Search

Copyright of Science of Gymnastics Journal is the property of Science of Gymnastics Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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]

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.