# Evidence-based recommendations for natural bodybuilding contest preparation



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

http://www.jissn.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-11-20.pdf

Edit: site went down for maintanence just after I posted. The same paper is also available here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...2783-11-20.pdf


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

You broke it


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

gearchange said:


> You broke it


 

(They've fixed it now.)


----------



## bartonz20let (Aug 13, 2010)

Ta mate


----------



## platyphylla (Feb 17, 2014)

I'll read it, but i don't put much stock in papers like these. For a start, it's commissioned by the Society of Sports Nutrition which i can guarantee have vested interests and it's also based on 3rd/4th/5th hand 'evidence' - basically referencing people who reference people who reference people.

Not saying it's bollox - it's probably got some useful info, but we always have to question the motives of those writing these papers and also the actuality of where the information they're collating comes from.

For instance, http://www.sportsnutritionsociety.org/jissn.html lots of the editors work for nutrition companies.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

platyphylla said:


> I'll read it, but i don't put much stock in papers like these. For a start, it's commissioned by the Society of Sports Nutrition which i can guarantee have vested interests and it's also based on 3rd/4th/5th hand 'evidence' - basically referencing people who reference people who reference people.


I would argue that the single most useful papers are review papers like this that summarise the available evidence in a given field. If there is one study saying A is better than B, and 9 saying B is better than A then it is more useful for someone to tell me this summary information, rather than for me to just read the first study. Also, reviews like this provide a good list of relevant studies, so you can then go and check out the details of each one individually if you wish (and I will with many of them).

Read it and see what you think, I suspect you'll be pleasantly surprised. If there are particluar aspects that you disagree with and can provide evidence to the contrary for I would be very interested.

(I am a professional scientist BTW, so like you I do critically assess all papers that I read.)


----------



## platyphylla (Feb 17, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> I would argue that the single most useful papers are review papers like this that summarise the available evidence in a given field. If there is one study saying A is better than B, and 9 saying B is better than A then it is more useful for someone to tell me this summary information, rather than for me to just read the first study. Also, reviews like this provide a good list of relevant studies, so you can then go and check out the details of each one individually if you wish (and I will with many of them).
> 
> Read it and see what you think, I suspect you'll be pleasantly surprised. If there are particluar aspects that you disagree with and can provide evidence to the contrary for I would be very interested.
> 
> (I am a professional scientist BTW, so like you I do critically assess all papers that I read.)


Again i'm not doubting some of it is useful, but most studies are funded and carried out by those with vested interests, which makes them unreliable.

That some studies garner more consensus from others who usually also have vested interests doesn't give them more credibility. The truth will be in there somewhere but you have to take what you're reading with a pinch of salt. 99% of the time the only marker of worth is the experience of yourself or those you trust deeply.

Obviously it's not practical to have experience in everything you want to do in life prior to choosing the right path, so i'm not denying the relevance of such studies, i'm just saying that it's wise to believe nothing you read until you've tried it for yourself as far as practically possible.

I'll give the pdf a read now though, looking forward to it.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

platyphylla said:


> Again i'm not doubting some of it is useful, but most studies are funded and carried out by those with vested interests, which makes them unreliable.


A study to test a new supplement funded by a company that sells that supplement should generally be viewed with a HUGE amount of suspicion. This particular summary however has no obvious bias that I can see, and I'm unclear what relevant vested interest any of the authors may have.



> i'm just saying that it's wise to believe nothing you read until you've tried it for yourself as far as practically possible.


The trouble is that it is virtually never possible to carry out properly controlled trials on yourself. There is also the argument that other people have already gone to the trouble of working out what is likely to be optimal so that I don't have to! Personally I view it as more unwise to disregard the opinions of those that have spent a much greater period of time researching an area than I have.

Anyway, hope you find something of interest in the article  .


----------



## platyphylla (Feb 17, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> A study to test a new supplement funded by a company that sells that supplement should generally be viewed with a HUGE amount of suspicion. This particular summary however has no obvious bias that I can see, and I'm unclear what relevant vested interest any of the authors may have.
> 
> The trouble is that it is virtually never possible to carry out properly controlled trials on yourself. There is also the argument that other people have already gone to the trouble of working out what is likely to be optimal so that I don't have to! Personally I view it as more unwise to disregard the opinions of those that have spent a much greater period of time researching an area than I have.
> 
> *Anyway, hope you find something of interest in the article *  .


I did mate - the bit about meal timings is very interesting to me. Seems to suggest meal frequency over 24-hour periods make little to no difference.



> Despite this limitation, the available research
> 
> has consistently refuted the popular belief that a grazing
> 
> ...


----------

