Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.

Skip to main content
Fig. 11 | Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition

Fig. 11

From: The role of age in the physiological adaptations and psychological responses in bikini-physique competitor contest preparation: a case series

Fig. 11

Time course analysis during 16-week pre-contest preparation prior to competition of self-reported resistance training (RT) volume (setsrepsday), and aerobic training (AT) volume (mind) with accompanying mean average (mean ± SEM) comparison between BC and MBC. The BC and MBC self-reported an average frequency of 4.8 ± .11 and 3.8 ± .22 d respectively of RT bouts prior to arriving to the lab for each session. a) The Total RT volume, b) The aerobic training (AT) volume, c) The upper body (UB) RT volume, d) The lower body (LB) RT volume. The BC had a higher mean total mean RT volume (9194 ± 3499; 95% CI: 1242–17,147 setsreps) compared to MBC (5345 ± 1230; 95% CI: 2435–8254 setsreps), a higher mean AT volume (198.9 ± 31.84; 95% CI: 125.5–272.3 mind) than the MBC (105.6 ± 67.74; 95% CI: 48.99–162.3 mind), a higher mean UB-RT volume 4619 ± 1720; 95% CI:652.5–8585 setsreps) than the MBC (2609 ± 611.5; 95% CI:1163–4055 setsreps), and a higher mean LB-RT volume 4576 ± 1765: 95% CI: 504.9–8646 setsreps) than the MBC (2736 ± 881.3; 95% CI: − 651.8-4820 setsreps). The red dashed lines denote competition

Back to article page