Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 Aug 1;53(8):1685-1698.
doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002636.

Continuous versus Intermittent Dieting for Fat Loss and Fat-Free Mass Retention in Resistance-trained Adults: The ICECAP Trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Continuous versus Intermittent Dieting for Fat Loss and Fat-Free Mass Retention in Resistance-trained Adults: The ICECAP Trial

Jackson J Peos et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. .

Abstract

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 a mean (SD) age of 28.7 (6.5) yr, body weight of 77.2 (16.1) kg, and body fat of 25.5% (6.1%) were randomized to 12 wk of 1) 4 × 3 wk of moderate (m) energy restriction interspersed with 3 × 1 wk of energy balance (mIER; n = 30; 15 wk total) or 2) 12 wk 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 with mCER after energy restriction. Mean (and 97.5% confidence interval for fat mass at the end of mIER versus mCER was 15.3 (12.5-18.0) kg versus 18.0 (14.3-21.7) kg (P = 0.321), that for fat-free mass was 56.7 (51.5-61.9) kg versus 56.7 (51.4-62.0) kg (P = 0.309), and that for body weight (with 95% confidence interval) was 72.1 (66.4-77.9) versus 74.6 (69.3-80.0) (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, or in sleep, muscle dysmorphia, or eating disorder behaviors. However, participants in mIER exhibited lower hunger (P = 0.002) and desire to eat (P = 0.014) compared with 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 wk of energy restriction; however, mIER is associated with reduced appetite.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Brito CJ, Roas A FC, Brito I SS, Marins J CB, Córdova C, Franchini E. Methods of body mass reduction by combat sport athletes. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab . 2012;22(2):89–97.
    1. Fogelholm M. Effects of bodyweight reduction on sports performance. Sports Med . 1994;18(4):249–67.
    1. Garthe I, Raastad T, Refsnes PE, Koivisto A, Sundgot-Borgen J. Effect of two different weight-loss rates on body composition and strength and power-related performance in elite athletes. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab . 2011;21(2):97–104.
    1. Hagmar M, Berglund B, Brismar K, Hirschberg AL. Body composition and endocrine profile of male Olympic athletes striving for leanness. Clin J Sport Med . 2013;23(3):197–201.
    1. Helms ER, Fitschen PJ, Aragon AA, Cronin J, Schoenfeld BJ. Recommendations for natural bodybuilding contest preparation: resistance and cardiovascular training. J Sports Med Phys Fitness . 2015;55(3):164–78.

Publication types