Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Joseph
Janet
with
large-scale
Afichael
weight
(1 Carlso,i.
loss and
Janes
E Donnelly,
E 14 hatley, and
Teresa
Richard
Sharp,
Joseph G Israel
Houmnard.
0 Hill,
ABSTRACT
restriction controversial. This muscle hypertrophy females received
The combined
on changes in body
effects
fat and
of exercise
fat-free mass
and
energy
are
used this
is offset
from
other whether
muscle muscle
(FFM)
study was conducted to determine whether is possible during weight loss. Fourteen obese liquid diet for 90 d. Seven subjects
training
in subjects
a 3360-kJ/d
received a weight training (WT) regimen and seven subjects remained sedentary (C). Biopsy samples were obtained from the vastus lateralis muscle at baseline and after 90 d of treatment. The average weight loss over the 90-d period was 16 kg with 24% of the weight loss from FFM and 76% from fat. The amount fast twitch significantly and composition fibers was ofthe unchanged in WT weight loss did not differ between
Methods
Twenty-one energy training obese females participated in a 90-d trial of severe
or severe energy restriction plus weight from the Committee for the Protection and any informed contesting or parwere excluded any condition performance were assigned Seven subjects or for reasons in
WT and C groups.
increased
The cross-sectional
subjects.
area
of slow twitch
in C subjects that muscle loss.
and
but weight
by treatment
Subjects ofVanderbilt University the subjects were obtained before had a medical disease or ifthey their health testing.
It appears
ticipation. All subjects ifthey had metabolic that would jeopardize the subsequent to study did not groups complete
or hamper
physiological
KEY
ercise.
WORDS
severe energy
Muscle
restriction,
hypertrophy,
weight
weight
training
reduction.
ex-
at baseline by random selection. the study for personal reasons Characteristics group differed weight and
Table
of the subjects are shown in significantly from the C group body composition because of
of body
Introduction
Endurance shows equivocal exercise results combined for retention with Studies energy found severe energy mass restriction (FFM) over sefor ( 1 , 2)
the seven subjects who did not complete the study. The groups did not differ significantly on the major variables of interest, which were muscle fiber size and knee-extension strength.
Die/art Ireatmnent
of fat-free
severe energy restriction alone. vere energy restriction to severe with subjects endurance that used exercise severe have energy (3).
that have compared restriction in conjunction less decrease with in FFM exercise
received Resources.
restriction
included
80 g protein.
or found no difference which the use ofendurance showed restriction Weight tensively prising shown that greater decreases
studies in restriction energy been exI From the Human Performance Laboratory. University of Nebraska at Kearney: the Energy Balance Laboratory. and the Department of Medicine. Diabetes Research and Training Center, Vanderbilt University. Nashville: and the Human Performance Laboratory. East Carolina University. Greenville. NC. 2 Supported by Health Management Resources. Boston: The Kim
in FFM
compared
severe not
alone (4, 5). training is a mode studied because in subjects in conjunction maintenance that 5040 consume kJ/d
of exercise
with weight loss. This is suror increases in FFM have been a normal (7). Donnelly diet (6) and et al (3) in subjects previously with than suggest severe it could in muscle Society
consume
Dayani
Human
Performance
Center
and
the
General
Clinical
Research
used severe energy weight training and when that also severe the effects that Vutr energy with
184 kJ/d-combined greater retention of FFM was used are not alone. This may with as evident However, ofFFM
as compared suggest
(ii,?
energy
restriction.
increase
Center. Vanderbilt University, Nashville: and Research Services Council, University of Nebraska at Kearney. 3 Reprints not available. Address correspondence to IE Donnelly, Human Performance Laboratory, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Kearney, NE 68849. Received September 17, 1992. Accepted for publication April 15. 1993. for Clinical Nutrition
561
.4!?! .1
1993:58:561-5.
(c 1993 American
DONNELLY
ET
AL was were from measured Corp. body conducted density with St Louis). for a Med-Science Seven each subject. trial 505D Percent by using the Nitralyzer fat was the results averaged cal-
to 10 trials
Control
(ii=7)
of Lohman
Subsequently,
Age (y) Weight (kg) Percent fat Fat-free mass (kg) Slow-twitch fibers (pm2)
Fast-twitch fibers (j.tm2)
body-fat values that did not differ by > 1% were were used to represent the body fat of the subject.
Muscle biopsy.
lateralis
muscle
4294
4160
4324
3713
mm canula was used with the aid of suction as described Evans et al (9). Samples were mounted in an OCT-Tragacanth Gum matrix (Sigma Chemical Co. St Louis) frozen isopentane and stored at -70 #{176}C liquid in nitrogen. were stained with the a-glycerophosphate technique cross-sectional 25 fast try to twitch determine area (Ff) was calculated fibers cross-sectional Sausalito, CA). strength, BP, that l-RM LAT, KE, tests and were KF. To measure exercises: from area 25 slow computerized (A UTOSKETCH twitch (1 1-1 3) with
Knee
4
extension
(kg)
58.3
22.3
43.4
different
from
control.
<
0.05.
digitome-
the recommended daily allowance of vitamins The diet was ingested at five scheduled times Subjects libitum tioned signed
Exercise
and during
AUTODESK,
Strength
pleted mine
testing.
comOne
were allowed to consume nonenergetic throughout the study. Adherence to the ifweight a weekly
program
following amount
RM was determined
time (14). A strength of the l-RM values as either the amount per kg FFM. The (Body Masters, for all training
by administering
ofweight
a series
could
of trials
be lifted
to deter-
<
a single
index (SI) was calculated by using the sum (BP+ LAT+ KE+ KF), and was expressed (in kg) lifted or the amount (in kg) lifted same stationary LA) was used weight-training for both l-RM equipment testing and
condition of weight
Rayne, sessions.
each subject lifted was based on the results from the initial onerepetition maximum (1 RM) tests administered at baseline. Weight training was assigned at 70% of l-RM values for weeks 1-4 and the subjects performed three sets of exercises in the descending order training progressed of 8-6-6 repetitions. to 80% of l-RM During weeks 5-12, weight values and the subjects perorder of 8-6-6-4 for each training (LAT), knee arm pullover, training in 30-40 Wednesday, assistant. that each sessions, subjects The sesmm and resubject that exadhered
Statistical
Means tests were or to show
analisis
and used SDs were used to describe from variables. baseline to further Students groups the to show differences in changes were terms. calculated in variables between illustrate
differences
to 90 d. In some
formed four sets of exercises repetitions. The weight-lifting session were the bench press extension (KE), knee flexion biceps sions. and Friday training was curl, Each and triceps weight-training were direct
(BP), lateral pull-down (KF), military press, throughout was completed program on Monday, of a research for verifying of the exercise and that the the session
Results
The amount and composition ofweight loss during treatment are shown in Figure
extension
1. Both
groups
of stretching.
Weight-
body weight during treatment 4.7 kg for WT). Weight loss weight the total was nor 16.2% and 16.8% change relative
as a percentage
search assistant was responsible completed a minimum of 90% ercises were completed schedule. measures measures of treatment. were correctly,
Likewise, groups.
ofweight loss did not differ declined 6. 1 2.2% in The loss and of FFM 25% in in C subjects
WT
subjects
and
24%
5. 1 2. 1% in C subjects.
to the daily
Dependent Dependent the initiation
represented
WT subjects.
obtained All measures Center University. weighing body fat. testing at baseline were and taken 90 d from either Clinical volume was a Detecto reat Strength declined significantly significantly in WT subjects (Fig 13.3% less weight after treatment jects before. at residual Body weight by using were able to lift the change FFM, was 23.9% 0.05). 17.6% more (NS) subjects were in strength When in C subjects, but increased 2). C subjects were able to lift than before, whereas WT subweight was was after 5.4% were reported treatment in C subjects significant as a result than and expressed as kg lifted
the Dayani Human Performance Research Center of Vanderbilt Body was corded used composition. to determine to the nearest Hydrostatic percent
or the General
in strength for WT
(P < 0.05).
0. 1 kg before
Platform Scale (Webb City, MD), and underwater weight was recorded to the nearest 25 g with a Chatillion Autopsy Scale (Kew Gardens, NY). Residual lung volume was determined simultaneously nitrogen-dilution with hydrostatic technique. weighing Nitrogen by using a closed-circuit concentration during re-
No injuries program.
Because the muscle volved in KE, changes arately (Fig 2). Total
used for biopsy (vastus lateralis) was inin the 1 RM for KE were evaluated sepweight lifted during bilateral l-RM KE
MUSCLE
Body C Weight WI (kg) FFM (kg)
HYPERTROPHY
Fat (7.)
WITH
50
WEIGHT
1
LOSS
2.0 1.6
563
WT
WI 40 30 U, a 0)
C
#{176}II
T.#
1.2 0.6k
20 10
U
4) 0)
C
0 -C
0
0 0 C
0
In
.C -10
#{182} _____
C Strength
WI
0.
E
0 0
>%
WI
C St/kg FFM
cn
undergoing and lifted weight per
Index
Knee Extension
FIG 2. Changes
severe training fat-free within groups. maximum)
in strength
energy (WT: mass group,
ti
index (SI) from baseline to 90 d for subjects (C: n = 7) or severe energy restriction
7), expressed Changes
.
as weight in knee
lifted extension
and are
weight l-RM
(repetition
SD.
4Significantly
different
different
from
from
FIG 1. Body-weight and body-composition changes from baseline to 90 d for subjects undergoing severe energy restriction (C: n = 7) or severe energy restriction and weight training (WT: n = 7). . SD. 4Significantly different from baseline. P < 0.05.
baseline
0.05.
Significantly
baseline
between
<
0.05.
27.7%
increase
in muscle Some
fiber
cross-sectional have
area found
for ST pref-
FT fibers.
respectively.
investigators
decline P
<
during 0.05).
the
treatment
period
in
C subjects
(20. 1 between Results
erential hypertrophy 20): however, others hypertrophy young men reported for FT et al(22) and 27.6% in response increases fibers.
in FT fibers compared with ST fibers (19, have not. Ewing et al (2 1 ) found greater than men one in FT over fibers fibers (17.1% training. compared no effect vs 10.2%) Frontera training with of 22 in to 10 wk ofisokinetic in ST At least of 33.5% shows
(P
< 0.05).
for cross-sectional
of muscle
fibers
are
shown
in
12 wk ofstrength
Figure
3. Neither
significantly
with
treatment in C subjects: however, both ST and FT cross-sectional fiber area increased significantly (P < 0.05) in WT subjects (1 162 1265 zm2 for ST and 1 344 1 335 tm2 for FT). The difference in ST cross-sectional fiber subjects was not statistically difference nificant (P in FT cross-sectional < 0.05). area of 774 significant fiber zm2 between (P = 0. 10): area C and however, WT the sig-
report
of I 03 1 zm2 was
(I,
C 0
Discussion
These fiber training position agrees kJ/d) weight amount when males concurrent results with indicate during declines that weight training of severe weight can energy and FFM. elicit musclerestriction Weight
C)
hypertrophy
periods of body
a
a)
had no overall of the weight with earlier combined training of weight compared (3).
effect on total weight loss or the comloss between C and WT. This finding energy restriction or in conjunction neither affected of the weight alone in obese (2184 with the loss fea) 0
U-
findings in that severe with weight training and loss with endurance nor the energy exercise composition restriction
hypertrophy with normal 5040 fiber showed kJ/d kg (7). The body-weight
in subjects usenergy intakes energy current intake study area 21.7% FIG 3. Changes
to 90 d for severe nificantly different energy from subjects restriction from baseline different
( 1 5- 1 8), or in subjects
and had a moderate that in humans. simultaneously
kg
who weight
in muscle
undergoing and between
fiber cross-sectional
severe weight within groups. energy group. training (WT:
area from
restriction
,i =
baseline
(C:
(B)
z = 7) or
cross-sectional a significant
7). .
SD. 4SigSignificantly
large-scale group
reductions
baseline
P
0.05.
<
0.05.
WT
<
564
DONNELLY of strength on muscle (23). ofsubject Much training fiber of this or strength training area may ofprior plus for either be due physical endurance ST or FT to the vast training,
ET
AL The ofST restriction However, results and indicate FT muscle with that fibers weight during of these declines training periods findings of body can weight elicit and await of en-
wk fibers array
training
of severe
characteristics,
significance
and experimental training meaningful comparisons. are wide training The variations in animals mechanisms in the (24) for
which do not always provide it is recognized that there of muscle fibers to strength hypertrophy weight loss hypertrofasting acid in rats. transport, of to
El
Zafer with
and in humans (13). increases in muscle-fiber with studied muscle to enhance concomitant work-induced during amino
We thank Cindy Vigil, Lira Martinez, Dan Karabulut, Ding Lin, and Martha Butterfield laboratory testing and medical management.
during severe energy are unclear. Goldberg phy of the soleus activity protein muscles activity and Muscular decrease working muscular during muscles. the
References
JO. Sparling PB, Shields TW, Heller PA. Effects ofexercise and food restriction on body composition and metabolic rate in obese women. Am I Clin Nutr 1987;46:622-30. 2. Pavlou KN, Steffee WP, Lerman RH, Burrows BA. Effects of dieting and exercise on lean body mass, oxygen uptake, and strength. Med
1. Hill Sci Sports Exerc l985;17:466-71.
and decrease the sensitivity hormones. These adaptations the signals for muscular wasting thus selectively sparing working ofworking muscles may explain vastus lateralis muscle, which total
3. Donnelly
composition Nutr 4. Krotkiewski
JE, Pronk
and
NP, Jacobsen
diet and metabolic L, Bjorntorp
DI, Pronk
physical rate training
SI, Jakicic
regimens females. effect and IM,
hypertrophy
was FFM
exercised in the weight-training group even though declined. The exercise program also resulted in a significant overall strength (SI), as measured by the total amount lifted agree sistent trained, period from or the total with with previous the weight results report by obese energy also consistent a normal training in the lifted from Ballor per kilogram Donnelly and Katch FFM. (26) strength findings is known
in obese
P. Holm
G. The
very-
and without
proteins, women. CA. Roundy
chronic
uptake, ES, Int I Obes
exercise
insulin
on thyroid
and
oxygen
et al (3) and
in obese
198 1:5:287-93.
Bradford
females increased restriction. The with what diet or moderate (6, 7). Subjects amount
Calorie-restricted low-fat diet and exercise in obese women. Am I Clin Nutr 1989:49:77-85. 6. Fleck SI, Kraemer WI. Resistance training: physiological responses and adaptations. Phys Sports Med 1988:16:108-24. 7. Ballor DL, Katch VL. Becque MD. Marks CR. Resistance weight
training during calorie restriction enhances lean body weight
of weight
from WT showed an increase of 0.05). Other investigators have of 1 3-50% in response to weight
maintenance. Am I Clin Nutr l988;47:l9-25. 8. Lohman TG, Slaughter MH, Boileau RA. Bunt I, Lussier L. Bone mineral measurements and their relation to body density in children,
youth and adults. Hum sample Biol size. 1984:56:667-79.
lifted
9. Evans
biopsy
.)
Wi.
Phinney
SD. Young
YR.
Med
in group C during weight reduction cross-sectional area. Ballor et al (7) BP with moderate decreases no change energy in strength in muscle-bone restriction. without The de-
maximizes
females responsible
mechanisms
dines in muscle cross-sectional area or muscle and bone area during severe and moderate energy restriction are uncertain. Nutritional deprivation has been shown to increase intracellular muscular increased biochemical malnourished tion, include hydrogenase, and calcium muscular concentrations fatigue and which (28), which are associated slower relaxation (29). with Other fed or funcde(30) may
10. Wattenberg LW. Leong IL. Effects ofcoenzyme Qio and menadione on succinate dehydrogenase activity as measured by tetrazolium salt reduction. I Histochem Cytochem I 960:8:296-303. I 1 . Tesch PA. Thorsson A, Essen-Gustavson B. Enzyme activities of Fr and ST muscle fibers in heavy-resistance trained athletes. I AppI
Physiol 1989:67:83-7.
12. Coyle
found with hypoenergetically may adversely affect muscle and these succinate glycogen factors
EF. Feiring DC, Rotkis TC. et al. Specificity of power improvements through slow and fast isokinetic training. I Appl Physiol 198 1:5 1: 1437-42. 13. Simoneau IA, Bouchard C. Human variation in skeletal muscle fiber-type proportion and enzyme activities. Am I Physiol 1989;257:
E567-72.
14. Wilmore
iological
IH, Costill
basis of the
DL. Training
conditioning
for sport
process.
and activity:
3rd ed.
the physIA:
Dubuque,
a rise in intracellular
be plausible
the diet-only not measured It has also
explanations
group, in the been they suggested present
in strength
because
found
they
in
were
nutritional
there is selective atrophy present results showing would declines The restriction not support this
1988. 15. Sale DG, Jacobs I, MacDougall ID, Garner S. Comparison of two regimens of concurrent strength and endurance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1990:22:348-56. 16. MacDougall ID. EIderGCB, Sale DG, Moroz JR. Sutton JR. Effects of strength training and immobilization on human muscle fibers. Eur I AppI Physiol 1980:43:25-34. 17. Fontera WR, Meredith CN, OReilly KP, Evans WI. Strength training and determinants of V,,_ in older men. I AppI Physiol 1990:68:
WC Brown,
in the groups of obese females that use ofweight training in conjunction is relatively new and the clinical
utility
329-33. 18. Gollnick PD, Armstrong RB, Saltin WL, Shepard RE. Effect of training
B, Saubert
CW,
activity
Sembrowich
and fiber
on enzyme
MUSCLE
composition of human skeletal muscle.
HYPERTROPHY
1973:34:107-
WITH
26. Ballor
by
WEIGHT
DL. Katch
LOSS
VL. Strength
restriction.
565
gains in obese
Eur I
I AppI Physiol
females
Appl
are unaffected
1989;59:
moderate
dietary
Physiol
19. Tesch PA, Karlsson I. Muscle fiber types and size in trained and untrained muscles of elite athletes. I Appl Physiol 1985;59: 1716-20. 20. Alway SE, Grumby WH, Gonyea WI, Stray-Gundersen I. Contrasts in muscle and myofibers of elite male and female bodybuilders. I Appl Physiol 1989:67:24-3 1. 21. Ewing JL, Wolfe DR, Rogers MA, Amundson ML, Stull GA. Effects of velocity of isokinetic training on strength, power, and quadriceps muscle fibre characteristics. Eur I AppI Physiol 1990:61:159-62. 22. Frontera WR, Meredith CN, OReilly KP, Knuttgen HG, Evans WI. Strength conditioning in older men: skeletal muscle hypertrophy and improved function. I Appl Physiol 1988;64:1038-44. 23. Sale DG, MacDougall ID, Jacobs I, Garner S. Interaction between concurrent strength and endurance training. I AppI Physiol 1990:68: 260-70. 24. Mikesky AE, Giddings CI. Matthews W, Gonyea WI. Changes in muscle fiber size and composition in response to heavy-resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1991;23: 1042-9. 25. Goldberg AL, Etlinger ID, Goldspink DF, lablecki C. Mechanism of work-induced hypertrophy of skeletal muscle. Med Sci Sports I 975:7:248-61.
35 1-4.
27. Cureton K, Collins MA, Hill DW, McElhannon FM. Muscle hypertrophy in men and women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1988:20:33844. 28. Russell DM, Walker PM, Leiter LA, et al. Metabolic and structural changes in skeletal muscle during hypocaloric dieting. Am I Clin
Nutr 1984:39:503-13.
29.
Russell DM, Leiter LA, Whitwell I, Marliss EB, Jeejeebhoy KN. Skeletal muscle function during hypocaloric diets and fasting: a comparison with standard nutritional assessment parameters. Am
I Clin Nutr
30. Jacobs glycogen Physiol 3 1 . Russell
1983;37:133-8.
P. Tesch in P. Muscle human strength skeletal and muscle fatigue fibers. after Eur selective I AppI
I. Kaiser depletion
1981:46:47-53.
DM, Prendergast P1, Darby PL, Garfinkel PE, Whitwell I, Ieejeebhoy KN. A comparison between muscle function and body composition in anorexia nervosa: the effect of refeeding. Am I Clin
Nutr 1983:38:229-37.
32. Lopes I. Russell DM. Whitwell I, Jeejeebhoy. Skeletal tion in malnutrition. Am I Clin Nutr 1982:36:602-10.
muscle
func-