Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No
Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly
cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 7
Body Recomposition
conducted in resistance-trained indi- nutritional control, etc.) and their magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI)
viduals that have demonstrated body potential to impact the outcomes and computed tomography. Recently,
recomposition (3,13,16,21,36,52,62,72). (Tables 1–4). Therefore, the purpose the combination of different tools (i.e.,
In addition, dietary intake (i.e., energy of this review is to discuss the existing DEXA + BIA) has been used to quan-
balance, macronutrients, etc.) has been literature that has reported body recom- tify total body volume into 4C.
shown to influence body composition position among resistance-trained indi- Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry
alone (6,11,23,25,28,31,54). Moreover, viduals. Second, we will address the (DEXA) is a 3-compartment model
contrasting results reported in the liter- commonly used to monitor and assess
when combined with RT, body recom-
ature among a majority of competitive changes in body composition. It can
position is potentiated to a greater
physique athletes during contest distinguish between bone mineral con-
degree (3,13,21). For example, protein
preparation. tent, FFM, and FM. Furthermore, it
intake is commonly manipulated
among individuals seeking to maximize ESTIMATING BODY COMPOSITION can compartmentalize different
RT outcomes. There is evidence exhib- WITH DIFFERENT ASSESSMENTS regions of the body (i.e., trunk, leg,
iting recomposition effects when indi- To draw conclusions from each study’s arm), but is unable to discern between
viduals are engaged in RT and are results, it is important to understand the specific muscle groups (e.g., quadri-
consuming a high dietary protein methods for assessing body composition, ceps/hamstrings, biceps/triceps, etc.)
intake (i.e., .2.0 g/kg/d) (3,13,21). their strengths, weaknesses, and reliabil- (22). A recent validation study demon-
Interestingly, there are also data dem- ity. These assessments rely on different strated a lower error rate using DEXA
onstrating that reductions in FM can assumptions and vary based on how for measuring intraindividual, concom-
occur in well-trained subjects with hy- many compartments it divides an indi- itant changes in FFM and FM (68). In
percaloric intakes, specifically when vidual’s total mass (i.e., 4C, 3C, 2C). Typ- addition, newer models have been
the surplus is due to an increase in pro- ically, body composition is divided into shown to have strong test-retest intra-
tein (13,22). Collectively, those studies bone content, lean mass (i.e., muscle, class correlation coefficients while esti-
suggest that evidence-based nutritional connective tissue, internal organs, etc.), mating FFM during whole-body scans
strategies can further enhance body and FM. In addition, it is important to (e.g., .0.99) (32). The standard error
recomposition in trained individuals. consider that there can be a significant rate when comparing the criterion
variability/error rate depending on the MRI to DEXA for estimating body
Physique competitors carefully manipu- fat percentage is ;1.6%. It is important
mode of body composition assessment
late both their training and nutritional to note that some of the recomposition
(8,22,68). Furthermore, external factors
programs to maximize muscle mass and results demonstrated in the training/
(for example, hydration status [intracel-
decrease FM to present their most aes- nutrition literature may be within the
lular versus extracellular], nutritional sta-
thetic physique. During the “off-season,” standard error rate. Thus, these results
tus [fasted versus fed], etc.) can influence
they strive to accumulate as much muscle must be taken with caution because the
the accuracy of how these assessments
mass as possible, while minimizing FM quantify fat-free mass (FFM) and FM. It magnitude of change in these studies
gained in a hypercaloric state (24). How- is also important to note that precisely may be due to inherent variation from
ever, most case studies on physique com- quantifying gains in skeletal muscle tissue the measurement method.
petitors through contest preparation do can be difficult due to its composition Body composition can also be separated
not demonstrate a recomposition effect (i.e., ;75% water, ;15–25% protein, into 2 compartments (e.g., FFM and
(33,48,56). During this phase, competitors ;2–3% glycogen, and ;5% intramus- FM) using BodPod, skinfold calipers,
restrict their caloric intake, and increase cular triglycerides) (19,22,34). Therefore, bioelectrical impedance, underwater
energy expenditure to attain extremely the goal of this section is to provide a weighing, and ultrasound techniques.
low levels of body fat. This hypoenergetic simple overview of the body composi- Air-displacement plethysmography
state has been shown to negatively impact tion methods used in the studies, pre- (BodPod) is an apparatus that estimates
many variables that can affect body sented in Tables 2–4. body composition based on the inverse
recomposition such as sleep, hormones,
The 4-compartment model (4C) that relationship between volume and pres-
and metabolism (35,46,69,71). Therefore,
has been considered the gold- sure. It measures the amount of air dis-
these intense physical demands signifi-
standard assessment divides the body placed by an individual’s body
cantly stress the body and make recom-
into FM, water, bone mineral content, considering thoracic gas volume. A few
position difficult for this population. studies have shown slight discrepancies
and residual content (63,68). More-
When analyzing the current literature over, the 4C model also allows for esti- in accurately determining body fat per-
demonstrating body recomposition in mation of protein content (74). centages (range 5 1.8–3.6 %BF) when
trained individuals, it is important to However, it is costly and very time- examining air-displacement plethysmog-
consider contextual differences between consuming because 4C uses a variety raphy (39,43). However, BodPod does
studies (i.e., body composition assess- of laboratorial assessments. Two of seem to have a strong test-retest reliability
ments, training design, duration, these laboratory assessments include (e.g., .0.99) (70). In addition, a recent
study comparing DEXA to BodPod in similar to DEXA for estimates of body muscular adaptations compared to
collegiate hockey players demonstrated composition (9,51). Importantly, train- advanced lifters. For example, Cribb
that BodPod significantly overestimated ing/nutrition studies using A-mode et al. (16) reported significant gains in
FFM (2.93 6 2.06 kg) and underesti- ultrasonography need to consider intra- FFM (+5 kg) and reductions in FM
mated FM (3.27 6 1.92 kg) (18). Regard- individual variability when performing (21.4 kg) in a group of recreationally
ing the training/nutrition studies using body composition assessments. trained individuals over 10 weeks. How-
BodPod at both baseline and posttesting, Due to the potential limitations for each ever, Antonio et al. (4) reported that
the absolute values should be taken with assessment, practitioners need to be highly trained subjects gained 1.9 kg
caution. However, given the relatively aware that minor changes in body com- of FFM and did not demonstrate signif-
high test-retest reliability for BodPod, position demonstrated with these tools icant reductions in FM over an 8-week
more confidence can be given regarding may be due to inherent variability and/ period. Many high-level athletes often
the reported delta changes in FM or covariates that were not quantified take time away from their training reg-
and FFM. (e.g., hydration and nutritional status). imen (i.e., off-season) or have a period
Finally, another assessment to examine With that said, when these methods are with substantially less work performed
changes in body composition is A- appropriately used and strictly standard- (i.e., detraining). This detraining period
mode ultrasonography. Specifically, this ized, there is a stronger likelihood that the will likely lead to a temporary reduction
technique can measure muscle thick- results observed are accurate and reliable. in training status, performance, and
ness and subcutaneous fat. Recently, body composition profile. However,
this method has also been used to cal- TRAINING STATUS once training resumes, these individuals
culate total body FFM, FM, and body It is well accepted that training status typically regain their body composition
fat percentage in conjunction with the significantly impacts the rate of pro- adaptations rapidly (47). For example,
7-site Jackson-Pollock formula (9). This gress in body composition. Novice Zemski et al. (76) reported significant
assessment has been reported to be trainees tend to experience greater gains in FFM (+1.8 kg) and reductions
Body Recomposition
Table 2
Summary of study designs that have demonstrated recomposition with resistance training without nutrition reported in trained individuals
VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2020
Study Training status/demographic Study design Training intervention BC assessment Nutrition Conclusions
Alcaraz Resistance-trained men with Counterbalanced repeated- Both groups performed 6RM DEXA NR Both groups increased FFM,
et al. (1) at least 1 y of RT experience measures design. sets to failure for 6 total and lost a non-significant
and can produce a force Participants were randomly compound and isolation amount of FM.
equal to twice their body assigned to high-resistance exercises 3 d/wk HRC
mass during an isometric circuit (HRC) training (FFM +1.5,a FM 21.1)
squat or TST
Traditional strength training (FFM + 1.2,a FM 20.8)
(TST).
8-wk intervention
Colquhoun RT college males with $6 mo Counterbalanced, parallel- Daily undulating A-mode NR Both groups increased FFM,
et al. (15) experience. groups repeated-measures periodization program ultrasound and lost a non-significant
1RM squat: BM ratio-low design. Participants were designed to target the amount of FM.
frequency 1.7 high randomly assigned to low powerlifts (squat, bench Low frequency (FFM +1.7,a FM
frequency 1.6 frequency (33/wk) or high press, and deadlift) while
frequency (63/wk). 6-wk equating intensity and 20.3)
1RM bench: BM ratio-low High frequency (FFM +2.6,a
frequency 1.3 high intervention volume
FM 20.1)
frequency 1.2
1RM deadlift: BM ratio-low
frequency 2.0 high
frequency 2.0
Wilborn NCAA Division III female Parallel-group repeated- Full-body undulating DEXA NR Both groups increased FFM
et al. (72) basketball players (at least 1 measures design. periodized program 4 d/wk. and lost FM.
y RT experience) Participants were randomly Sport-specific conditioning W
assigned to whey (W) or 3 d/wk (FFM +1.5a, FM 21.3a)
casein (C). 8-wk training C
period (FFM +1.4a, FM 20.6a)
Yue et al. Recreationally trained men Parallel-group repeated- 6-wk hypertrophy/strength BodPod NR Both groups increased FFM,
(75) with average 3 y RT measures design. program and lost a non-significant
experience Participants were randomly amount of FM.
1RM squat: BM ratio assigned to low training LV-HF (FFM +1.2,a FM 20.6)
LV-HF 1.3 6 0.3 volume-high frequency (LV- HV-LF (FFM +1.4,a FM 22.4)
HV-LF 1.1 6 0.1 HF)
1RM bench: BM ratio or
LV-HF 1.0 6 0.2 High training volume-low
HV-LF 0.9 6 0.2 frequency group
(HV-LF)
a
Statistical significance.
BM 5 body mass; DEXA 5 dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry; RT 5 resistance training; FFM 5 fat-free mass; FM 5 fat mass; HP 5 high protein intake; HV-LF 5 high volume-low frequency;
NP 5 normal protein intake; NR 5 not recorded; PRO 5 protein intake; 1RM 5 one repetition maximum.
Table 3
Summary of study designs that have demonstrated recomposition with resistance training and nutrition data provided in trained individuals
Antonio Resistance-trained men Parallel-group Hypertrophy-oriented BodPod NP group maintained the Both groups increased FFM
et al. (3) and women who had repeated-measures upper and lower split same dietary habits (2.3 and lost FM.
been weight training design. Participants routine program 5 d/ g PRO/kg/d) NP (FFM +1.5a, FM 20.3a)
regularly were randomly wk HP group consumed (3.4 g HP (FFM +1.5a, FM 21.6a)
Avg assigned to normal PRO/kg/d)
Normal pro: 2.4 6 1.7 protein (NP) or high Total calories-NP: 2,119
High pro: 4.9 6 4.1 protein (HP) groups. HP: 2,614
8-wk heavy resistance
training program
Antonio Resistance-trained men Counterbalanced- Participants exercised BodPod NP group maintained the Both groups increased FFM
et al. (4) and women who had group repeated- outside of the same dietary habits (1.8 and reduced body fat
been weight training measures design. laboratory and were g PRO/kg/d) percentage to a non-
regularly Participants were asked to track their HP group consumed 4.4 g significant degree. The HP
(8.9 6 6.7 y and an randomly assigned total volume load PRO/kg/d. group lost a non-significant
average of 8.5 6 3.3 h to NP or HP groups. Total Cal- amount of FM and the NP
per wk) Subjects performed NP: 2,052 group gained a trivial
training outside of HP: 2,835 amount of FM.
laboratory and NP (FFM +1.3, FM +0.3)
reported total HP (FFM +1.9, FM 20.2)
volume load at
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
baseline and
posttesting.
8-wk intervention
Campbell Aspiring female physique Parallel-group Hypertrophy-oriented A-mode LP group consumed (0.9 g Both groups increased FFM,
et al. athletes able to deadlift repeated-measures upper and lower split ultrasound PRO/kg/d) however only the HP group
(13) 1.53 BM and $3 mo RT design. Participants routine program. HP group consumed (2.5 g lost a significant amount of
1RM squat: BM ratio-High were randomly 4 d/wk PRO/kg/d) FM.
protein group 1.1 assigned to HP or Total Cal- HP (FFM +2.1a, FM 21.1a)
Low protein group 1.2 low protein (LP). HP: 1,839 LP (FFM +0.6a, FM 20.8)
1RM deadlift: BM ratio- 8-wk intervention LP: 1,416
high protein group 1.4
Low protein group 1.6
(continued)
11
12
Body Recomposition
Table 3
(continued )
VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2020
Cribb et al. Recreational bodybuilders Parallel-group Linear progressive DEXA Both groups on average Both groups increased FFM.
(16) with at least 2 y of RT repeated-measures overload program. consumed 2.1 g PRO/ However, only the W group
experience design. Participants Designed for kg/d during the study. lost FM.
1RM squat: BM ratio- were randomly maximizing strength W (FFM +5.0,a FM 21.4a) C
Both groups 0.9 6 0.1 assigned to whey and hypertrophy was
protein (W) or casein divided into 3 (FFM +0.8,a FM +0.1)
1RM bench: BM ratio-whey
group 1.0 6 0.1 protein (C) groups. phases; preparatory
Casein group 1.1 6 0.1 10-wk training period (70–75% of 1RM),
overload phase-1
(80–85% of 1RM),
and overload phase-
2 (90–95% of 1RM).
Upper and lower split
routine
Haun et al. Resistance-trained young Parallel-group Linear progressive DEXA All groups aimed for a 500 All groups increased FFM but
(21) men with minimum repeated-measures overload program. calorie surplus and 1.6 only the W and GWP lost
estimated 1.5 3 BM design. Participants Full-body 33/wk. g/PRO/kg/d during the FM.
squat were partitioned to Sets would increase first wk of the study. The M (FFM +2.3,a FM +0.2)
3RM squat: BM ratio-1.6 maltodextrin (M), each wk but groups on average WP (FFM +1.7,a FM 20.7a)
3RM bench: BM ratio-1.2 whey protein (WP), repetitions remained consumed 2.2 g/PRO/ GWP (FFM +2.9,a FM 21.0a)
or graded whey at a goal of 10 per kg/d throughout the
protein (GWP) exercise. study.
groups. 6-wk training
period
Kreipke Resistance-trained young Parallel-group 4 d/wk progressive, DEXA No differences in PRO or Both groups increased FFM
et al. men ($1 y training in repeated-measures strength-oriented caloric intake. but only the PL group lost a
(36) the squat, bench, and design. Participants powerlifting Avg PRO intake: 2.1 g/kg/d significant amount of FM.
deadlift) were randomly regimen. 5 3 5 and 3 PL (FFM +1.1,a FM 20.7a)
1RM squat: BM ratio-both assigned to placebo 3 10 of compound SUP (FFM +1.3,a FM 20.2)
groups 1.6 (PL) exercises performed
1RM bench: BM ratio- or to volitional fatigue
Placebo 1.2 Preworkout Preworkout
1.3 supplement (SUP)
1RM deadlift: BM ratio- 4-wk training period
Placebo 2.0 Preworkout
2.1
Table 3
(continued )
Slater et al. Elite male water polo and Parallel-group Full-body strength- DEXA All groups on average All groups gained FFM.
(62) rowers repeated-measures oriented program consumed 2.4 g PRO/ However, reductions in FM
Avg RT experience design. Participants composed of mainly kg/d and increased were non-significant.
PL: 7.1 6 1.7 were randomly compound exercises mean energy intake 224 PL (LBM +0.9,a
assigned to placebo with 24–32 sets per kJ/kg/d during the study HMB (LBM +1.2,FM 20.4)
HMB: 7.4 6 2.0 a
FM 21.0)
trHMB: 6.9 6 0.8 (PL), HMB, or time session trHMB (LBM +3.5,a FM 22.5)
released HMB
(trHMB) groups. 6-wk
training period
Rauch NCAA Division II female Parallel-group 7-wk (3 d/wk) power- DEXA No differences in PRO or Both groups increased FFM
et al. volleyball players repeated-measures oriented full-body caloric intake. and lost FM.
(52) 1RM squat: BM ratio design. Participants program Avg PRO intake: 1.6 g/kg/d OTL (FFM +2.7,a FM 22.7a)
1.1 were randomly PVBT (FFM +2.7,a FM 22.1a)
assigned to optimal
training load (OTL)
or
Progressive velocity-
based training (PVBT)
a
Statistical significance.
BM 5 body mass; DEXA 5 dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry; FFM 5 fat-free mass; FM 5 fat mass; HP 5 high protein intake; NP 5 normal protein intake; PRO 5 protein intake; 1RM 5 one
repetition maximum; OTL 5 optimal training load.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
13
14
Body Recomposition
Table 4
Summary of case studies that investigate body composition changes in response to exercise, nutrition, and supplementation of competitive physique
athletes
VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2020
Study Competitor demographic Resistance training Aerobic BC assessment Nutrition supplements Conclusions
Halliday 27-y-old drug-free Prep: 4–5 d/wk Prep: (10–30) min HIIT 1–2 d/ DEXA $2.2 g/kg PRO daily Body fat decreased
et al. amateur female figure High-volume program wk and (45–120 min) aerobic throughout prep and from 15.1% (8.3
(20) competitor training each muscle exercise 1 d/wk recovery kg) at baseline to
20-wk prep + 20-wk group 2–33/wk Recovery: (10–30 min) HIIT Supplements used: whey 8.6% (4.3 kg) one
recovery Recovery: 3–4 d/wk high- 1–2 d/wk and (45–60 min) and casein protein and wk out of
volume program aerobic exercise 1 d/wk 5 g/d of creatine competition.
monohydrate FFM was maintained
at 44.3 kg
throughout 20-wk
prep 20-wk
postcomp
showed BF%
returned to
baseline at 14.8%.
Kistler 26-y-old drug-free, 5 d/wk Beginning contest prep, two DEXA 250 g PRO daily for all FFM decreased 6.6
et al. amateur male 60–90 min sessions 40-min sessions of high- prep kg
(33) bodybuilder with 10 y Each muscle group trained intensity interval training Supplements used: 30 g FM decreased
RT experience 23/wk (HIIT) per wk. BCAA, 3 g HMB, 2 g fish 10.4 kg
26-wk prep Day 1: 3–8 reps End of contest prep, four 60- oil, 5 g creatine mono,
Day 2: 8–15 reps min sessions of HIIT and two 6 g beta alanine,
30-min sessions of low- multivitamin
intensity steady-state (LISS)
per wk
Pardue 21-y-old drug-free, 5–6 d/wk No aerobic exercise was BodPod and At baseline, the Prep: BF% decreased
et al. amateur male Each muscle group trained performed at baseline, but DEXA competitor consumed from 13.4 to 9.6%
(48) bodybuilder with 8 y 23/wk cardio was incrementally 3,860 cal (28% protein recovery: BF%
RT experience Variety of repetition ranges increased until reaching a [3.2 g/kg], 52% increased to
32-wk prep + 20-wk (4–25 repetitions) and weekly load of two 20-min carbohydrate [5.9 g/ 17.2%
recovery intensities HIIT sessions and four 30-min kg], 20% fat [1.0 g/kg])
medium-intensity steady End of prep, the
state (MISS) sessions. competitor consumed
1,724 kilocalories (52%
protein [2.9 g/kg], 19%
carbohydrate [1.1 g/
kg], 29% fat [0.7 g/kg])
Supplements used: whey
protein, BCAA, creatine
monohydrate, beta-
alanine, and
preworkout
Table 4
(continued )
Petrizzo 29-y-old drug-free Phase 1: 4–5 d/wk for the Phase 1 (20–60): min HIIT 3 d/ DEXA .3.2 g/kg PRO daily FFM increased 0.7 kg
et al. amateur female figure first 22 wk; phase 2: 6 d/wk wk throughout prep FM decreased
(50) competitor with 8-y RT for the final 10 wk) Phase 2 (30–40): min HIIT 4 d/ Supplements used: 8.0 kg
experience High-volume program wk BCAA, whey protein,
32-wk prep performing 33 sets to beta alanine, citrulline
failure each exercise malate, alpha-
hydroxyisocaproic
acid, creatine
monohydrate, vitamin
B-6
Rohrig 24-y-old drug-free female 5 d/wk Weekly adjustments of HIIT and Hydrostatic $2.0 g/kg PRO daily BF% was reduced
et al. competitor with 5-y RT Each muscle group trained MISS based on discretion of weighing throughout prep from 30.45 to
(55) experience 24-wk prep 23/wk; one with coach. Supplements used: 15.85%
moderate intensity (60– At end of prep 185 min of MISS creatine monohydrate, FFM increased 1.3 kg
80% 1RM) and volume with HIIT 3d/wk fish oil, and FM decreased 11.4
and one with high multivitamin kg
intensity (85% + 1RM) and
lower volume
Rossow 27-y-old drug-free 4 d/wk Prep: 1 d/wk of HIIT and 1 d/wk BodPod and Prep period macros: Prep: (FFM 22.8 kg)
et al. professional male Each muscle group trained of LISS DEXA ;36% PRO, ;36% BF% decreased from
(56) bodybuilder with 2 y 23/wk during the 48-wk Recovery: 1 d/wk of HIIT carbohydrate (CHO), 14.8 to 4.5%
pro status and ;28% fat for 5 d/ Recovery: (FFM 20.2
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
in FM (22.2 kg) in elite rugby players during an isometric squat at the begin- Collectively, these studies indicate that
after detraining for 4 weeks and then ning of the intervention. The subjects body recomposition can occur in
returning for an 11-week high-volume, performed 8 weeks of either a high- trained individuals using a variety of
high-intensity training program during resistance circuit (HRC) or a tradi- RT programs that are geared to
their preseason. tional strength training (TST) pro- develop muscular strength and hyper-
When exploring the literature on phy- gram. Both groups performed 3–6 trophy. In addition, adjusting nutri-
sique athletes, most of the data are supervised sets of 6 exercises (3 com- tional intake is common in
demonstrated in case studies examining pound and 3 isolation) using a 6 repe- individuals attempting to maximize
competitors during contest preparation tition maximum (RM) to failure. The RT gains in strength and hypertrophy
(For details, Table 4). Contrary to what HRC group used a 35-second interset (54). In the next section, we will discuss
has been observed in the aforemen- recovery between exercises and per- RT studies that either monitored, con-
tioned trained populations, most phy- formed the exercises in circuit fashion, trolled, or manipulated the subjects’
sique athlete case studies do not whereas the TST group rested nutritional approach.
demonstrate a body recomposition 3 minutes between each set of each
effect (33,48,56). This is likely due to exercise before moving to the next NUTRITIONAL INFLUENCE ON
the extreme demands of this sport exercise. Only the HRC group signifi- BODY RECOMPOSITION WHEN
(i.e., energy restriction, high energy cantly decreased body fat percentage COUPLED WITH RESISTANCE
expenditure, severely low body fat, neg- by 21.5%, whereas the TST group TRAINING
ative hormonal adaptations, poor sleep, did not (21.1%). However, both The combination of RT and specific
etc.), which will be discussed later in this groups demonstrated a significant nutritional strategies can significantly
review. Interestingly, there is some con- increase in FFM of 1.5 and 1.2 kg, impact training performance (52),
flicting evidence demonstrating body respectively. In addition, in another recovery (7), and body composition
recomposition in female physique com- investigation, researchers examined (14,28,61). Generally, caloric deficits
petitors during their contest preparation recreationally trained males with 3 are prescribed for individuals seeking
phase (50,55). One potential explana- years of RT experience. This six-week to lose FM and caloric surpluses are
tion for the differences between males study randomized subjects into either a recommended for those seeking to
and females might be associated with low volume-high frequency (LV-HF) maximize muscle mass accrual
hormonal profile. For example, signifi- group where participants RT 4 days (23,54,61,73). Although this is com-
cant reductions in testosterone levels per week or a high volume-low fre- mon practice, there is evidence that
have been observed in males while in quency (HV-LF) group where partici- challenges this approach and suggests
a hypoenergetic state, dieting for com- pants RT 2 days per week (75). All there may be alternative strategies to
petition purposes (26,44,48,64). There- participants were instructed not to alter improve body composition
fore, the data on physique athletes are their normal nutritional habits. How- (3,4,40,42). For instance, there are data
difficult to reconcile due to the unique ever, the researchers did not report showing significant gains in FFM and
hypoenergetic demands of their sport in nutritional intake between the groups. reductions in FM while in a caloric
season when compared to other trained Both groups performed the same surplus (21). In addition, significant
populations. Although training status/ weekly volume, but the RT volume dif- body recomposition has been demon-
age seems to impact the magnitude of fered between the sessions. Regarding strated in hypocaloric studies (40,42).
changes in FFM and FM, more body composition, both LV-HF and Recently, Slater et al. (61) questioned
research is warranted to understand HV-LF groups significantly gained the necessity of a hypercaloric intake to
how training status can impact body FFM (1.2 and 1.4 kg, respectively). maximize skeletal muscle hypertrophy
recomposition over time in different However, the reductions in FM only in conjunction with RT. The mecha-
trained populations. reached statistical significance in the nisms that may explain the body
HV-LF group (22.4 kg) compared to recomposition phenomena are not well
TRAINING PRACTICES IN STUDIES LV-HF (20.6 kg). In another recent understood. For example, the precise
WITH TRAINED INDIVIDUALS study, Colquhoun et al. (15) investi- energy cost of skeletal muscle growth
DEMONSTRATING BODY gated the effects of training frequency is not fully known. In addition, we are
RECOMPOSITION (33/week versus 63/week) using a unsure how the magnitude of energy
Several studies among trained individ- volume-matched design in well- supply, specifically endogenous sour-
uals have reported body recomposi- trained subjects undergoing a power- ces (i.e., internal fat stores/body fat lev-
tion where nutritional intake was not lifting program. Both groups gained a els) and exogenous fuel (i.e., diet),
reported or was similar between the significant amount of FFM (33/week: pertain to this process (61). With that
interventions (1,36,52,62,72,75). For 1.7 kg, 63/week: 2.6 kg) and although said, body composition changes seem
example, Alcaraz et al. (1) recruited they both lost FM (20.3 and 20.1 kg, to be more complex than energy bal-
participants who were able to produce respectively), these reductions were ance alone because research has shown
a force equal to twice their body mass not statistically significant. that different nutritional strategies (i.e.,
coupled with progressive RT across a and is one component (of many) why Although studies have focused on
wide spectrum of trained populations. some individuals fail to maintain their describing the negative effects of sleep
Moreover, having higher levels of body weight loss (65,69). restriction on several different parame-
fat may affect the magnitude of body Additional data investigating sleep dep- ters including body composition, there
recomposition because these fat stores rivation have demonstrated negative is a paucity of data on how improving
may provide endogenous energy to sup- effects on multiple athletic performance sleep quality would specifically impact
port muscle mass accrual (61). However, variables and recovery capabilities body composition. To date, only one
the impact of initial body fat levels, train- study investigated the effects of a sleep
(17,41,53). For example, Reilly and Piercy
ing status, RT programs, and nutritional intervention combined with chronic
(53) observed significant reductions in
intake on body recomposition are not RT on body composition. Jabekk et al.
strength-endurance performance and
yet fully elucidated and warrants further (29), designed a very practical study in
total volume load on compound exer-
investigation. which 23 untrained individuals were
cises such as the bench press, deadlift,
analyzed after undergoing a sleep edu-
and leg press when subjects were in a
NONTRAINING/NUTRITION- cation intervention on how to improve
RELATED FACTORS THAT MAY sleep-restricted state. Furthermore, they both sleep quantity and quality (ExS
INFLUENCE BODY reported that the subject’s rating of per- group) compared to exercise only (Ex
RECOMPOSITION ceived exertion was significantly greater group). Both groups performed a full-
Although it is not fully understood, when performing the same RT task in a body workout routine for 10 weeks, and
additional factors such as sleep (i.e., sleep-deprived state. These negative body composition was assessed using
quality and quantity), stress hormones effects are important to note because DEXA. After 10 weeks, both groups
(e.g., cortisol), androgenic hormones training volume is a critical variable for similarly increased FFM (ExS: 1.7 kg
(e.g., testosterone), and metabolic rate muscle hypertrophy (59). and Ex: 1.3 kg). However, only ExS
may influence changes in body com- significantly reduced FM, whereas Ex
Sleep deprivation is also associated with
position (38,46,53,71). Unfortunately, did not (ExS: 21.8 and Ex 0.8 kg). Inter-
negative hormonal adaptations through
many training and nutrition studies estingly, sleep questionnaire scores were
the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis
do not take into account these impor- not different from pretesting to posttest-
—leading to an increase in cortisol, glu-
tant covariates. However, when exam- ing between groups.
cose, and insulin, and a decrease in tes-
ining the body of literature that has
investigated the effects of these factors tosterone, adiponectin, and growth Although the last study suggests that
on body composition, it is clear they hormone (27,37,38). This dysregulation optimizing sleep may potentiate body
can impact how each individual is re- seems to create an “anti” body recom- recomposition in people RT, it was con-
sponding to the interventions. position environment, where building ducted in untrained individuals. Thus,
muscle mass and losing FM would be the impact sleep quality and quantity
For example, Wang et al. (71) examined less likely. More specifically, in athletic may have on body recomposition in
the effects of sleep restriction (;1 hour trained individuals needs to be deter-
populations, hypocaloric intakes and
reduction, 53/week) on weight loss mined. In addition, when investigating
significant reductions in body weight
outcomes in overweight adults in a hypo- many of the previous studies referenced
and FM have been shown to negatively
caloric environment. They demonstrated in this review, these nontraining/nutri-
impact testosterone (48,64,69). For
that both groups in an equated caloric tion factors were not monitored or con-
example, Bhasin et al. (10) have demon-
deficit lost a similar amount of total body trolled in trained populations. Therefore,
strated that there is a direct relationship
weight (23.2 kg). However, when ana- one may argue they may have impacted
between serum testosterone levels and
lyzing the percentage of FFM within total the results of the studies and partially
mass lost, the sleep-restricted group lost gains in FFM. This may partially
explain why the case studies in natural explain differences in the body recompo-
significantly more FFM than they did sition outcomes between subjects and
FM (84.8 versus 16.9%), respectively. bodybuilders have demonstrated a loss
in FFM while preparing for their com- groups. However, more research is
However, their counterparts who were required to better understand if these
not sleep-restricted better preserved petition despite their RT and high pro-
tein intake. More recently, a study also negative outcomes in body composition
FFM and lost a significant amount of can be prevented or minimized when
FM (17.3 versus 80.7%) of the total mass demonstrated that sleep restriction had
trained participants have adequate sleep
lost, respectively. It is important to note a detrimental acute effect on myofibril-
and a more favorable hormonal profile.
that these subjects were not undergoing lar protein synthesis rates, which may
RT. They also observed that the sleep- be associated with loss of muscle mass
restricted group had a significant increase negatively impacting body composition. CONCLUSION
in ghrelin (71). Ghrelin is commonly This study also reported that protein Despite the common belief that building
referred to as the “hunger hormone” synthesis rates can be maintained by muscle and losing fat at the same
and has been shown to increase the likeli- performing high-intensity exercise even time is only plausible in novice/obese
hood of weight regain (specifically fat) under the sleep-restriction scenario (58). individuals, the literature provided
9. Baranauskas MN, Johnson KE, Juvancic- drug-free figure competitor: A case study. training bouts compared to carbohydrate
Heltzel JA, et al. Seven-site versus three- Nutrients 8: 740, 2016. supplementation. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 13:
site method of body composition using 21. Haun CT, Vann CG, Mobley CB, et al. 30, 2016.
BodyMetrix ultrasound compared to dual- Effects of graded whey supplementation 33. Kistler BM, Fitschen PJ, Ranadive SM,
energy X-ray absorptiometry. Clin Phys during extreme-volume resistance training. Fernhall B, Wilund KR. Case study: Natural
Funct Imaging 37: 317–321, 2017. Front Nutr 5: 84, 2018. bodybuilding contest preparation. Int J
10. Bhasin S, Woodhouse L, Casaburi R, et al. 22. Haun CT, Vann CG, Roberts BM, et al. A Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 24: 694–700,
Testosterone dose-response relationships critical evaluation of the biological 2014.
in healthy young men. Am J Physiol construct skeletal muscle hypertrophy: 34. Kjaer M. Role of extracellular matrix in
Endocrinol Metab 281: E1172–E1181, Size matters but so does the measurement. adaptation of tendon and skeletal muscle
2001. Front Physiol 10: 247, 2019. to mechanical loading. Physiol Rev 84:
11. Bray GA, Redman LM, de Jonge L, et al. 23. Helms ER, Aragon AA, Fitschen PJ. 649–698, 2004.
Effect of protein overfeeding on energy Evidence-based recommendations for 35. Kleiner SM, Bazzarre TL, Litchford MD.
expenditure measured in a metabolic natural bodybuilding contest preparation: Metabolic profiles, diet, and health
chamber. Am J Clin Nutr 101: 496–505, Nutrition and supplementation. J Int Soc practices of championship male and female
2015. Sports Nutr 11: 20, 2014. bodybuilders. J Am Diet Assoc 90: 962–
12. Brechue WF, Abe T. The role of FFM 24. Helms ER, Fitschen PJ, Aragon AA, Cronin 967, 1990.
accumulation and skeletal muscle J, Schoenfeld BJ. Recommendations for 36. Kreipke VC, Allman BR, Kinsey AW, et al.
architecture in powerlifting performance. natural bodybuilding contest preparation: Impact of Four weeks of a multi-
Eur J Appl Phys 86: 327–336, 2002. Resistance and cardiovascular training. ingredient performance supplement on
13. Campbell BI, Aguilar D, Conlin L, et al. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 55: 164–178, muscular strength, body composition,
Effects of high versus low protein intake on 2015. and anabolic hormones in resistance-
body composition and maximal strength in 25. Helms ER, Zinn C, Rowlands DS, Brown trained young men. J Strength Cond Res
aspiring female physique athletes engaging SR. A systematic review of dietary protein 29: 3453, 2015.
in an 8-week resistance training program. during caloric restriction in resistance 37. Leproult R, Copinschi G, Buxton O, Van
Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 28: 580–585, trained lean athletes: A case for higher Cauter E. Sleep loss results in an elevation
2018. intakes. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 24: of cortisol levels the next evening. Sleep
14. Campbell B, Kreider RB, Ziegenfuss T, 127–138, 2014. 20: 865–870, 1997.
et al. International society of sports nutrition 26. Herbst KL, Bhasin S. Testosterone action 38. Leproult R, Van Cauter E. Effect of 1 week
position stand: Protein and exercise. J Int on skeletal muscle. Curr Opin Clin Nutr of sleep restriction on testosterone levels in
Soc Sports Nutr 14: 20, 2007. Metab Care 7: 271–277, 2004. young healthy men. J Am Med Assoc 305:
15. Colquhoun RJ, Gai CM, Aguilar D, et al. 27. Hirotsu C, Tufik S, Andersen ML. 2173–2174, 2011.
Training volume, not frequency, indicative Interactions between sleep, stress, and 39. Levenhagen DK, Borel MJ, Welch DC, et al.
of maximal strength adaptations to metabolism: From physiological to A comparison of air displacement
resistance training. J Strength Cond Res pathological conditions. Sleep Sci 8: 143– plethysmography with three other
32: 1207–1213, 2018. 152, 2015. techniques to determine body fat in healthy
16. Cribb PJ, Williams AD, Carey MF, Hayes A. 28. Iraki J, Fitschen P, Espinar S, Helms E. adults. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 23: 293–
The effect of whey isolate and resistance Nutrition recommendations for 299, 1999.
training on strength, body composition, and bodybuilders in the off-season: A narrative 40. Longland TM, Oikawa SY, Mitchell CJ,
plasma glutamine. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc review. Sports (Basel) 8: 154, 2019. Devries MC, Phillips SM. Higher compared
Metab 16: 494–509, 2006. with lower dietary protein during an energy
29. Jåbekk P, Jensen RM, Sandell MB, et al. A
17. Dattilo M, Antunes HKM, Medeiros A, et al. randomized controlled pilot trial of sleep deficit combined with intense exercise
Sleep and muscle recovery: health education on body composition promotes greater lean mass gain and fat
Endocrinological and molecular basis for a changes following 10 weeks resistance mass loss: A randomized trial. Am J Clin
new and promising hypothesis. Med exercise. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 60: Nutr 103: 738–746, 2016.
Hypotheses 77: 220–222, 2011. 743–748, 2020. 41. Mah CD, Mah KE, Kezirian EJ, Dement
18. Delisle-Houde P, Reid RER, Insogna JA, 30. Jones B, Till K, Roe G, et al. Six-year body WC. The effects of sleep extension on the
et al. Comparing DXA and air displacement composition change in male elite senior athletic performance of collegiate
plethysmography to assess body rugby league players. J Sports Sci 36: basketball players. Sleep 34: 943–950,
composition of male collegiate hockey 266–271, 2018. 2011.
players. J Strength Cond Res 33: 474– 42. Maltais ML, Perreault K, Courchesne-Loyer
31. Kassis A, Godin JP, Moille SE, et al. Effects
478, 2019. A, et al. Effect of resistance training and
of protein quantity and type on diet induced
19. Gallagher D, Kuznia P, Heshka S, et al. thermogenesis in overweight adults: A various sources of protein supplementation
Adipose tissue in muscle: A novel depot randomized controlled trial. Clin Nutr 38: on body fat mass and metabolic profile in
similar in size to visceral adipose tissue. Am 1570–1580, 2019. sarcopenic overweight older adult men: A
J Clin Nutr 81: 903–910, 2005. pilot study. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab
32. Kephart WC, Mumford PW, McCloskey
20. Halliday TM, Loenneke JP, Davy BM. AE, et al. Post-exercise branched chain 26: 71–77, 2016.
Dietary intake, body composition, and amino acid supplementation does not 43. McCrory MA, Gomez TD, Bernauer EM,
menstrual cycle changes during affect recovery markers following three Molé PA. Evaluation of a new air
competition preparation and recovery in a consecutive high intensity resistance displacement plethysmograph for