A balanced diet and a well-organized training plan is at the core of this sport. Natural bodybuilding was created as a counter-movement to conventional bodybuilding.
The focus is still on building muscle , but only in a natural way, meaning no performance-enhancing substances such as anabolic steroids. Anabolic steroids are artificial derivatives of the male sex hormone testosterone, which is one of the primary drivers of muscle growth. Of course, there are many natural bodybuilders who participate in competitions and pursue the aesthetic goals that go along with them.
The core goal of natural bodybuilding is to challenge and support yourself physically and mentally in order to improve your overall quality of life. No matter how intense your workouts are and how rigorous your nutrition plan is, there are limits to natural muscle growth. But not everyone wants to accept that. According to a national IPED image and performance enhancing drugs study, nearly 1 million people in the UK have used these substances, and most are doing it for aesthetic reasons 1.
In the conventional bodybuilding scene, this is a common and accepted practice. Doping with substances such as anabolic steroids, growth hormones, diuretics, or stimulants e. Doping results in drastic changes to your body over the long term and sometimes has significant side effects.
Just anabolic steroids alone increase your risk of strokes, heart attacks, liver problems, and mental illness 2. They can only use supplements on the Cologne List of doping-free sports nutrition. These have been analyzed to prove that they present a minimum risk of contamination with banned substances that would show up in drug testing.
This means that professional athletes competing in the drug-free version of bodybuilding or other sports can use them. As a rule, athletes are advised to consume an surplus of calories per kilogram of body weight. In the United States, over amateur natural drug tested bodybuilding contests occurred during and the number of contests is expected to increase in [ 1 ].
Preparation for bodybuilding competition involves drastic reductions in body fat while maintaining muscle mass. This is typically achieved through a decreased caloric intake, intense strength training, and increased cardiovascular exercise. Competitors partake in numerous dietary and supplementation strategies to prepare for a contest. Some have a strong scientific basis; however, many do not.
Therefore, the purpose of this article is to review the scientific literature on topics relevant to nutrition and supplementation for bodybuilding competition preparation. Dietary modifications during the last week to enhance muscle definition and fullness peaking and psychosocial issues will also be covered. As a final note, this paper does not cover training recommendations for natural bodybuilding and the training methodology used will interact with and modify the effects of any nutritional approach.
Each author was assigned a portion of the manuscript to write specific to their area s of expertise. The publications obtained were carefully screened for studies that included healthy humans or humans in a caloric deficit. In addition, author names and reference lists were used for further search of the selected papers for related references. As this review is intended to be an evidence-based guide and the available data relevant to natural bodybuilding is extremely limited, a narrative review style was chosen.
Competitive bodybuilders traditionally follow two to four month diets in which calories are decreased and energy expenditure is increased to become as lean as possible [ 2 — 6 ].
In addition to fat loss, muscle maintenance is of primary concern during this period. To this end, optimal caloric intakes, deficits and macronutrient combinations should be followed while matching the changing needs that occur during competition preparation.
To create weight loss, more energy must be expended than consumed. This can be accomplished by increasing caloric expenditure while reducing caloric intake. The size of this caloric deficit and the length of time it is maintained will determine how much weight is lost. Every pound of pure body fat that is metabolized yields approximately kcals, thus a daily caloric deficit of kcals theoretically results in fat loss of approximately one pound per week if the weight loss comes entirely from body fat [ 7 ].
However, a static mathematical model does not represent the dynamic physiological adaptations that occur in response to an imposed energy deficit [ 8 ]. Therefore, it should be expected that the caloric intake at which one begins their preparation will likely need to be adjusted over time as body mass decreases and metabolic adaptation occurs.
A complete review of metabolic adaptation to dieting in athletes is beyond the scope of this review. However, coaches and competitors are encouraged to read the recent review on this topic by Trexler et al. In determining an appropriate caloric intake, it should be noted that the tissue lost during the course of an energy deficit is influenced by the size of the energy deficit.
While greater deficits yield faster weight loss, the percentage of weight loss coming from lean body mass LBM tends to increase as the size of the deficit increases [ 7 , 13 — 15 ]. In studies of weight loss rates, weekly losses of 1 kg compared to 0. Weekly weight loss rates of 1. In addition, LBM increased on average by 2. Worthy of note, small amounts of LBM were lost among leaner subjects in the faster loss group [ 13 ]. Therefore, weight loss rates that are more gradual may be superior for LBM retention.
At a loss rate of 0. If a competitor is not this lean at the start of the preparation, faster weight loss will be required which may carry a greater risk for LBM loss. In a study of bodybuilders during the twelve weeks before competition, male competitors reduced their caloric intake significantly during the latter half and subsequently lost the greatest amount of LBM in the final three weeks [ 21 ].
Therefore, diets longer than two to four months yielding weight loss of approximately 0. Ample time should be allotted to lose body fat to avoid an aggressive deficit and the length of preparation should be tailored to the competitor; those leaner dieting for shorter periods than those with higher body fat percentages. It must also be taken into consideration that the leaner the competitor becomes the greater the risk for LBM loss [ 14 , 15 ].
As the availability of adipose tissue declines the likelihood of muscle loss increases, thus it may be best to pursue a more gradual approach to weight loss towards the end of the preparation diet compared to the beginning to avoid LBM loss.
Adequate protein consumption during contest preparation is required to support maintenance of LBM. Athletes require higher protein intakes to support increased activity and strength athletes benefit from higher intakes to support growth of LBM [ 5 , 22 — 28 ].
Some researchers suggest these requirements increase further when athletes undergo energy restriction [ 13 , 16 , 22 , 28 — 33 ]. Furthermore, there is evidence that protein requirements are higher for leaner individuals in comparison to those with higher body fat percentages [ 7 , 33 , 34 ].
The collective agreement among reviewers is that a protein intake of 1. However, bodybuilders during their contest preparation period typically perform resistance and cardiovascular training, restrict calories and achieve very lean conditions [ 2 — 6 , 17 — 21 ]. Each of these factors increases protein requirements and when compounded may further increase protein needs [ 33 ]. Therefore, optimal protein intakes for bodybuilders during contest preparation may be significantly higher than existing recommendations.
In support of this notion, Butterfield et al. Celejowa et al. Out of these five, as many as three were in a caloric deficit. The authors concluded that a protein intake of 2—2.
Walberg et al. One group consumed a protein intake of 0. The length of the intervention was only one week, but nonetheless nitrogen losses occurred only in the lower protein group and LBM decreased by a mean of 2. While the high protein group mitigated LBM losses compared to the low protein group, they were not eliminated. A recent study by Mettler et al. The high-protein group lost significantly less LBM 0.
Unlike Walberg et al. While it appears that the 2. In this study, a non-significant trend of greater LBM retention occurred when subjects consumed 1. However, the participants were intentionally prescribed low volume, low intensity resistance training "to minimize the potential of an unaccustomed, anabolic stimulus influencing study outcome measures". Maestu et al. These results when considered alongside the works by Walberg et al. However, it should be noted that this study did not include a low protein control and not all studies show a linear increase in LBM preservation with increases in protein [ 40 ].
Furthermore, two subjects did lose significant amounts of LBM 1. The group as a whole progressively decreased their calories by reducing all three macronutrients throughout the investigation. Thus, the two subjects uniquely increased their proportion of protein, possibly reducing fat and carbohydrate to the point of detriment [ 6 ]. That said it is also plausible that the lost LBM seen by these two subjects was necessary in order to achieve their low levels of body fat.
It is unknown whether or not the lost LBM influenced their competitive outcome and it is possible that had the competitors not been as lean, they may have retained more LBM but also not have placed as well. In a review by Phillips and Van Loon [ 28 ], it is suggested that a protein intake of 1. While this is one of the only recommendations existing that targets athletes during caloric restriction, this recommendation is not given with consideration to bodybuilders performing concurrent endurance and resistance training at very low levels of body fat.
However, the recently published systematic review by Helms et al. Moreover, the authors suggest that the lower the body fat of the individual, the greater the imposed caloric deficit and when the primary goal is to retain LBM, the higher the protein intake within the range of 2.
High carbohydrate diets are typically thought to be the athletic performance standard. However, like protein, carbohydrate intake needs to be customized to the individual. Inadequate carbohydrate can impair strength training [ 41 ] and consuming adequate carbohydrate prior to training can reduce glycogen depletion [ 42 ] and may therefore enhance performance.
While it is true that resistance training utilizes glycogen as its main fuel source [ 43 ], total caloric expenditure of strength athletes is less than that of mixed sport and endurance athletes.
However, in the specific case of a bodybuilder in contest preparation, achieving the necessary caloric deficit while consuming adequate protein and fat would likely not allow consumption at the higher end of this recommendation. Satiety and fat loss generally improve with lower carbohydrate diets; specifically with higher protein to carbohydrate ratios [ 44 — 49 ].
In terms of performance and health, low carbohydrate diets are not necessarily as detrimental as typically espoused [ 50 ].
In a recent review, it was recommended for strength athletes training in a calorically restricted state to reduce carbohydrate content while increasing protein to maximize fat oxidation and preserve LBM [ 28 ]. However, the optimal reduction of carbohydrate and point at which carbohydrate reduction becomes detrimental likely needs to be determined individually.
However, muscular endurance was degraded in the lower carbohydrate group. In a study of athletes taking in the same amount of protein 1. Mettler, et al. Finally, in Pasiakos et al. One key difference between these studies was the highest protein group in Mettler et al.
While performance was not measured, the participants in Pasiakos et al. The difference in training protocols or a nutritionally mediated decrement in training performance could have either or both been components that lead to the greater losses of LBM observed by Pasiakos et al.
While it appears low carbohydrate, high protein diets can be effective for weight loss, a practical carbohydrate threshold appears to exist where further reductions negatively impact performance and put one at risk for LBM losses. In support of this notion, researchers studying bodybuilders during the final 11 weeks of contest preparation concluded that had they increased carbohydrate during the final weeks of their diet they may have mitigated metabolic and hormonal adaptations that were associated with reductions in LBM [ 6 ].
Therefore, once a competitor has reached or has nearly reached the desired level of leanness, it may be a viable strategy to reduce the caloric deficit by an increase in carbohydrate. For example, if a competitor has reached competition body fat levels lacking any visible subcutaneous fat and is losing half a kilogram per week approximately a kcals caloric deficit , carbohydrate could be increased by g, thereby reducing the caloric deficit by kcals in an effort to maintain performance and LBM.
However, it should be noted that like losses of LBM, decrements in performance may not affect the competitive outcome for a bodybuilder.
It is possible that competitors who reach the leanest condition may experience unavoidable drops in performance. The importance of carbohydrate and protein in sports nutrition is often emphasized over that of dietary fat. Subsequently, recommendations typically focus on maintaining adequate fat intake while emphasizing carbohydrate to fuel performance and protein to build and repair LBM.
However, there is evidence that dietary fat influences anabolic hormone concentrations which may be of interest to bodybuilders attempting to maintain LBM while dieting [ 5 , 26 , 51 , 52 ]. However, distinguishing the effects of reducing total dietary fat on hormonal levels from changes in caloric intake and percentages of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids in the diet is difficult [ 51 , 52 , 55 ].
In a study by Volek et al. In a similar study of resistance trained males, correlations were found between testosterone, protein, fat and saturated fat which lead the researchers to conclude that diets too low in fat or too high in protein might impair the hormonal response to training [ 52 ]. Competing bodybuilders must make an obligatory caloric reduction. If a reduction in fat is utilized, it may be possible to attenuate a drop in testosterone by maintaining adequate consumption of saturated fat [ 5 ].
However, a drop in testosterone does not equate to a reduction in LBM. In direct studies of resistance trained athletes undergoing calorically restricted high protein diets, low fat interventions that maintain carbohydrate levels [ 13 , 29 ] appear to be more effective at preventing LBM loses than lower carbohydrate, higher fat approaches [ 32 , 40 ].
These results might indicate that attempting to maintain resistance training performance with higher carbohydrate intakes is more effective for LBM retention than attempting to maintain testosterone levels with higher fat intakes. Body composition and caloric restriction may play greater roles in influencing testosterone levels that fat intake.
During starvation, a reduction in testosterone occurs in normal weight, but not obese, males [ 56 ]. In addition, rate of weight loss may influence testosterone levels. Additionally, an initial drop in testosterone occurred in the first six weeks of contest preparation in a group of drug free bodybuilders despite various macronutrient percentages [ 6 ].
Finally, in a one year case study of a natural competitive bodybuilder, testosterone levels fell to one fourth their baseline values three months into the six month preparation period.
Levels then fully recovered three months into the six month recovery period. Furthermore, the quadrupling of testosterone during the recovery period from its suppressed state back to baseline was accompanied by a 10 kg increase in body mass and a kcal increase in caloric intake. Thus, the collective data indicates that when extremely lean body compositions are attained through extended, relatively aggressive dieting, the caloric deficit and loss of body fat itself may have a greater impact on testosterone than the percentage of calories coming from dietary fat.
While dieting, low carbohydrate diets may degrade performance [ 32 ] and lead to lowered insulin and IGF-1 which appear to be more closely correlated to LBM preservation than testosterone [ 6 ]. Some bodybuilders do use very-low carbohydrate, "ketogenic diets" for contest preparation [ 60 , 61 ].
While these diets have not been sufficiently studied in bodybuilders, some study of ketogenic diets has occurred in resistance trained populations. In an examination of the effects of a 1 week ketogenic diet 5. However, it is difficult to draw conclusions due to the very short term nature of this study and due to an ad libitum implementation of the ketogenic diet.
Thus, it is unclear whether the improvements in body composition and performance can be attributed to the low-carbohydrate and high-fat nature of the diets or rather a decrease in calories and an increase in protein.
At least with regards to weight loss, previous research indicates that the often concomitant increase in protein observed in very low carbohydrate diets may actually be the key to their success [ 63 ]. The only research on strength athletes following ketogenic diets for longer periods is a study of gymnasts in which they were observed to maintain strength performance and lose more body fat after 30 days on a ketogenic diet in comparison to 30 days on a traditional western diet [ 64 ].
Therefore, more study is needed in resistance trained populations and bodybuilders before definitive recommendations can be made to support ketogenic diets. However, the research that does exist challenges traditional views on carbohydrate and anaerobic performance. Despite the common belief that carbohydrate is the sole fuel source for weight training, intramuscular triglyceride is used during short term heavy resistance training [ 65 ] and likely becomes an increasingly viable fuel source for those adapted to high-fat low-carbohydrate diets.
While some might suggest that this implies a ketogenic diet could be a viable option for contest preparation, a trend of decreased performance and impaired maintenance of FFM is associated with lower carbohydrate intakes in the majority of studies included in this review. While it is our contention that the majority of the evidence indicates that very-low carbohydrate diets should be avoided for contest preparation at least until more research is performed , it must be noted that there is a high degree of variability in the way that individuals respond to diets.
Carbohydrate and fat utilization as a percentage of energy expenditure at rest and various intensities has as much as a four-fold difference between individual athletes; which is influenced by muscle fiber-composition, diet, age, training, glycogen levels and genetics [ 66 ]. Additionally, individuals that are more insulin sensitive may lose more weight with higher-carbohydrate low-fat diets while those more insulin resistant may lose more weight with lower-carbohydrate higher-fat diets [ 67 ].
However, there is no evidence of any relationships with bone structure or regional subcutaneous fat distribution with any response to specific macronutrient ratios in bodybuilders or athletic populations. Bodybuilders, like others athletes, most likely operate best on balanced macronutrient intakes tailored to the energy demands of their sport [ 68 ].
In conclusion, while the majority of competitors will respond best to the fat and carbohydrate guidelines we propose, the occasional competitor will undoubtedly respond better to a diet that falls outside of these suggested ranges. Careful monitoring over the course of a competitive career is required to determine the optimal macronutrient ratio for pre-contest dieting. After caloric intake is established based on the time frame before competition [ 69 ], body composition of the athlete [ 14 , 15 , 34 ], and keeping the deficit modest to avoid LBM losses [ 13 , 16 ], macronutrients can be determined within this caloric allotment.
Table 1 provides an overview of these recommendations. If training performance degrades it may prove beneficial to decrease the percentage of calories from dietary fat within these ranges in favor of a greater proportion of carbohydrate. Finally, while outside of the norm, some competitors may find that they respond better to diets that are higher in fat and lower in carbohydrate than recommended in this review. Therefore, monitoring of individual response over a competitive career is suggested.
Traditional nutrient timing guidelines are typically based on the needs of endurance athletes. For example, it is common lore that post-exercise carbohydrate must elicit a substantial glycemic and insulinemic response in order to optimize recovery. The origin of this recommendation can be traced back to , when Ivy et al. Glycogen storage was 2—3 times faster in the immediate condition during four hours post-exercise resulting in greater glycogen storage at four hours. These findings initiated the faster-is-better post-exercise guideline for carbohydrate.
However, complete glycogen resynthesis to pre-trained levels can occur well within 24 hours given sufficient total carbohydrate intake. Jentjens and Jeukendrup [ 71 ] suggest that a between-bout period of eight hours or less is grounds for maximally expediting glycogen resynthesis. Therefore, the urgency of glycogen resynthesis is almost an exclusive concern of endurance athletes with multiple glycogen-depleting events separated by only a few hours. Bodybuilders in contest preparation may exceed a single training bout per day e.
However, bodybuilders do not have the same performance objectives as multi-stage endurance competition, where the same muscle groups are trained to exhaustion in a repeated manner within the same day.
Furthermore, resistance training bouts are typically not glycogen-depleting. However, there is a disparity between short- and long-term outcomes in studies examining the effect of nutrient timing on resistance training adaptations. Cribb and Hayes [ 80 ] found that timing a supplement consisting of 40 g protein, 43 g carbohydrate, and 7 g creatine immediately pre- and post-exercise resulted in greater size and strength gains than positioning the supplement doses away from the training bout.
Additionally, Esmarck et al. In contrast, the majority of chronic studies have not supported the effectiveness of timing nutrients protein in particular closely around the training bout. Burk et al. Hoffman et al. Wycherley et al. A meal containing 21 g protein consumed immediately before resistance training was compared with its consumption at least two hours after training. No significant differences in weight loss, strength gain, or cardio metabolic risk factor reductions were seen.
Most recently, Weisgarber et al. These studies examined the effect of additional nutrient content, rather than examining the effect of different temporal placement of nutrients relative to the training bout.
Thus, they cannot be considered true timing comparisons. Nevertheless, these studies have yielded inconsistent results. Willoughby et al. Hulmi et al.
In contrast to the previous 2 studies, Verdijk et al. The authors attributed this lack of effect to an adequate total daily protein intake. Recently, a week trial by Erksine et al. Burd and colleagues [ 90 ] found that resistance training to failure can cause an increased anabolic response to protein feedings that can last up to 24 hours.
Demonstrating the body's drive toward equilibrium, Deldicque et al. This result suggests that the body is capable of anabolic supercompensation despite the inherently catabolic nature of fasted resistance training. These data, in addition to the previously discussed chronic studies, further support the idea that macronutrient totals by the end of the day may be more important than their temporal placement relative to the training bout.
There are additional factors that might explain the lack of consistent effectiveness of nutrient timing in chronic studies.
Training status of the subjects could influence outcomes since novice trainees tend to respond similarly to a wider variety of stimuli. Another possible explanation for the lack of timing effects is the protein dose used, 10—20 g, which may not be sufficient to elicit a maximal anabolic response. MPS rates have been shown to plateau with a post-exercise dose of roughly 20 g of high-quality protein [ 92 ].
However, in subsequent research on older subjects, Yang et al. In addition to the paucity of studies using ample protein doses, there is a lack of investigation of protein-carbohydrate combinations.
Only Cribb and Hayes [ 80 ] have compared substantial doses of both protein 40 g and carbohydrate 43 g taken immediately surrounding, versus far apart from both sides of the training bout. Nearly double the lean mass gains were seen in the proximally timed compared to the distally timed condition.
For the purpose of attempting to define the term however, suffice to say that the term "natural" implies that the athlete has not engaged in the use of performance enhancing drugs or substances banned by the sanctioning organization of a competitive event. While this topic is controversial in some circles, it is important that natural athletes not try to assume a moral superiority over our enhanced brothers.
Our sport has yet to receive full recognition by the public and quarreling amongst ourselves will not help our cause. The important thing is that you remain true to yourselves as athletes, and promote our sport, not only in word, but in deed. I have always been into health and fitness however I began bodybuilding as a means of overcoming a drinking problem.
Now, I have 12 trophies to show for my efforts and have 3 health and fitness websites! What Is Natural Bodybuilding? Kerry Dulin January 22, The term "natural" has undergone multiple revisions in the last few years. New and high tech supplements have blurred the distinction between legal supplementation and steroids. The addition of various pro-hormonal stacks and related supplements to the bodybuilder's arsenal has caused many to conclude that natural bodybuilding no longer exists.
Ask Yourself These Questions! Is it natural to consume 5 grams of Creatine-Monohydrate or 10 grams of L-Glutamine in a single serving?
0コメント