Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34187492›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition2021

Flexible vs. rigid dieting in resistance-trained individuals seeking to optimize their physiques: A randomized controlled trial.

Laurin Alexandra Conlin, Danielle Trina Aguilar, Gavin Elliot Rogers, Bill I Campbell

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Laurin Alexandra ConlinPerformance & Physique Enhancement Laboratory, Exercise Science Program, Department of Educational and Psychological Studies, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., PED 214, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA.
Danielle Trina AguilarPerformance & Physique Enhancement Laboratory, Exercise Science Program, Department of Educational and Psychological Studies, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., PED 214, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA.
Gavin Elliot RogersPerformance & Physique Enhancement Laboratory, Exercise Science Program, Department of Educational and Psychological Studies, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., PED 214, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA.
Bill I CampbellPerformance & Physique Enhancement Laboratory, Exercise Science Program, Department of Educational and Psychological Studies, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., PED 214, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA. bcampbell@usf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4106-3871
University of South Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare a flexible vs. rigid diet on weight loss and subsequent weight regain in resistance-trained (RT) participants in a randomized, parallel group design.

methodsTwenty-three males and females (25.6 ± 6.1 yrs; 170 ± 8.1 cm; 75.4 ± 10.3 kg) completed the 20-week intervention (consisting of a 10-week diet phase and a 10-week post-diet phase). Participants were randomized to a flexible diet (FLEX) comprised of non-specific foods or a rigid diet (RIGID) comprised of specific foods. Participants adhered to an ~20%kcal reduction during the first 10-weeks of the intervention and were instructed to eat ad libitum for the final 10-weeks. Body composition and resting metabolic rate were assessed 5 times: (baseline, 5, 10 [end of diet phase], 16, and 20 weeks).

resultsDuring the 10-week diet phase, both groups significantly reduced bodyweight (FLEX: baseline = 76.1 ± 8.4kg, post-diet = 73.5 ± 8.8 kg, ▲2.6 kg; RIGID: baseline = 74.9 ± 12.2 kg, post-diet = 71.9 ± 11.7 kg, ▲3.0 kg, p < 0.001); fat mass (FLEX: baseline = 14.8 ± 5.7 kg, post-diet = 12.5 ± 5.0 kg, ▲2.3 kg; RIGID: baseline = 18.1 ± 6.2 kg, post-diet = 14.9 ± 6.5 kg, ▲3.2 kg p < 0.001) and body fat% (FLEX: baseline = 19.4 ± 8.5%, post-diet = 17.0 ± 7.1%, ▲2.4%; RIGID: baseline = 24.0 ± 6.2%, post-diet = 20.7 ± 7.1%, ▲3.3%; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups for any variable during the diet phase. During the post-diet phase, a significant diet x time interaction (p < 0.001) was observed for FFM with the FLEX group gaining a greater amount of FFM (+1.7 kg) in comparison with the RIGID group (-0.7 kg).

conclusionsA flexible or rigid diet strategy is equally effective for weight loss during a caloric restriction diet in free-living, RT individuals. While post-diet FFM gains were greater in the FLEX group, there were no significant differences in the amount of time spent in resistance and aerobic exercise modes nor were there any significant differences in protein and total caloric intakes between the two diet groups. In the absence of a clear physiological rationale for increases in FFM, in addition to the lack of a standardized diet during the post-diet phase, we refrain from attributing the increases in FFM in the FLEX group to their diet assignment during the diet phase of the investigation. We recommend future research investigate additional physiological and psychological effects of flexible diets and weight regain in lean individuals.

Indexed as

Resistance TrainingAdultBasal MetabolismBody CompositionDietFemaleHumansMaleWeight GainWeight LossYoung AdultBodybuildingBody fat percentageCaloric deficitDietDietsExerciseFat lossMuscle massPhysique enhancementResistance exercise

Identifiers

PMID34187492
PMCPMC8243453
OpenAlexW3175909774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.