BackgroundCompetitive bodybuilders employ a combination of resistance training, cardiovascular exercise, calorie reduction, supplementation regimes and peaking strategies in order to lose fat mass and maintain fat free mass. Although recommendations exist for contest preparation, applied research is limited and data on the contest preparation regimes of bodybuilders are restricted to case studies or small cohorts. Moreover, the influence of different nutritional strategies on competitive outcome is unknown.MethodsFifty-one competitors (35 male and 16 female) volunteered to take part in this project. The British Natural Bodybuilding Federation (BNBF) runs an annual national competition for high level bodybuilders; competitors must qualify by winning at a qualifying events or may be invited at the judge’s discretion. Competitors are subject to stringent drug testing and have to undergo a polygraph test. Study of this cohort provides an opportunity to examine the dietary practices of high level natural bodybuilders. We report the results of a cross-sectional study of bodybuilders competing at the BNBF finals. Volunteers completed a 34-item questionnaire assessing diet at three time points. At each time point participants recorded food intake over a 24-h period in grams and/or portions. Competitors were categorised according to contest placing. A “placed” competitor finished in the top 5, and a “Non-placed” (DNP) competitor finished outside the top 5. Nutrient analysis was performed using Nutritics software. Repeated measures ANOVA and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were used to test if nutrient intake changed over time and if placing was associated with intake.ResultsMean preparation time for a competitor was 22 ± 9 weeks. Nutrient intake of bodybuilders reflected a high-protein, high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet. Total carbohydrate, protein and fat intakes decreased over time in both male and female cohorts (P < 0.05). Placed male competitors had a greater carbohydrate intake at the start of contest preparation (5.1 vs 3.7 g/kg BW) than DNP competitors (d = 1.02, 95% CI [0.22, 1.80]).ConclusionsGreater carbohydrate intake in the placed competitors could theoretically have contributed towards greater maintenance of muscle mass during competition preparation compared to DNP competitors. These findings require corroboration, but will likely be of interest to bodybuilders and coaches.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12970-018-0209-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Due to the potential anti-inflammatory properties of fish-derived long chain n-3 fatty acids, it has been suggested that athletes should regularly consume fish oils-although evidence in support of this recommendation is not clear. While fish oils can positively modulate immune function, it remains possible that, due to their high number of double bonds, there may be concurrent increases in lipid peroxidation. The current study aims to investigate the effect of fish oil supplementation on exercise-induced markers of oxidative stress and muscle damage. Twenty males underwent a 6-week double-blind randomized placebo-controlled supplementation trial involving two groups (fish oil or placebo). After supplementation, participants undertook 200 repetitions of eccentric knee contractions. Blood samples were taken presupplementation, postsupplementation, immediately, 24, 48, and 72 hr postexercise and muscle soreness/maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) assessed. There were no differences in creatine kinase, protein carbonyls, endogenous DNA damage, muscle soreness or MVC between groups. Plasma thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) were lower (p < .05) at 48 and 72 hr post exercise and H2O2 stimulated DNA damage was lower (p < .05) immediately postexercise in the fish oil, compared with the control group. The current study demonstrates that fish oil supplementation reduces selected markers of oxidative stress after a single bout of eccentric exercise.

Background To prepare for competition, bodybuilders employ strategies based around: energy restriction, resistance training, cardiovascular exercise, isometric “posing”, and supplementation. Cohorts of professional (PRO) natural bodybuilders offer insights into how these strategies are implemented by elite competitors, and are undocumented in the scientific literature. Methods Forty-seven competitors (33 male (8 PRO, 25 amateur (AMA), 14 female (5 PRO, 9 AMA) participated in the study. All PROs were eligible to compete with the Drug Free Athletes Coalition (DFAC), and all AMAs were recruited from the British Natural Bodybuilding Federation (BNBF). Competitors in these organisations are subject to a polygraph and are drug tested in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Agency. We report the results of a cross-sectional study of drug free bodybuilders competing at BNBF qualifying events, and the DFAC and World Natural Bodybuilding Federation finals. Participants completed a 34-item questionnaire assessing dietary intake at three time points (start, middle and end) of competition preparation. Participants recorded their food intake over a 24-h period in grams and/or portions. Dietary intakes of PRO and AMA competitors were then compared. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to test if nutrient intake changed over time, and for associations with division. Results Male PROs reported significantly ( p < 0.05) more bodybuilding experience than AMAs (PRO: 12.3 +/− 9.2, AMA: 2.4 +/− 1.4 yrs). Male PROs lost less body mass per week (PRO: 0.5 +/− 0.1, AMA: 0.7 +/− 0.2%, p < 0.05), and reported more weeks dieting (PRO: 28.1 +/− 8.1, AMA: 21.0 +/− 9.4 wks, P = 0.06). Significant differences ( p < 0.05) of carbohydrate and energy were also recorded, as well as a difference ( p = 0.03) in the estimated energy deficit (EED), between male PRO (2.0 +/− 5.5 kcal) and AMA (− 3.4 +/− 5.5 kcal) competitors. Conclusions Longer diets and slower weight loss utilized by PROs likely contributed towards a lower EED compared to the AMAs. Slower weight loss may constitute an effective strategy for maintaining energy availability and muscle mass during an energy deficit. These findings require corroboration, but will interest bodybuilders and coaches. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12970-019-0302-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundUse of supplements to aid performance is common practice amongst recreationally active individuals, including those without a sufficient evidence base. This investigation sought to assess whether acute supplementation with 8 g of citrulline malate (CM) (1.11: 1 ratio) would improve anaerobic performance.MethodsA randomised double blind placebo control trial was employed, using a counterbalanced design. We recruited recreationally active men and women to take part in an isokinetic chair protocol, based on German Volume Training (GVT) whereby participants attempted to perform 10 sets of 10 repetitions against a force representing 70% of their peak concentric force.ResultsThe number of repetitions achieved over the course of the GVT was 94.0 ± 7.9 and 90.9 ± 13.9 for placebo and CM respectively. There was no significant difference between the placebo and CM treatment for number of repetitions (P = 0.33), isometric (P = 0.60), concentric (P = 0.38), or eccentric (P = 0.65) peak force following the GVT. Total muscle soreness was significantly higher in the CM compared to the placebo treatment following the GVT protocol over 72 h (P = 0.01); although this was not accompanied by a greater workload/number of repetitions in the CM group.ConclusionsWe conclude that an acute dose of CM does not significantly affect anaerobic performance using an isokinetic chair in recreational active participants. Practical implications include precaution in recommending CM supplementation. Coaches and athletes should be aware of the disparity between the chemical analyses of the products reviewed in the present investigation versus the manufacturers’ claims.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12970-018-0245-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.