Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Springer, European Journal of Applied Physiology, 6(123), p. 1311-1321, 2023

DOI: 10.1007/s00421-023-05158-8

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Efficacy of progressive versus severe energy restriction on body composition and strength in concurrent trained women

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Abstract Purpose This study evaluated the concurrent training (CT) effect in combination with either progressive energy restriction (PER) or severe energy restriction (SER) on body composition and strength-related variables in resistance-trained women. Methods Fourteen women (29.5 ± 3.8 years; 23.8 ± 2.8 kg·m−2) were randomly assigned to a PER (n = 7) or SER (n = 7) group. Participants performed an 8-week CT program. Pre- and post-intervention measures of fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) were assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and strength-related variables were assessed through 1-repetition maximum (in the squat and bench press) and countermovement jump. Results Significant reductions in FM were observed in PER and SER (Δ = − 1.7 ± 0.4 kg; P = < 0.001; ES = − 0.39 and Δ = − 1.2 ± 0.6 kg; P = 0.002; ES = − 0.20, respectively). After correcting FFM for fat-free adipose tissue (FFAT), no significant differences for this variable were found either in PER (Δ = − 0.3 ± 0.1; P = 0.071; ES = − 0.06) or in SER (Δ = − 0.2 ± 0.1; P = 0.578; ES = − 0.04). There were no significant changes in the strength-related variables. No between-group differences were found in any of the variables. Conclusion A PER has similar effects to a SER on body composition and strength in resistance-trained women performing a CT program. Given that PER is more flexible and thus may enhance dietary adherence, it might be a better alternative for FM reduction compared to SER.