This study aimed to evaluate the intensity of posing training in male bodybuilders by comparing it to vigorous intensity parameters and examining the effects of stimulant usage and preparation phases. Specifically, this study compared posing training to established vigorous intensity benchmarks using metabolic equivalents (METs) and heart rate (HR) responses and assessed differences between athletes using stimulants versus those not using stimulants, as well as during peak week versus other preparation phases. Fifteen male bodybuilding athletes (mean age: 32.07 ± 7.82 years; mean body mass: 92.89 ± 9.06 kg; mean height: 1.76 ± 0.05 m; mean body mass index: 29.78 ± 2.24 kg/m²) completed four compulsory posing sets. Findings demonstrated that posing training can be classified as vigorous training intensity using METs (mean difference of −0.50 METs, p = 0.067, ES = −0.51) and maximum HR (mean difference of 14.55 bpm, p = 0.009, ES = 0.79) compared to the established values of 6.0 METs and 77% vigorous intensity of %HRmax, respectively. Additionally, athletes using stimulants exhibited higher ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) of 2.20 arbitrary units ( p = 0.008) and maximum HR (mean difference of 24.37 bpm, p = 0.005, ES = 0.79) compared to those not using stimulants. During peak week, athletes showed higher RPE of 2.38 arbitrary units ( p = 0.004) and maximum HR (mean difference of 14.55 bpm, p = 0.009, ES = 0.79) compared to other preparation phases. These results indicate that bodybuilding posing training meets the criteria for vigorous exercise intensity and that stimulant use and peak week significantly affect physiological responses and perceived exertion. Novelty: This study is novel in classifying bodybuilding posing training as vigorous intensity exercise using metabolic equivalents (METs) and heart rate (HR) responses. It provides empirical evidence showing that posing training meets the vigorous intensity benchmarks, with METs and %HRmax values comparable to established vigorous exercise standards. The research highlights the novel finding that stimulant usage and the peak week phase of preparation significantly influence physiological responses and perceived exertion in bodybuilders. Specifically, athletes using stimulants and those in peak week displayed higher ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and maximum heart rates, indicating that these factors notably affect the intensity and perceived difficulty of posing training.

Lean bodybuilder athletes may encounter challenges in adapting their eating habits during ad libitum refeed, either intuitively or consciously. Aims: This paper investigates whether there is a relationship between adaptive eating and energy intake coping strategies in a refeed model for bodybuilders. Methods: Fourteen male bodybuilders (29.6 ± 3.1 years; 85.6 ± 6.8 kg, ≥6 competitions) completed a 4-week regimen consisting of 5 days of energy restriction followed by 2 days of refeed. Dietary assessment, body composition (ultrasound), recovery stress questionnaire (REST-Q) and Brunel mood scale (BRUMS) were utilized pre- and post-regimen. Coping function questionnaire (CFQ), mindful eating scale version 2 (MES 2) and the intuitive eating scale-2 (IES-2) were evaluated at the 4th week. Results: Compared to the initial values, the refeed day resulted in a daily caloric increase of 44% compared to the average energy intake on the energy restriction days, culminating in a weekly calorie deficit of 27% and a drop in body mass of 3.1 ± 1.4%. Most participants showed reduced body fat and preserved or gained lean mass. The energy consumption during the refeed maintained an inverse relationship with the perception of satiety (r = −0.9; p < 0.01), the IES 2 total scores (r = −0.82; p < 0.01), as well as the confidence in hunger and satiety cues (r = −0.62; p = 0.02) and congruence in food–body choice dimensions (r = −0.56; p = 0.04). Emotional coping maintained an inverse relationship with the IES 2 total scores (r = 0.54; p < 0.05) and an inverse relationship with energy intake during refeed (r = −0.42; p < 0.05). Conclusion: The results suggest that a heightened perception of internal hunger and satiety signals and higher scores in intuitive eating may contribute to adequate energy intake, even when high scores of emotional coping are present.

This study aimed to examine variations in mood states, gastrointestinal symptoms, and kidney function in non-drug-free amateur bodybuilders across four peri-competition timepoints: 7 days before competition, competition day, 7 days after competition, and 14 days post-competition. The study was characterized as an exploratory longitudinal study with repeated measures. Nine amateur bodybuilders (median age: 30 years) participated in the study. Athletes were assessed at four moments using validated mood and gastrointestinal symptom scales, anthropometric measurements, and biochemical analyses. Blood biomarkers included glucose, urea, creatinine, cystatin C, and glomerular filtration rate. Body mass was recorded at each timepoint to evaluate changes in energy balance. Some mood-related items showed significant changes across the peri-competition phases, including variations in tension, fatigue, anger, and vigor. Body mass increased after the contest, indicating a positive energy balance during recovery. Although group-level biochemical markers remained largely stable, individual analyses revealed relevant fluctuations in glucose, urea, creatinine, and cystatin C. Glomerular filtration rate was lower on the contest day compared to follow-up assessments. The findings highlight the variability in psychological and physiological markers observed in amateur bodybuilders during peri-competition phases, such as mood disturbances, kidney function variations, and post-competition increases in body mass. Coaches and practitioners should closely monitor athletes throughout contest preparation to better support performance, health, and recovery.

Background: Extremametly lean athletes could have difficulty for adaptive eating (intuitively or consciously) during ad libitum refeed. Aims: we verificate if there is a relation between adaptive eating and coping strategies with energy intake in a model of refeed proposed for bodybuilders. Methods: Fourteen male bodybuilders (29.6±3.1yrs; 85.6±6.8kg, ≥6 competitions) completed the 4-week each consisting of a 5 days of energy restriction following 2 days of refeed. Dietary assessment, body composition (ultrasound), Recovery stress questionnaire (REST-Q) and BRUMS (Brunel mood scale) were accessed pre and post; Coping Function Questionnaire (CFQ), Mindful Eating Scale version 2 (MES 2) and the Intuitive Eating Scale-2 (IES-2) was used at 4th week. Results: The refeed day resulted in a daily caloric increment of ~44% compared to the average energy intake on the energy restriction days, culminating in a weekly calorie deficit of ~27% and a drop in body mass of 3.1±1.4% with relation to initial values. The most reduced body fat and preserved or gained lean mass. The energy consumption during refeed maintained an inverse relationship with the perception of satiety (r=-0.9; p<0.01), total scores of IES 2 (r=-0.82; p<0.01), as well as with the confidence in hunger and satiety cues (r=-0.62; p=0.02) and congruence in food-body choice (r=-0.56; p=0.04) dimensions. Coping based in emotions maintained a relationship with the total scores of IES 2 (r=0.54; p<0.05) and an inverse relationship with energy intake during refeed (r=-0.42; p<0.05). Conclusion: Our results suggest that a higher perception of internal hunger and satiety signals and higher scores in intuitive eating may contribute to energy intake adequate, even when high scores of coping based in emotions are present.