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

3Citations
Citations of this article
71Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Vargas-Molina, S., Bonilla, D. A., Petro, J. L., Carbone, L., García-Sillero, M., Jurado-Castro, J. M., … Benítez-Porres, J. (2023). Efficacy of progressive versus severe energy restriction on body composition and strength in concurrent trained women. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 123(6), 1311–1321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-023-05158-8

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free