International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2018, 28, 46-54

https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsnem.2017-0221
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc. ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Resistance Training Combined With Diet Decreases

Body Fat While Preserving Lean Mass Independent
of Resting Metabolic Rate: A Randomized Trial
Todd Miller and Stephanie Mull
George Washington University

Alan Albert Aragon

California State University

James Krieger
Weightology, LLC

Brad Jon Schoenfeld

CUNY Lehman College

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of resistance training only (RT; n = 10), dietary
intervention only (DIET; n = 10), resistance training plus diet (RT+DIET; n = 10), and control (CON; n = 10)
on body composition and resting metabolic rate (RMR) in a cohort of 40 premenopausal female volunteers.
Subjects in DIET and RT+DIET were provided with daily macronutrient and calorie goals based on DXA and
RMR tests, with protein maintained at 3.1 g/kg/day. Subjects in the RT and RT+DIET groups performed a
supervised progressive RT program consisting of exercises for all the major muscle groups of the body. Results
showed a significant month-by-group interaction for change in fat mass with no significant linear trend for
control. The three treatment groups all showed significant linear decreases in fat mass, but the slope of the
decrease became progressively steeper from the RT, to DIET, to RT+DIET. A significant linear increase for
lean mass was seen for resistance training only. There was a nonsignificant increase in RMR in all groups from
Month 0 to Month 4 but no significant month by group interaction. In conclusion, significant reductions in fat
mass were achieved by all experimental groups, but results were maximized by RT+DIET. Only the RT group
showed significant increases in lean mass.

Keywords: body composition, fat-free mass, strength training

Aerobic exercise (AE) is commonly recommended
as the most effective exercise modality for weight loss
(Haskell et al., 2007). The American College of Sports
Medicine (ACSM) position stand on physical activity for
weight loss recommends 150–250 minutes per week of
moderate intensity physical activity (Donnelly et al.,
2009). While the ACSM promotes resistance training
(RT) as a means of increasing fat-free mass, which
should lead to improved body composition, it does
Miller and Mull are with Milken School of Public Health, George
Washington University, Washington, DC. Aragon is with California
State University, Northridge, CA. Krieger is with Weightology LLC,
Issaquah, WA. Schoenfeld is with the Dept. of Health Sciences, CUNY
Lehman College, Bronx, NY. Address author correspondence to Brad
Jon Schoenfeld at brad@workout911.com.
not promote RT for losing significant amounts of
body fat. Similarly, the United States Public Health
Service physical activity guidelines for weight loss do
not mention RT at all as a viable exercise modality for
weight loss. This is not surprising, as there is a paucity of
research examining the effects of RT on weight loss.
Furthermore, the few studies that have explored RT for
weight loss generally show that it is ineffective (Olson
et al., 2007; Willis et al., 2012). Indeed, the effectiveness
of any weight loss program is dependent on the size of
the caloric deficit that is created over time, and since AE
generally burns more calories per unit of time than RT
(Donnelly et al., 2009), it stands to reason that AE would
be the most commonly prescribed type of exercise for
losing weight. Contributing to the exclusion of RT for
weight loss is a widespread belief among dietitians,

46

nutritionists, and exercise professionals that it is not
possible to induce hypertrophy while in a caloric deficit,
and since the creation of a caloric deficit is essential for
fat loss, the use of RT for muscle growth in a caloric
deficit is counter-intuitive. These beliefs continue to
exist despite emerging evidence to the contrary (Josse
et al., 2011; Longland et al., 2016).
RT has been shown to elevate resting metabolism
for an extended period of time following cessation of the
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing aellsworth@ebsco.com on 02/02/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}
training session (Stiegler & Cunliffe, 2006). Addition-
ally, having a greater muscle mass should lead to a
greater resting metabolism (Gallagher et al., 1998).
Unlike RT, chronic AE performed in a caloric deficit
(which is often the recommendation for effective weight
loss) has the potential to lead to significant decreases in
muscle mass, thereby hampering improvements in body
composition (Swift et al., 2014). Ideally, a program
designed to improve body composition should do so
through the loss of fat alone, with muscle mass being
maintained or increased. This is particularly important to
premenopausal females, as it has been reported that
major weight gain occurs in women at a rate twice
that of men, and is highest in persons aged 25–34
(Williamson et al., 1990). Moreover, women have lower
baseline levels of muscle mass compared to men, and
thus are at greater risk of negative complications when
muscle proteins are lost during dieting.
Several reasons could exist for the lack of effec-
tiveness of RT reported in most weight loss studies
(Donnelly et al., 2009). Possible explanations include,
but are not limited to, 1) a lack of control and/or
measurement of caloric intake; 2) failure to adjust dietary
protein needs to support muscle growth; and 3) an
inadequate RT stimulus. Case studies of clients from
our laboratory have routinely demonstrated that substan-
tial decreases in body fat can be induced with RT as the
exclusive form of exercise. Furthermore, these decreases
in body fat occur with concomitant increases in muscle
mass, while in a caloric deficit.
The purpose of this study was threefold: 1) To
determine whether RT combined with dietary interven-
tion (RT+DIET) results in greater improvements in body
composition compared with RT or DIET alone in over-
weight/obese premenopausal women; 2) To determine
whether RT combined with dietary intervention (RT
+DIET) results in greater improvements in fat mass in
the visceral depot compared with RT or DIET alone,
and; 3) To determine whether concomitant increases in
muscle mass and decreases in fat mass can occur while in
a caloric deficit.
Methods
Subjects
Subjects were a convenience sample of 40 female
volunteers (body mass = 87.4 ± 12.6; height = 165.7 ±
7 cm; age = 32.3 ± 4.8 years; BMI = 31.9 ± 4.4). The
sample size was based on previous research by Jabekk,
IJSNEM Vol. 28, No. 1, 2018
Resistance Training Effects on Fat Loss 47
Moe, Meen, Tomten, and Hostmark (2010) using change
in fat mass as the outcome measure with a target effect
size difference of 0.4, alpha of 0.05 and minimum power
of 0.80. Recruitment took place from April 1, 2016 to
May 14, 2016, and follow up took place from August 15,
2016, to September 16, 2016. The following inclusion
criteria had to be met for participation: 1) women
between 25–40 years of age, 2) regular menstrual cycle,
3) body fat >30%, 4) normally active, 5) not currently
meeting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s
physical activity guidelines, 6) no organized weight
training within past 1 year, and 7) not currently dieting
or food logging. Exclusion criteria included 1) subjects
who do not have the ability to exercise based on a
Physical Activity Readiness questionnaire; 2) history
of an eating disorder, injury, or medical issue that would
prohibit them from resistance training; 3) pregnant or
nursing. Following recruitment, subjects were given a
screening questionnaire either in-person, electronically
(via email), or verbally (via phone), in order to determine
whether they were viable candidates. Informed consent
was obtained at the time of screening. The study was
conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki, and
was approved by the local University Ethics Committee.
Random sequences were generated by the primary
investigatory (PI) using a random number generator app
from https://www.random.org/. A 40-number sequence
was randomly produced by the app. Subjects were then
asked by the PI to press the button on the app, and were
randomly assigned to one of four groups based on the
following result from the app: 0–10 = control (CON;
n = 10); 11–20 = dietary intervention only (DIET;
n = 10); 21–30 = resistance training only (RT; n = 10);
31–40 = resistance training plus diet (RT+DIET; n = 10).
Testing
Subjects meeting criteria as defined by the screening
survey reported to the University lab for secondary
screening at 9:00 a.m. following an overnight fast.
Body composition was then measured via Dual Energy
X-ray Absorptiometry (iDXA, Lunar; GE Medical Sys-
tems, Madison, WI, USA). All DXA scans were ana-
lyzed using enCORE 2012 software (version 14.1) to
determine total percentage of fat and lean tissue, bone
mineral content, and visceral adipose tissue. Subjects
were instructed to report to the lab after an overnight fast
having refrained from exercise for 48 hours and to
remain normally hydrated prior to body composition
and RMR assessment.
After DXA scanning, subjects underwent testing for
resting metabolic rate (RMR) via indirect calorimetry to
determine daily resting caloric expenditure. Subjects sat
quietly in a reclined position and breathed normally for
10–12 minutes through a one-way valve with the nose
plugged. The subject inhaled normal room air, and
exhaled air was continuously collected and sent to a
KorrReeVue indirect calorimeter (Korr Medical Tech-
nologies, Salt Lake City, UT USA). RMR was calculated
 48 Miller et al.
by the calorimeter (Korr ReeVue, Salt Lake City, UT),
which automatically begins collecting gas when it de-
tects the first breath into the machine and then stops
automatically once the collection time is complete.
Follow-up DXA scans were obtained at weeks 4,
8, 12, and 16 and RMR testing was repeated at
week 16.
Diet
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing aellsworth@ebsco.com on 02/02/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}
Subjects in DIET and RT+DIET groups met individually
with a registered dietitian and were given daily macro-
nutrient and calorie goals based on their DXA and RMR
tests. Calculation of daily caloric intake was based on the
Harris-Benedict equation as follows with the objective
of energy-restriction: If the RMR was within 10% of the
predicted RMR, intake was set at the RMR; if the RMR
was greater than 10% over the predicted, intake was set
at 10% below the measured RMR; if the RMR was
greater than 10% below the predicted, intake was set at
10% above the measured RMR. Fat intake was set at
20% of total calories. Protein intake was calculated using
a factor of 3.1 g of protein per kg of fat-free mass (Helms
et al., 2014). Carbohydrate made up the balance of the
remaining calories.
Subjects in the DIET and RT+DIET groups began
following the prescribed caloric and macronutrient goals
as established in their meeting with the dietitian within
one week of the initial meeting and continued this
regimen over the entire course of the study. To track
nutritional consumption, subjects were familiarized with
the usage of a phone app & website for food logging
(fatsecret.com). During the course of the study, subjects
logged all of their foods daily into the fatsecret app and
the data were then analyzed to determine total energy
and macronutrient intake.
Exercise
Within two weeks following initial screening, subjects in
the RT and RT+DIET groups reported to Power Train
Sports and Fitness (www.powertrainsports.com) for an
exercise familiarization session. Subjects met with a
certified trainer from Power Train who walked them
through the exercise program, taught proper exercise
form, and establish appropriate training loads.
The RT intervention began within one week fol-
lowing the exercise familiarization session. All training
sessions were performed under the individual supervi-
sion of a certified personal trainer from Power Train.
Training sessions continued at a rate of two to three per
week (depending on training phase) for 16 weeks.
The RT intervention consisted of two separate
workout complexes that were alternated every four
weeks for the duration of the 16-week study. Exercise
Complex 1 consisted of Squats, Romanian Deadlifts,
Swiss Ball Squats, Bench Press, Lat Pulldown, Dumb-
bell Shoulder Press, Incline Dumbbell Fly, Seated
Row, Dumbbell Lateral Raise, and Low Back
IJSNEM Vol. 28, No. 1, 2018
Hyperextensions. Exercise Complex 2 consisted of
Deadlifts, Leg Curls, Leg Extensions, Incline Dumbbell
Press, Close Grip Pulldowns, Arnold Press, Cable Cross-
over, Chest Supported Dumbbell Row, Face Pulls, and
Low Back Hyperextension. Each exercise was com-
pleted for four sets of 10–12RM. Rest periods between
sets were between 60–90 seconds. Subjects trained three
times per week for weeks 1–3 of each month, then
trained twice weekly during the fourth week of each
month. Training loads for a given exercise were
increased when the subject could complete greater
than 12 reps on the first set, or when she could complete
12 reps on all 4 sets. Loads were progressively increased
in order to keep the RM in the 10–12 range.
Statistics
Data were modeled using a linear mixed model for
repeated measures, estimated by a restricted maximum
likelihood algorithm, with drop-outs removed from the
dataset. Diet intervention (control, diet, resistance train-
ing, resistance training + diet) was included as the
between-subject factor, month (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) was
included as the repeated within-subjects factor, month ×
intervention was included as the interaction, and
subject was included as a random effect. In cases where
significant interactions were present, linear time
trends of within-group changes were analyzed using
linear mixed models for repeated measures. Compari-
sons of statistically significant slopes for linear time
trends were done using t-tests with a Holm-Bonferroni
correction for multiple comparisons. Degrees of freedom
were calculated using a Satterthwaite approximation.
Comparisons between self-reported dietary data were
performed using independent t-tests. All analyses
were performed using package lmertest in R version
3.3.1 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
Vienna, Austria). Effects were considered significant
at p ≤ 0.05. Data are reported as x  SD unless otherwise
specified.
Results
A total of 31 subjects completed the study, with 9
dropouts (Control: n = 8; RT: n = 9; DIET: n = 9; RT
+DIET: n = 5). The reasons for the dropouts are as
follows: one subject got deployed; one subject moved;
two subjects suffered work-related injuries not con-
nected to the study; and five subjects ceased participation
for unknown personal reasons. Outcomes for all vari-
ables are presented in Table 1. One-way ANOVA was
used to compare baseline characteristics between
groups. There were no significant differences in age
(p = 0.73), body mass (p = 0.67), fat mass (p = 0.81),
FFM (p = 0.63), BMC (p = 1.0), or RMR (p = 0.83).
Based on review of self-report dietary logs and estimates
of energy expenditure, diet-only achieved a daily energy
restriction of ∼502 kcal while training + diet achieved a
daily energy restriction of ∼632 kcal.
 Resistance Training Effects on Fat Loss 49

Table 1 Outcomes for all Variables Across Time (M ± SD)

Outcome Group Month 0 Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4
Body weight (kg)* Control 86.0 ± 15.2 86.8 ± 18.0
Diet** 82.0 ± 11.3 80.9 ± 10.5 80.3 ± 10.3 79.5 ± 10.3 79.7 ± 10.2
Training 85.9 ± 15.3 86.1 ± 15.2 86.1 ± 15.3 85.8 ± 15.3 88.3 ± 16.0
Training + Diet** 91.1 ± 4.4 90.1 ± 4.5 89.5 ± 4.6 88.8 ± 3.8 88.0 ± 4.0
Percent fat* Control 43.0 ± 6.0 43.3 ± 6.5
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing aellsworth@ebsco.com on 02/02/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}

Diet** 44.0 ± 4.4 43.3 ± 4.5 42.9 ± 4.2 42.7 ± 4.0 42.2 ± 4.0
Training** 44.3 ± 6.0 43.4 ± 6.0 42.9 ± 5.7 42.8 ± 5.9 43.1 ± 6.6
Training + Diet** 45.3 ± 4.7 44.2 ± 4.7 43.8 ± 4.6 42.9 ± 4.9 43.3 ± 4.5
Fat mass (kg)* Control 37.5 ± 10.5 38.1 ± 12.1
Diet** 36.4 ± 7.9 35.2 ± 7.4 34.7 ± 7.0 34.1 ± 7.0 33.9 ± 6.8
Training 38.6 ± 11.0 37.8 ± 10.7 37.4 ± 10.5 37.3 ± 11.0 38.6 ± 11.7
Training + Diet** 41.3 ± 5.1 39.9 ± 5.0 39.2 ± 5.1 38.2 ± 5.2 38.0 ± 4.4
Lean mass (kg) Control 45.9 ± 6.9 46.0 ± 8.0
Diet 43.0 ± 4.6 43.0 ± 4.6 43.0 ± 4.7 42.7 ± 4.5 43.1 ± 4.6
Training** 44.7 ± 6.4 45.6 ± 6.7 46.0 ± 6.7 45.8 ± 6.0 46.9 ± 6.5
Training + Diet 47.1 ± 4.5 47.6 ± 4.5 47.6 ± 4.4 48.0 ± 4.3 47.1 ± 4.7
BMC (kg) Control 2.7 ± 0.3 2.7 ± 0.3
Diet 2.7 ± 0.4 2.7 ± 0.4 2.7 ± 0.4 2.7 ± 0.4 2.7 ± 0.5
Training 2.7 ± 0.5 2.7 ± 0.4 2.7 ± 1.0 2.7 ± 0.4 2.7 ± 0.5
Training + Diet 5.9 ± 0.4 5.9 ± 0.3 5.9 ± 0.4 5.9 ± 0.4 5.9 ± 0.3
VAT (kg) Control 0.9 ± 0.4 1.0 ± 0.5
Diet 0.8 ± 0.5 0.7 ± 0.5 0.7 ± 0.4 0.7 ± 0.4 0.7 ± 0.4
Training 0.8 ± 0.5 0.8 ± 0.5 0.8 ± 0.6 0.8 ± 0.5 0.9 ± 0.6
Training + Diet 0.9 ± 0.4 0.9 ± 0.4 0.9 ± 0.4 0.8 ± 0.4 0.8 ± 0.3
RMR (kcal/d) Control 1494 ± 193 1624 ± 301
Diet 1484 ± 232 1563 ± 216
Training 1525 ± 174 1544 ± 190
Training + Diet 1595 ± 334 1673 ± 175
*Significant group × month interaction (p < 0.05).
**Significant linear time trend within group (p < 0.05).

Body Weight only (β = −0.38; 95% CI = −0.57, −0.19; p = 0.0003), and

There was a significant month by group interaction
(p = 0.02). There was no significant linear trend for
control (β = 0.41; 95% CI = −1.08, 1.90; p = 0.58) or
resistance-training-only groups (β = 0.18; 95% CI =
−0.36, 0.73; p = 0.51). There were similar significant
linear decreases for the diet-only (β = −1.35; 95% CI =
− 2.03, −0.67; p = 0.0004) and resistance training+diet
groups (β = −1.68; 95% CI = −2.51, −0.85; p = 0.0006)
(see Figure 1).
Percent Fat
There was a significant month by group interaction (p =
0.004). There was no significant linear trend for control
(β = 0.07; 95% CI = −0.12, 0.26; p = 0.45). There were
similar significant linear decreases for the diet-only (β =
−0.40; 95% CI = −0.54, −0.26; p = 0.0), resistance-training
resistance-training+diet groups (β = −0.53; CI = −0.74,
−0.33; p < 0.0001) (see Figure 2).
Fat Mass
There was a significant month by group interaction
(p = 0.003). There was no significant linear trend for control
(β = 0.38; 95% CI = −0.62, 1.37; p = 0.46). The three
treatment groups all showed significant linear decreases
in fat mass, but the slope of the decrease became pro-
gressively steeper from the resistance-training only
group, to the diet-only group, to the resistance-training
+diet group (resistance training-only: β = −0.58; 95%
CI = −1.02, −0.14; p = 0.01; diet-only: β = −1.35; 95%
CI = −1.87, −0.83; p = 0.0; resistance training + diet:
β = −1.80; 95% CI = −2.43, −1.17; p < 0.0001) (see
Figure 3). When comparing the three statistically signifi-
cant slopes for fat mass using t-tests corrected for

IJSNEM Vol. 28, No. 1, 2018

 50 Miller et al.
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing aellsworth@ebsco.com on 02/02/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}

Figure 1 — Effect of experimental conditions on changes in body weight in Diet Only, Resistance Training Only, and Resistance
Training + Diet groups for each month across the duration of the study. *Denotes significant linear trend.

Figure 2 — Effect of experimental conditions on changes in percent body fat in Diet Only, Resistance Training Only, and Resistance
Training + Diet groups for each month across the duration of the study. *Denotes significant linear trend.

multiple comparisons by Holm-Bonferroni, resistance Lean Mass

training+diet showed a significantly greater slope than
resistance training only (p = 0.002 tested at 0.017 Holm-
Bonferroni threshold); diet-only showed a nonsignifi-
cantly greater slope than resistance training-only (p = 0.03
tested at 0.03 Holm-Bonferroni threshold). There was no
significant difference between resistance training+diet
and diet-only (p = 0.29).
There was nearly a significant month by group interac-
tion (p = 0.05). There was no significant linear trend for
control (β = 0.03; 95% CI = −0.52, 0.57; p = 0.93), diet-
only (β = −0.004; CI = −0.30, 0.29; p = 0.98), or resis-
tance training+diet (β = 0.11; 95% CI = −0.40, 0.62;
p = 0.67). There was a significant linear increase for

IJSNEM Vol. 28, No. 1, 2018

 Resistance Training Effects on Fat Loss 51
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing aellsworth@ebsco.com on 02/02/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}

Figure 3 — Effect of experimental conditions on changes in fat mass in Diet Only, Resistance Training Only, and Resistance
Training + Diet groups for each month across the duration of the study. *Denotes significant linear trend.

resistance training-only (β = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.32, 1.2;
p = 0.002) (see Figure 4).
Bone Mineral Content
There was no significant month by group interaction
(p = 0.08). There were no significant linear trends for
any groups (Control: β = −0.003; 95% CI = −0.01, 0.01;
p = 0.60; Diet-Only: β = −0.01; 95% CI = −0.03, 0.004;
p = 0.16; Resistance Training-Only: β = 0.009; 95%
CI = −0.004, 0.02; p = 0.17; Resistance Training+Diet:
β = 0.008; 95% CI = −0.01, 0.03; p = 0.46).
VAT
There was no significant month by group interaction
(p = 0.20), group effect (p = 0.86), or month effect
(p = 0.14) for VAT.

Figure 4 — Effect of experimental conditions on changes in lean mass in Diet Only, Resistance Training Only, and Resistance
Training + Diet groups for each month across the duration of the study. *Denotes significant linear trend.

IJSNEM Vol. 28, No. 1, 2018

 52 Miller et al.

Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR) Discussion

There was no significant month by group interaction
(p = 0.79) or group effect (p = 0.76). There was a non-
significant (p = 0.09) increase in RMR in all groups from
Month 0 to Month 4. There were no significant inter-
actions or main effects for RMR as a percentage of the
predicted value, with p-values ranging from 0.28–0.58
(pertaining to both the interaction term in the model, and
the two main effects)
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing aellsworth@ebsco.com on 02/02/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}
The study produced several notable findings. First, while
reductions in fat mass were achieved by all experimental
groups, results were maximized by combining of RT and
diet. Second, only the RT group showed significant
increases in lean mass; combining RT with diet attenu-
ated these increases. Finally, RMR remained unchanged
over the course of the study period for all conditions;

changes in lean mass did not significantly affect this

Self-Reported Dietary Data
Self-reported dietary data are shown in Table 2. There
were no significant differences between the diet-only
and diet+training groups for self-reported calorie intake
(p = 0.49), carbohydrate intake (p = 0.31), fat intake
(p = 0.71), or protein intake (p = 0.62). There were
also no significant differences between groups for per-
centage of goals for calorie intake or macronutrients
(p = 0.23–0.75).
Group dietary time trends are shown in Table 2.
There was no significant month by group interaction for
calories (p = 0.40), protein (p = 0.77), or carbohydrate
(p = 0.44). There were no main effects of group for calories
(p = 0.45), protein (p = 0.44), or carbohydrate (p = 0.31),
nor were there main effects of time for calories (p = 0.23),
protein (p = 0.09), or carbohydrate (p = 0.41). There was a
significant month by group interaction for fat (p = 0.02).
There was a significant linear trend for fat to decrease
in the diet only group (β = −1.20; CI = −2.30, −0.10;
p = 0.04), whereas there was no trend in the diet and
training group (p = 0.51).
outcome.
The well-established negative effects of excess
body fat on health and wellness underscore the impor-
tance of determining effective strategies for weight loss.
All treatments produced significant reductions in fat
mass over the 16-week study period, with the exception
of RT-only, which showed a decrease in fat mass at
months 1–3, but an increase in fat mass at month 4.
These losses persisted in a linear fashion across each
month of the study, with the slope of the decrease
becoming progressively steeper from RT-only to
DIET-only to RT+DIET. Although RT-only did not
receive any nutritional prescription and were told not
to make any modifications to their usual diet, this group
apparently was in a hypocaloric state during the initial
three months of the trial, perhaps inspired by a desire to
realize additional benefits upon initiating an exercise
program. The increase in fat mass at the fourth month
may have reflected a lapse in eating restraint due to an
absence of dietary programming. These results reinforce
the fact that nutritional intervention combined with
exercise is paramount with respect to fat loss, with

Table 2 Self-Reported Dietary Intake of Energy and Macronutrients for Each Month of the Study
(M ± SD)
Aggregate dietary data
Diet Only Diet + Training
Kcal 1419 ± 183 1505 ± 223
Protein (g) 114 ± 21 120 ± 23
Carbohydrate (g) 145 ± 24 159 ± 22
Fat (g) 42 ± 5 41 ± 7
Dietary data by month
Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4
Kcal Diet 1439 ± 104 1441 ± 179 1397 ± 294 1401 ± 186
Diet + Training 1467 ± 319 1574 ± 211 1533 ± 219 1448 ± 198
Protein (g) Diet 108 ± 17 116 ± 20 110 ± 34 108 ± 23
Diet + Training 118 ± 27 130 ± 20 122 ± 27 112 ± 29
Carbohydrate(g) Diet 147 ± 18 147 ± 27 143 ± 32 143 ± 25
Diet + Training 154 ± 36 165 ± 23 164 ± 32 154 ± 25
Fat (g)* Diet** 46 ± 5 42 ± 6 40 ± 8 42 ± 5
Diet + Training 39 ± 8 42 ± 8 42 ± 7 41 ± 6
*Significant group × month interaction (p < 0.05).
**Significant linear time trend within group (p < 0.05).

IJSNEM Vol. 28, No. 1, 2018


exercise providing a supplemental but important role in
the process. Illustrating this point, a systematic review
and meta-analysis by Clark (2015) found that diet plus
RT or a combination of RT and AE had a greater impact
on improving body composition than diet alone. In a
study specific to resistance training, Bouchard, Soucy,
Senechal, Dionne, and Brochu (2009) compared the
effects of caloric restriction (CR), resistance training
(RT), or a combination of the two (CR + RT) in a cohort
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing aellsworth@ebsco.com on 02/02/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}
of obese postmenopausal women. Significant fat loss
occurred in CR and CR + RT, but not RT alone.
The maintenance of high levels of muscle mass has
implications on physical function, and plays a role in the
prevention of common pathologic conditions and
chronic diseases (Wolfe, 2006). In this regard, only
the RT group showed a significant increase in lean
mass, with subjects gaining 2.2 kg over the 16 week
study period. In the absence of caloric restriction, lean
mass gains via resistance training are expected, espe-
cially in untrained subjects. In an investigation with a
similar subject profile (obese women age 20–40 years in
nondieting conditions), Jabekk et al. (2010) reported that
the nondieting control group gained 1.5 kg FFM during
10 weeks of RT. Assuming the same rate of gain
extended another 6 weeks to match the length of the
present study, this would have amounted to 2.4 kg FFM;
which is consistent with the gain of 2.2 kg seen in the
present study. In contrast with recent studies (Josse et al.,
2011; Longland et al., 2016), the RT+DIET group did
not show significant increases in lean mass over the
duration of the study. However, it should be noted that
there was a linear increase over the first 12 weeks of the
study, with an apparent loss of these gains during the
final month. The reason for this finding is not readily
apparent. An additional consideration is that water is the
predominant and most widely fluctuating component of
FFM due to varying glycogen concentrations, electrolyte
balance influencing hydration, and other factors. There-
fore, increases in FFM are not necessarily accompanied
by directly proportional increases in contractile protein
and do not necessarily reflect gains in muscle mass.
Interestingly, the diet-only group did not lose any
FFM over the 16-week intervention period. Research
generally shows a loss of lean tissue concomitant to a
caloric deficit. It is conceivable that the high-protein
content of the diet (3.1 g/kg/FFM) helped to offset any
such losses. In support of this, a systematic review by
Helms et al. (2014) reported that lean, resistance-trained
subjects in hypocaloric conditions required a protein
intake of 2.3–3.1 g/kg FFM in order to maximally
protect against lean tissue losses. In addition, the present
study did not involve particularly aggressive caloric
restriction (1419 & 1505 kcal/day in DIET and RT +
DIET, respectively). Despite rigorous efforts to ensure
compliance to the diet (i.e., weekly review of food logs,
ongoing email support for dietary tracking, and monthly
meetings with the dietician to answer any diet-related
questions), there nevertheless is the possibility of under-
reporting of caloric intake. Lichtman et al. (1992) found
IJSNEM Vol. 28, No. 1, 2018
Resistance Training Effects on Fat Loss 53
that obese subjects under-reported their intake by an
average of 47% (a group mean of 1053 kcal/day). Thus,
in addition to the nonaggressively prescribed caloric
deficit, the potential for under-reporting total energy
combined with the high protein intake target could
have spared FFM.
There were no significant changes in RMR noted
from pre- to post-study in any of the conditions studied.
Our results on the topic concur with the body of litera-
ture, which shows that changes in lean mass do not
necessarily parallel changes in RMR (Stiegler &
Cunliffe, 2006). Although there is a clear metabolic
cost of maintaining lean mass, the actual energy expen-
diture associated with skeletal muscle is rather low,
estimated at only ∼13 kcal/kg per day (Wang et al.,
2011). Aristizabal et al. (2015) recently investigated the
possibility of estimating RMR responses in resistance-
training subjects via DXA-measured changes in FFM.
Although there was a large degree of interindividual
variability, 9 months of resistance training and supple-
mentation with either protein or carbohydrate increased
RMR by an average of 5%, and FFM (among other
factors) was positively correlated with this small but
significant increase. In light of this finding, it is possible
that the present study would need a longer duration to
detect significant changes in RMR.
Our study had several notable limitations that must
be considered when making evidence-based inferences
from the data. First, although DXA is a well-established
modality for estimating body composition, the measure-
ment of lean mass is specific to all nonfat and bone-free
components, and thus does not necessarily reflect
changes in skeletal muscle. Second, given that the
subjects were premenopausal women, menstrual
changes may have altered observed changes in body
composition. Third, the findings are specific to obese,
premenopausal women and cannot necessarily be gen-
eralized to other populations. Finally, the sample size
was rather small, thereby limiting statistical power for
probability assessment.
Conclusion
Findings of this study indicate that a total-body RT
program combined with a caloric deficit is a viable
strategy for reducing body fat while preserving lean
mass in obese, premenopausal women. Positive results
do not appear to be related to increases in RMR. Given
the health-related implications for carrying excess body
fat, these findings indicate that diet is the paramount
consideration for combating obesity and combining
nutritional prescription with RT appears to help optimize
changes in body composition.
Acknowledgments
The study was funded by a grant from the Sumner M. Redstone
Global Center for Prevention and Wellness.
 54 Miller et al.
References
Aristizabal, J.C., Freidenreich, D.J., Volk, B.M., Kupchak,
B.R., Saenz, C., Maresh, C.M., : : : Volek, J.S. (2015).
Effect of resistance training on resting metabolic rate and
its estimation by a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry
metabolic map. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
69(7), 831–836. PubMed doi:10.1038/ejcn.2014.216
Bouchard, D.R., Soucy, L., Senechal, M., Dionne, I.J., &
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing aellsworth@ebsco.com on 02/02/18, Volume ${article.issue.volume}, Article Number ${article.issue.issue}
Brochu, M. (2009). Impact of resistance training with
or without caloric restriction on physical capacity in obese
older women. Menopause (New York, N.Y.), 16(1),
66–72. doi:10.1097/gme.0b013e31817dacf7
Clark, J.E. (2015). Diet, exercise or diet with exercise: Com-
paring the effectiveness of treatment options for weight-
loss and changes in fitness for adults (18–65 years old)
who are overfat, or obese; systematic review and meta-
analysis. Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders, 14,
31. doi:10.1186/s40200-015-0154-1
Donnelly, J.E., Blair, S.N., Jakicic, J.M., Manore, M.M.,
Rankin, J.W., Smith, B.K., & American College of
Sports Medicine. (2009). American College of Sports
Medicine Position Stand. Appropriate physical activity
intervention strategies for weight loss and prevention of
weight regain for adults. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 41(2), 459–471. PubMed doi:10.1249/MSS.
0b013e3181949333
Gallagher, D., Belmonte, D., Deurenberg, P., Wang, Z., Kras-
now, N., Pi-Sunyer, F.X., & Heymsfield, S.B. (1998).
Organ-tissue mass measurement allows modeling of REE
and metabolically active tissue mass. The American Jour-
nal of Physiology, 275(2 pt 1), E249–E258. PubMed
Haskell, W.L., Lee, I.M., Pate, R.R., Powell, K.E., Blair, S.N.,
Franklin, B.A., : : : American Heart Association. (2007).
Physical activity and public health: Updated recommen-
dation for adults from the American College of
Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association.
Circulation, 116(9), 1081–1093. PubMed doi:10.1161/
CIRCULATIONAHA.107.185649
Helms, E.R., Zinn, C., Rowlands, D.S., & Brown, S.R. (2014).
A systematic review of dietary protein during caloric
restriction in resistance trained lean athletes: A case for
higher intakes. International Journal of Sport Nutrition
and Exercise Metabolism, 24(2), 127–138. PubMed
doi:10.1123/ijsnem.2013-0054
Jabekk, P.T., Moe, I.A., Meen, H.D., Tomten, S.E., & Host-
mark, A.T. (2010). Resistance training in overweight
women on a ketogenic diet conserved lean body mass
while reducing body fat. Nutrition & Metabolism, 7, 17.
PubMed doi:10.1186/1743-7075-7-17
Josse, A.R., Atkinson, S.A., Tarnopolsky, M.A., & Phillips,
S.M. (2011). Increased consumption of dairy foods and
IJSNEM Vol. 28, No. 1, 2018
protein during diet- and exercise-induced weight loss
promotes fat mass loss and lean mass gain in overweight
and obese premenopausal women. The Journal of Nutri-
tion, 141(9), 1626–1634. PubMed doi:10.3945/jn.111.
141028
Lichtman, S.W., Pisarska, K., Berman, E.R., Pestone, M.,
Dowling, H., Offenbacher, E., : : : Heymsfield, S.B.
(1992). Discrepancy between self-reported and actual
caloric intake and exercise in obese subjects. The New
England Journal of Medicine, 327(27), 1893–1898.
PubMed doi:10.1056/NEJM199212313272701
Longland, T.M., Oikawa, S.Y., Mitchell, C.J., Devries, M.C.,
& Phillips, S.M. (2016). Higher compared with lower
dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with
intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat
mass loss: A randomized trial. The American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 103(3), 738–746. PubMed doi:10.
3945/ajcn.115.119339
Olson, T.P., Dengel, D.R., Leon, A.S., & Schmitz, K.H.
(2007). Changes in inflammatory biomarkers following
one-year of moderate resistance training in overweight
women. International Journal of Obesity (2005), 31(6),
996–1003. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0803534
Stiegler, P., & Cunliffe, A. (2006). The role of diet and exercise
for the maintenance of fat-free mass and resting metabolic
rate during weight loss. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.),
36(3), 239–262. doi:10.2165/00007256-200636030-00005
Swift, D.L., Johannsen, N.M., Lavie, C.J., Earnest, C.P., &
Church, T.S. (2014). The role of exercise and physical
activity in weight loss and maintenance. Progress in
Cardiovascular Diseases, 56(4), 441–447. PubMed
doi:10.1016/j.pcad.2013.09.012
Wang, Z., Ying, Z., Bosy-Westphal, A., Zhang, J., Heller, M.,
Later, W., : : : Muller, M.J. (2011). Evaluation of specific
metabolic rates of major organs and tissues: Comparison
between men and women. American Journal of Human
Biology, 23(3), 333–338. PubMed doi:10.1002/ajhb.
21137
Williamson, D.F., Kahn, H.S., Remington, P.L., & Anda, R.F.
(1990). The 10-year incidence of overweight and major
weight gain in US adults. Archives of Internal Medicine,
150(3), 665–672. PubMed doi:10.1001/archinte.1990.
00390150135026
Willis, L.H., Slentz, C.A., Bateman, L.A., Shields, A.T., Piner,
L.W., Bales, C.W., : : : Kraus, W.E. (2012). Effects of
aerobic and/or resistance training on body mass and fat
mass in overweight or obese adults. Journal of Applied
Physiology (Bethesda, Md.: 1985), 113(12), 1831–1837.
doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01370.2011
Wolfe, R.R. (2006). The underappreciated role of muscle in
health and disease. The American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 84(3), 475–482. PubMed
Copyright of International Journal of Sport Nutrition & Exercise Metabolism is the property
of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.