The Effects of Training Load During Dietary Intervention Upon Fat Loss: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

IF 1.4 4区 教育学 Q3 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM
Luke Carlson, David Gschneidner, James Steele, James P Fisher
{"title":"The Effects of Training Load During Dietary Intervention Upon Fat Loss: A Randomized Crossover Trial.","authors":"Luke Carlson, David Gschneidner, James Steele, James P Fisher","doi":"10.1080/02701367.2022.2097625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To date no studies have compared resistance training loading strategies combined with dietary intervention for fat loss. <b>Methods:</b> Thus, we performed a randomised crossover design comparing four weeks of heavier- (HL; ~80% 1RM) and lighter-load (LL; ~60% 1RM) resistance training, combined with calorie restriction and dietary guidance, including resistance trained participants (n=130; males=49, females=81). Both conditions performed low-volume, (single set of 9 exercises, 2x/week) effort matched (to momentary failure), but non-work-matched protocols. Testing was completed pre- and post-each intervention. Fat mass (kg) was the primary outcome, and a smallest effect size of interest (SESOI) was established at 3.3% loss of baseline bodyweight. Body fat percentage, lean mass, and strength (7-10RM) for chest press, leg press, and pull-down exercises were also measured. An 8-week washout period of traditional training with normal calorie interspersed each intervention. <b>Results:</b> Both interventions showed small statistically equivalent (within the SESOI) reductions in fat mass (HL: -0.67 kg [95%CI -0.91 to 0.42]; LL: -0.55 kg [95%CI -0.80 to -0.31]) which were also equivalent between conditions (HL - LL: -0.113 kg [95%CI -0.437 kg to 0.212 kg]). Changes in body fat percentage and lean mass were also minimal. Strength increases were small, similar between conditions, and within a previously determined SESOI for the population included (10.1%). <b>Conclusions:</b> Fat loss reductions are not impacted by resistance training load; both HL and LL produce similar, yet small, changes to body composition over a 4-week intervention. However, the maintenance of both lean mass and strength highlights the value of resistance training during dietary intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":54491,"journal":{"name":"Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2022.2097625","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To date no studies have compared resistance training loading strategies combined with dietary intervention for fat loss. Methods: Thus, we performed a randomised crossover design comparing four weeks of heavier- (HL; ~80% 1RM) and lighter-load (LL; ~60% 1RM) resistance training, combined with calorie restriction and dietary guidance, including resistance trained participants (n=130; males=49, females=81). Both conditions performed low-volume, (single set of 9 exercises, 2x/week) effort matched (to momentary failure), but non-work-matched protocols. Testing was completed pre- and post-each intervention. Fat mass (kg) was the primary outcome, and a smallest effect size of interest (SESOI) was established at 3.3% loss of baseline bodyweight. Body fat percentage, lean mass, and strength (7-10RM) for chest press, leg press, and pull-down exercises were also measured. An 8-week washout period of traditional training with normal calorie interspersed each intervention. Results: Both interventions showed small statistically equivalent (within the SESOI) reductions in fat mass (HL: -0.67 kg [95%CI -0.91 to 0.42]; LL: -0.55 kg [95%CI -0.80 to -0.31]) which were also equivalent between conditions (HL - LL: -0.113 kg [95%CI -0.437 kg to 0.212 kg]). Changes in body fat percentage and lean mass were also minimal. Strength increases were small, similar between conditions, and within a previously determined SESOI for the population included (10.1%). Conclusions: Fat loss reductions are not impacted by resistance training load; both HL and LL produce similar, yet small, changes to body composition over a 4-week intervention. However, the maintenance of both lean mass and strength highlights the value of resistance training during dietary intervention.

饮食干预期间训练负荷对减脂的影响:一项随机交叉试验。
目的:到目前为止,还没有研究比较阻力训练负荷策略与饮食干预相结合的减脂效果。方法:因此,我们进行了一项随机交叉设计,比较了四周较重的(HL;~80% 1RM)和较轻负载(LL;~60% 1RM)阻力训练,结合卡路里限制和饮食指导,包括阻力训练参与者(n=130;男性= 49岁女性= 81)。两种情况下都进行了小容量的(单组9次练习,每周2次)努力匹配(暂时失败),但非工作匹配的方案。测试在每次干预前和干预后完成。脂肪质量(kg)是主要终点,最小效应值(SESOI)为基线体重减少3.3%。还测量了体脂率、瘦质量和胸压、腿压和下拉运动的力量(7-10RM)。每项干预之间都有一个8周的传统训练和正常卡路里的洗脱期。结果:两种干预措施均显示出统计学上相当的脂肪量减少(在SESOI范围内)(HL: -0.67 kg [95%CI -0.91至0.42];LL: -0.55 kg [95%CI -0.80至-0.31]),在不同条件下也相等(HL - LL: -0.113 kg [95%CI -0.437至0.212 kg])。体脂率和瘦体重的变化也很小。强度增加很小,不同条件之间相似,并且在先前确定的纳入人群SESOI范围内(10.1%)。结论:减脂不受阻力训练负荷的影响;HL和LL在4周的干预中对身体成分产生相似但很小的变化。然而,在饮食干预期间保持瘦质量和力量突出了阻力训练的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
125
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport publishes research in the art and science of human movement that contributes significantly to the knowledge base of the field as new information, reviews, substantiation or contradiction of previous findings, development of theory, or as application of new or improved techniques. The goals of RQES are to provide a scholarly outlet for knowledge that: (a) contributes to the study of human movement, particularly its cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary nature; (b) impacts theory and practice regarding human movement; (c) stimulates research about human movement; and (d) provides theoretical reviews and tutorials related to the study of human movement. The editorial board, associate editors, and external reviewers assist the editor-in-chief. Qualified reviewers in the appropriate subdisciplines review manuscripts deemed suitable. Authors are usually advised of the decision on their papers within 75–90 days.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信