Bodybuilding Scientific Studies
Denisha Simcoe
The site is secure.
The ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Background: Competitive bodybuilders are well known for extreme physique traits and extremes in diet and training manipulation to optimize lean mass and achieve a low body fat. Although many of the dietary dogmas in bodybuilding lack scientific scrutiny, a number, including timing and dosing of high biological value proteins across the day, have more recently been confirmed as effective by empirical research studies. A more comprehensive understanding of the dietary intakes of bodybuilders has the potential to uncover other dietary approaches, deserving of scientific investigation, with application to the wider sporting, and potential health contexts, where manipulation of physique traits is desired.
Objective: Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of dietary intake practices of competitive bodybuilders, evaluate the quality and currency of the existing literature, and identify research gaps to inform future studies.
Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted from the earliest record until March 2014. The search combined permutations of the terms 'bodybuilding', 'dietary intake', and 'dietary supplement'. Included studies needed to report quantitative data (energy and macronutrients at a minimum) on habitual dietary intake of competitive bodybuilders.
Conclusion: This review demonstrates that literature describing the dietary intake practices of competitive bodybuilders is dated and often of poor quality. Intake reporting required better specificity and details of the rationale underpinning the use. The review suggests that high-quality contemporary research is needed in this area, with the potential to uncover dietary strategies worthy of scientific exploration.
Prior to becoming a researcher, I was just another diehard lifter strictly adhering to the deeply ingrained rules of bodybuilding. But over the years, the academic in me has grown to question even the most fundamental principles of training.
Textbook stuff, right? While these training philosophies are typical of bodybuilders and powerlifters, there is actually surprisingly little evidence to support such distinctions.[1] So a team of researchers and I decided to put them to the test. Here's what we found, along with the exact protocol we used, so you can try it for yourself!
Numerous scientific studies have investigated the effects of different exercise intensities on muscular adaptation over the years, and the results have been somewhat inconclusive. In most cases, studies were conducted using untrained subjects, and let's be honest, untrained individuals will adapt and grow following just about any form of resistance training.[2] Even initial strength gains are simply a neurological adaptation resulting in a more efficient muscle-activation pattern.[3]
We know that individuals with more training experience simply will not respond as positively as a newbie. This is often referred to as the "principle of diminishing returns." Specifically, resistance training does not spark the same anabolic response or promote the same rise in muscle protein synthesis as compared to when you first started lifting.[4]
Much of the support for the hypertrophy style of training has been based on the conclusion that these workouts elicit the greatest post-workout increases in anabolic hormones. And yes, the research bears that point out. But...does it matter?
It's beginning to look like it doesn't. Recent research suggests that these short-lived elevations in circulating hormones actually don't serve to enhance the muscle-building effect of a workout.[5] My team also recently put this to the test and analyzed the anabolic activity within the muscle following a hypertrophy-style and a strength-style workout.[6]
Despite differences in post-workout hormone concentrations, the overall anabolic response was similar following both protocols. But that still begs the question: Which training style maximizes muscle size and strength?
There have only been a few studies comparing bodybuilding to powerlifting training programs in resistance-trained men. In the first study, the researchers compared eight weeks of a standard hypertrophy-protocol versus a strength protocol.7 However, the protocols were "volume equated," meaning that one group was performing 10 sets of 3, while the other group was performing 3 sets of 10.
Following the training programs, both groups ended up with similar growth in their biceps. However, the group who followed the strength protocol had better improvements in their 1RM bench press and squat. This study concluded that bodybuilding and powerlifting styles of training promoted similar increases in muscle size, but the powerlifting style of training was superior for enhancing maximal strength.
We used a population of college-aged men who had been regularly strength training for at least two years. Just to level the playing field, we put them all through a two-week "preparatory phase" to instruct proper lifting technique and give everyone a comparable training base. It was the same program listed below, but with these parameters:
So how did all of that work translate into results? Following eight weeks of training, the group that followed the powerlifting style of training (strength group) had greater gains in lean arm mass and a better improvement in their 1RM bench press compared to the bodybuilding style of training (volume group). Other measures of muscle growth, including total lean body mass and muscle size of the thigh, chest, and triceps muscles, as well as 1RM squat strength, were similar between groups.
Two studies have shown similar cracks in the rep-range gospel recently when they determined that even very low-load training can spark comparable muscle-growth gains if performed to muscular failure.[9,10] Our research indicates that strength development likewise shouldn't be overlooked.
In other words, it's worth your time to occasionally break out of that "3 sets of 10" mentality and alter your training volume and intensity to avoid plateaus in strength and hypertrophy. Here are my tips for you:
Anabolic-androgenic steroids, often shortened to "anabolic steroids," "steroids," or "androgens,"2,3 are the most widely misused APED. These are synthetic substances similar to the male sex hormone testosterone. They promote the growth of skeletal muscle (anabolic effects) and the development of male sexual characteristics (androgenic effects) in both males and females.2
These compounds are sometimes used medically to treat delayed puberty and muscle loss due to disease4 and to treat low levels of testosterone in men with an associated medical condition.5 Anabolic androgenic steroids can also improve feelings of well-being and increase bone strength, but are not approved for these purposes. However, testosterone-supplementation therapy is an increasingly common treatment for mood and sexual performance problems associated with male aging, and it is controversially being prescribed even for younger men.6
Note that in the context of this report, anabolic steroids refer only to the non-prescribed use (misuse) of testosterone and testosterone-like substances by athletes and non-athlete bodybuilders. This research report will not cover image enhancers, such as dermal fillers, Botox, or the skin tanner, melanotan.7
Nutritional/dietary supplements are substances purchased legally from nutritional stores or via the internet that are often taken in combination with other APEDs. Creatine, which boosts exercise capacity, is one common example.
In the United States, dietary supplements containing steroid precursors such as tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) and androstenedione previously could be purchased legally without a prescription. Athletes took steroid precursors in an effort to boost testosterone levels. Less is known about the side effects of steroid precursors, but if large quantities of these compounds substantially increase testosterone levels in the body, then they also are likely to produce the same side effects as anabolic steroids themselves.13 The purchase of these supplements, with the notable exception of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), became illegal after the passage of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, which amended the Controlled Substances Act.14
It is difficult to estimate the prevalence of steroid misuse in the United States because many national surveys that ask about drug use do not include questions about steroids. However, data on steroid misuse among young students are available from the NIDA-supported Monitoring the Future Survey.
Anabolic steroids increase lean muscle mass when used in conjunction with weight training. The aim, for non-athlete weightlifters, is typically improvement of appearance. Steroid use is often associated with a form of male body dysmorphic disorder called muscle dysmorphia, a preoccupation with the perceived inadequate size of their muscles.19
As a result, some users report taking anabolic steroids to increase confidence and because they feel that they are at a point where they can no longer get bigger through weight training alone. Most users report that anabolic steroids help them achieve their ideal body.28
Increasing muscle mass may also promote strength, which can improve performance in certain types of sports. More benefit is seen for strength-dependent sports (weightlifting, shot-put throwing, football) than for sports that require speed, agility, flexibility, and/or endurance.29
Anabolic steroid users also report that their muscles recover faster from intense strain and muscle injury.30 Research in animals has not conclusively supported this belief, with some showing that anabolic steroids can enhance recovery from certain types of muscle damage,31,32 but others finding no benefit in taking anabolic steroids to enhance muscle recovery.33
c80f0f1006