Search

Little is known about the placebo effects when comparing training interventions. Consequently, we investigated whether subjects being told they are in the intervention group get better training results compared to subjects being told they are in a control group. Forty athletes (male: n = 31, female: n = 9) completed a 10-week training intervention (age: 22 ± 4 years, height: 183 ± 10 cm, and body mass: 84 ± 15 kg). After randomization, the participants were either told that the training program they got was individualized based on their force-velocity profile (Placebo), or that they were in the control group (Control). However, both groups were doing the same workouts. Measurements included countermovement jump (CMJ), 20-m sprint, one-repetition maximum (1RM) back-squat, a leg-press test, ultrasonography of muscle-thickness (m. rectus femoris), and a questionnaire (Stanford Expectations of Treatment Scale) (Younger et al. in Clin Trials 9(6):767-776, 2012). Placebo increased 1RM squat more than Control (5.7 ± 6.4% vs 0.9 ± 6.9%, [0.26 vs 0.02 Effect Size], Bayes Factor: 5.1 [BF 10 ], p = 0.025). Placebo had slightly higher adherence compared to control (82 ± 18% vs 72 ± 13%, BF 10 : 2.0, p = 0.08). Importantly, the difference in the 1RM squat was significant after controlling for adherence (p = 0.013). No significant differences were observed in the other measurements. The results suggest that the placebo effect may be meaningful in sports and exercise training interventions. It is possible that ineffective training interventions will go unquestioned in the absence of placebo-controlled trials., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

The study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of an individualized power training program based on force-velocity (FV) profiling on physical function, muscle morphology, and neuromuscular adaptations in older men. Forty-nine healthy men (68 ± 5 years) completed a 10-week training period to enhance muscular power. They were randomized to either a generic power training group (GPT) or an individualized power training group (IPT). Unlike generic training, individualized training was based on low- or high-resistance exercises, from an initial force-velocity profile. Lower-limb FV profile was measured in a pneumatic leg-press, and physical function was assessed as timed up-and-go time (TUG), sit-to-stand power, grip strength, and stair-climbing time (loaded [20kg] and unloaded). Vastus lateralis morphology was measured with ultrasonography. Rate of force development (RFD) and rate of myoelectric activity (RMA) were measured during an isometric knee extension. The GPT group improved loaded stair-climbing time (6.3 ± 3.8 vs. 2.3% ± 7.3%, p = 0.04) more than IPT. Both groups improved stair-climbing time, sit to stand, and leg press power, grip strength, muscle thickness, pennation angle, fascicle length, and RMA from baseline (p < 0.05). Only GPT increased loaded stair-climbing time and RFD (p < 0.05). An individualized power training program based on FV profiling did not improve physical function to a greater degree than generic power training. A generic power training approach combining both heavy and low loads might be advantageous through eliciting both force- and velocity-related neuromuscular adaptions with a concomitant increase in muscular power and physical function in older men., (© 2022 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science In Sports published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Short-term energy deficit strategies are practiced by weight class and physique athletes, often involving high protein intakes to maximize satiety and maintain lean mass despite a paucity of research. This study compared the satiating effect of two protein diets on resistance-trained individuals during short-term energy deficit. Following ethical approval, 16 participants (age: 28 ± 2 years; height: 1.72 ± 0.03 m; body-mass: 88.83 ± 5.54 kg; body-fat: 21.85 ± 1.82%) were randomly assigned to 7-days moderate (PRO MOD : 1.8 g·kg -1 ·d -1 ) or high protein (PRO HIGH : 2.9 g·kg -1 ·d -1 ) matched calorie-deficit diets in a cross-over design. Daily satiety responses were recorded throughout interventions. Pre-post diet, plasma ghrelin and peptide tyrosine tyrosine (PYY), and satiety ratings were assessed in response to a protein-rich meal. Only perceived satisfaction was significantly greater following PRO HIGH (67.29 ± 4.28 v 58.96 ± 4.51 mm, p = 0.04). Perceived cravings increased following PRO MOD only (46.25 ± 4.96 to 57.60 ± 4.41 mm, p = 0.01). Absolute ghrelin concentration significantly reduced post-meal following PRO MOD (972.8 ± 130.4 to 613.6 ± 114.3 pg·mL -1 ; p = 0.003), remaining lower than PRO HIGH at 2 h (-0.40 ± 0.06 v -0.26 ± 0.06 pg·mL -1 normalized relative change; p = 0.015). Absolute PYY concentration increased to a similar extent post-meal (PRO MOD : 84.9 ± 8.9 to 147.1 ± 11.9 pg·mL -1 , PRO HIGH : 100.6 ± 9.5 to 143.3 ± 12.0 pg·mL -1 ; p < 0.001), but expressed as relative change difference was significantly greater for PRO MOD at 2 h (+0.39 ± 0.20 pg·mL -1 v -0.28 ± 0.12 pg·mL -1 ; p = 0.001). Perceived hunger, fullness and satisfaction post-meal were comparable between diets ( p > 0.05). However, desire to eat remained significantly blunted for PRO MOD ( p = 0.048). PRO HIGH does not confer additional satiating benefits in resistance-trained individuals during short-term energy deficit. Ghrelin and PYY responses to a test-meal support the contention that satiety was maintained following PRO MOD , although athletes experiencing negative symptoms (i.e., cravings) may benefit from protein-rich meals as opposed to over-consumption of protein.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of intermittent versus continuous energy restriction on body composition, resting metabolic rate, and eating behaviors in resistance-trained females. Thirty-eight resistance-trained females (mean ± standard deviation age: 22.3 ± 4.2 years) were randomized to receive either six weeks of a continuous 25% reduction in energy intake (n = 18), or one week of energy balance after every two weeks of 25% energy restriction (eight weeks total; n = 20). Participants were instructed to ingest 1.8 g protein/kilogram bodyweight per day and completed three weekly supervised resistance training sessions throughout the intervention. There were no differences between groups for changes over time in body composition, resting metabolic rate, or seven of the eight measured eating behavior variables (p > 0.05). However, a significant group-by-time interaction for disinhibition (p < 0.01) from the Three- Factor Eating Questionnaire was observed, with values (± standard error) in the continuous group increasing from 4.91 ± 0.73 to 6.17 ± 0.71, while values in the intermittent group decreased from 6.80 ± 0.68 to 6.05 ± 0.68. Thus, diet breaks do not appear to induce improvements in body composition or metabolic rate in comparison with continuous energy restriction over six weeks of dieting, but may be employed for those who desire a short-term break from an energy-restricted diet without fear of fat regain. While diet breaks may reduce the impact of prolonged energy restriction on measures of disinhibition, they also require a longer time period that may be less appealing for some individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Short-term energy deficit strategies are practiced by weight class and physique athletes, often involving high protein intakes to maximize satiety and maintain lean mass despite a paucity of research. This study compared the satiating effect of two protein diets on resistance-trained individuals during short-term energy deficit. Following ethical approval, 16 participants (age: 28 ± 2 years; height: 1.72 ± 0.03 m; body-mass: 88.83 ± 5.54 kg; body-fat: 21.85 ± 1.82%) were randomly assigned to 7-days moderate (PROMOD: 1.8 g·kg−1·d−1) or high protein (PROHIGH: 2.9 g·kg−1·d−1) matched calorie-deficit diets in a cross-over design. Daily satiety responses were recorded throughout interventions. Pre-post diet, plasma ghrelin and peptide tyrosine tyrosine (PYY), and satiety ratings were assessed in response to a protein-rich meal. Only perceived satisfaction was significantly greater following PROHIGH (67.29 ± 4.28 v 58.96 ± 4.51 mm, p = 0.04). Perceived cravings increased following PROMOD only (46.25 ± 4.96 to 57.60 ± 4.41 mm, p = 0.01). Absolute ghrelin concentration significantly reduced post-meal following PROMOD (972.8 ± 130.4 to 613.6 ± 114.3 pg·mL−1; p = 0.003), remaining lower than PROHIGH at 2 h (−0.40 ± 0.06 v −0.26 ± 0.06 pg·mL−1 normalized relative change; p = 0.015). Absolute PYY concentration increased to a similar extent post-meal (PROMOD: 84.9 ± 8.9 to 147.1 ± 11.9 pg·mL−1, PROHIGH: 100.6 ± 9.5 to 143.3 ± 12.0 pg·mL−1; p < 0.001), but expressed as relative change difference was significantly greater for PROMOD at 2 h (+0.39 ± 0.20 pg·mL−1 v −0.28 ± 0.12 pg·mL−1; p = 0.001). Perceived hunger, fullness and satisfaction post-meal were comparable between diets (p > 0.05). However, desire to eat remained significantly blunted for PROMOD (p = 0.048). PROHIGH does not confer additional satiating benefits in resistance-trained individuals during short-term energy deficit. Ghrelin and PYY responses to a test-meal support the contention that satiety was maintained following PROMOD, although athletes experiencing negative symptoms (i.e., cravings) may benefit from protein-rich meals as opposed to over-consumption of protein. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]