Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Body Recomposition Can Trained Individuals Build.3
Body Recomposition Can Trained Individuals Build.3
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.,
of this review is to discuss the existing DEXA + BIA) has been used to quan-
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
composition coaches
It enables the calculation of FFM hydration
It measures total body water
DEXA 3-compartment model: Able to measure FFM, Nutritional/hydration status can significantly
FM, and bone mineral content alter body composition and decrease
Able to measure a region of interest accuracy
specifically in extremities Limited use for measuring baseline FM or
longitudinal changes in FM with weight loss
because measurements are known to be
biased by body size (thickness)
BodPod Could provide longitudinal data on both FFM Cannot provide regional data and can only
and FM mass because its accuracy is less distinguish between FM and FFM (i.e., bone,
likely to be affected by changes in fatness. muscle, connective tissue).
It assumes fixed densities of FM and FFM
Hydrostatic weighing Valid estimate for body density Expensive, not easily accessible
Uncomfortable
It assumes fixed densities of FM and FFM
A-mode ultrasound Capable of regional and segmental Depending on technician, there can be a high
measurements possibility of intrarater reliability
Valid in the hands of an experienced Most of the equations/formulas
technician were based on caliper validation
Portability
4C 5 four compartments; DEXA 5 dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry; FFM 5 fat-free mass; FM 5 fat mass.
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.
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/21/2023
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
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
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/21/2023
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
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
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/21/2023
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
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
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/21/2023
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
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
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/21/2023
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
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
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
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-
supervised sets of 6 exercises (3 com- tional intake is common in
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/21/2023
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 ters including body composition, there
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
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,
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
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,
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/21/2023
preparing for a natural male bodybuilding bodybuilding competition preparation and 67. Till K, Jones B, Darrall-Jones J, Emmonds S,
competition. EJSS 18: 619–629, 2018. recovery: A 12-month case study. Int J Cooke C. Longitudinal development of
45. Mohan V, Deepa M, Gokulakrishnan K, Sports Physiol Perform 8: 582–592, anthropometric and physical
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 11/21/2023