Question thread for our AMA with Dr. Brandon M Roberts and Dr. Peter J Fitschen starting Wednesday April 15th!

[paparazi257]

Please join us tomorrow Wednesday April 15th for an AMA with Dr. Brandon M Roberts and Dr. Peter J Fitschen. They are 2 of the authors of the recent paper Nutritional Recommendations for Physique Athletes. Check out some of their other information on their websites:

• http://www.fitnessandphysiology.com/
  
• https://www.fitbodyphysique.com/
  

Post your questions below and upvote those you want answered most. Official start time will be posted shortly.

Answering will begin approximately 8am EST and last for at least 3-4 hours

Participants:

• Dr. Brandon M Roberts - /@thepcwife
  
• Dr. Peter J Fitschen - /@robertven

 

[niecey85]

@paparazi257 Q4Both:

Do you see a trend for most coaches adopting a scientific approach to their practices, or are most of them still relying mainly on anecdotes and experience?

 

[thepcwife]

@niecey85 I think so. Every show I go to the competitors and coaches are getting better at using scientific approaches. At some of the smaller shows, you'll still hear about cutting water or carbs and doing some funky things, but I think at the top level most use a scientific approach. I've also seen a trend where people have more online coaches, which isn't surprising.

 

[robertven]

@niecey85 In the natural bodybuilding world there has been a huge shift over the past I would say even decade toward using more scientific approaches to contest prep. For example back in 2006, there was a show I was the only person drinking water backstage and the promoter of the show even came up and asked me about it after prejudging because he couldn't believe how "dry" I looked. Fortunately, we have come a long way since then and most people at least at drug-tested shows are drinking water backstage now.

However, at times I think some coaches take this too far to where they feel they need a study for everything they do and that just isn't possible at this point, nor do I think it ever will be.

There are definitely benefits to experience and anecdotes as well especially when it comes to some of the more nuanced aspects of prep like peaking where 2 people can respond completely differently to the same protocol.

At the end of the day, I think the best thing to do would be using a combination of science and experience to create an approach and then adjust that approach based upon how things go.

 

[mcolley10]

@paparazi257 Question for both

It seems like every time a study comes out there are always at least one if not more significant limitations that make it difficult for people in our world to asses its actual significance and employ practical applications. Things like subjects were untrained, or they were obese elderly etc. How do you as PhD’s and researchers decipher what is relevant to your fields from such studies, and how to practically apply the lessons learned?

 

[robertven]

@mcolley10 I think the biggest thing is just using the best evidence you have available. Sometimes you have nothing and need to rely on experience/practice.

Other times like you mentioned it may be something done in obese or untrained subjects, but nothing in someone trained. In that situation, you can always try to implement that approach in practice and see if it makes a difference. I don't think there is anything wrong with some trial and error in practice because science does not have the answers to everything at this point.

With that being said, I think if you are going to trial/error something there needs to be a sound rationale for doing so. However, assuming that is the case you may find you try something and stumble upon something that works great for you or you may find that you tried something and it didn't work / made no difference and that is a learning experience as well.

 

[thepcwife]

@mcolley10 Unfortunately, science doesn't build perfectly. You hope that each researcher would add to the literature by changing one minor thing for a study, so it's replicating older studies and adding something new. That doesn't always happen. This leads us to the problem of applicability as you suggest.

Knowing the full literature helps. That's why I write really long articles/blogs. If you know all of the relevant studies you can have a better idea of how to put things into context. Researchers usually specialize (i.e., hypertrophy, protein synthesis, etc) to help narrow the scope of what they need to know. Except now they may miss something from another field that's buried in a paper somewhere. Not getting overhyped about a new study helps too. It's just a piece of the puzzle.

Limitations are never going away, so we have to be ok with them. I think there are some studies that are terribly designed and researchers can tell that fairly quickly. Sometimes it doesn't even answer the question they posed. You may see these studies not get cited very much to indicate they aren't ideal.

In terms of practical application - you just have to try it. That's where coaching comes in. You have this huge bag of tools and you pick one. If it doesn't work you pick another. Every athlete is a mini-experiment where you kinda know what should happen and have to be ready to try different things.

 

[niecey85]

@paparazi257 Q4Both:

Evidence based nutritional guidelines for bodybuilding haven't really been around for that long, yet research has come a long way to the point we have solid data on how to cover pretty much all of the basics. In your opinion, how has the relationship between the actual competitors and lifters in general and the scientific approach to nutrition been to this day? Do you see most people adopting the guidelines or are our practices some years behind what the scientific community knows?

 

[robertven]

@niecey85 I think that in the natural bodybuilding world there are a lot more science-based approaches being used these days.

However, oftentimes I would actually argue bodybuilders through practice may have stumbled upon things that they know work that science later shows to be beneficial. For example, bodybuilders for years trained with high volumes and we now have data showing volume is highly correlated with hypertrophy.

Bodybuilders also historically consumed high protein intakes and while some of these were excessive at times (think things like 2-3+ g/lb) we now have evidence that high protein diets lead to more muscle growth, we may need more protein in a deficit than out of one, protein overfeeding may result in less fat gain than carb/fat overfeeding, etc.

While not everything bodybuilders have done in practice stands up when tested scientifically, there are many things they have been doing for years that science is now starting to catch up to and support.

 

[great_depression]

@robertven

However, oftentimes I would actually argue bodybuilders through practice may have stumbled upon things that they know work that science later shows to be beneficial.

While not everything bodybuilders have done in practice stands up when tested scientifically, there are many things they have been doing for years that science is now starting to catch up to and support.

Exactly this. What sucks is when the anti-science crowd goes:

"Well duh, we already knew about X, did this really need a study?"

Yes, and you should be happier now that we have data on it.

 

[thepcwife]

@niecey85 I see most people adopting some version of the guidelines. They've been broadened so much a lot of things fit within them wrt carbs and fat. BBers have never had a problem eating protein either.

Something else I want to touch on is the distance between what's out there (published) and what's still being done. In academia, we have a fairly long review process for papers (3-12+ months) plus it can take a year to do a study. COVID interrupted two of mine completely (not BB related). Sometimes you can't recruit the full number of participants at once which means they are staggered. This creates a longer time period than the normal "4, 8, or 12" week study.

 

[niecey85]

@thepcwife For sure and that's just the timeline for publication, from there to making an impact in the practical applications that's another journey altogether. More reason to keep up to date and to follow the people who are involved in research in the first place like yourselves who can offer insights on the current data and what's to come.

Bummer about the study interruption! I assume in cases like this they can't be resumed, but rather they have to be restarted. Hope it goes well.

 

[mcolley10]

@paparazi257 Question for both

What is the biggest thing you'd like to see change in the competitive Natural bodybuilding arena? (i.e. shows, organizations etc)

 

[thepcwife]

@mcolley10 I would absolutely love it if we could unite under one or two organizations. I've spoken to the leaders of each and there is no way it would happen right now. The show quality is generally good across the more well-known orgs. Some people (promoters) love the sport yet they don't have a lot of experience or just aren't built for running a show (i.e., managing). So, show consistency and organization breadth are the two things I'd like to see change.

 

[jannieb]

@thepcwife This was always the goal when the OCB was first established.... some orgs played nice... but most did not. Shame - it would have been awesome!

 

[robertven]

@mcolley10 More collaboration between sanctions. The untested side of the sport has 1 main sanction (NPC); however, the drug-tested side is an alphabet soup of sanctions, most of which don't work with eachother. In fact, last year there was a day where I believe 4-5 of the largest sanctions had their "world championships" or largest show of the on the same day.

 

[niecey85]

@paparazi257 Q4Both:

Something that's often a source of constant conflict outside of the scientific community, especially in social media, is using research which can be interpreted as supporting a point in theory, but completely ignoring the effect size. Considering the numerous topics that have been studied and have applications for for bodybuilding, which are the most important ones a physique athlete should focus on, and how important are they compared to everything else?

 

[robertven]

@niecey85 I do think there is a range of body weights / body fat where an individual feels and functions best.

On the low end as you are dieting to stage-lean there is typically a point where loss becomes more difficult, requires more restraint/sacrifice and you start to feel more of the effects of prep (low energy, strength loss, poor sleep, loss of sex drive, hormone drops, etc). These stick around until weight is re-gained post-show and you get back to a place that is on the low end of that body weight/fat range for you where you can feel more normal.

On the high end, I typically find that as people push above that range they have to do a lot of force feeding oftentimes. They also tend to find that the scale is still going up, but strength isn't anymore so they are reaching a point of diminished returns.

For me personally, I compete in the upper 150's carbed up. About 170ish I start to feel more normal and could hold there with some extra effort/restraint. However, my body naturally sits 180-195lbs pretty comfortably and that is where I spend most of my offseasons.

 

[niecey85]

@paparazi257 Q4Both:

Do you use a coach, or do you coach yourselves?

 

[robertven]

@niecey85 I work with a coach so that I don't overthink things which I tend to do when coaching myself.

I worked with a local coach at my gym in 2004, Layne Norton in 2006, 2008, 2012 when I won my pro card and I have been working with Cliff Wilson since 2014 including my 2016 prep for my pro debut and current prep.