scholarly journals Continuous versus intermittent moderate energy restriction for increased fat mass loss and fat free mass retention in adult athletes: protocol for a randomised controlled trial—the ICECAP trial (Intermittent versus Continuous Energy restriction Compared in an Athlete Population)

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e000423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jackson J Peos ◽  
Eric R Helms ◽  
Paul A Fournier ◽  
Amanda Sainsbury
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Fat Mass ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Resting Energy Expenditure ◽  
Energy Restriction ◽  
Fat Free Mass ◽  
Muscle Performance ◽  
Adaptive Responses ◽  
Continuous Energy ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionReducing fat mass (FM) while retaining fat free mass (FFM) is a common goal of athletes. Evidence suggests that some—but not all—forms of intermittent energy restriction (IER) may be superior to the conventional method of continuous energy restriction (CER) for people with excess body fat that are sedentary, by reducing some of the adaptive responses to ER. However, it is yet to be established whether this dietary approach is effective for athletes.Methods and analysisA single-blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio is proposed. Sixty healthy athletes aged ≥18 years will be recruited from local sporting facilities and randomised to an intervention of either moderate CER (mCER) or moderate IER (mIER). Both interventions will consist of 12 weeks of moderate ER, plus 3 weeks in energy balance (EB). The mCER intervention will entail 12 weeks of continuous moderate ER, followed by 3 weeks in EB. The mIER intervention will entail 12 weeks of moderate ER, administered as 4×3 week blocks of moderate ER, interspersed with 3×1 week blocks of EB. The co-primary outcomes are changes in FM and FFM after 12 weeks of moderate ER. Secondary outcomes will be changes in FM and FFM at 15 weeks after intervention commencement, as well as muscle performance, physical activity, sleep quality, changes in resting energy expenditure, subjective drive to eat, circulating concentrations of appetite-regulating hormones, mood states and diet acceptability.Trial registrationACTRN12618000638235p.

scholarly journals Contrary to the Conclusions Stated in the Paper, Only Dry Fat-Free Mass Was Different between Groups upon Reanalysis. Comment on: “Intermittent Energy Restriction Attenuates the Loss of Fat-Free Mass in Resistance Trained Individuals. A Randomized Controlled Trial”

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 85
Author(s):  
Jackson Peos ◽  
Andrew W. Brown ◽  
Colby J. Vorland ◽  
David B. Allison ◽  
Amanda Sainsbury
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Body Composition ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Resting Metabolic Rate ◽  
Energy Restriction ◽  
Fat Free Mass ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Continuous Energy ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Campbell and colleagues recently published a randomised controlled trial investigating the effects of diets involving intermittent energy restriction versus continuous energy restriction on changes in body composition and resting metabolic rate (RMR) in resistance-trained adults[...]

The Effects of Graduated Compression Sleeves on Muscle Performance: A Randomised Controlled Trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 985-992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria C. Pereira ◽  
Martim Bottaro ◽  
Lee E. Brown ◽  
Valdinar A. Rocha-Junior ◽  
Saulo S. Martorelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Muscle Performance ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Study protocol for a 9-month randomised controlled trial assessing the effects of almonds versus carbohydrate-rich snack foods on weight loss and weight maintenance

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. e036542
Author(s):  
Sharayah Carter ◽  
Alison M Hill ◽  
Catherine Yandell ◽  
Jonathan D Buckley ◽  
Sze-Yen Tan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weight Loss ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Weight Maintenance ◽  
Energy Restriction ◽  
Cardiometabolic Health ◽  
Snack Foods ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionEpidemiological studies indicate an inverse association between nut consumption and body mass index (BMI). However, clinical trials evaluating the effects of nut consumption compared with a nut-free diet on adiposity have reported mixed findings with some studies reporting greater weight loss and others reporting no weight change. This paper describes the rationale and detailed protocol for a randomised controlled trial assessing whether the inclusion of almonds or carbohydrate-rich snacks in an otherwise nut-free energy-restricted diet will promote weight loss during 3 months of energy restriction and limit weight regain during 6 months of weight maintenance.Methods and analysisOne hundred and thirty-four adults aged 25–65 years with a BMI of 27.5–34.9 kg/m2 will be recruited and randomly allocated to either the almond-enriched diet (AED) (15% energy from almonds) or a nut-free control diet (NFD) (15% energy from carbohydrate-rich snack foods). Study snack foods will be provided. Weight loss will be achieved through a 30% energy restriction over 3 months, and weight maintenance will be encouraged for 6 months by increasing overall energy intake by ~120–180 kcal/day (~500-750kJ/day) as required. Food will be self-selected, based on recommendations from the study dietitian. Body composition, resting energy expenditure, total daily energy expenditure (via doubly labelled water), physical activity, appetite regulation, cardiometabolic health, gut microbiome, liver health, inflammatory factors, eating behaviours, mood and personality, functional mobility and pain, quality of life and sleep patterns will be measured throughout the 9-month trial. The effects of intervention on the outcome measures over time will be analysed using random effects mixed models, with treatment (AED or NFD) and time (baseline, 3 months and 9 months) being the between and within factors, respectively in the analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the University of South Australia Human Research Ethics Committee (201436). Results from this trial will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals, national and international presentations.Trial registration numberAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001861246).

scholarly journals Intermittent Energy Restriction Attenuates the Loss of Fat Free Mass in Resistance Trained Individuals. A Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bill I. Campbell ◽  
Danielle Aguilar ◽  
Lauren M. Colenso-Semple ◽  
Kevin Hartke ◽  
Abby R. Fleming ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Caloric Restriction ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Resting Metabolic Rate ◽  
Energy Restriction ◽  
Fat Free Mass ◽  
Continuous Group ◽  
Continuous Energy ◽  
Group A ◽  
Males And Females ◽  
Composition Changes

There is a lack of research into how lean, resistance trained (RT) individuals respond to intermittent energy restricted diets. Therefore, we investigated body composition changes in RT-individuals during continuous energy restriction or intermittent restriction. A total of 27 males and females (25 ± 6.1 years; 169 ± 9.4 cm; 80 ± 15.6 kg) were randomized to a ~25% caloric restricted diet Refeed (RF; n = 13) or Continuous group (CN; n = 14) in conjunction with 4-days/week resistance training for 7-weeks. RF implemented two consecutive days of elevated carbohydrate (CHO) intake, followed by 5-days of caloric restriction each week. CN adhered to a continuous 7-week caloric restriction. Body mass (BM), fat mass (FM), fat-free mass (FFM), dry fat-free mass (dFFM), and resting metabolic rate (RMR) were assessed pre/post-diet. Both groups significantly reduced BM (RF: baseline = 76.4 ± 15.6 kg, post-diet = 73.2 ± 13.8 kg, Δ3.2 kg; CN: baseline = 83.1 ± 15.4 kg, post-diet = 79.5 ± 15 kg, Δ3.6 kg) and FM (RF: baseline = 16.3 ± 4 kg, post-diet = 13.5 ± 3.6 kg, Δ2.8 kg; CN: baseline = 16.7 ± 4.5 kg, post-diet = 14.4 ± 4.9 kg, Δ2.3 kg) with no differences between groups. FFM (RF: baseline = 60.1 ± 13.8 kg, post-diet = 59.7 ± 13.0 kg, 0.4 kg; CN: baseline = 66.4 ± 15.2 kg, post-diet = 65.1 ± 15.2 kg, Δ1.3 kg p = 0.006), dFFM (RF: baseline = 18.7 ± 5.0 kg, post-diet = 18.5 ± 4.5 kg, Δ0.2 kg; CN: baseline =21.9 ± 5.7 kg, post-diet = 20.0 ± 5.7 kg, Δ1.9 kg), and RMR (RF: baseline = 1703 ± 294, post-diet = 1665 ± 270, Δ38 kcals; CN: baseline = 1867 ± 342, post-diet = 1789 ± 409, Δ78 kcals) were better maintained in the RF group. A 2-day carbohydrate refeed preserves FFM, dryFFM, and RMR during energy restriction compared to continuous energy restriction in RT-individuals.

Fast track to health — Intermittent energy restriction in adolescents with obesity. A randomised controlled trial study protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-90
Author(s):  
Natalie B. Lister ◽  
Hiba Jebeile ◽  
Helen Truby ◽  
Sarah P. Garnett ◽  
Krista A. Varady ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Study Protocol ◽  
Fast Track ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Energy Restriction ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Randomised controlled trial of intermittent vs continuous energy restriction during chemotherapy for early breast cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Harvie ◽  
Mary Pegington ◽  
Sacha J. Howell ◽  
Nigel Bundred ◽  
Phil Foden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Fat ◽  
Weight Control ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Energy Restriction ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Chemotherapy Toxicity ◽  
Continuous Energy ◽  
Potential Efficacy ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Excess adiposity at diagnosis and weight gain during chemotherapy is associated with tumour recurrence and chemotherapy toxicity. We assessed the efficacy of intermittent energy restriction (IER) vs continuous energy restriction (CER) for weight control and toxicity reduction during chemotherapy. Methods One hundred and seventy-two women were randomised to follow IER or CER throughout adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were weight and body fat change. Secondary endpoints included chemotherapy toxicity, cardiovascular risk markers, and correlative markers of metabolism, inflammation and oxidative stress. Results Primary analyses showed non-significant reductions in weight (−1.1 (−2.4 to +0.2) kg, p = 0.11) and body fat (−1.0 (−2.1 to +0.1) kg, p = 0.086) in IER compared with CER. Predefined secondary analyses adjusted for body water showed significantly greater reductions in weight (−1.4 (−2.5 to −0.2) kg, p = 0.024) and body fat (−1.1 (−2.1 to −0.2) kg, p = 0.046) in IER compared with CER. Incidence of grade 3/4 toxicities were comparable overall (IER 31.0 vs CER 36.5%, p = 0.45) with a trend to fewer grade 3/4 toxicities with IER (18%) vs CER (31%) during cycles 4–6 of primarily taxane therapy (p = 0.063). Conclusions IER is feasible during chemotherapy. The potential efficacy for weight control and reducing toxicity needs to be tested in future larger trials. Clinical trial registration ISRCTN04156504.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document