Do Muscle Mass and Body Fat Differ Between Elite and Amateur Natural Physique Athletes on Competition Day? A Preliminary, Cross-Sectional, Anthropometric Study.

ABSTRACT: González-Cano, H, Martín-Olmedo, JJ, Baz-Valle, E, Contreras, C, Schoenfeld, BJ, García-Ramos, A, Jiménez-Martínez, P, and Alix-Fages, C. Do muscle mass and body fat differ between elite and amateur natural physique athletes on competition day? A preliminary, cross-sectional, anthropometric study. J Strength Cond Res 38(5): 951-956, 2024-Natural physique athletes strive to achieve low body fat levels while promoting muscle mass hypertrophy for competition day. This study aimed to compare the anthropometric characteristics of natural amateur (AMA) and professional (PRO) World Natural Bodybuilding Federation (WNBF) competitors. Eleven male natural physique athletes (6 PRO and 5 AMA; age = 24.8 ± 2.3 years) underwent a comprehensive anthropometric evaluation following the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry protocol within a 24-hour time frame surrounding the competition. The 5-component fractionation method was used to obtain the body composition profile of the muscle, adipose, bone, skin, and residual tissues. Five physique athletes exceeded the 5.2 cutoff point of muscle-to-bone ratio (MBR) for natural athletes. Professional physique athletes were older than AMA physique athletes (p = 0.05), and they also presented larger thigh girths (p = 0.005) and bone mass (p = 0.019) compared with AMA physique athletes. Although no statistically significant between-group differences were observed in body mass, height, or body fat levels, PRO physique athletes exhibited a higher body mass index (BMI; AMA: 24.45 ± 0.12; PRO: 25.52 ± 1.01; p = 0.048), lean body mass (LBM; AMA: 64.49 ± 2.35; PRO: 69.80 ± 3.78; p = 0.024), fat-free mass (FFM; AMA: 71.23 ± 3.21; PRO: 76.52 ± 4.31; p = 0.05), LBM index (LBMI; AMA: 20.65 ± 0.52; PRO: 21.74 ± 0.85; p = 0.034), and fat-free mass index index (FFMI; AMA: 22.80 ± 0.22; PRO: 23.83 ± 0.90; p = 0.037) compared with AMA physique athletes. These findings highlight the unique characteristics and anthropometric differences between PRO and AMA natural physique athletes on competition day, emphasizing the significance of age, thigh girth, bone mass, BMI, LBM, FFM, and FFMI in distinguishing these 2 groups. Based on our findings, the established boundaries for muscle mass in natural physique athletes, based on FFMI and MBR, warrant reconsideration.

Dietary supplementation habits in international natural bodybuilders during pre-competition.

Bodybuilding is characterized by high-rates of sport supplementation. This is the first study to compare the supplementation patterns of winners (WB) and non-winners (NWB) among international natural bodybuilders during contest preparation. Fifty-six natural bodybuilders (5 women) (age = 28.85 ± 8.03 years; final body mass = 71.50 ± 10.28 kg), 19 WB (athletes who had achieved victory in an official natural bodybuilding championship at least once) and 37 NWB (athletes who never achieved victory), from 18 countries (55.36% from Spain) responded to this cross-sectional online survey related to their nutritional habits, strategies and supplementation practices. WB were significantly older (p = 0.024), completed more competitive seasons (p = 0.027) and participated in more competitions in the last contest year (p = 0.011). There were no significant differences between WB and NWB for years training for bodybuilding (p = 0.055), weeks of dieting for competition (p = 0.392), and body weight at the start (p = 0.553) and end (p = 0.330) of the season. Beverage and supplement consumption, purchasing patterns, and information sources did not differ between groups (p > 0.05). In conclusion, natural bodybuilding WB tended to be older and had more competitive experience, but shared similar supplementation protocols to NWB. Athletes' supplementation patterns were influenced by different sources of information. However, these natural bodybuilders mainly purchased their supplements through the internet without guidance from a coach or dietitian.

Effects of Mental Fatigue Induced by Stroop Task and by Social Media Use on Resistance Training Performance, Movement Velocity, Perceived Exertion, and Repetitions in Reserve: A Randomized and Double-Blind Crossover Trial.

This study aimed to explore the effects of mental fatigue (MF) induced by an incongruent Stroop task (ST) and by using social media (SM) compared to watching a documentary (control) on dynamic resistance training. Twenty-one resistance-trained males attended three identical experimental sessions with the only difference of the randomized cognitive task (ST, SM, or control). Each session consisted of (a) baseline MF and motivation visual analogue scale responses, (b) cognitive task, (c) postvisual analogue scale responses, (d) warm-up, and (e) resistance training based on three sets of bench press at 65% of one-repetition maximum till concentric failure. Number of repetitions, ratings of perceived exertion, mean velocity of repetitions, and three repetitions in reserve estimated by subjects were recorded for each set. Both ST (p < .001) and SM (p = .010) effectively induced MF, but only ST impaired the number of repetitions performed in Set 2 (p = .036) and generated higher-than-normal levels of ratings of perceived exertion even reaching significant differences compared to SM in Set 1 (p = .005). However, SM also affected neuromuscular performance by impairing movement velocity in Set 1 (p = .003). The ability of estimating three repetitions in reserve or motivation was not affected by any condition (p range = .362-.979). MF induced by ST impaired the number of repetitions performed, what seems to be mediated by higher-than-normal levels of ratings of perceived exertion. Besides, SM also impaired the ability to apply force against 65% of one-repetition maximum measured by movement velocity.

Mental Fatigue From Smartphone Use or Stroop Task Does Not Affect Bench Press Force-Velocity Profile, One-Repetition Maximum, or Vertical Jump Performance.

The aim of this study was to explore the effects of mental fatigue from smartphone use and Stroop task on bench press force-velocity (F-V) profile, one-repetition maximum (1RM), and countermovement jump (CMJ) performance. Twenty-five trained subjects (age = 25.8 ± 5.7 years) completed three sessions separated by 1 week following a randomized double-blinded crossover design. Each session consisted of F-V relationship, 1RM, and CMJ measurements after performing 30 min of control, social media, or Stroop task. Perceived mental fatigue and motivation were recorded. Mental fatigue, motivation, CMJ height, bench press 1RM, and F-V profile variables (maximal force, maximal velocity, and maximal power) were compared between interventions. Significant differences were found for mental fatigue between interventions (p ≤ .001). Both ST (p ≤ .001) and SM (p = .007) induced higher mental fatigue than control. However, no significant differences between interventions were observed for any other variable (p = .056-.723). The magnitude of the differences between interventions ranged from negligible to small (effect sizes ≤ 0.24). These results suggest that although both ST and SM were effective to induce mental fatigue, neither ST nor SM affected CMJ performance, bench press 1RM, or any variable of the F-V profile compared with the control task.