Do Muscle Mass and Body Fat Differ Between Elite and Amateur Natural Physique Athletes on Competition Day? A Preliminary, Cross-Sectional, Anthropometric Study

Abstract

González-Cano, H, Martín-Olmedo, JJ, Baz-Valle, E, Contreras, C, Schoenfeld, BJ, García-Ramos, A, Jiménez-Martínez, P, and Alix-Fages, C. Do muscle mass and body fat differ between elite and amateur natural physique athletes on competition day? A preliminary, cross-sectional, anthropometric study. J Strength Cond Res 38(5): 951–956, 2024—Natural physique athletes strive to achieve low body fat levels while promoting muscle mass hypertrophy for competition day. This study aimed to compare the anthropometric characteristics of natural amateur (AMA) and professional (PRO) World Natural Bodybuilding Federation (WNBF) competitors. Eleven male natural physique athletes (6 PRO and 5 AMA; age = 24.8 ± 2.3 years) underwent a comprehensive anthropometric evaluation following the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry protocol within a 24-hour time frame surrounding the competition. The 5-component fractionation method was used to obtain the body composition profile of the muscle, adipose, bone, skin, and residual tissues. Five physique athletes exceeded the 5.2 cutoff point of muscle-to-bone ratio (MBR) for natural athletes. Professional physique athletes were older than AMA physique athletes (p = 0.05), and they also presented larger thigh girths (p = 0.005) and bone mass (p = 0.019) compared with AMA physique athletes. Although no statistically significant between-group differences were observed in body mass, height, or body fat levels, PRO physique athletes exhibited a higher body mass index (BMI; AMA: 24.45 ± 0.12; PRO: 25.52 ± 1.01; p = 0.048), lean body mass (LBM; AMA: 64.49 ± 2.35; PRO: 69.80 ± 3.78; p = 0.024), fat-free mass (FFM; AMA: 71.23 ± 3.21; PRO: 76.52 ± 4.31; p = 0.05), LBM index (LBMI; AMA: 20.65 ± 0.52; PRO: 21.74 ± 0.85; p = 0.034), and fat-free mass index index (FFMI; AMA: 22.80 ± 0.22; PRO: 23.83 ± 0.90; p = 0.037) compared with AMA physique athletes. These findings highlight the unique characteristics and anthropometric differences between PRO and AMA natural physique athletes on competition day, emphasizing the significance of age, thigh girth, bone mass, BMI, LBM, FFM, and FFMI in distinguishing these 2 groups. Based on our findings, the established boundaries for muscle mass in natural physique athletes, based on FFMI and MBR, warrant reconsideration.