Fat-Free Mass Index in Users and NonUsers of Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids – Research Review
Title and Abstract
Kouri EM, et. al.Fat-free mass index in users and nonusers of anabolic-androgenic steroids. Clin J Sport Med. (1995) 5(4):223-8.
We calculated fat-free mass index (FFMI) in a sample of 157 male athletes, comprising 83 users of anabolic-androgenic steroids and 74 nonusers. FFMI is defined by the formula (fat-free body mass in kg) x (height in meters)-2. We then added a slight correction of 6.3 x (1.80 m – height) to normalize these values to the height of a 1.8-m man. The normalized FFMI values of athletes who had not used steroids extended up to a well-defined limit of 25.0. Similarly, a sample of 20 Mr. America winners from the presteroid era (1939-1959), for whom we estimated the normalized FFMI, had a mean FFMI of 25.4. By contrast, the FFMI of many of the steroid users in our sample easily exceeded 25.0, and that of some even exceeded 30. Thus, although these findings must be regarded as preliminary, it appears that FFMI may represent a useful initial measure to screen for possible steroid abuse, especially in athletic, medical, or forensic situations in which individuals may attempt to deny such behavior.
Background
Last Thursday, I published a guest article by Alan Aragon entitled Supplement Marketing on Steroids, which was a scientific and technical analysis of recent claims regarding rates of muscle mass gain and potential maximum size by the website Testosterone.nation. In a different context, this topic was previously covered on this site in the article What Is my Genetic Muscular Potential?
As expected, this caused quite an uproar as can be seen in the comments section of that article.
Of course, similar discussion has gone on on the T-nation site itself although, I should note that the term ‘discussion’ is debatable at best. The moderators at T-nation are very censorship heavy, controlling information flow with an iron fist. They ensure that only certain responses will be seen to keep their readers from the truth of their nonsensical claims. My friend Matt Perryman made two posts to his site AmpedTraining which are worth reading in this regards:
Monday Morning Censorship Protest Real T-Men Speak Out
But I’m getting a bit off topic.
In the article What Is my Genetic Muscular Potential, one of the models presented is that of Casey Butt, who did an analysis of top bodybuilders over many years to develop an equation that predicts maximum potential for muscle growth. There are several assumptions inherent in his model including that the bodybuilders are natural, along with the idea that bodybuilders represent the pinnacle of muscle building potential.
I’d note that Casey’s model lined up quite well with the models presented by myself, Alan Aragon and Martin Berkhan. We all approached it from a slightly different direction but, based on our combined experience over the years, all ended up at basically the same place.
But among other gems of argument on T-nation was criticism that Casey’s model was inaccurate because it only examined bodybuilders from ages past (another was that athletes with better muscular potential would go into sports that weren’t bodybuilding).
That is, that current improvements in nutrition and training will have improved the muscular potential for natural bodybuilders beyond what Casey’s analysis shows. Never mind that the three other models presented by myself, Alan and Martin and that includes top natural bodybuilding competitors completely line up with it perfectly as well.
Which brings us to today’s paper.
As another piece of background, I assume that readers are familiar with the concept of the Body Mass Index (BMI). BMI gives a relationship of weight to height and is often used to determine things like under-, normal and over-weight. With certain caveats, discussed in Body Composition Methods Part 1 BMI can be a reasonably accurate measure but it suffers from a major problem for athletes: it doesn’t distinguish between fat mass and lean body mass.
Towards this goal, researchers have tried to develop what they call a Fat-Free Mass Index (FFMI) conceptually similar to the BMI but a measure of fat free mass (another term for lean body mass) relative to height. Which is what this study looked at…in both users and non-users of steroids. They wanted to see if there were any fundamental differences in the FFMI that either occurred or were achievable between users of steroids and nonusers. Clearly this ties in to the current debate over genetic maximums along with rates of muscle gain.
Just for completeness FFMI is defined as fat free mass / height squared.
Where fat free mass is in kg and height is in meters.
If you want to calculate your current FFMI (for example, to compare it to the values I’m going to discuss below), there is an easy to use online
The Study
The researchers recruited 156 men, athletes, from gyms in the Boston and Los Angeles area, of those 156 men 134 data points were used. A full physical examination was given including measurements of height, weight and body fat, the latter computed from the sum of 6 skinfold measurements and the Jackson and Pollock equation. A history of previous steroid use was obtained by personal interview along with urine testing. Now we might quibble with this as athletes are known to lie about drug use.
But as the researchers state:
Briefly, no evidence suggested that any athlete had deliberately misrepresented his steroid use, nor did any urine test contradict an athlete’s verbal report.
Of course, that still doesn’t prove anything, athletes have been beating drug tests for years. But within the context of this paper, that’s as good as it’s going to get.
To the above data set of 156 men, an additional 23 men were recruited from a separate study examining the impact of testosterone cypionate, the same measurements were given to them. So of the total 157 individuals (134 from the first group, 23 from the second group), 74 (47%) had never used steroids and 83 (53%) had used steroids. Fifty-two of the subjects had used steroids within the past year.
Adding to the validity of the data set, in the context of Alan’s article and this debate, the researchers state (bold added for emphasis) that:
The nonusers included many dedicated bodybuilders. Several had competed successfully in “natural” bodybuilding contests, two held world records in strength events, and many others were recognized by their associates as highly successful weightlifters. Thus the nonuser group probably included individuals who closely approached the maximum limits of muscularity that could be attained without drugs.
I’m quoting that bit in full so that people can’t try to dismiss this in the comments section or on forums by trying to argue that these were recreational lifters or that they didn’t train hard: these guys were near the top of the heap in terms of natural competitors.
Results
In any case, with this data set in tow, the researchers calculated the FFMI for both the steroid user and nonuser groups. I’ve reproduced the results in full in the table below; please note that I added the column for lean body mass which I simply calculated by taking weight in kg by body fat percentage (without the error bars).
Table 1: Characteristics of Steroid Users and Nonusers
| Steroid Users | Nonusers | |
| Height (m) | 1.79+-0.0075 | 1.80 +-0.074 |
| Weight (kg/pounds) | 91.69+-11.8/210+-26 | 82.06+-13/180+-28.6 |
| % Body Fat | 12.8 +-4.8% | 12.5+-5.5% |
| Lean Body Mass (kg/pounds) | 79.9kg/175 pounds | 71kg/158 pounds |
| FFMI | 24.8 +-2.2 | 21.8+-1.8 |
.
Now, as the results above show, even with steroid use, the users were still considerably lighter on average than even the typical IFBB pro with only 175 pounds of lean body mass. Contest weights in the 200′s are common nowadays; of course modern bodybuilders use far more than just anabolic steroids. Growth hormone, IGF-1 and all kinds of ancillaries are in use now.
And, again, look at the nonusers. An average lean body mass of 158 pounds. Of course, that’s not taking into account the error bars. Some of the subjects in each group were larger than this and some smaller.
Just for the hell of it, let’s see what the absolute best values we can get out of the above are.
I’ll assume the heaviest body weight for both the steroid and non-steroid users and the lowest body fat percentage so it’s an equal comparison; this calculation will show the absolute biggest guys in both groups in terms of how much lean body mass that they can carry.
All I’ve done is taken the average weight plus the error bar for weight and average body fat percentage minus the error bar for body fat percentage. I’ve shown the numbers in the table below.
Table 2: Maximum Lean Body Mass in the Sample Group
| Steroid User | Nonuser | |
| Body Weight | 236 pounds | 208 pounds |
| % Body Fat | 8% Body Fat | 7% Body Fat |
| Lean Body Mass | 219 pounds | 193 pounds |
.
Those are the two biggest guys in the sample size, again using the highest body weight and lowest body fat percentage. Notice anything, for example how the values line up if you go back and look at Supplement Marketing on Steroids or What Is my Genetic Muscular Potential?
In this MODERN sample of top level bodybuilders using drugs or not, the steroid users are about what Arnold was at his peak (average competition weight of 235). And not a single one of the nonusers exceeds the maximums set by my, Alan, Martin or Casey’s model in What Is my Genetic Muscular Potential.
This is despite being world record holders and top level competitors in natural bodybuilding. Presumably they are using every modern nutritional and training trick available. And they still can’t break the model’s predictions. Not a single one of them.
The researchers concluded, based on this that the upper limits of FFMI in non-steroid users is roughly 25 with an abrupt stopping point; steroid users can surpass this with FFMI values as high as 32 occurring in this study for the largest individual. But for nonusers, 25 is it.
In support of this, the researchers obtained other data, similar to Casey’s original analysis. Using data on the Mr. American winners from the years of 1939-1959 (a time when presumably training and nutrition was improving) an estimated FFMI was done. With one or two outliers, none exceeded a FFMI of 25.
My Comments
Now the researchers were using this whole approach to basically try to find a way, more or less, to determine whether or not a given individual was on steroids. Basically, they found through their sample that, without drugs, there is simply a cap on how much fat free mass an individual can carry.
And a FFMI of roughly 25 represents the natural limit. And this value hasn’t changed since 1930. Because human genetics haven’t changed. And no amount of training or nutrition will EVER change that.
Of course that’s not really why I choose to analyze this study. This paper represents a meticulously analyzed modern data set showing that, assertion by T-nation moderators to the contrary, the potential for muscular gain in natural athletes has not gone up or changed due to improvements in training, nutrition or anything else. Claims that ‘We have naturals exceeding 230 pounds of lean body mass on our forums’ are either delusion, lies, or both. Ok, not exactly.
In that context, it is worth noting a specific comment by the researchers which I will again quote in full:
Fourth, our formula may not be satisfactory for fat individuals. Because a gain in the fat component of the body is consistently accompanied by some gain in the lean component, it is possible that fat individuals might be able to exceed substantially an FFMI of 25 without steroids.
It is amusing to note that, invariably the pictures of T-nation members held up as ‘proof’ that LBM can go higher than what’s in my, Alan, Martin or Casey’s models are invariably carrying a tremendous amount of body fat. But the reality is that, dieted down, the loss of connective tissue, etc. that accompanied the development of their frank obesity would bring them right back down to the numbers predicted by the various models. They wouldn’t end up with more than 200 pounds LBM after the two plus years of dieting it would take to get the fat off.
And, while I’m sure this paper will do nothing to quell the claims of the T-nation moderators or the folks who want to believe that they are the lone exception, the evidence and research based facts speak for themselves. Natural limits exist and no amount of magic pills, powders or potions will let you exceed them unless those magic pills are anabolic steroids. That’s reality folks, it may not be pretty or sexy but it is true.
Please not that, again, I’ve turned off moderation for this article to encourage discussion and meaningful debate (in direct contrast to the T-nation approach). Please keep it civil and I will be keeping an eye for outright trolling or what have you.
This just goes to show that what is possible on the internet is greater than what is possible in real life. That may be seen as a flaw in the study. By focusing on people in real life, they completely overlooked what can be accomplished on the internet. And who of us spends much time living outside the internet these days?
2+ years of dieting to shed tremendous amounts of fat? That diet needs more velocity!
The natty 208 at 7% is pretty impressive. Maybe even qualified to train athletes.
Wow; the upper limits on LBM for lean, drug-free individuals are much lower than most people seem to think (or supplement peddlers would have us believe). Soberingly low, really. It sucks, but on the other hand, more widespread knowledge of this will at least allow people to set more realistic goals, instead of chasing pie-in-the-sky stuff that only leads to disappointment and frustration.
Lyle,
I may get ripped for admitting this, but I frequently check in on the articles on T-Nation. That said, I’m a huge fan of your work, and your thoroughness when covering any topic speaks for itself. As such I don’t know how anyone anywhere could find fault with the vast majority of the material you put forth. It is unfortunate that more people are not willing to embrace your writing and your willingness to be frank and forthright when presenting on any given issue.
It’s often said that if something doesn’t seem to agree with common sense, then something must be off……………………………and unfortunately for those making extreme claims, you always seem to come to conclusion that are chock full of common sense.
Thank you for your service on our behalf. It is greatly appreciated
Lyle,
The thing that struck me about the T-Nation campaign was the grand promises being made when most people with experience recognize that success in the iron game, both in terms of strength and size, is a long term endeavor, so while speeding up progress where possible is nice, the ultimate goal for anyone is down the road. As such consistency and hard work + solid nutrition over the long haul is the ticket, not magical promises in the short term. And magical promises don’t seem to lend themselves to getting to your ultimate natural ceiling faster but rather to exceeding said limits…………….and that would obviously require some creative chemistry.
I’m a fat endurance athlete who has avoided lifting weights for years for fear of it making me too heavy. My thought has always been that I’ll run my extra weight off, despite all the stuff you read about how weights are indispensable for weight loss.
But it’s this information that’s convinced me. I could lift heavy every day until I died and I couldn’t put that much mass on. Unlike most of the people here – this is a good thing for me! I can lift, get the benefits of it, and still ensure that I can be small enough to be a good runner/cyclist.
Good stuff, thanks Lyle.
so what does a person do when they reach the hypothetical maximum limits of muscularity that could be attained without drugs? Assume no drugs are desired as the next step. Is it just a rarity that a person reaches this limit?
I posted this on your mean forum years ago and you wrote it off as a way for people with bad genetics to feel good about themselves.
Kinda like the t-nation people are doing right now.
the most I could ever weight at 6’5 @ 10% is about 220 lbs… shit
i’m already about 200 and 18% BF.. have a lot of work to do
Mr Anonymous: I’ll let your comment stand but please find the balls to post with a name.
I’ll only note (in that I don’t feed trolls) that, as data sets change, so does my opinion. And, as we both know, if I continued to hold onto a previously held belief in the face of more data, you’d criticize me for that too. Almost like a no-win troll game, eh?
Now, when you find the guts to post with your name, I’ll find the time to give a shit what you think about me. Deal?
I wasn’t criticizing, and I’ve big fan of pretty much all of your work for years. No hate intended.
First off, thanks Lyle for making these articles. Now I can link newbies and people who think they will look like Ronnie Coleman naturally straight to some research that will shut them up.
Second, you mentioning the upper limit for muscle mass in drug free male lifters, but in reality, only very very few will achieve this. Lets be honest. How many people have we seen in the gym that have gotten the 200lbs 10% @ 5’10 level without drugs? Never seen one in all my years of going to the gym.
The truth is, most dedicated lifters will never hit that. They’ll bust their ass in the gym and end up looking toned at best.
But I guess some guys need to have the delusion that they will one day look like they’re drug abusing bodybuilding heroes, so they need sites like T-fag and their hero CT to BS to them, so they can feel better.
LOL @ the Real T-Men:
http://tnation.tmuscle.com/free_online_forum/blog_sports_training_performance_bodybuilding_alpha/steroid_use_
Bill Roberts says:
“Natural base (how much muscle a person will have as an adult without weight training) Anywhere from say 120 lb LBM to say 180. The latter being regardless of what the “limit” folks say: there have been natural 6 foot athletes weighing 200 with no more than 10% bodyfat, that is for sure. In fact, more LBM than that.”
Lyle you need to add in Heffo’s bit about the numbers from all the rugby players he deals with and the data he sees from other teams.
I wonder who’s got a better case for the stats of natural athletes?
What’s Bill Roberts trying to say? 6′ 200 lbs @ 10% fits well into the natural limitations of drug free lifters.
Speaking of Thibs… According to the Internets he was 222lbs @ 7% bf on 5’8″. If my math doesn’t fail me that yields a FFMI of over 31. BUT… I’m sure he’s all natural and it’s all about the Anaconda. Yeah, the Anaconda and cluster reps — that’s it.
Okay back to reality for a bit… Aside from some of the OCD lifters out there who endlessly insist on MOARRRRRRRRRR!!!, I don’t think most guys are even going for the steroid look. I’d bet most would say they’d just like to look like a Men’s Health model or some athlete or whatever… and that’s probably an attainable goal for most guys, when adjusted to their individual frames of course.
Perhaps bringing the steroid look into lifting / bodybuilding / whatever has distorted average guys into thinking they have to be 220 lbs to obtain the physique they’re actually looking for.
John, I recall reading on the t-nation forums awhile back that for a 6′ person 220lbs was the minimum to look “big”. The person who wrote that recalled seeing a guy at the beach who was over 6′ and looked to weigh 240 or so. Essentially it was generally felt that 220lb was a minimum for anyone over 5’10″.
Oyaji Poi,
I have a perfect example of your comment. Just so everyone gets familiar with the T-nation references, it might help to see one of the members who thinks that someone’s physique determines the worth of their advice or coaching. Here’s a pic of Jacked Diesel, one of the most spirited T-supporters in the infamous thread TC made, lying about Alan. Jacked Diesel claims to be 6’1″, 220 lbs, with 19″ guns:
http://tnation.tmuscle.com/free_online_forum/blog_sports_body_training_performance_bodybuilding_log/get_jacked?id=3246346&pageNo=1
He looks like he’s in the high 20′s in body fat percent, conservatively. At a weight of 220 lbs, he’s probably carrying 160-165 lbs LBM. Yet, he will argue with the research and logic of Alan, Casey, and Lyle because he’s a real T-man. He probably represents the mentality of the majority of the members at T-nation, where ignorance of the facts is the prime modus operandi.
Best,
DT
Is this skewed to men under 6ft? If I weigh 217lbs at 6% bf and 6’3, I get FFMI of 25.6 and adjusted FFMI of 26.2. I know I can add about 7lbs and cut bodyfat with strict training and diet. Problem is, i still don’t look anywhere near like the ripped guys I am aiming for. I measure BF by 7pt caliper. Tanita scale bf is 9%.
Maybe I am just confused on how to use this tool for guidance.
I guess this is similar to an above post about results skewing for varying heights. I am 6’4″ 215lbs@10%. Using the FFMI calculator gives me a lean mass of 194 and adjusted FFMI of 24.5. I have trained what I consider well for about 3 years with only supplements in the form of protein and creatine. Is it unreasonable for me to think I could still put on 10-15 lbs more muscle over the next few years without using steroids?
So I guess T-nation is willing to assemble 50 volunteers and let Lyle and Alan perform a randomization; 25 of which will get the magic supplements and 25 that won’t. We should know the answers for sure in a few months, right?
I reckon get a DEXA scan to get your REAL BF%, then plug it in to get your FFMI.
Relatedly, would that upper limit of FFMI of 25 be a number used with creatine or not, since it does have some (though small) impact on increasing FFM?
I remember back in the long long ago before the interwebs, reading an articel in the Old “HardGainer” Mag ( or maybe it was “the Steel Tip”), that an adult male of averge ability could expect to gain between 25 and 30 lbs of muscle over a training career. The more things change …….
Hey Lyle,
I don’t know why it took so long but I just had this thought. When you or Alan or Casey are talking about these genetic potentials for muscle gain and acheivable levels of gains per week or per month, are you referring to myofibrillar hypertrophy or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy? I ask because the difference can be pretty significant depending on if you’re a bodybuilder or a performance athlete. If you’re referring to one of them, how different are rates/ceilings for the other? Also, if the same ceiling applies in both cases, for an advanced or even intermediate trainee not gaining/trying to gain mass for a while but still training with intensity, is there a shift from sarcoplasmic to myofibrillar mass?
After checking your other articles about periodization for bodybuilding, it seems like minutiae but any more information on the matter would help.
If there’s a lot more to the topic, would you be able to point me toward a reliable source of information?
Yash
“Also, if the same ceiling applies in both cases, for an advanced or even intermediate trainee not gaining/trying to gain mass for a while but still training with intensity, is there a shift from sarcoplasmic to myofibrillar mass?”
In case this sounded ambiguous, I meant in the body, not in muscle gain. Meaning, if a guy’s training and staying at the same weight, but lifting hard, will his contractile muscle mass increase while fluid decreases to maintain that same weight?
Lyle,
Is the ceiling FFMI the same for females? Thank you.
Surprised I didn’t catch this article sooner.
Good shit.
Lyle,
Great article, loved it.
You’re a little off on the statistical side, but it’s a minor issue. I haven’t looked at the study, but I assume the authors reported the mean and the standard deviation of the mean (what you call the “error bar”).
It is possible that a few subjects (around 32%) had values farther from the mean than one standard deviation. So, technically, “Those are the two biggest guys in the sample size” is wrong.
Nonetheless, your figures and your analysis supports your point well and are insightful.
Thanks much,
-CJ
“You’re a little off on the statistical side, but it’s a minor issue. I haven’t looked at the study, but I assume the authors reported the mean and the standard deviation of the mean (what you call the “error bar”).
It is possible that a few subjects (around 32%) had values farther from the mean than one standard deviation. So, technically, “Those are the two biggest guys in the sample size” is wrong.”
The range is likely to be 2-3 standard deviations (95-99% confidence interval), not 1. That leaves the percent of people outside of that range at 5% or less, which makes Lyle’s theoretical example pretty reasonable.
I’ve been training naturel for almost 5 years now and I’ve exceeded the FFMI of 25. So it seems that science say that I will not gain any muscle from this point. I’m 91kg, 1.78m with 14% bf. I know I’ve been gaining slow lately, but I don’t think this is my genetic limit yet.