself because she's lecturing me on my weight. They even gave me a pamphlet.

I still can't believe from both of those calcs, my FFMI is ~24. Maybe I have body dismorphia but I feel like I look pathetic. Davidpaul has my most recent pics and said if i dropped to 10% fat I'd look really good, but I'm assuming it's due to my high (18.5% now, was %20 when I first did this thread) body fat.

I've had a similar experience @37.6 I was cautioned about my weight and that I should cut down on the snacks! Its shocking how the medical community is so tied to that number.

 

[z1ggy]

True, however, I do think many people under estimate their body fat.The closer you get to the high teens, the more difficult it is to truly know. I know my skinfold readings are far less reliable when I am in the high teens especially the abdominal skinfold.

I find the suprailiac the single most accurate measurement, though I typically follow the jackson-pollock 3-site which is abdominal, thigh and chest.

The difference between 12% and 7% is staggering as well, especially if you have specific spots that disproportionately store bodyfat.

In many cases, sub 10% BF would require a lot of muscle (FFMI 22+) to be regarded as overweight with the BMI scale. But yes, BMI is bogus for individuals. It was never intended to be used on an individual basis, but on a population scale.

Still, people are fatter than they think.

Well I know that the scale that takes my bf might not be super accurate but even if it's off by ten percent, that means my bf is at most like 20% which so keeps me above 23 for ffmi. Seeing as that's puts me as fairly muscley for my size still, I probably don't have a ton left to gain. Even cutting down to ten percent fat and losing some muscle, I'd probably still be at 22 or 23. I guess I'm okay with that...

 

[highland145]

I've had a similar experience @37.6 I was cautioned about my weight and that I should cut down on the snacks! Its shocking how the medical community is so tied to that number.

And insurance though they're using it to screw customers. I can get a rate cut if my BMI is under some # I don't remember. "Sorry, sir, looks like you don't qualify," says some fat assed couch potato agent. eff em. I might drop dead tomorrow but I'll look way better doing it than 90%+ of the people my age.

 

[Ackmed]

^ BMI only applies to untrained fatties. Anybody who has even sniffed a gym for more than 6 months throws that scale all out of wack. I stopped getting physicals because the idiot nurses would take my weight and go OOOHHH BOY YOU OVERWEIGHT W THAT BMI!!!! Almost told some tubby to f herself because she's lecturing me on my weight. They even gave me a pamphlet.

I still can't believe from both of those calcs, my FFMI is ~24. Maybe I have body dismorphia but I feel like I look pathetic. Davidpaul has my most recent pics and said if i dropped to 10% fat I'd look really good, but I'm assuming it's due to my high (18.5% now, was %20 when I first did this thread) body fat.

I understand that, and agree. Its a shitty way to judge fat. Totally useless for people who have actual muscle in their legs. There is no attempt to measure legs at all. I have to have it done for work though, twice a year. But they can look at me and understand its not fat. Still just annoying. My wife is obese according to BMI too, she just has really thick thighs and ass.

Edit, this is what 30+ BMI looks like;