these details https://jbhnews.com/how-to-get-a-v-taper1/33438/; Today I was reading the interesting study of Chappel AJ and Cols. on strategies used by British natural physicoculturists in the precompetitive phase (1) and I came up with the present content after reading a paragraph in that one, which referred to a question that I have always asked: What are the biological limits of gain of Free Mass (MLG) through non-pharacological strategies: diet and physical exercise?. I have considered it appropriate to define a few concepts in a preliminary way for the purpose of reading comprehension.
Contents Index:
1-Introduction.
2-Concept of natural physicoculturist.
3-Concept of Free Mass (FFM).
4-Concept of Grasa Free Mass Index (FFMI).
5-Study of Chappel AJ and Cols.
5.1-Objectives.
5.2-Characteristics of the sample.
5.3-Methodology.
5.3.1-Test antidoping.
5.3.2-Policy.
5.3.3-Strategies followed.
5.3.3.1-Questionary of 34 items.
5.3.3.2- 24-hour agreement.
5.4-Results.
5.4.1- What surprised me of the results.
5.4.2-The low food supply present in their menus.
5.4.3-The methodology followed by the participants to estimate their % FM.
6-Conclusions.
7-Bibliography.
1-Introduction.
Despite the boom of physicoculture and fitness is an area where there are few empirical works regardless of the type: classic and less classic physicoculture (categories like Men’s Physique and fitness).
2-Concept of natural physicoculturist.
It is called natural physicoculturist who does not deliberately use anabolizing steroids and other agents prohibited by the World Antidoping Agency (WADA-). In the natural bodybuilding contests, samples of biofluids (blood and urine) of participants are taken for the search for doping agents. In the above study, the sample was taken by a laboratory certified by WADA (The Sports Medicine Research and Testing Laboratory, Salt Lake City, USA). In addition, a qualified polygraph was used. In fact one of the participants was rejected from the study by the result of the polygraph.
Natural physicoculturists resort to a combination of practices to increase muscle-skeletal mass: diet, physical force activity and aerobic resistance.
3-Concept of Free Mass (FFM).
The Free Mass of Grasa (FFM) alludes to all the compartments that make up the human organism except the Mass (FM), that is, Muscular-Skeletal Mass (MME), bone mass, organs/baskets, water and skin. The main component of the FFM that increases during hypertrophy is MME.
4-Concept of Grasa Free Mass Index (FFMI).
FFMI (Fat Free Mass Index) or IMLG (Grase Free Mass Index) =MLG (Kg)/Talla (m2).
5-Study of Chappel AJ and Cols.
5.1-Objectives.
– Identify the nutritional strategies of a sample of high-level British physicoculturists competing at the end of the British Natural Bodybuilding Federation (BNBF)
5.2-Characteristics of the sample.
The study was implemented in a sample of British physicoculturists (52: 36 men and 16 women) who competed at the end of the British Natural Bodybuilding Federation (BNBF) (1), whose winner is rewarded with professional status. Complete information was obtained from 47 subjects (32 men and 15 women).
5.3-Methodology.
5.3.1-Test antidoping. All winners of the regional competitions that enabled a post for the end had been subjected to that test. In addition, the winners of the final were also subject to the final. All participants signed a declaration of accession to the WADA code.
5.3.2-Policy. All the participants of the final were subjected to the same, as contraption. It is based on the registration, through a highly accurate scientific instrument, of the neurophysiological changes of the individual, psychologically stimulated, concerning a specific question protocol prepared for a given subject. Its purpose is to detect possible false negatives in the anti-doping analysis (the athlete can use illegal substances that mask the doping).
5.3.3-Strategies followed.
A:
5.3.3.1-Questionary of 34 items that included dietary habits (including concepts such as cheating food, re-feeding…), physical activity and weight change, in three moments along the pre-competitive phase (initiation, half and end).
5.3.3.2- 24-hour agreement in three moments along the precompetitive phase (initiate, half and final).
Problems resulting from omitted data and clarifications about food notations were resolved by email.
5.4-Results.
They were discriminated against by:
-Sex: Male/female.
-Ranking:
– Individuals who occupied the first 5 positions («Placed»-P-).
– Individuals who were more lagging behind; («Did Not Place – DNP-).
5.4.1- What surprised me of the results.
It should be noted that what the surprise of the study most called me was:
5.4.2-The low food supply present in their menus. The average food ingested by competitors:
-Masculins: pre-season start: 11.5 ± 3.6, half season: 9.7 ± 4.7 and end of season: 10.0 ± 3.5.
-Females: start: 12.3 ± 3.4, half: 13.2 ± 4.0 and end:10.6 ± 3.9.
The authors point out as one of the limitations that the method used to capture food intake (a 24-hour registry at three times along the pre-season: start, half and end) is not suitable for evaluating the usual intake and the diversity of food may have been underestimated. However, the data found are consistent with other previous reports of physicoculturist menus.
5.4.3-The methodology followed by the participants to estimate their % FM.
– 53% resorted to skin folding. However, it was not specified if it had been performed by a qualified professional. Although the results were plausible for amateur physicoculturists, they were not attached to the article as they should not be considered accurate.
– 13% of the sample estimated that by displaying it in a mirror.
– 34% did not report any system.
It has been suggested that a FFMI (Fat Free Mass Index) or IMLG (Grase-Free Masa Index) of 25 Kg/m2 is the maximum threshold of muscle-skeletal mass acretion that can be reached without resorting to Anabolizing steroids.
However, this value must be interpreted with great caution as it was inferred from the estimations of photographs of the winning physicoculturists of Mr America before 1959 and of objective measures taken in 157 gymnasts. Chapell AJ and Cols proposed a more biologically plausible FFMI, based on data from measurements of cutaneous folds of competition physicoculturists of 22.7 Kg/m2. This value is slightly higher than 21.8 Kg/m2 that was reported in a gym user study in which it is worth noting that two subjects had an FFMI student (25.73 and 25.15 Kg/m2). It is not surprising to think that there are natural physicoculturists who present FFMI student25 Kg/m2.
Note that for the same weight as less is % FM, greater is %FFM and therefore FFMI.
6-Conclusions.
– Whether you’re a physicist, recreational, amateur or professional, regardless of the category in which you compete I recommend that you go to a qualified dietist-nutricionista to monitor your changes in body composition, using some validated methodology, personalize and diversify your diet.
-If you want to know what is the maximum MLG threshold you could theoretically achieve without using anabolizing steroids, go to a qualified D-N.
7-Bibliography.
1. Chappell AJ, Simper T, Barker ME. Nutritional strategies of high level natural bodybuilders during competition preparation. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2018; 15: 4.