The stand density index, one of the most important metrics for managing site occupancy, is generally calculated from empirical data by means of a coefficient derived from the ''self-thinning rule'' or stand density model. I undertook an exploratory analysis of model fitting based on simulated data. I discuss the use of the logarithmic transformation (i.e., linearisation) of the relationship between the total number of trees per hectare (N) and the quadratic mean diameter of the stand (QMD). I compare the classic method used by Reineke (J Agric Res 46:627-638, 1933), i.e., linear OLS model fitting after logarithmic transformation of data, with the ''pure'' powerlaw model, which represents the native mathematical structure of this relationship. I evaluated the results according to the correlation between N and QMD. Linear OLS and nonlinear fitting agreed in the estimation of coefficients only for highly correlated (between -1 and -0.85) or poorly correlated ([ -0.39) datasets. At average correlation values (i.e., between -0.75 and -0.4), it is probable that for practical applications, the differences were relevant, especially concerning the key coefficient for Reineke's stand density index calculation. This introduced a non-negligible bias in SDI calculation. The linearised log-log model always estimated a lower slope term than did the exponent of the nonlinear function except at the extremes of the correlation range. While the logarithmic transformation is mathematically correct and always equivalent to a nonlinear model in case of prediction of the dependent variable, the difference detected in my studies between the two methods (i.e., coefficient estimation) was directly related to the correlation between N and QMD in each simulated/disturbed dataset. In general, given the power law as the ''natural'' structure of the N versus QMD relationship, the nonlinear model is preferred, with a logarithmic transformation used only in the case of violation of parametric assumptions (e.g. data distributed non-normally).