School of Pharmacy and Life Science, Robert Gordon University, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen, AB10 7AQ, UK.
Sheffield Hallam University, Howard Street, Sheffield, S1 1WB, UK.
J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2019 Aug 22;16(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s12970-019-0302-y.
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.
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.
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.
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.
为了备战比赛，健美运动员采用了以下策略：能量限制、抗阻训练、心血管运动、等长“摆姿势”和补充剂。职业（PRO）自然健美运动员的队列提供了有关这些策略如何被精英运动员实施的见解，而这些策略在科学文献中并未被记录。
47 名参赛者（33 名男性（8 名 PRO，25 名业余（AMA），14 名女性（5 名 PRO，9 名 AMA）参加了研究。所有 PRO 都有资格与无兴奋剂运动员联盟（DFAC）竞争，所有 AMA 都是从英国自然健美联合会（BNBF）招募的。这些组织的运动员接受测谎，并按照世界反兴奋剂机构的规定进行药物测试。我们报告了一项在 BNBF 资格赛和 DFAC 和世界自然健美联合会决赛中无兴奋剂健美运动员的横断面研究结果。参与者完成了一份 34 项问卷，评估了三个时间点（开始、中间和结束）比赛准备期间的饮食摄入。参与者记录了他们在 24 小时内的食物摄入量，以克和/或份数记录。然后比较了 PRO 和 AMA 运动员的饮食摄入量。重复测量方差分析用于测试营养摄入是否随时间变化，以及与分组的关联。
男性 PRO 报告的健美经验明显多于 AMA（PRO：12.3 +/- 9.2，AMA：2.4 +/- 1.4 年）（p < 0.05）。男性 PRO 每周减轻的体重较少（PRO：0.5 +/- 0.1，AMA：0.7 +/- 0.2%，p < 0.05），并且报告的节食周数更多（PRO：28.1 +/- 8.1，AMA：21.0 +/- 9.4 周，P = 0.06）。还记录了碳水化合物和能量的显著差异（p < 0.05），以及男性 PRO（2.0 +/- 5.5 卡路里）和 AMA（-3.4 +/- 5.5 卡路里）之间的估计能量不足（EED）差异（p = 0.03）。
PRO 运动员使用的时间更长的饮食和更缓慢的体重减轻可能导致 EED 低于 AMA。较慢的体重减轻可能是在能量不足期间维持能量供应和肌肉质量的有效策略。这些发现需要证实，但会引起健美运动员和教练的兴趣。
