25, but I expect to hit a 30 when I turn 60 in 2 years. 
Greekdawg: when I read the book, they basically said there was an upper limit to the muscle one can gain without durgs. I simply wanted to see if anyone has surpassed that number. I personally like to think that with proper training and diet there is virtually no limit.
When I do the calculation I get a negtive # for the “1.8-H” part because I’m 1.85m tall. Just make sure you do the 1.8-H, then x6.1, then add that value to LBM/H(squared).
The # they said is impossible to achieve without roids is 26.
Anybody done it without?
(Bear in mind this means NEVER having done any steriods at all)
Thanks to UWO_testosterone for the math help, Im a moron…the number that came up was 24.94, and the sad part is I have only been training for about 1.5 years, and t-mag style(where I actually know what I am doing) for about a year.
Being 20 years old I think I should be able to shatter the number. BUT what does this mean? Am I near my genetic limit?, which I know that I am not, I dont get exactly how this works, as it doesnt take bone structure etc into the factor.
This formula basically scraps bf%. I’m 6’2’', 250 now, so if I put on 20 lbs, and 19 were fat, I’d still raise this number. So sumo wrestlers would probably kill us on these numbers. And finding one number for each person is absurd. Maybe if we started taking into account limb length and shoulder width, but just basing this thing off of height is useless.
So there saying that you can’t gain more than 26 lbs of muscle? without steroids? What are their bases for this statement? Not flaming you Mayfield, its just these formulas make no sense…
That means I have about 5lbs to go, and I just started back weight training seriously…
6’2", LBM 195, FFMI = 25.568
i have 0.432 thing-a-ma-jiggies to go.
(the “26” max is not in pounds, it’s the fat free mass index.)
I understand the concerns you guys have. That’s one of the reasons I started the thread in the first place.
I’m no math-geek, nor do I have a PhD in in various biological sciences like the people who came up with the formula. I just felt it was an interesting topic and thought I’d put it to the test.
But I do think the formula may have some merit. Note that I say MAY.
If you were to put on say 20lbs and 19 of that was fat, you wouldn’t gain anything in the FFMI b/c the weight was fat. You’ll notice the formula takes that into account.
One interesting thing is that it’s an ‘index’ so it would take a lot of muscle gain to make even a small increase on the FFMI number.
True, it doesn’t take into account body habitus (mesomorph etc) or limb length for loading capacity. And true, it can be easier for a short stocky person to gain muscle than a tall lanky one, but that doesn’t mean the index is false. It jsut means the lanky person would have a tougher time getting the same muscle mass. If what the research team says is accurate, the stocky person should still not be able to reach an index of 26 or higher without steriods.
In my impatience I searched google and found them mention the maximum as 25-26. Reversing the formula I should only be capable of gaining 8 more pounds to hit my genetic ceiling. I doubt I am that close. I’d like to prove them wrong, but as I said, I am impatient, and planning on trying Mag-10 soon.
The site I found online had two pictures of trainees describing them as examples of steroid free, and steroid using. The steroid user looked achievable without steroids, and the steroid free looked like a runner, not a lifter.
The formula takes into account lean body mass so you have to subtract all fat mass. So anyone who gained 20lbs and 19 was fat mass would in actuality only have 1 pound increase in the lean body.
Also steroid users have increased hormonal levels which will allow them to maintain more lean mass. When there hormonal levels drop they will start losing lean mass because the body will not be able to sustain it. lean mass includes water and glycogen. laters pk