The role of age in the physiological adaptations and psychological responses in bikini-physique competitor contest preparation: a case series

Abstract

The increased popularity of the bikini-physique competitions has not translated to greater research identifying the influence of age on adaptations during contest preparation. The purpose of this case series was to observe how age may influence the adaptations normally seen during preparation and the exploration of newer protocols to address adaptations more relative to the judging standards. Over a 16-week pre-contest preparation, a 32-y bikini competitor (BC) and 44-y master’s bikini competitor (MBC) visited the laboratory bi-weekly to observe changes in body fat mass (BF), lean body mass (LBM), bone mineral density (BMD), total body water (TBW); exploratory measures of deltoid cross-sectional area (DeltCSA), gluteus maximus muscle thickness (GMMT), and subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness (SAT); reproductive hormones estradiol (E2), luteinizing hormone (LH), and energy balance hormones triiodothyronine (T3), leptin and ghrelin; hydration status during contest preparation and the week of competition; resting metabolic rate (RMR); psychometric data related to perceived anxiety, stress, and body image were assessed. No differences between BC and MBC were observed in BF, LBM, BMD, and TBW. Both competitors showed a small loss in LBM. Both BC and MBC showed a contrasting increase in DeltCSA and a loss in GMMT. MBC showed to be slightly more dehydrated (1.025 vs 1.021 g·mL− 1) than BC. Both competitors maintained a euhydration status the day of the competition. No time differences were found between BC and MBC during RMR. BC showed a higher mean difference RMR compared to MBC (2.66 ± 0.75 kcal·kgLBM− 1·d− 1). MBC showed a higher mean difference in LH concentration (84.6 ± 6.01 IU·L− 1), which may be explained by perimenopausal status. MBC had a higher mean difference concentration of leptin (2.51 ± 0.24 ng·mL− 1·kgFM− 1), which was unperturbed by fat loss may be interrelated LH. BC self-reported a higher mean energy intake (15.07 ± 3.43 kcal·kgLBM− 1·d− 1) and higher aerobic training volume (93.26 ± 40.68 min·d). BC and MBC showed similar composition changes, slightly differing metabolic rates, and differing hormonal LH and leptin responses. This finding is in contrast to previous work showing both LH inhibition and leptin diurnal disturbance in younger, female athletes with low energy availability. The exploratory measures may have some benefit for bikini-physique competitors related to the judging criteria. Age did not seem to play a role in contest preparation adaptations.

Alterations in Measures of Body Composition, Neuromuscular Performance, Hormonal Levels, Physiological Adaptations, and Psychometric Outcomes during Preparation for Physique Competition: A Systematic Review of Case Studies

“…Despite the well-established health-related issues with low energy availability, none of the three studies that estimated changes in BMD showed a loss of bone mass during pre-contest preparation [ 15 , 16 , 18 ]. The studies comprised a total of four athletes (one male, three females) and used DXA to calculate BMD, which is considered the gold standard for assessment [ 30 ].…”

“…Evidence suggests that a prolonged energy deficit, combined with high levels of exercise and physical activity, can affect anabolic and catabolic hormone levels. In this review, five studies ( n = 8; male = 6; female = 2) reported on testosterone [ 5 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]; four reported on leptin ( n = 5; male = 2; female = 3) [ 16 , 17 , 20 , 21 ]; three reported on ghrelin ( n = 4, male = 2; female = 2) [ 16 , 17 , 21 ]; three reported on cortisol ( n = 3, male = 2; female = 1) [ 17 , 20 , 21 ]; and two reported on estrogen ( n = 3, female = 3) [ 16 , 20 ].…”

After the spotlight: are evidence-based recommendations for refeeding post-contest energy restriction available for physique athletes? A scoping review

“…Longstrom et al observed one female athlete who increased calorie intake post-contest by 97% coinciding with a 22% increase in fat mass and restoration of physiological function within 10 weeks [ 33 ]. A structured gradual increase in energy intake was a strategy observed in 42% ( n = 5) of case studies where athletes followed various protocols to restore pre-contest baseline body fat percentages or to restore energy availability [ 16 , 28 , 33 , 34 , 37 ]. These protocols involved increasing energy availability in a stepwise manner with the target of increasing body mass by 1% per week [ 16 ], or by increasing calorie intake gradually, as seen by Pardue et al where carbohydrate and fat intake were increased by 10–30 g and/or 4–10 g, respectively, each week of the recovery phase up to five months post-contest [ 34 ].…”

“…Psychological aspects were observed in five case studies using a range of questionnaires, such as the Eating Attitude 26-item questionnaire (EAT-26), the Profile of Mood States questionnaire (POMS), and other body image and anxiety scales, such as the Body Appreciation Scale (BAS-2), Social Physique Anxiety Scale (SPAS), and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) [ 8 , 28 , 35 ]. Anxiety, weight phobia, compulsive self-monitoring, body image concern, and total mood disturbance was generally greatest immediately post-contest and within the first 4 to 8 weeks post-contest [ 8 , 28 , 33 , 35 ]. Psychometric scores trended toward baseline within 6 months post-contest [ 33 , 35 ].…”

“…This weight overshooting appears to be associated with the restoration of hormonal balance and metabolic function of the athlete [ 7 , 12 , 26 , 27 ]. However, rapid changes in body composition post-contest can affect competitors not only physiologically but also psychologically due to unwanted increases in fat mass [ 7 , 17 , 26 , 28 ]. Hence, adequate dietary interventions and recommendations to guide post-contest recovery are imperative to support athlete physical and psychological health.…”