Introduction: Can intermittent energy restriction (IER) improve fat loss and fat-free mass retention compared with continuous energy restriction (CER) in resistance-trained adults?Methods: Sixty-one adults (32 women) with mean (SD) age 28.7 (6.5) years, body weight 77.2 (16.1) kg and body fat 25.5 (6.1)% were randomized to 12 weeks of (1) 4 x 3-weeks of moderate (m) energy restriction interspersed with 3 x 1-weeks of energy balance (mIER; n=30; 15 weeks total), or (2) 12 weeks of continuous moderate energy restriction (mCER; n=31).Analyses of all outcome measures were by intention-to-treat.Results: After accounting for baseline differences, mIER did not result in lower fat mass or body weight, or greater fat-free mass, compared to mCER after energy restriction. Mean (and 97.5% confidence interval, CI) for fat mass at the end of mIER versus mCER was 15.3 (12.5 to 18.0) kg versus 18.0 (14.3 to 21.7) kg (P=0.321), for fat-free mass was 56.7 (51.5 to 61.9) kg versus 56.7 (51.4 to 62.0) kg (P=0.309), and for body weight (with 95% CI) was 72.1 (66.4 to 77.9) versus 74.6 (69.3 to 80.0) (P=0.283). There were no differences between interventions in muscle strength or endurance or in resting energy expenditure, leptin, testosterone, insulin like growth factor-1, free 3,3′,5-triiodothyronine or active ghrelin, nor in sleep, muscle dysmorphia or eating disorder behaviours. However, participants in mIER exhibited lower hunger (P=0.002) and desire to eat (P=0.014) compared to those in mCER, and greater satisfaction (P=0.016) and peptide YY (P=0.034).Conclusions: Similar fat loss and fat-free mass retention are achieved with mIER and mCER during 12 weeks of energy restriction; however, mIER is associated with reduced appetite.

No abstract

No abstract

Ultrasound has been demonstrated to be a highly accurate and reliable tool for measuring subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness and is robust against changes in hydration status or acute food or fluid intake. However, the effect of prior acute exercise is unexamined. This study examined the impact of an acute endurance exercise and resistance exercise session on standardised brightness‐mode ultrasound measurements of subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness compared to skinfolds and dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry body composition estimates. In a randomised cross‐over design, 30 active adults (24.2 ± 4.9 years) undertook physique assessment via standardised brightness‐mode ultrasound, skinfolds and dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry before, immediately and 45 min after an acute endurance or resistance exercise session. The mean sum of eight subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness measured via standardised brightness‐mode ultrasound increased (0.6 mm, p = 0.04) immediately postendurance exercise but was not meaningful when evaluated against the technical error of measurement of the investigator. A significant (p = 0.01) but not meaningful decrease in the sum of eight skinfolds occurred immediately (−1.1 ± 0.4 mm) and 45 min (−1.3 ± 0.4 mm) postresistance exercise. Comparatively, endurance exercise elicited a meaningful decrease of total mass (460 ± 30 g) and trunk lean mass (680 ± 90 g) dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry estimates. Findings from this study indicate standardised client presentation may be unnecessary when employing either standardised brightness‐mode ultrasound or skinfolds for body composition assessment unlike dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry.

This study tested whether subcutaneous fat loss is enhanced via application of a popular topical fat loss lotion. Twenty resistance-trained men (mean ± SD age of 26.3 ± 6.3 years and weight of 86.8 ± 11.1 kg) had a topical fat-loss lotion containing Coleus forskholii, Silybin, Eucommia ulmoides leaf, Paullinia cupana seed, caffeine, and black pepper essential oil applied twice daily for 8 weeks to the front and lateral thigh of one of the participant's leg, and a placebo control lotion was applied to the same sites on the other leg. After 8 weeks, there were no significant differences between the placebo and treatment legs for the change in subcutaneous fat thickness of the front thigh (p = 0.73) or for leg fat percentage (p = 0.52). However, there was a slight, yet significant difference in the change in subcutaneous fat thickness of the lateral thigh favoring the treatment leg (−0.42 vs +0.75 mm, p = 0.029), but with this difference disappearing depending on the statistical tests being used. Only 2/19 participants perceived a difference in fat loss in response to each condition. Although the topical lotion tested here resulted in statistically significantly greater subcutaneous fat loss at the lateral but not front thigh, this effect was very small, contingent upon the statistical test being used, and unperceivable by the participants themselves.