BackgroundA very limited amount of research has examined intermittent fasting (IF) programs, such as time-restricted feeding (TRF), in active populations.ObjectiveOur objective was to examine the effects of TRF, with or without β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate (HMB) supplementation, during resistance training (RT).MethodsThis study employed a randomized, placebo-controlled, reduced factorial design and was double-blind with respect to supplementation in TRF groups. Resistance-trained females were randomly assigned to a control diet (CD), TRF, or TRF plus 3 g/d HMB (TRFHMB). TRF groups consumed all calories between 1200 h and 2000 h, whereas the CD group ate regularly from breakfast until the end of the day. All groups completed 8 wk of supervised RT and consumed supplemental whey protein. Body composition, muscular performance, dietary intake, physical activity, and physiological variables were assessed. Data were analyzed prior to unblinding using mixed models and both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) frameworks.ResultsForty participants were included in ITT, and 24 were included in PP. Energy and protein intake (1.6 g/kg/d) did not differ between groups despite different feeding durations (TRF and TRFHMB: ∼7.5 h/d; CD: ∼13 h/d). Comparable fat-free mass (FFM) accretion (+2% to 3% relative to baseline) and skeletal muscle hypertrophy occurred in all groups. Differential effects on fat mass (CD: +2%; TRF: −2% to −4%; TRFHMB: −4% to −7%) were statistically significant in the PP analysis, but not ITT. Muscular performance improved without differences between groups. No changes in physiological variables occurred in any group, and minimal side effects were reported.ConclusionsIF, in the form of TRF, did not attenuate RT adaptations in resistance-trained females. Similar FFM accretion, skeletal muscle hypertrophy, and muscular performance improvements can be achieved with dramatically different feeding programs that contain similar energy and protein content during RT. Supplemental HMB during fasting periods of TRF did not definitively improve outcomes. This study was prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03404271.

Tinsley, GM, Trexler, ET, Smith-Ryan, AE, Paoli, A, Graybeal, AJ, Campbell, BI, and Schoenfeld, BJ. Changes in body composition and neuromuscular performance through preparation, two competitions, and a recovery period in an experienced female physique athlete. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2018-This prospective case study evaluated an experienced female figure competitor during contest preparation, 2 competitions, and a recovery period. Twelve laboratory sessions were conducted over 8 months. At each visit, body composition was assessed by 4-compartment model, resting metabolic rate (RMR) by indirect calorimetry, and neuromuscular performance by peak force and rate of force development (RFD) on a mechanized squat device. Caloric intake ranged from 965 to 1,610 kcal·d (16.1-24.8 kcal·kg·BM; 18.2-31.1 kcal·kg·FFM), with varying macronutrient intakes (CHO: 0.3-4.8 g·kg; PRO: 1.7-3.0 g·kg; and FAT: 0.2-0.5 g·kg). Body fat was reduced from 20.3 to 12.2% before the first competition and declined to 11.6% before the second competition. Fat-free mass increased by 2.1% before the first competition and peaked at 4.6% above baseline in the recovery period. Resting metabolic rate decreased from 1,345 kcal·d at baseline to a low value of 1,119 kcal·d between competitions. By the end of recovery, RMR increased to 1,435 kcal·d. Concentric and eccentric peak forces declined by up to 19% before the first competition, experienced perturbations in the inter-competition and recovery periods, and remained 5-8% below baseline at study termination. Similarly, RFD decreased by up to 57% before the first competition, was partially recovered, but remained 39% lower than baseline at study termination. Despite favorable body composition changes, neuromuscular performance was impaired during and after the competitive season in an experienced female physique competitor.

Estimation of resting metabolic rate (RMR) is an important step for prescribing an individual’s energy intake. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of portable indirect calorimeters and RMR prediction equations in muscular physique athletes. Twenty-seven males (n = 17; body mass index (BMI): 28.8 ± 2.0 kg/m2; body fat: 12.5% ± 2.7%) and females (n = 10; BMI: 22.8 ± 1.6 kg/m2; body fat: 19.2% ± 3.4%) were evaluated. The reference RMR value was obtained from the ParvoMedics TrueOne 2400 indirect calorimeter, and the Cosmed Fitmate and Breezing Metabolism Tracker provided additional RMR estimates. Existing RMR prediction equations based on body weight (BW) or dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry fat-free mass (FFM) were also evaluated. Errors in RMR estimates were assessed using validity statistics, including t tests with Bonferroni correction, linear regression, and calculation of the standard error of the estimate, total error, and 95% limits of agreement. Additionally, new prediction equations based on BW (RMR (kcal/day) = 24.8 × BW (kg) + 10) and FFM (RMR (kcal/day) = 25.9 × FFM (kg) + 284) were developed using stepwise linear regression and evaluated using leave-one-out cross-validation. Nearly all existing BW- and FFM-based prediction equations, as well as the Breezing Tracker, did not exhibit acceptable validity and typically underestimated RMR. The ten Haaf and Weijs (PLoS ONE, 9: e1084602014 (2014)) and Cunningham (1980) (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 33: 2372–2374 (1980)) FFM-based equations may produce acceptable RMR estimates, although the Cosmed Fitmate and newly developed BW- and FFM-based equations may be most suitable for RMR estimation in male and female physique athletes. Future research should provide additional external cross-validation of the newly developed equations to refine the ability to predict RMR in physique athletes.

Graybeal, AJ, Moore, ML, Cruz, MR, and Tinsley, GM. Body composition assessment in male and female bodybuilders: a 4-compartment model comparison of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and impedance-based devices. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2018-The purpose of this study was to examine the group and individual accuracy of body composition estimates obtained from multicompartment models, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and several impedance-based devices in male and female bodybuilders. Twenty-seven male (n = 17; 4-compartment [4C] model fat-free mass index [FFMI]: 25.1 ± 1.8 kg·m; 4C body fat: 11.8 ± 4.4%) and female (n = 10; 4C FFMI: 18.3 ± 1.4 kg·m; 4C body fat: 19.7 ± 4.9%) bodybuilders underwent duplicate assessments using DXA, bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS), electrical impedance myography (EIM), and 3 bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) devices. In addition to utilizing standard output, multicompartment models were generated. For each method, body fat %, FFM, and fat mass were compared with the reference 4C model for the evaluation of group and individual errors. The 3-compartment model with a BIS body water estimate produced the lowest standard error of the estimate, total error (TE), and 95% limits of agreement (LOA) for all variables, although some alternative methods had lower constant error (CE). In general, multicompartment models with BIS or multifrequency BIA body water estimates produced more accurate body composition estimates than single assessment techniques (i.e., DXA, BIS, EIM, and BIA). Single assessment techniques produced low CE and TE for some body composition variables. However, proportional bias was observed for DXA and BIS. All single assessment techniques produced LOA large enough to make the utility of these methods questionable in individual athletes. Appropriate caution should be used when interpreting and utilizing body composition estimates in muscular physique athletes, particularly at the individual level.

FFM characteristics were shown to differ between male and female physique athletes. These results may have implications for optimal body composition assessment methods when atypical physique characteristics are present.