The Effects of Intermittent Diet Breaks during 25% Energy Restriction on Body Composition and Resting Metabolic Rate in Resistance-Trained Females: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of intermittent versus continuous energy restriction on body composition, resting metabolic rate, and eating behaviors in resistance-trained females. Thirty-eight resistance-trained females (mean ± standard deviation age: 22.3±4.2 years) were randomized to receive either six weeks of a continuous 25% reduction in energy intake (n= 18), or one week of energy balance after every two weeks of 25% energy restriction (eight weeks total; n= 20). Participants were instructed to ingest 1.8 g protein/kilogram bodyweight per day and completed three weekly supervised resistance training sessions throughout the intervention. There were no differences between groups for changes over time in body composition, resting metabolic rate, or seven of the eight measured eating behavior variables (p > 0.05). However, a significant group-by-time interaction for disinhibition (p < 0.01) from the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire was observed, with values (± standard error) in the continuous group increasing from 4.91 ± 0.73 to 6.17 ± 0.71, while values in the intermittent group decreased from 6.80 ± 0.68 to 6.05 ± 0.68. Thus, diet breaks do not appear to induce improvements in body composition or metabolic rate in comparison with continuous energy restriction over six weeks of dieting, but may be employed for those who desire a short-term break from an energy-restricted diet without fear of fat regain. While diet breaks may reduce the impact of prolonged energy restriction on measures of disinhibition, they also require a longer time period that may be less appealing for some individuals.

Effect of planned pauses versus continuous energy restriction on weight loss and attrition: a systematic review

“…The main reason for exclusion was that the intervention did not meet the definition of a planned pause. Two studies that otherwise met our definition of a planned-pause intervention were excluded due to being conducted in an ineligible population (i.e., BMI < 25 kg/m 2 ) [20,21].…”

“…The main reason for exclusion was that the intervention did not meet the definition of a planned pause. Two studies that otherwise met our definition of a planned‐pause intervention were excluded due to being conducted in an ineligible population (i.e., BMI < 25 kg/m 2 ) [20, 21]. Two studies that met all other inclusion criteria were excluded because the duration of the pause interval was longer than the preceding energy restriction interval [22, 23].…”