In powerlifting, you compete in the squat, bench press, and deadlift, with the goal of lifting as much weight as possible for 1 repetition.
When you compete in powerlifting, you have 3 attempts to reach your max capacity. In bodybuilding, you compete in different physique categories, such as bodybuilding, fitness, wellness, and bikini. Not everyone who enjoys powerlifting and bodybuilding training decides to compete. However, the exact exercises within each training program will differ drastically. In powerlifting, the three main exercises are the squat, bench press, and deadlift.
This means that any exercise that is programmed must have a direct impact on improving these three movements. In bodybuilding, while many of these same powerlifting movements are programmed, there is much less of an emphasis on them. Both powerlifters and bodybuilders care a lot about implementing proper exercise technique. This is because neither can risk an injury, which might potentially put them out of their sport for several weeks or months.
However, powerlifters use lifting technique that limits the range of motion on exercises, whereas bodybuilders use lifting technique that increases the range of motion on exercises. In powerlifting, the less range of motion that is used the less work that is required to move the weight from point A to B.
As a result, every angle of the movement is analyzed in order to reduce the range of motion so that more weight can be lifted. They want to take an exercise through its full range of motion in order to stress the muscle at different lengths.
This will lead to greater muscle damage producing greater hypertrophy adaptations muscle growth. This is much different than a bodybuilding split, where the main emphasis is on breaking each workout into muscle groups. Here are two examples of a powerlifting vs bodybuilding training split using a 4-day workout schedule:.
Many people would broadly say that powerlifters use low reps and bodybuilders use high reps 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.
However, acute studies examining the post-exercise anabolic response elicited by co-ingesting carbohydrate with protein have thus far failed to show significant effects given a sufficient protein dose of approximately 20—25 g [ 94 , 95 ].
Koopman et al. Since these bouts typically do not resemble endurance bouts lasting 2 hours or more, nutrient consumption during training is not likely to yield any additional performance-enhancing or muscle -sparing benefits if proper pre-workout nutrition is in place.
In the exceptional case of resistance training sessions that approach or exceed two hours of exhaustive, continuous work, it might be prudent to employ tactics that maximize endurance capacity while minimizing muscle damage. Nutrient timing is an intriguing area of study that focuses on what might clinch the competitive edge.
In terms of practical application to resistance training bouts of typical length, Aragon and Schoenfeld [ 99 ] recently suggested a protein dose corresponding with 0. However, for objectives relevant to bodybuilding, the current evidence indicates that the global macronutrient composition of the diet is likely the most important nutritional variable related to chronic training adaptations.
Figure 1 below provides a continuum of importance with bodybuilding-specific context for nutrient timing. Previous optimal meal frequency studies have lacked structured resistance training protocols. Moreover, there are no studies that specifically examined meal frequency in bodybuilders, let alone during contest preparation conditions.
Despite this limitation, the available research has consistently refuted the popular belief that a grazing pattern smaller, more frequent meals raises energy expenditure compared to a gorging pattern larger, less frequent meals.
Disparate feeding patterns ranging from two to seven meals per day have been compared in tightly controlled studies using metabolic chambers, and no significant differences in hour thermogenesis have been detected [ , ]. It should be noted that irregular feeding patterns across the week, as opposed to maintaining a stable daily frequency, has been shown to decrease post-prandial thermogenesis [ ] and adversely affect insulin sensitivity and blood lipid profile [ ].
However, relevance of the latter findings might be limited to sedentary populations, since regular exercise is well-established in its ability to improve insulin sensitivity and blood lipids. Bodybuilders typically employ a higher meal frequency in an attempt to optimize fat loss and muscle preservation.
However, the majority of chronic experimental studies have failed to show that different meal frequencies have different influences on bodyweight or body composition [ — ]. Of particular interest is the research examining the latter, since the preservation of muscle mass during fat loss is a paramount concern in the pre-contest phase.
A recent review by Varady [ ] examined 11 daily caloric restriction CR studies and 7 intermittent calorie restriction ICR studies. It was concluded that although both types have similar effects on total bodyweight reduction, ICR has thus far been more effective for retaining lean mass.
Along these lines, Stote et al. Curiously, the one meal per day group also showed a slight gain in lean mass, but this could have been due to the inherent error in BIA for body composition assessment. To-date, only two experimental studies have used trained, athletic subjects. Iwao et al. However, limitations to this study included short trial duration, subpar assessment methods, a small sample size, and a kcal diet which was artificially low compared to what this population would typically carry out in the long-term.
To illustrate the inadequacy of this dose, Mettler et al. The other experimental study using athletic subjects was by Benardot et al. A significant increase in anaerobic power and lean mass was seen in the snacking group, with no such improvements seen in the placebo group.
However, it is not possible to determine if the superior results were the result of an increased meal frequency or increased caloric intake. A relatively recent concept with potential application to meal frequency is that a certain minimum dose of leucine is required in order to stimulate muscle protein synthesis. Norton and Wilson [ ] suggested that this threshold dose is approximately 0.
A related concept is that MPS can diminish, or become 'refractory' if amino acids are held at a constant elevation. For the goal of maximizing the anabolic response, the potential application of these data would be to avoid spacing meals too closely together. In addition, an attempt would be made to reach the leucine threshold with each meal, which in practical terms would be to consume at least 30—40 g high-quality protein per meal.
In relative agreement, a recent review by Phillips and Van Loon [ 28 ] recommends consuming one's daily protein requirement over the course of three to four isonitrogenous meals per day in order to maximize the acute anabolic response per meal, and thus the rate of muscle gain. It is important to note that the leucine threshold and the refractory nature of MPS are not based on human feeding studies that measure concrete outcomes over the long-term.
These ideas are largely based on mechanistic studies whose data was derived via steady intravenous infusion of amino acids [ , ]. Long-term studies are needed to determine if the refractory nature of MPS seen in acute infusion data would have any real impact on the gain or preservation of LBM at various meal frequencies. Munster and Saris [ ] recently shed further light on what might be optimal in the context of pre-contest dieting.
Lean, healthy subjects underwent hour periods in a respiration chamber. Interestingly, three meals per day resulted in higher protein oxidation and RMR, along with lower overall blood glucose concentrations than an isoenergetic diet composed of 14 meals per day.
The lower glucose AUC observed in this study is in agreement with previous research by Holmstrup et al. Another interesting finding by Munster and Saris [ ] was lower hunger and higher satiety ratings in the lower meal frequency condition.
This finding concurred with previous work by Leidy et al. Interestingly, the higher meal frequency led to lower daily fullness ratings regardless of protein level.
Meal frequency had no significant impact on ghrelin levels, regardless of protein intake. However, Arciero et al. Other common meal frequencies i.
Adechian et al. No significant changes were seen in body composition between conditions. These outcomes challenge Phillips and Van Loon's recommendation for protein-rich meals throughout the day to be isonitrogenous Moore et al. A trend toward a small and moderate increase in net protein balance was seen in the four meal and eight meal conditions, respectively, compared to the two meal condition.
Subsequent work by Areta et al. A limitation of both of the previous studies was the absence of other macronutrients aside from protein in whey consumed during the hour postexercise period. This leaves open questions about how a real-world scenario with mixed meals might have altered the outcomes.
The evidence collectively suggests that extreme lows or highs in meal frequency have the potential to threaten lean mass preservation and hunger control during bodybuilding contest preparation. However, the functional impact of differences in meal frequency at moderate ranges e. When preparing for a bodybuilding contest, a competitor primarily focuses on resistance training, nutrition, and cardiovascular training; however, supplements may be used to further augment preparation.
This section will discuss the scientific evidence behind several of the most commonly used supplements by bodybuilders. However, natural bodybuilding federations have extensive banned substance lists [ ]; therefore, banned substances will be omitted from this discussion. It should be noted that there are considerably more supplements that are used by bodybuilders and sold on the market.
However, an exhaustive review of all of the supplements commonly used by bodybuilders that often lack supporting data is beyond the scope of this paper. In addition, we have omitted discussion of protein supplements because they are predominantly used in the same way that whole food protein sources are used to reach macronutrient targets; however, interested readers are encouraged to reference the ISSN position stand on protein and exercise [ ].
Creatine monohydrate CM has been called the most ergogenic and safe supplement that is legally available [ ]. Supplementation of healthy adults has not resulted in any reported adverse effects or changes in liver or kidney function [ ]. Numerous studies have found significantly increased muscle size and strength when CM was added to a strength training program [ — ]. However, the loading phase may not be necessary. Loading 20 g CM per day has been shown to increase muscle total creatine by approximately 20 percent and this level of muscle creatine was maintained with 2 g CM daily for 30 days [ ].
However, the same study also observed a 20 percent increase in muscle creatine when 3 g CM was supplemented daily for 28 days, indicating the loading phase may not be necessary to increase muscle creatine concentrations. Recently, alternative forms of creatine, such as creatine ethyl ester CEE and Kre Alkalyn KA have been marketed as superior forms of creatine to CM; however, as of this time these claims have not been supported by scientific studies.
Additionally, recent investigations have shown that 28—42 days of CEE or KA supplementation did not increase muscle creatine concentrations more than CM [ , ]. Thus, it appears that CM may be the most effective form of creatine. Beta-alanine BA is becoming an increasingly popular supplement among bodybuilders. Once consumed, BA enters the circulation and is up-taken by skeletal muscle where it is used to synthesize carnosine, a pH buffer in muscle that is particularly important during anaerobic exercise such as sprinting or weightlifting [ ].
Indeed, consumption of 6. Additionally, the combination of BA and CM may increase performance of high intensity endurance exercise [ ] and has been shown to increase lean mass and decrease body fat percentage more than CM alone [ ]. However, not all studies have shown improvements in performance with BA supplementation [ , , ].
To clarify these discrepancies, Hobson et al. Although BA appears to improve exercise performance, the long-term safety of BA has only been partially explored. Currently, the only known side effect of BA is unpleasant symptoms of parasthesia reported after consumption of large dosages; however, this can be minimized through consumption of smaller dosages throughout the day [ ].
While BA appears to be relatively safe in the short-term, the long-term safety is unknown. In cats, an addition of 5 percent BA to drinking water for 20 weeks has been shown to deplete taurine and result in damage to the brain; however, taurine is an essential amino acid for cats but not for humans and it is unknown if the smaller dosages consumed by humans could result in similar effects [ ].
BA may increase exercise performance and increase lean mass in bodybuilders and currently appears to be safe; however, studies are needed to determine the long-term safety of BA consumption. Beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate HMB is a metabolite of the amino acid leucine that has been shown to decrease muscle protein catabolism and increase muscle protein synthesis [ , ]. The safety of HMB supplementation has been widely studied and no adverse effects on liver enzymes, kidney function, cholesterol, white blood cells, hemoglobin, or blood glucose have been observed [ — ].
Furthermore, two meta-analyses on HMB supplementation have concluded that HMB is safe and does not result in any major side effects [ , ]. HMB may actually decrease blood pressure, total and LDL cholesterol, especially in hypercholesterolemic individuals. HMB is particularly effective in catabolic populations such as the elderly and patients with chronic disease [ ].
However, studies on the effectiveness of HMB in trained, non-calorically restricted populations have been mixed. Reasons for discrepancies in the results of HMB supplementation studies in healthy populations may be due to many factors including clustering of data in these meta-analysis to include many studies from similar groups, poorly designed, non-periodized training protocols, small sample sizes, and lack of specificity between training and testing conditions [ ].
However, as a whole HMB appears to be effective in a majority of studies with longer-duration, more intense, periodized training protocols and may be beneficial to bodybuilders, particularly during planned over-reaching phases of training [ ]. While the authors hypothesize that HMB may be effective in periods of increased catabolism, such as during contest preparation, the efficacy of HMB on maintenance of lean mass in dieting athletes has not been investigated in a long-term study.
Therefore, future studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of HMB during caloric restriction in healthy, lean, trained athletes. Stoppani et al. All changes were significant compared to the other groups.
However, it should be noted that this data is only available as an abstract and has yet to undergo the rigors of peer-review. Therefore, long-term studies are needed in humans to determine the effectiveness of this practice. In addition, studies are needed on the effectiveness of BCAA supplementation in individuals following a vegetarian diet in which consumption of high-quality proteins are low as this may be population that may benefit from BCAA consumption.
Furthermore, the effects of BCAA ingestion between meals needs to be further investigated in a long-term human study. However, there is little scientific evidence to back these claims.
Fahs et al. Additionally, Tang et al. Moreover, arginine is a non essential amino acid and prior work has established that essential amino acids alone stimulate protein synthesis [ ].
Based on these findings, it appears that arginine does not significantly increase blood flow or enhance protein synthesis following exercise. The effects of arginine supplementation on performance are controversial. Approximately one-half of acute and chronic studies on arginine and exercise performance have found significant benefits with arginine supplementation, while the other one-half has found no significant benefits [ ].
Moreover, Greer et al. Based on these results, the authors of a recent review concluded that arginine supplementation had little impact on exercise performance in healthy individuals [ ]. Citrulline malate CitM has recently become a popular supplement among bodybuilders; however, there has been little scientific research in healthy humans with this compound.
CitM is hypothesized to improve performance through three mechanisms: 1 citrulline is important part of the urea cycle and may participate in ammonia clearance, 2 malate is a tricarboxylic acid cycle intermediate that may reduce lactic acid accumulation, and 3 citrulline can be converted to arginine; however, as discussed previously, arginine does not appear to have an ergogenic effect in young healthy athletes so it is unlikely CitM exerts an ergogenic effect through this mechanism [ , ].
Furthermore, Stoppani et al. However, not all studies have supported ergogenic effects of CitM. Sureda et al. Hickner et al. Additionally, the long-term safety of CitM is unknown. Therefore, based on the current literature a decision on the efficacy of CitM cannot be made.
Future studies are needed to conclusively determine if CitM is ergogenic and to determine its long term safety. Glutamine is the most abundant non-essential amino acid in muscle and is commonly consumed as a nutritional supplement. Acutely, glutamine supplementation has not been shown to significantly improve exercise performance [ , ], improve buffering capacity [ ], help to maintain immune function or reduce muscle soreness after exercise [ ].
However, the role of glutamine in these changes is unclear. Only one study [ ] has investigated the effects of glutamine supplementation alone in conjunction with a six week strength training program.
No significant differences in muscle size, strength, or muscle protein degradation were observed between groups. Although the previous studies do not support the use of glutamine in bodybuilders during contest preparation, it should be noted that glutamine may be beneficial for gastrointestinal health and peptide uptake in stressed populations [ ]; therefore, it may be beneficial in dieting bodybuilders who represent a stressed population.
As a whole, the results of previous studies do not support use of glutamine as an ergogenic supplement; however, future studies are needed to determine the role of glutamine on gastrointestinal health and peptide transport in dieting bodybuilders.
Caffeine is perhaps the most common pre-workout stimulant consumed by bodybuilders. Numerous studies support the use of caffeine to improve performance during endurance training [ , ], sprinting [ , ], and strength training [ — ]. However, not all studies support use of caffeine to improve performance in strength training [ , ]. Additionally, it appears that regular consumption of caffeine may result in a reduction of ergogenic effects [ ]. Several previous studies have observed deficiencies in intakes of micronutrients, such as vitamin D, calcium, zinc, magnesium, and iron, in dieting bodybuilders [ 3 , 17 , 18 , , ].
However, it should be noted that these studies were all published nearly 2 decades ago and that micronutrient deficiencies likely occurred due to elimination of foods or food groups and monotony of food selection [ 3 , ]. Therefore, future studies are needed to determine if these deficiencies would present while eating a variety of foods and using the contest preparation approach described herein.
Although the current prevalence of micronutrient deficiencies in competitive bodybuilders is unknown, based on the previous literature, a low-dose micronutrient supplement may be beneficial for natural bodybuilders during contest preparation; however, future studies are needed to verify this recommendation. In an attempt to enhance muscle size and definition by reducing extracellular water content, many bodybuilders engage in fluid, electrolyte, and carbohydrate manipulation in the final days and hours before competing [ 2 , 60 , ].
The effect of electrolyte manipulation and dehydration on visual appearance has not been studied, however it may be a dangerous practice [ ]. Furthermore, dehydration could plausibly degrade appearance considering that extracellular water is not only present in the subcutaneous layer. A significant amount is located in the vascular system. Thus, the common practice of "pumping up" to increase muscle size and definition by increasing blood flow to the muscle with light, repetitive weight lifting prior to stepping on stage [ ] could be compromised by dehydration or electrolyte imbalance.
Furthermore, dehydration reduces total body hydration. A large percentage of muscle tissue mass is water and dehydration results in decreases in muscle water content [ ] and therefore muscle size, which may negatively impact the appearance of muscularity. In the final days before competing, bodybuilders commonly practice carbohydrate loading similar to endurance athletes in an attempt to raise muscle-glycogen levels and increase muscle size [ 4 , 18 , 60 , ].
In the only direct study of this practice, no significant quantitative change in muscle girth was found to occur [ ]. However, an isocaloric diet was used, with only a change in the percentage of carbohydrate contributing to the diet. If total calories had also been increased, greater levels of glycogen might have been stored which could have changed the outcome of this study. Additionally, unlike the subjects in this study bodybuilders prior to carbohydrate loading have reduced glycogen levels from a long calorically restricted diet and it is possible in this state that carbohydrate loading might effect a visual change.
Furthermore, bodybuilding performance is measured subjectively, thus analysis of girth alone may not discern subtle visual changes which impact competitive success. Lastly, some bodybuilders alter the amount of carbohydrate loaded based on the visual outcome, increasing the amount if the desired visual change does not occur [ 60 ].
Thus, an analysis of a static carbohydrate load may not accurately represent the dynamic nature of actual carbohydrate loading practices.
In fact, in an observational study of competitive bodybuilders in the days before competition who loaded carbohydrates, subjects showed a 4. Although it is unknown if this was caused by increased muscle glycogen, it is unlikely it was due to muscle mass accrual since the final weeks of preparation are often marked by decreases not increases in LBM [ 6 ]. Future studies of this practice should include a qualitative analysis of visual changes and analyze the effects of concurrent increases in percentage of carbohydrates as well as total calories.
At this time it is unknown whether dehydration or electrolyte manipulation improves physique appearance. What is known is that these practices are dangerous and have the potential to worsen it. It is unclear if carbohydrate loading has an impact on appearance and if so, how significant the effect is. However, the recommended muscle-sparing practice by some researchers to increase the carbohydrate content of the diet in the final weeks of preparation [ 6 ] might achieve any proposed theoretical benefits of carbohydrate loading.
If carbohydrate loading is utilized, a trial run before competition once the competitor has reached or nearly reached competition leanness should be attempted to develop an individualized strategy. However, a week spent on a trial run consuming increased carbohydrates and calories may slow fat loss, thus ample time in the diet would be required. Competitive bodybuilding requires cyclical periods of weight gain and weight loss for competition. A bodybuilder can choose from many different foods when preparing their meal plan across the week.
In general, they should focus on foods that provide adequate calories and nutrients. During the cutting phase, it is desirable for a bodybuilder to feel fuller on a given amount of calories. However, they may struggle with the opposite problem during the bulking phase. This is because they may need to continue eating to hit high calorie intake goals, despite possibly feeling full. A person should note that many foods provide more than one macronutrient. For example, nuts can provide both fat and protein.
Additionally, different coaches and nutritionists may make varying recommendations based on whether the person following a bodybuilding meal plan is trying to cut excess body fat or build lean muscle mass. According to a study in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition , bodybuilders at the start of the prep phase will take in more calories than those nearing competition.
The study notes that bodybuilders ate fewer red meats and eggs, though they still received protein from those sources. Portions will vary from person to person. For portion recommendations, a person should calculate their own macro needs or consult a certified nutritionist. According to a recent review , supplements and vitamins that may help a bodybuilder include:.
There is some debate about whether protein shakes are necessary for bodybuilding. Protein shakes can help people who cannot get all the protein they need from their daily diet. A person may want to avoid shakes with excessive added sugar unless it is consistent with their nutritional needs. When choosing any supplement, a person should note that the regulation of the supplement industry by the Food and Drug Administration FDA is not as strict as for pharmaceuticals.
People should look for supplements that verify their products using a third party. They should also seek advice from their doctor or nutritionist when choosing a supplement or shake. One risk is overtraining, which could lead to injury or even illness. Some experts recommend taking a rest day every 7—10 days to ensure their muscles have a chance to recover fully. A person may also wish to avoid overworking the same muscle groups two days in a row.
Another risk of bodybuilding is that some participants may have body dissatisfaction and eating disorders. A study found a correlation between eating disorders and body dissatisfaction and body dysmorphic disorders in biologically male bodybuilders.
The researchers indicate a need for more research and prevention strategies to help those affected. A bodybuilding meal plan should consist of healthful fats, proteins, and carbs. A person should plan to eat between three and six times a day and adjust their total caloric count based on whether trying to bulk up or lean out.
A person should talk to their doctor or a certified fitness professional before starting a bodybuilding routine or meal plan for the first time. That way, they can get additional information on how to implement a new program safely. Many types of food can aid a workout by providing the body with energy and nutrients.
0コメント