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.
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.
Bodybuilders utilize peaking strategies in a bid to fine-tune their aesthetics for competition day. The most prevalent peaking strategies utilized by natural bodybuilders are unreported in the current literature. Eighty-one (M-59, F-22) natural bodybuilders were recruited from competitions during the 2016 and 2017 British Natural Bodybuilder Federation seasons. Competitors completed a 34-item questionnaire designed to investigate peaking and contest day strategies. The questionnaire listed commonly utilized peaking strategies and provided additional space for qualitative information. Analysis of the data indicated that carbohydrate (CHO), water, and sodium manipulation were the most commonly utilized peaking strategies. The consumption of high glycemic index CHO was the most common competition day strategy. Only 6.2% of competitors reported following their regular diet the week prior to competition. The CHO manipulation strategies followed were similar to classical CHO loading, whereby bodybuilders attempt to maximize muscle glycogen concentrations. Furthermore, bodybuilders attempted to remove superfluous water by exploiting the diuretic/polyuria effect associated with water loading/restriction. The potentially deleterious effects of peaking on bodybuilders’ health is considered and the efficacy of these strategies to enhance appearance is discussed. The findings of the present investigation are likely to be of interest to bodybuilders and their coaches.
Background: Citrulline malate (CM) is purported to buffer lactic acid, enhance oxygen delivery, and attenuate muscle soreness. Anaerobic exercise trials with CM have produced conflicting results. Objective: The aim of the current investigation was to test the efficacy of CM on resistance training (RT) with the hypothesis that CM would improve performance. Design: A double-blind, counterbalanced , randomised control trial was utilised to assess the effects of CM on RT. 19 subjects (8 female) (25.7 ± 7.7 years), regularly engaged in RT consumed either 8 g of CM (1.1 : 1 ratio) or a placebo (6 g citric acid). Subjects attempted to perform a German Volume Training (GVT) protocol comprising 10 sets of 10 repetitions of barbell curls at 80 % of their one repetition maximum. Results: Repeated ANOVA suggested no effect of CM on RT performance (treatment × time × order p = 0.217). There was no difference (p = 0.320) in the total number of reps over the ten sets (CM median = 57, IQR 45 to 73; placebo median = 61, IQR 51 to 69). Blood lactate and creatine kinase did not differ between CM and placebo (p > 0.05). Finally, total muscle soreness was reduced significantly in CM compared to placebo (treatment × time × order p = 0.004). Conclusions: These results require corroboration; an ergogenic benefit is yet to be established and weight trainers should exercise caution when assessing the efficacy of CM. Future research should focus on the potential effects of loading doses of CM.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.