Jeff Nippard – Natty Or Steroids?

| January 5, 2019 by Truth Seeker |

via: zelsh.com

It’s time for another classic natty or not review. Our focus is on Jeff Nippard – a powerlifter and bodybuilder known for his mass and strength.

What are Jeff Nippard’s stats?

On October 10, 2016, Nippard uploaded a video entitled: “What’s My Bodyfat Percentage? | POSING Update | Training Cues to Target Lats”.

The video reveals that on that day, Nippard’s weight was 163.8lbs/74.45kg at 8.4% body fat.


Both metrics should be factual since the first is shown on an electronic scale whereas the second one is based on a DEXA scan.

The DEXA scan is a very accurate and effective way to register body fat and lean mass distribution throughout the body. It is “trusted by elite sports labs and research facilities”. In short, it’s the gold standard.

Other stats:

Height: 5’5″/165cm {source}

BMI: 27.2

Nippard’s weight that day.
Nippard’s DEXA scan result.

What does the Fat Free Mass Index (FFMI) calculator say?

The Fat Free Mass Index (FFMI) belongs to the class of bodyweight indexes and accounts for the amount of lean body mass that an individual carries in relation to his weight and height. The formula was originally created in 1995 after a sample of 157 male athletes (83 users of anabolic-androgenic steroids and 74 nonusers) underwent an analysis.

The conclusion was that men with an FFMI equal or higher than 25 are most likely taking anabolic steroids. As a consequence, the FFMI has served as a natty or not detector for a long time.

The FFMI of Jeff Nippard is hovering around 27 which technically makes him a non-natural.

However, the FFMI system receives significant criticism, and many try to render it inaccurate and useless. In a video uploaded on YouTube, Alpha Destiny criticizes the FFMI approach himself. His major point is that the formula does not account for bone thickness. Thus, a short man who has extremely big bones could break the FFMI formula without knowing the difference between bananas and anabolic steroids.

To illustrate his point, Alpha Destiny gives as an example a man who is 5’5”/165cm tall and has a 10-inch (25.4cm) wrist. According to Alpha Destiny, a man with similar physical properties ”disarms” the FFMI completely.

In theory, somewhere in this universe, there may be men carrying skeletons of that magnitude. Yet a bone structure that thick would definitely be an anomaly rather than the norm.

Let’s see how common it is to have a 10-inch (25.4cm) wrist.

In the graph below, you see the results of a research published in a technical report entitled: 1995 Matched Anthropometric Database of U.S. Marine Corps Personnel: Summary Statistics


http://www.humanics-es.com/ADA316646.pdf

The conclusion is that out of 4447 males who took part in the study, 99% have a wrist circumference smaller than 7.67 inches (19.4818cm).

Note: A percentile means ”percentages below”. Thus, the people who fall in the 99 percentile form the top 1%.

In other words, it’s pretty safe to say that everything above an 8-inch (20.32cm) wrist is exceptionally rare.

The claim of Alpha Destiny that the FFMI is invalid by default because it doesn’t account for infrequent scenarios is subject to criticism because most statistical studies target the majority rather than the minority.

If a medicament causes side effects only in 1% of the patients, it would still be considered valuable because it helps the rest 99%.

via: https://www.wereblog.com/denis-cyplenkov-biggest-hands-in-the-world

Note: Even the wrists of a ”genetic freak” like the arm wrestler Denis Cyplenkov are not 10 inches. According to www.xsportnews.com, they are 9.4 inches (23.8cm).

Conclusion: To find a fairly lean man who is 5’5”/165.1cm tall and has a 10-inch wrist, one would have to search for a really long time. Maybe forever.

Hypothesis

Let’s assume that Jeff Nippard is 100% natural despite the significant amount of muscle mass that he is carrying.

What would hypothetically happen if this man decides to do a few mild steroid cycles and gain 20-25lbs (9-11kg) of muscle mass?

If Nippard was to do that, his stats would upgrade to:

Bodyweight: 163lbs (starting weight) + 20lbs (gain from a few mild steroid cycles) = 183lbs/83kg

Bodyfat: 8.4% (I will keep it unchanged although his body fat percentage should technically drop if his gains are lean.)

In that situation, the FFMI of Nippard would rise to about 28.

via: https://www.calculators.org/health/ffmi.php

In comparison:

Serge Nubret had an FFMI of 25.7 at 6’@200@5% body fat.

Arnold Schwarzenegger had an FFMI of 28.6 at 6’2@235lbs@5% body fat.

Franco Columbo had an FFMI of 29.2 at 5’5”@185lbs@5% body fat.

In conclusion, Nippard is a few cycles away from acquiring an FFMI that would classify him as an elite bodybuilder during the 70s when steroids were legal and therefore widely available and used.

In case you don’t know, a cycle or two don’t make a professional bodybuilder – neither today nor in the 70s. It takes more time in the drug zone to acquire that much mass.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bjn6NRhFgIc/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

This is how Nippard looked at 170lbs – a bodyweight that is considered high for his height.

He Is Big Because He Is Short

I have never heard an argument as illogical as this one, but since it seems to be the dominant opinion in regards to shorter bodybuilders, I have to address it.

Where is the logic behind this statement? Being short does not make you a hypertrophy machine. A 5’5” man does not possess better muscle building faculties than a man who is 6’2” tall. The only difference between the two is that the short man will have to gain less weight to fill out his frame. However, this doesn’t mean that the short man can build more mass than the tall man, nor does it mean that short men have a higher natural potential.

If the statement is modified to ”he looks big because he is short”, it would make a little more sense. Nonetheless, even a man who is 5’9”-5’10” tall would look like he lifts if he was to borrow the lean body mass of Nippard.

Bottom line: Being short does not make you better at building muscle. It makes you more efficient. Still, the world is full of short ”hardgainers” who would be lucky to break 130lbs/59kg at 5’5”/165cm in a lean condition.

How Strong Is Jeff Nippard?

In an interview from October 2015, Nippard reveals that he had the following lifts:

Squat: 446lbs/202.72kg
Bench: 353lbs/160.45kg
Deadlift: 451lbs/205kg

The interview states that the bodyweight of Nippard at the time was 155lbs/70.45kg. If that’s the case, the lifts above amount to:

Squat: 2.87 BW
Bench:
2.27 BW
Deadlift:
2.9 BW

Those lifts represent world-class strength. Finding a natural who can match them would be a hard task even for a bounty hunter.

Does Jeff Nippard Have The 3D Photoshop Look?

Yes. In some photos, he looks too big for his frame and showcases 3D deltoids. Naturals have a hard time creating an effect combining fullness, leanness and width.

Jeff Is Natural Because He Is Drug Tested

As a natural bodybuilder, Nippard is subject to random drug testing. He passes the tests and therefore he should be natural.

In a perfect world, this statement would be correct. But most people know better. There are ways to pass a drug test without being natural. Elite athletes in all sports do it.

A Man Is Known By The Company He Keeps

A man is known by the company he keeps. Millionaires hang out with millionaires. Beggars hang out with beggars. Fake natties hang out with fake natties. 

That does not mean, of course, that every single person in a video overloaded with juicers is on steroids, but there is a very high chance that the main characters are sharing more than the love for lifting and healthy eating.

Jeff Nippard has done collaborations with obvious juicers such as John Meadows.

In conclusion

Factors suggesting that Jeff is natural.

1. He tells you that he is natural.

2. He has a deep understanding of the human body and lifting. (Training programs do not have the capacity to break the natty limits, for they are incapable of stimulating an unnatural synthesis of muscle protein.)

3. The FFMI calculator is flawed.

4. He is drug tested. (drug tests in bodybuilding are the easiest to pass)

Factors suggesting that Nippard is not natural.

1. He is simply too big and lean for his height.

2. He has the 3D look.

4. He has insane strength.

In short, there is a very high chance that he isn’t a lifetime natural.

One thing is certain, though. Most people don’t have the capacity to build that mass 100% naturally.

19 comments

  1. Joshua

    truth seeker, is it possible to reach the genetic limit for a natty, train each muscle ONCE a week?
    not a single fullbody session, but something like.. upper on monday and lower on friday.

    It seems that with the modern PUBMED DOCS, you have to train always more. Always with more volume.. more frequency..
    ”Without 20 sets x muscle group you are losing shoulders like watermelons”
    ”without 2-3 session x muscle each week you are leaving gains on the table”

    Right or not? make an article about that Man!

    1. Truth Seeker Post author

      It’s possible, but realistically, you will pass through many routines for various reasons – school, work, boredom, joint pain…etc.

  2. Alberto

    I fully agree with you on 3 things:

    1) Nippard is very likely on steroids. I believe he absolutely is and that coming off cycle would significantly damage his social media presence & suscribers (I know you didn’t explicitly say that but I wouldn’t blame you at all for believing the same).

    2) A short man doesn’t have special muscle advantages over a tall man.

    3) A normal 5’5 guy who is natty and not a genetic superfreak or a juicer will not go past 130 lbs in a very lean state. I’m also 5’5 and hover around 140-145 lbs while lifting progressively for 3 years. I consider myself lean but realistically speaking, I would need to lower my weight below 130 lbs to reach single digit body fat.

    Thank you for the great article.

    Best regards,
    from a long-time lurker.

    1. Jamie

      Your 3rd point is correct, im an even shorter guy (161cms) and at the moment hovering around 72kgs and that would be around 15% body fat for me to get into the single digits i would need to drop down to at least 63-64 kgs! Jeff Nippard is around my weight now and lean and swole AF!

  3. jimjohnson

    ok..i have not the read article yet….because right away looking at his picture 100% not natural….no maths numbers needed….

    Naturals simply can never have that much muscle…end of

  4. rick singh

    He does look like a steroid user. he probably does oral steroids to avoid becoming a avid juicehead. It is impossible to eat healthy diet and caloric deficit and maintain his strength and mucle belly fullness. Majority of natties are better off being on an permanent lean bulk with days of IF and cutting carbs and doing cardio. If natties want to gain size limit cardio and eat then spend later months fasting and incorporating cardio.

  5. joe santus

    Heheh…you and I may differ about the date at which bodybuilders began experimenting with anabolic steroids, TRUTHSEEKER, but even with my conclusion that none used even testosterone until 1951, the practical outcome remains the same for us for any bodybuilder post-1950: “If someone carries that much mass at that low of bodyfat, assume steroids until proven otherwise.”

    1. joe santus

      Therefore:

      1) He’s such a rare genetic anomaly that no other guy should point to him as an example of what can be achieved without PEDS, since virtually no other guy can achieve results like that PED-free.

      ….and/or…

      2) He’s careful not to explicitly explain what he means by “superior genetics”, because he knows his “superior genetics” are “genetics with superior response to PEDs”.

    2. twp

      I say he is cycling low doses of test and anavar to avoid bloating. Something like 200 mg/wk test and 20-30mg/day anavar will give you some mass and strength over your natty limit, but not too much to obvious for everyone that you cycle.

    1. Jai

      You foolishness is off the charts
      . But yess.. u cud become a lawyer because you have the unique ability of attempting to convince people that even shit can smell good….
      Your arguments sound kindergarten like to me because I’ve done courses on steroids and can spot one instantly…
      But your pathetic attempts to make him look natural are really laughable….

  6. JonnyDeath

    It’s far more likely the BMI simply isn’t accurate having seen enough photos and watched enough videos of him.
    I’ll wager he’s 5’3 or 4 in bare feet not 5’5 or 6.
    He’s lean enough to exploit modern photographic equipment, techniques and exaggerate mass through tried and true setups.
    In casual video shots and photos he’s not the freakish monster as depicted but rather in scale, the same size as millions of us, in scale for height variation, not taking drugs.
    His competition numbers are very good for a natural, not superb, and less than mediocre for someone taking drugs regardless of height.

    I tend to think people blown away by him and supporting him are just like their counterparts insisting he’s on drugs; guys with absolutely terrible genetics.
    On a 6′ frame and lifetime vegetarian diet I’ve matched his size to scale doing calisthenics and resistance bands and can say this about a heap of people well known in social media. My training on point but without being professional level has gotten my arms to 18″ and I am confident I can hit AT LEAST 20 naturally if I focus more and adhere to a strict program.

    Bottom line is I just think he’s extremely photogenic, has a very well balanced physique head to toe and minds his diet well enough that 2 or 3 days of reduced calories is all he needs to produce the sensational, glamorous fitness model photos.
    The only ground I ever see for a lot of these arguments is the round look rather than flat mass which is sometimes an indicator and that body fat is so low with a shredded look.
    So what?
    Fast for 5 days at peak of natural building you’ll get the same photo and video effect.

    1. Seamus Flannigan

      I’d ask for pics to support your outrageous claims of 18 inch arms with the potential to hit at least 20, but we both know how pointless that would be.

      (and L fucking OL at your claim that 2.3 BW bench press is only “less than mediocre)

      God this site seems to bring out the worst keyboard warriors.

  7. Jesse

    More proof exercise “science” experts shouldn’t write until they acquire the actual expertise.
    This is why the whole article is invalid:
    “Both metrics should be factual since the first is shown on an electronic scale whereas the second one is based on a DEXA scan.

    The DEXA scan is a very accurate and effective way to register body fat and lean mass distribution throughout the body. It is “trusted by elite sports labs and research facilities”. In short, it’s the gold standard.”

    This is simply not true. DEXA is not the gold standard for measuring body fat in exercise research (maybe by bodybuilders though!). This is the four compartment model, while DEXA is a type of two compartment model. How does DEXA stack up against the four compartment model? Not too well; studies have the margin of error for the body fat of an individual at 4% to as high as 10% (https://weightology.net/the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-part-6-dexa/).This mean Jeff could be and probably is, well above 8% body fat in the 10-13% body fat range which would give him a FFMI below 25 in the natty range (and this is what he claims on his facebook, to be 5’5, 165 and around 10% with a FFM of 24.7). Also keep in mind neither DEXA or the four compartment models are measures of body fat. You can’t measure body fat without stripping off the fat of a corpse and calculating its mass as a percentage of the corpses total mass. Both the four compartment model and DEXA are predictions of your body fat based on markers like water retention etc, hence the high margin of error.

    In short, Jeff is within the natty range of FFMI, has a deep understanding of exercise and works hard to look the way he does. You should take down or at least severely alter this article to reflect the fact it was based on faulty premises.

Leave a Reply to Jesse Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *