Thread: How do you Guys feel about the Casey Butt and Eric Helms calculators?

You know, the FFMI and Maximum Genetic potential ones.

https://fastfoodmacros.com/maximum-m...calculator.asp

Have you guys ever plugged in your numbers in to these? Have you come close to the numbers it generates? Think it's legit?

I know Casey Butt puts a disclaimer that these are maximum numbers if you train 100 percent properly, including eating and sleeping right. But I also wonder in a perfect world if most people have the genetics to reach that number.

For me at 5'10"... my max genetic potential at 15 percent bf is 201 lbs according to this calculator. Which honestly is my end goal.. 15 percent and as close to 200 as possible. Whether I can legitimately get there who knows. Those numbers plugged into Eric Helms calculator is FFMI 23.8 which still seems to be attainable naturally.

I know that people shouldn't read too much into these things but they are still fun and interesting to look at.

Originally Posted by fishnbrah

I quit listening to 3dmj when I realized none of them had made a single gain in years. Srs

Never heard of 3DMJ.. do they promote this?

yeah, interesting... and of course difficult to take into account individual variations... I got 24.9 on Helms' calculator and I'm barely getting started... (and natty).
Casey is a little more in depth of course and suggests that my max lean at 15% would be 208 (basically the same as I am now but 10% less BF and of course more muscle mass).

Interesting as you say, and some targets to intrigue but obviously tough to say how accurate for you specifically.

Originally Posted by xTeTe

You know, the FFMI and Maximum Genetic potential ones.
But I also wonder in a perfect world if most people have the genetics to reach that number.
.

No. Nature is a bell curve. "Most" people will never even come close to those numbers by definition. That data represents the top 1% or probably the top .5%.

From what I have seen, it is mostly accurate except on one level. People try to use it to determine is people are 'natural'. Nature always allows for outliers and genetic 'freaks'. So all the nerds punching numbers into a calc disputing some others natural claims is just a waste of time. I have seen a few freaks in my time. They do exist.

Most people though are somewhere in the middle of the curve and wont even come close to this.

Originally Posted by PhDPepper1111

yeah, interesting... and of course difficult to take into account individual variations... I got 24.9 on Helms' calculator and I'm barely getting started... (and natty).
Casey is a little more in depth of course and suggests that my max lean at 15% would be 208 (basically the same as I am now but 10% less BF and of course more muscle mass).

Interesting as you say, and some targets to intrigue but obviously tough to say how accurate for you specifically.

You are GREATLY underestimating the amount of fat you have. Not your fault....most people do. No, you are not even close to that FFM level. A good estimation on the amount of fat you THINK you have, is just double that number. (srs) That is close to where most people really are fat wise.

Originally Posted by PhDPepper1111

yeah, interesting... and of course difficult to take into account individual variations... I got 24.9 on Helms' calculator and I'm barely getting started... (and natty).
Casey is a little more in depth of course and suggests that my max lean at 15% would be 208 (basically the same as I am now but 10% less BF and of course more muscle mass).

Interesting as you say, and some targets to intrigue but obviously tough to say how accurate for you specifically.

I read a really good Legion Athletics article about these calculators and the author brought up an interesting take... the average person should get their max lean body mass number and subtract 5 percent from it... and that should be the realistic number you should aim for. It makes sense too. He was saying that people who can hit that max number the Butt calculator spits out are typically genetic outliers that do everything right.

Here's the article if anyone's interested.

https://legionathletics.com/how-to-b...cle-naturally/

I found this to be the best piece written about the subject of natty muscle potential. I feel like this guy's story dovetails quite a bit with mine and my wheel spinning in the gym and not dialing in a program and diet for years on end. Of course for about five solid years of my lifting I was boxing and just lifting to gain some extra strength and not trying to bulk up.

Unfortunately after I quit competing I just kept up with my terrible program and mediocre diet for a while with no real plan until the past year or so.

From the article:

"At this point I’d been training for about seven years, weighed around 195 pounds (6'1"), and was about 16% body fat. I’d gained a fair amount of size along the way, but was stuck in a rut—I hadn’t made any real progress in size or strength for years and thought maybe this was it.

Soon after taking that last picture, however, I dramatically changed the way I was eating and training, and here’s me just a few years later:

That’s me at about 185 pounds and 7% body fat, so I had gained another 10 pounds of muscle, despite thinking I was an “intermediate” or even “advanced” weightlifter (I wasn’t).

And just in case it needs saying, I’ve never used steroids, prohormones, SARMs, clenbuterol, or any other drug (besides caffeine, synephrine, and ephedrine) to get here.

The moral of the story is you may think your DNA dealt you a busted flush, but it probably didn’t.

Although you can only gain so much muscle, the amount is likely a lot more than what you see in the mirror and certainly more than enough to look and feel great about your body."

Originally Posted by induced_drag

No. Nature is a bell curve. "Most" people will never even come close to those numbers by definition. That data represents the top 1% or probably the top .5%.

From what I have seen, it is mostly accurate except on one level. People try to use it to determine is people are 'natural'. Nature always allows for outliers and genetic 'freaks'. So all the nerds punching numbers into a calc disputing some others natural claims is just a waste of time. I have seen a few freaks in my time. They do exist.

Most people though are somewhere in the middle of the curve and wont even come close to this.

You are GREATLY underestimating the amount of fat you have. Not your fault....most people do. No, you are not even close to that FFM level. A good estimation on the amount of fat you THINK you have, is just double that number. (srs) That is close to where most people really are fat wise.

In this case you are incorrect Sir. I did a bod pod recently - pretty much the gold standard of accurate BF measurement - so I know exactly what my fat is. The 24.9 result was from my current BF. If I were to get to 15% BF at my current weight my FFM would be quite a bit higher (28.2). I'm not at all convinced this number means much though.
EDIT: Also, this FFM calculator could be off a bit too. I don't have the full bod pod printout (lost it) which does an exact FFM. I am scheduled to go again next month and will see what it says.

Originally Posted by xTeTe

I read a really good Legion Athletics article about these calculators and the author brought up an interesting take... the average person should get their max lean body mass number and subtract 5 percent from it... and that should be the realistic number you should aim for. It makes sense too. He was saying that people who can hit that max number the Butt calculator spits out are typically genetic outliers that do everything right.

Here's the article if anyone's interested.

https://legionathletics.com/how-to-b...cle-naturally/

Good advice on aspiration. Really, it needs to be individually tailored... and focus on maximizing one's healthy behaviors rather than some projected 'potential.'
If these numbers do mean anything ... well personally it points out that I've been squandering my potential, but I already knew that.
Agree with both of you that it clearly is misused as a measure of natty or not.

Originally Posted by induced_drag

"Most" people will never even come close to those numbers by definition. That data represents the top 1% or probably the top .5%.

^^THIS.

I'm quicker to concede when most of us hit our genetic limit than others (and for most of us, it'll be a lot less than those calculators). Perhaps I'm referring to a "near limit," but if you've been intelligently applying sound nutritional, weightlifting, and recovery principles for five years or so, you're so close to your genetic (within 5-10% or so IMO) that the remaining fraction won't be recognizable by the general public or your significant other. Not to say that you shouldn't try and squeeze out those last few pounds (maybe ounces LOL), but don't expect the camera to show the extra effort that will be expended in the years that follow.

Originally Posted by PhDPepper1111

In this case you are incorrect Sir. I did a bod pod recently - pretty much the gold standard of accurate BF measurement - so I know exactly what my fat is. The 24.9 result was from my current BF. If I were to get to 15% BF at my current weight my FFM would be quite a bit higher (28.2). I'm not at all convinced this number means much though.
EDIT: Also, this FFM calculator could be off a bit too. I don't have the full bod pod printout (lost it) which does an exact FFM. I am scheduled to go again next month and will see what it says.

Actually no. I have seen bodpods come back WAY off. The 'gold standard' is a DEXA scan. Seen many occasions where people post bod pod results that come back way off.

Also what you dont realize is water is "LBM". When you are carrying more fat, you also get water retention along with it. At 20%+ bf, you can "lose" 15lbs of "lean mass" in 12 days by going keto.

That is why you LBM numbers are so skewed.

Finally you are not calculating the amount of true LBM you will lose when dropping to 10% bf. It is significant.

So I will hold to my statement. Calculate the amount of weight you think you have to lose and DOUBLE it. That is probably close to getting you to 10%. That may change you FFMI calcs a touch

Originally Posted by induced_drag

Actually no. I have seen bodpods come back WAY off. The 'gold standard' is a DEXA scan. Seen many occasions where people post bod pod results that come back way off.

Also what you dont realize is water is "LBM". When you are carrying more fat, you also get water retention along with it. At 20%+ bf, you can "lose" 15lbs of "lean mass" in 12 days by going keto.

That is why you LBM numbers are so skewed.

Finally you are not calculating the amount of true LBM you will lose when dropping to 10% bf. It is significant.

So I will hold to my statement. Calculate the amount of weight you think you have to lose and DOUBLE it. That is probably close to getting you to 10%. That may change you FFMI calcs a touch

I'm happy to argue something unimportant...
The index was developed by several researchers as an estimate of FFM (and then modified by Helms as posted by OP). They used previous Mr Olympia winners among other folks. I couldn't easily get the full text, but from the abstract it's clear their estimates didn't use DEXA, or bod pod, or water displacement.

We could have lots of fun with this one and you know far more about this area than I do ID, but in this case you remain wrong in fact while you are right in principle.

I'm willing to bet my BF measurement was more accurate than those used in developing the FFMI, and in any case, the FFMI is an estimate, not an exact measure of 'true' FFM which you seem to be focused on. I used the index, it gave me a number. That number is as good/accurate as any used by the researchers in developing the index itself.

Let's take this into a realm in which I AM an expert. IQ is one of the most-quoted and incorrectly used 'measures' in the psychology realm.
For now let's just say that measured IQ as operationally defined by Wechsler or other researchers is an estimate at 'true' intelligence (much more difficult to define and agree on than FFM).

If I give you my WAIS score, I'm telling you how the test estimated general intelligence. That number may or may not represent my 'real' intelligence, even though people have tried to use IQ scores for so many things - incorrectly. But, if I had a properly administered test, the WAIS score is the WAIS score. You could still debate my true intelligence, but you couldn't argue my WAIS score.

Back to this scale FFMI. I'm not arguing for the accuracy of the measurement of the underlying construct, I'm only stating that I used the index correctly to arrive at a number the researchers developed. Using DEXA is certainly not a prerequisite for using FFMI.

All the other stuff you wrote is interesting, but not related to the index itself. Which I filled out on a lark like my daughter does all those buzzfeed surveys.

EDIT: BTW, I'm mostly funnin with ya since that really should be the point of this post (interesting/funny/discussion/grains of salt), but when I looked up DEXA I got this: https://hudsonmedical.com/articles/d...gold-standard/ hehe

Originally Posted by PhDPepper1111

I'm happy to argue something unimportant...
The index was developed by several researchers as an estimate of FFM (and then modified by Helms as posted by OP). They used previous Mr Olympia winners among other folks. I couldn't easily get the full text, but from the abstract it's clear their estimates didn't use DEXA, or bod pod, or water displacement.

We could have lots of fun with this one and you know far more about this area than I do ID, but in this case you remain wrong in fact while you are right in principle.

I'm willing to bet my BF measurement was more accurate than those used in developing the FFMI, and in any case, the FFMI is an estimate, not an exact measure of 'true' FFM which you seem to be focused on. I used the index, it gave me a number. That number is as good/accurate as any used by the researchers in developing the index itself.

Let's take this into a realm in which I AM an expert. IQ is one of the most-quoted and incorrectly used 'measures' in the psychology realm.
For now let's just say that measured IQ as operationally defined by Wechsler or other researchers is an estimate at 'true' intelligence (much more difficult to define and agree on than FFM).

If I give you my WAIS score, I'm telling you how the test estimated general intelligence. That number may or may not represent my 'real' intelligence, even though people have tried to use IQ scores for so many things - incorrectly. But, if I had a properly administered test, the WAIS score is the WAIS score. You could still debate my true intelligence, but you couldn't argue my WAIS score.

Back to this scale FFMI. I'm not arguing for the accuracy of the measurement of the underlying construct, I'm only stating that I used the index correctly to arrive at a number the researchers developed. Using DEXA is certainly not a prerequisite for using FFMI.

All the other stuff you wrote is interesting, but not related to the index itself. Which I filled out on a lark like my daughter does all those buzzfeed surveys.

EDIT: BTW, I'm mostly funnin with ya since that really should be the point of this post (interesting/funny/discussion/grains of salt), but when I looked up DEXA I got this: https://hudsonmedical.com/articles/d...gold-standard/ hehe

No worries man. Just sharing experiences. I was part of that club who at one time GREATLY underestimated the amount of fat I carried.

That is the only real point I was trying to make. The rest is semantics. But I have said this a bunch of times and yet to see it be wrong. To a guy at 20+% bf, they need to lose close to TWICE the amount of weight they think they do to get to a true 10% bf.

I have been at 20+ and been under 10. And back and forth several times

Just sharing experience.

Originally Posted by induced_drag

No worries man. Just sharing experiences. I was part of that club who at one time GREATLY underestimated the amount of fat I carried.

That is the only real point I was trying to make. The rest is semantics. But I have said this a bunch of times and yet to see it be wrong. To a guy at 20+% bf, they need to lose close to TWICE the amount of weight they think they do to get to a true 10% bf.

I have been at 20+ and been under 10. And back and forth several times

Just sharing experience.

All good, and fwiw, that part I'm sure you're correct on that. I started well over 20%, I'm sure it will be years to get to a much healthier level after the initial gains I'm making now.
I'm lucky to have pretty good genetics, but I took it for granted for many years. I'm finally just now trying to train holistically to be healthy.

another takeaway for me is that I'm trying to figure out how to get a DEXA test now