Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31438992›Full record

ArticleJournal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition2019

Nutritional strategies of British professional and amateur natural bodybuilders during competition preparation.

A J Chappell, T Simper, E Helms

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Exercise and Fat: A Primer.Sports medicine - open · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

A J ChappellSchool of Pharmacy and Life Science, Robert Gordon University, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen, AB10 7AQ, UK. a.chappell1@rgu.ac.uk.
T SimperSheffield Hallam University, Howard Street, Sheffield, S1 1WB, UK.
E HelmsSports Performance Research Institue New Zealand, Auckland University of Technology, 17 Antares Place, Rosedale, Auckland, 0632, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo 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.

methodsForty-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.

resultsMale 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.

conclusionsLonger 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.

Indexed as

Competitive BehaviorDietEnergy MetabolismSports Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaWeight LossAdultAthletesCross-Sectional StudiesDietary SupplementsEnergy IntakeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNutrientsUnited KingdomNutrientsBodybuildingCompetition preparationDietary strategiesDietingDrug freeNaturalNutritionPhysique contestProfessionalSupplementation

Identifiers

PMID31438992
PMCPMC6704518

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.