Nutrition for body composition -
Cellular level: The 3C model includes cells, extracellular fluids, and extracellular solids. The 4C model includes body cell mass, FM, extracellular fluids, and extracellular solids. Tissue-organ level: adipose tissue, skeletal muscle, bone, visceral organs, other tissues. The 4C model has the greatest degree of sensitivity to interindividual variability of FFM composition.
The 2C model estimates FM and FFM, and operates under the assumption that water, protein, and mineral content of FFM are constant. Thus, the 2C model is the most commonly used approach for adults.
Examples of methods based on the 2C model include hydrodensitometry underwater weighing , air displacement plethysmography ADP or BOD POD ® , skinfold thickness, and bioelectrical impedance analysis BIA. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry DXA is based on a 3C model that measures bone mineral content, LM, and FM, but it is still subject to confounding from inter-assessment differences in hydration, glycogen, and muscle creatine levels, which can be significant in athletic populations with distinct exercise and recovery cycles [ 7 , 8 ].
Body composition methods have been further classified as direct, indirect, and criterion [ 9 ]. Examples include TBW, isotope dilution, and neutron activation. Indirect methods provide surrogate measures or proxies of direct methods and criterion methods. Examples of indirect methods are anthropometry e.
Criterion methods measure a specific property of the body such as density or distribution of skeletal muscle and adipose tissue. Examples include hydrodensitometry, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging MRI , and DXA.
It should be noted that multi-compartment models have evolved to be considered criterion methods: standards against which other methods are judged.
The various methods are often classified in the literature as either laboratory methods e. Laboratory methods — including multi-compartment models — have traditionally been viewed as more accurate and valid.
BIA and BIS have evolved to include multiple frequencies. This technology may more accurately estimate body composition through multiple frequency-dependent electrical properties of body tissues, as opposed to traditional single frequency methods i. However, higher levels of sophistication with multi-frequency options are often accompanied by lower availability and higher cost.
Note that LED have also been given a more liberal definition of providing — kcal [ 22 ]. Very-low-energy diets are typically in liquid form and commercially prepared. The aim of the diet is to induce rapid weight loss 1.
VLED are designed to replace all regular food consumption, and therefore should not be confused with meal replacement products intended to replace one or two meals per day. As such, VLED are fortified with the full spectrum of essential micronutrients.
A protein-sparing modified fast can be considered the higher-protein variant of a VLED, with protein intakes of approximately 1. A week trial by Bryner et al. There was actually a slight gain, but it did not reach statistical significance. Resting metabolic rate RMR significantly increased in the training group, but it decreased in the control group.
Donnelly et al. While these results cannot necessarily be extrapolated to lean, trained subjects, they are nevertheless intriguing. In obese populations, aggressive caloric restriction is a potentially powerful intervention since a greater initial weight loss is associated with greater long-term success in weight loss maintenance [ 27 ].
However, a meta-analysis by Tsai and Wadden [ 22 ] found that VLED did not result in greater long-term 1 year or more weight loss than LED.
Eight to 12 week VLED are common in clinical practice before transitioning to less severe caloric restriction; however, there is an ongoing debate regarding the duration that can be safely sustained for VLED. Multiple deaths have been reported due to low-quality protein intake, excessive loss of lean mass, and inadequate medical supervision [ 28 ].
Adverse effects of VLED include cold intolerance, fatigue, headache, dizziness, muscle cramps, and constipation. Hair loss was reported to be the most common complaint of extended VLED use [ 22 ].
It should be noted that VLED use has limited relevance to healthy and athletic populations. This is based on the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges AMDR for adults, set by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine [ 30 ].
Although the classification of LFD is based on the AMDR, it might be more accurate to call them high-carbohydrate diets, given the dominance of this macronutrient in the ranges. As such, the definition of LFD is inherently subjective.
Scientists and physicians have promoted decreased fat intake since the s [ 31 ]. The publication of the Dietary Goals for the United States , and the publication of the inaugural Dietary Guidelines for Americans DGA reinforced a reduction in total fat intake with the aim of improving public health [ 32 ].
Although the AMDR were published in , their staying power is apparent since the recently updated DGA adheres to these ranges [ 33 ], as do major health organizations such as the American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association and Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. A recent systematic review by Hooper et al.
Reducing the proportion of dietary fat compared to usual intake modestly but consistently reduced body weight, body fat, and waist circumference. Excluded from the analysis were RCTs where subjects in either the control or experimental groups had the intention to reduce weight.
The implication of these findings is that reducing the proportion of dietary fat can cause a de facto reduction of total energy intake, thereby reducing body fat over time.
The premise of dietary fat reduction for weight loss is to target the most energy-dense macronutrient to impose hypocaloric conditions. However, over the long-term, diets with lower energy density have not consistently yielded greater weight loss than energy restriction alone [ 37 , 38 ].
Reasons for the disparity between short- and long-term effects of energy density reduction include speculation that learned compensation is occurring. In addition, postprandial factors may increase sensory-specific satiety that over time can reduce the initial palatability of energy-dense foods [ 39 ].
Diets fitting this profile have a limited amount of research. The body of controlled intervention data on VLFD mainly consists of trials examining the health effects of vegetarian and vegan diets that aggressively minimize fat intake. These diets have shown consistently positive effects on weight loss [ 40 ], but this literature lacks body composition data.
Among the few studies that did, the A TO Z Weight Loss Study by Gardner et al. Similar results were seen by de Souza et al. No significant between-group differences were seen in the loss of total abdominal, subcutaneous, or visceral fat at either six months or two years. A mean loss of 2.
No LM-retentive advantage was seen in the higher-protein diets, but this could have been due to both protein intake levels being sub-optimal 1. Similar to LFD, low-carbohydrate diets LCD are a broad category lacking an objective definition. There is no universal agreement on what quantitatively characterizes an LCD.
However, other published definitions of LCD disregard the limits set in the AMDR. In absolute rather than proportional terms, LCD have been defined as having less than g of carbohydrate [ 43 ]. Some investigators have taken issue with this liberal definition of LCD, preferring to delineate non-ketogenic LCD as containing 50— g, and KD as having a maximum of 50 g [ 45 ].
Meta-analyses comparing the effects of LFD with LCD have yielded mixed results across a wide range of parameters. Liberal operational definitions of LCD e. Recently, Hashimoto et al.
Eight RCTs included a very LCD treatment, and 7 RCTs included a mild LCD treatment. With all groups considered, FM decrease was significantly greater in the LCD than the control diets. However, sub-analysis showed that fat mass decrease in very LCD was greater than the controls, while the difference in FM decrease between mild LCD and controls was not significant.
A separate sub-analysis of short- versus long-term effects found that both types of LCD yielded significantly greater fat loss than controls in trials less than, as well as longer than 12 months.
A further sub-analysis of found that BIA failed to detect significant between-group differences in FM reduction, while DXA showed significantly greater decreases in LCD than controls. Practical relevance is questionable given the obese nature of the subjects.
The authors speculated that the advantage of the LCD over the control diets could have been due to their higher protein content. Despite being a subtype of LCD, the ketogenic diet KD deserves a separate discussion.
Whereas non-ketogenic LCD is subjectively defined, KD is objectively defined by its ability to elevate circulating ketone bodies measurably — a state called ketosis, also known as physiological or nutritional ketosis. Ketosis is a relatively benign state not to be confused with ketoacidosis, which is a pathological state seen in type 1 diabetics, where a dangerous overproduction of ketones occurs in the absence of exogenous insulin.
The primary ketone produced hepatically is acetoacetate, and the primary circulating ketone is β-hydroxybutyrate [ 50 ]. Depending on the degree of restriction of carbohydrate or total energy, KD can raise circulating ketone levels to a range of ~0.
The proposed fat loss advantage of carbohydrate reduction beyond a mere reduction in total energy is based largely on insulin-mediated inhibition of lipolysis and presumably enhanced fat oxidation.
However, a single-arm study by Hall et al. Blood ketone levels plateaued at ~1. This was accompanied by a transient increase in nitrogen loss, potentially suggesting a stress response including the ramping up of gluconeogenesis. It has been postulated that the production and utilization of ketone bodies impart a unique metabolic state that, in theory, should outperform non-ketogenic conditions for the goal of fat loss [ 45 ].
Even small differences in protein can result in significant advantages to the higher intake. A meta-analysis by Clifton et al. Soenen et al. This is not too surprising, considering that protein is known to be the most satiating macronutrient [ 54 ]. This led to a body weight decrease of 4.
With scant exception [ 56 ], all controlled interventions to date that matched protein and energy intake between KD and non-KD conditions have failed to show a fat loss advantage of the KD [ 51 , 53 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 ].
Perhaps the strongest evidence against the alleged metabolic advantage of carbohydrate restriction is a recent pair of meta-analyses by Hall and Guo [ 60 ], which included only isocaloric, protein-matched controlled feeding studies where all food intake was provided to the subjects as opposed to self-selected and self-reported intake.
A total of 32 studies were included in the analysis. No thermic or fat loss advantage was seen in the lower-CHO conditions. In fact, the opposite was revealed. The problem with this claim is that the rise in fat oxidation — objectively measured via decreased respiratory quotient — reaches a plateau within the first week of a KD [ 51 ].
Increased oxidation of free fatty acids, plasma triacylglycerol, and intramuscular triacylglycerol during exercise is a well-established response to fat-rich diets [ 63 ].
However, this rise in fat oxidation is often misconstrued as a greater rate of net FM reduction. This assumption ignores the concomitant increase in fat intake and storage. As a result of fat-adaptation, increased intramuscular triacylglycerol levels indicate increased fat synthesis over degradation during the rest periods between exercise bouts [ 64 ].
To reiterate a previous point, rigorously controlled isocaloric, protein-matched studies have consistently demonstrated that ketoadaptation does not necessarily amount to a net decrease in fat balance, which is ultimately what matters.
If there is any advantage to KD over non-KD for fat loss, it is potentially in the realm of appetite regulation. This occurs via spontaneous energy intake reduction, which could be due to increased satiety through a suppression of ghrelin production [ 70 ].
Moreover, KD has demonstrated hunger-suppressive effects independent of protein content. In a 4-week crossover design, Johnstone et al. In further support of this idea, a meta-analysis by Gibson et al.
However, it remains unclear whether the appetite suppression is due to ketosis or other factors such as an increased protein or fat intake, or restriction of carbohydrate. An area of growing interest is the effect of KD on athletic performance. Since training capacity has the potential to affect body composition, the effect of KD on exercise performance warrants discussion.
However, in contrast to the proposed benefits of fat-adaptation on performance, Havemann et al. Stellingwerff et al. The high-fat diet increased fat oxidation, but also lowered pyruvate dehydrogenase activity and decreased glycogenolysis.
These results provide a mechanistic explanation for the impairment in high-intensity work output as a result of high-fat, CHO-restricted diets [ 62 , 65 , 67 ]. Recently, an ergolytic effect from ketoadaptation has been observed at lower intensities as well.
Burke et al. However, this was accompanied by a reduction in exercise economy increased oxygen demand for a given speed. The linear and non-linear high-CHO diets in the comparison both caused significant performance improvements, while no significant improvement was seen in the KD there was a nonsignificant performance decrease.
It is notable that Paoli et al. Furthermore, the KD resulted in significant loss of FM 1. However, unlike Burke et al. Wilson et al. A common thread among high-protein diets HPD is that they have their various and subjective definitions.
High-protein diets have also been identified as ranging from 1. Classic work by Lemon et al. showed that protein consumed at double the RDA 1. However, Pasiakos et al. More recently, Longland et al. A unique methodological strength in Longland et al. Subjects were also provided all food and beverage intake, which added an extra layer of control and strengthened the findings.
Augmenting this body of literature is Arciero et al. Of the macronutrients, protein has the highest thermic effect and is the most metabolically expensive. Given this, it is not surprising that higher protein intakes have been seen to preserve resting energy expenditure while dieting [ 54 ].
Also, protein is the most satiating macronutrient, followed by carbohydrate, and fat being the least [ 83 ]. With just one exception [ 84 ], a succession of recent meta-analyses [ 52 , 85 , 86 , 87 ] supports the benefit of higher protein intakes for reducing body weight, FM, and waist circumference, and preserving LM in an energy deficit.
A systematic review by Helms et al. This is one of the rare pieces of literature that report protein requirements on the basis of FFM rather than total body weight. Antonio et al. First in the series, the addition of dietary protein amounting to 4. A subsequent 8-week investigation involved resistance-trained subjects on a formally administered, periodized resistance training protocol [ 90 ].
The high-protein group HP consumed 3. HP and NP showed significant gains in LM 1. A significantly greater fat mass decrease occurred in HP compared to NP 1.
A subsequent 8-week crossover trial [ 91 ] in resistance-trained subjects compared protein intakes of 3. A lack of significant differences in body composition and strength performance were seen despite a significantly higher caloric intake in HP vs.
NP an increase of vs. In agreement with previous findings, there were no differences in body composition importantly, no significant increase in fat mass , despite a significantly higher caloric intake in HP vs. This study also addressed health concerns about long-term high protein intakes 3—4 times the RDA by demonstrating no adverse effects on a comprehensive list of measured clinical markers, including a complete metabolic panel and blood lipid profile.
An in-patient, metabolic ward study by Bray et al. All three groups gained total body weight, but LP lost 0. Moreover, the NP and HP groups gained 2. All three groups gained body fat 3. These results are seemingly at odds with Antonio et al. However, aside from the tighter control and surveillance inherent with metabolic ward conditions, Bray et al.
Speculation over the fate of the extra protein consumed in the Antonio et al. studies [ 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 ] may include a higher thermic effect of feeding, increased non-exercise activity thermogenesis NEAT , increased thermic effect of exercise TEE , increased fecal energy excretion, reduced intake of the other macronutrients via increased satiety and suppressed hepatic lipogenesis.
It should be noted as well that there might have been a misreporting of energy intake. Intermittent fasting IF can be divided into three subclasses: alternate-day fasting ADF , whole-day fasting WDF , and time-restricted feeding TRF [ 93 ].
The most extensively studied IF variant is ADF, which typically involves a hour fasting period alternated with a hour feeding period. Lean mass retention has been a surprisingly positive effect of ADF [ 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 ].
However, lean mass loss in ADF conditions has also been observed by other investigators [ 98 , 99 , ]. The latter effect might be attributable to more severe energy deficits.
Recently, Catenacci et al. Whole-day fasting involves one to two hour fasting periods throughout the week of otherwise maintenance intake to achieve an energy deficit.
Although WDF has been consistently effective for weight loss, Harvie et al. A subsequent study by Harvie et al. Both WDF diets caused greater 3-month fat loss than DER 3. Time-restricted feeding typically involves a fasting period of 16—20 hours and a feeding period of 4—8 hours daily.
The most widely studied form of TRF is Ramadan fasting, which involves approximately 1 month of complete fasting both food and fluid from sunrise to sunset. Unsurprisingly, significant weight loss occurs, and this includes a reduction in lean mass as well as fat mass [ , ].
Aside from Ramadan fasting studies, dedicated TRF research has been scarce until recently. An 8-week trial by Tinsley et al. No limitations were placed on the amounts and types of food consumed in the 4-hour eating window.
A standardized resistance training program was administered 3 days per week. The TRF group lost body weight, due to a significantly lower energy intake kcal less on fasting compared to non-fasting days.
Cross sectional area of the biceps brachii and rectus femoris increased similarly in both the TRF and normal diet ND group. No significant changes in body composition via DXA were seen between groups. Despite a lack of statistical significance, there were notable effect size differences in lean soft tissue ND gained 2.
Although both groups increased strength without significant between-group differences, effect sizes were greater in the TRF group for bench press endurance, hip sled endurance, and maximal hip sled strength.
This finding should be viewed cautiously given the potential for greater and more variable neurological gains in untrained subjects. A subsequent study by Moro et al. normal diet control group ND 1.
Macronutrient intake between the TRF and ND groups was matched, unlike the aforementioned Tinsley et al. study [ ] whereby protein intake was disparate and sub-optimal 1.
The mechanisms underlying these results are not clear. The authors speculated that increased adiponectin levels in the TRF group could have stimulated mitochondrial biogenesis via interacting with PPAR-gamma, in addition to adiponectin acting centrally to increase energy expenditure.
However, the TRF group also experienced unfavorable changes such as decreased testosterone and triiodothyronine levels. Seimon et al. Their review included 40 studies in total, 12 of which directly compared an IER with a CER condition. Interestingly, IER was found to be superior at suppressing hunger.
The authors speculated that this might be attributable to ketone production in the fasting phases. However, this effect was immaterial since on the whole, IF failed to result in superior improvements in body composition or greater weight loss compared to CER.
Table 2 outlines the characteristics of the major diet archetypes. In its simplest form, CICO is an acronym for the idea that weight loss or gain is determined by a caloric deficit or surplus, regardless of diet composition.
While this technically is true, it fails to account for the composition of the weight gained or lost, as well as the multitude of factors that drive eating behaviors that dictate caloric intake. Variability in the thermic effect of fat can be attributed to differences in molecular structure that significantly alter its metabolism.
For example, Seaton et al. Differences in the TEF of protein have also been observed in direct comparisons. Acheson et al. All protein sources had a higher thermic effect than an all-CHO meal.
Importantly, the thermic effect of each macronutrient can vary within and across individuals [ ]. In any case, protein has consistently shown a higher thermic effect than carbohydrate or fat. The thermic effect of food TEF , also called diet-induced thermogenesis, is one of several components of EE.
The largest component of TDEE, at least among individuals not involved in extremely high volumes of exercise, is resting energy expenditure REE , which is often mentioned interchangeably with resting metabolic rate RMR or basal metabolic rate BMR.
Basal metabolic rate is the energetic cost of the biological processes required for survival at rest. As a matter of technical trivia, BMR is measured in an overnight fasted state, lying supine at complete rest, in the postabsorptive state the condition in which the gastrointestinal tract is empty of nutrients and body stores must supply required energy.
The other main component of TDEE is non-resting energy expenditure, which is comprised of 3 subcomponents: non-exercise activity thermogenesis NEAT , exercise activity thermogenesis EAT , and finally, TEF. While BMR and TEF are relatively static, NEAT and EAT vary widely within and across individuals.
The impact of NEAT can be substantial since it can vary by as much as kcals between individuals of similar size [ ]. Table 3 outlines the components of TDEE, with examples of low, moderate, and high TDEE [ , , ]. While this advice technically is the answer, the challenge lies in programming the variables so that the desired energy balance is sustained over the long-term, and the targeted body composition is reached and maintained while preventing or minimizing REE losses.
Involuntary adaptive shifts separate humans from machines. We differ from bomb calorimeters primarily due to our dynamic nature, which is based on the homeostatic drive toward survival. When hypocaloric conditions are imposed, energy expenditure has a tendency to decrease.
Conversely, when a caloric surplus is imposed, EE has a tendency to increase. However, human energy balance has been called an asymmetric control system [ ], because it tends to be lopsided in favor of more easily gaining weight but less easily losing weight.
The degree of processing or refinement of foods can influence their thermic effect. The authors speculated that the greater mechanized preparation of the processed food caused less peristalsis and a greater loss of bioactive compounds, resulting in fewer metabolites, thus requiring less enzyme activity.
This would lead to more energetically efficient absorption and metabolism. It is important to note that this was not a comparison of a highly processed food versus a whole food.
Both of the meals in the comparison were cheese sandwiches. One just happened to have less mechanical refinement, and slightly more fiber and protein. The results of this study imply that processed foods are more fattening or less effective for weight management.
However, the contrary has been demonstrated. Meal replacement products powders, shakes, and bars have matched or outperformed the effectiveness of whole food-based diets for weight loss and weight loss maintenance [ 82 , , ]. An awareness of tissue-specific metabolism can be helpful in understanding the resting metabolic benefits of improving body composition.
It can also serve to clarify the widely misunderstood and often overestimated contribution of muscle to REE. In contrast, muscle and adipose tissue expend 13 and 4.
This should debunk the notion that increases in muscle mass give individuals the license to reduce dietary discretion. However, on a net basis accounting for the total mass of each tissue in the body , muscle, brain, and liver are the top-3 contributors to overall REE.
Thus, substantial losses in LM — including muscle — can meaningfully impact REE. Finally, it should be noted that tissue-specific EE can vary according to obese vs.
non-obese status, advanced age, and to a lesser degree, sex [ ]. Table 4 outlines the contribution of organs and tissues to REE in healthy adult humans [ ]. Humans have a remarkable ability to maintain a relatively constant body weight through adult life despite wide variations in daily energy intake and expenditure.
This indicates a highly sophisticated integration of systems that tirelessly auto-regulate homeostasis. In the case of hypocaloric conditions, the body up-regulates hunger and down-regulates energy expenditure.
This regulatory system is influenced by nutritional, behavioral, autonomic, and endocrine factors [ ]. The changes in EE are not always completely accounted for by changes in lean mass and fat mass. Therefore, in the context of hypocaloric diets, adaptive thermogenesis AT is a term used to describe the gray area where losses in metabolic tissue cannot simply explain reduced EE.
The mechanisms underlying AT are unclear, but speculations include increased sympathetic drive and decreased thyroid activity. A classic experiment by Leibel et al. Imposed reductions in EE via low-protein VLED do not necessarily reflect what is possible under conditions involving better macronutrient targets and proper training.
In contrast to Leibel et al. The discrepancy between Bryner et al. can be explained by better macronutrient distribution and the implementation of resistance exercise.
Bryner et al. More recently, Camps et al. While this can be viewed as the unfortunate persistence of weight loss-induced AT, the actual difference in RMR at baseline versus 52 weeks was a reduction of 81 kcal, where total weight loss was 5.
However, it is worth reiterating that higher protein alongside resistance training has been shown to prevent this impairment despite severe caloric restriction [ 25 ]. As it stands, the subjects were not engaged in structured exercise at any point let alone a resistance training program that would support the metabolic activity of lean mass , and the details of their maintenance diet were not reported.
In all likelihood, it was not optimized in terms of macronutrition. Misreporting energy intake and output is a common occurrence that has the potential to be mistaken for metabolic adaptation.
For example, Lichtman et al. In the experimental group, no subject had a TEE more than 9. Clearly, the gap between perceived compliance and actual compliance remains a major challenge to the goal of improving body composition. In hypocaloric conditions, adaptive thermogenesis AT is a misnomer; it would more accurately be called adaptive thermoreduction due to a reduction in energy expenditure in response to reductions in energy intake.
Joosen and Westerterp [ ] examined the literature 11 studies to see if AT existed in overfeeding experiments. No evidence beyond the theoretical costs of increased body size and TEF were found. Nevertheless, there is substantial interindividual variability in the energetic response to overfeeding.
Others show less homeostatic drive and greater efficiency of energy storage. This interindividual variability is due, at least in part, to differences in NEAT. It is possible that conscious and unconscious increases in NEAT can pose a significant challenge to weight gain.
A prime illustration of this is a study by Levine et al. On average, kcal were stored, and kcal were burned. This finding explains why some individuals can purposely increase daily caloric intake and still experience a lack of weight gain.
Unbeknownst to them, increased NEAT can negate the targeted caloric surplus. The partitioning of a chronic energy surplus into the various tissue compartments is an important yet understudied area.
Rosqvistet al. Despite similar gains in total body weight 1. Furthermore, liver fat and visceral fat deposition were significantly greater in SFA. The authors speculated that a greater oxidation of PUFA might have decreased the production of non-esterified fatty acids, which in turn could have lowered hepatic triacylglycerol synthesis.
Caution is warranted when attempting to generalize these results beyond the fat sources used palm oil for SFA, sunflower oil for PUFA. Chronic overfeeding adaptations can also vary according to training status.
Garthe et al. Elite athletes in a variety of sports were used. Lean mass gains were slightly but not significantly higher in the nutritionally counseled group 1. In contrast, Rozenek et al. A non-supplemented control group was included in the comparison, and this group underwent the same progressive resistance training protocol as the treatment groups.
In contrast to Garthe et al. The CHO group showed slightly better results than CHO-PRO, although not to a statistically significant degree 3. It was speculated that both groups consumed adequate protein at baseline 1.
However, Garthe et al. It can be argued that sustaining a caloric surplus is not necessary for muscle anabolism since LM gains have been reported in the literature during hypocaloric conditions [ 26 , 80 , , ].
Therefore, it is likely that diets seeking to optimize rates of LM gain are compromised by sustained caloric deficits, and optimized by sustained caloric surpluses to facilitate anabolic processes and support increasing training demands.
Understanding how various diet types affect body composition is of utmost importance to researchers and practitioners. Ultimately, the interpretation of the data and implementation of the procedures determine the progress made by clients, patients, and the public.
Fortunately, the current body of research is rich with information that can guide evidence-based theory and practice. Body composition assessment methods vary in their level of precision, reliability, and availability.
Each method has its strengths and weaknesses. No single approach is ideal for all circumstances. Rather, the practitioner or researcher must employ the most practical option for the assessment needs of the individuals at hand, in order to achieve consistency in the face of inherent limitations and logistical considerations such as financial expense and technician skill.
The various diet archetypes are wide-ranging in total energy and macronutrient distribution. Each type carries varying degrees of supporting data, and varying degrees of unfounded claims. Common threads run through the diets in terms of mechanism of action for weight loss and weight gain i.
There is a vast multitude of diets. In addition, there are numerous subtypes that fall under the major diet archetypes. Practitioners, clinicians, and researchers need to maintain a grasp of the claims versus the evidence underlying each archetype to properly guide science-based practical and educational objectives with clients, patients, and the public.
All body composition assessment methods have strengths and limitations. Thus, the selection of the method should weigh practicality and consistency with the prohibitive potential of cost, invasiveness, availability, reproducibility, and technician skill requirements. Ultimately, the needs of the client, patient, or research question should be matched with the chosen method; individualization and environmental considerations are essential.
Diets focused primarily on FM loss and weight loss beyond initial reductions in body water operate under the fundamental mechanism of a sustained caloric deficit. The higher the baseline FM level, the more aggressively the caloric deficit may be imposed [ 27 ].
As subjects get leaner, slower rates of weight loss can better preserve LM, as in Garthe et al. Helms et al. Although LM gains have been reported in the literature during hypocaloric conditions, diets primarily focused on LM gain are likely optimized via sustained caloric surplus to facilitate anabolic processes and support increasing training demands.
The composition and magnitude of the surplus, the inclusion of an exercise program, as well as training status of the subjects can influence the nature of the gains.
Larger caloric surpluses are more appropriate for untrained subjects who are primed for more dramatic progress in LM gain [ ] and for those with a high level of NEAT [ ]. On the other hand, smaller caloric surpluses are appropriate for more advanced trainees who may be at a higher risk for undue FM gain during aggressive hypercaloric conditions [ ].
It should be noted that not all trainees will fit within this general framework. Some novices might require smaller surpluses while some advanced trainees will require larger surpluses in order to push muscular gains forward. It is the job of the practitioner to tailor programs to the inevitable variability of individual response.
To date, no controlled, inpatient isocaloric diet comparison where protein is matched between groups has reported a clinically meaningful fat loss or thermic advantage to the lower-carbohydrate or ketogenic diet [ 60 ].
The collective evidence in this vein invalidates the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis of obesity. However, ketogenic diets have shown appetite-suppressing potential exemplified by spontaneous caloric intake reductions in subjects on ketogenic diets without purposeful caloric restriction.
Athletic performance is a separate goal with varying demands on carbohydrate availability depending on the nature of the sport. Carbohydrate restriction can have an ergolytic potential, particularly for endurance sports. Effects of carbohydrate restriction on strength and power warrant further research.
Increasing dietary protein to levels significantly beyond current recommendations for athletic populations may improve body composition. Time-restricted feeding a variant of IF combined with resistance training is an emerging area of research that has thus far shown mixed results [ , ].
However, the body of intermittent caloric restriction research, on the whole, has indicated no significant advantage over daily caloric restriction for improving body composition [ ].
Therefore, programming of linear versus nonlinear caloric deficits should be determined by individual preference, tolerance, and athletic goals. Getting adequate protein in the diet allows the body to put those extra calories towards muscle growth and repair, which ultimately results in more muscle and less fat.
Moreover, a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a high-protein diet can significantly improve body composition. Participants who followed a high-protein diet for 12 weeks showed a decrease in body fat and an increase in lean muscle mass compared to those who followed a traditional diet [5].
Because the body is able to repair and rebuild muscle as you sleep, your lean muscle mass will rise while your fat percentage will drop. Participants who slept for hours per night showed a decrease in body fat and an increase in lean muscle mass [6, 7].
Tracking your progress is a crucial step in achieving any goal, including those related to health, fitness, and overall well-being. By monitoring your progress, you can identify areas of success, as well as areas where you may need to make adjustments in your routine.
One important aspect of tracking your progress is that it provides motivation. Seeing positive changes in your body composition, such as a decrease in body fat or an increase in muscle mass, can be very motivating and help you stay on track with your goals.
You can experiment with different approaches and see how they affect your progress. There are many ways to track your progress, depending on your goals. You can also take measurements of your waist, hips, and other areas to track changes in your body shape.
The Visbody-S30 3D body composition scanner gives you an in-depth look into your physical self. The Visbody-S30 is an advanced body composition analyzer that provides precise readings of your body fat and muscle mass.
In addition, data from the scanner is presented in a straightforward format, making it easy to monitor development over time. The scanner can also measure the amount of muscle mass in the body, which is important for athletes or those looking to increase their muscle mass through strength training.
This information can be useful in determining caloric needs for weight management and creating a personalized nutrition plan. The Visbody-S30 can measure the amount of visceral fat in the body, which is the fat that surrounds the internal organs and is associated with an increased risk of health issues such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes.
The Visbody-S30 provides a more precise analysis of your body composition, allowing for more informed dietary and workout decisions.
You can use the information gleaned from the Visbody-S30 to aid your efforts to gain muscle, reduce body fat, or maintain your present weight. Visbody-S30 is a valuable tool. It is useful not merely for taking initial measurements of your body composition but also for monitoring changes over time.
You can use this data to determine the best next steps for optimizing your body composition. The Visbody-S30 is a useful tool for anyone looking to achieve their fitness goals, whether to bulk up, trim down, or stay the same.
The first step in using the Visbody-S30 to track your progress is to take an initial measurement of your body composition.
This will give you a baseline to work from and help you see how your body changes over time. Each time you take a measurement with the Visbody-S30, compare it to your previous measurements to see how your body composition has changed over time.
Look for trends and patterns, and use this information to make adjustments to your diet and exercise routine. Based on the information you glean from the Visbody-S30, make adjustments to your diet and exercise routine as needed.
Remember that achieving your fitness goals is a journey, not a destination. What you eat is as crucial as how you train if you want to change your body composition for the better.
Eating mindfully can help you control your portion sizes, eat less food overall, and lose weight. In a study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, researchers found that mindful eating was associated with a lower body mass index and improved body composition, making it a key component of a successful body composition improvement plan [8].
Even though a good diet and regular exercise are the bedrock of body composition improvement, supplements can greatly help bolster your efforts. Muscle development, recuperation, and performance can all benefit from supplements like whey protein, creatine, and branched-chain amino acids BCAAs.
However, before beginning any supplement routine, it is essential to contact a doctor or qualified nutritionist, as supplements may interfere with medications or have bad effects on certain people.
Supplements are meant to work in conjunction with a good diet and regular exercise, not as a replacement for them. Changing your body composition involves consistent exercise, healthy eating, and monitoring your results. You can get to where you want to be in terms of body composition and keep it that way if you use the appropriate methods and equipment.
Your lean body mass is your total body weight minus your body fat weight, otherwise known as fat-free mass. Lean body mass is often mistaken as referring to muscle mass alone, but it actually refers to any tissues in your body that are not fat mass adipose tissue.
This includes muscle, bone, organs, nerves, hair, nails, ligaments, tendons, etc. Keeping your body fat levels within a healthy range reduces the risks of all-cause mortality.
As well, low levels of lean body mass, such as muscle and bone, increase your risks of all-cause mortality. Having excess body fat may put you at risk of developing heart disease, metabolic syndrome, high blood pressure, or type 2 diabetes.
Improving your current body composition requires changes to your diet and exercise habits. Other factors may contribute as well, such as sleep, hormones, and stress levels.
The foods you consume can affect your body composition, including how much muscle, water, bone, and body fat you have. Body mass is synonymous with weight, so the theoretical "improving" of body composition is very subjective.
If you're looking to "improve your body composition"—whatever that means for you—increasing muscle mass, decreasing fat mass, or weight loss or weight gain may be indicated. In very simplistic terms, weight is dictated by whether you consume the same, more, or fewer calories as you burn.
Consuming more calories results in weight gain, fewer calories lead to weight loss, and the same calorie intake as output will maintain your weight. However, whether you gain or lose that weight from mostly fat or lean mass depends significantly on your dietary habits. There are many ways that nutrition can influence body composition, but many times when individuals adjust their nutrition plans they may not always see results.
Hormones, genetics, medical conditions, and many other factors play a role, so nutrition and exercise are only two of many factors to consider. If weight loss is your goal, research shows that protein intake is the most significant factor in where your weight loss will come from. Consuming a high-protein diet during weight loss will help preserve your muscle tissue, improving your body composition by helping you reduce fat while keeping your lean mass.
If you are active, which you likely will be if you want to make body composition changes, more protein is needed to support your activity and recovery.
Aim for a range of 1. If increasing muscle mass is your goal, you will likely need to increase overall caloric intake as well as protein. Adjusting your diet to support muscle gain means consuming more calories than you burn and ensuring you get enough protein and carbohydrates to support your training, recovery, and muscle growth while also including enough healthy fats for optimal hormone functioning and health.
If weight gain is your goal, you will also need to increase caloric intake. This can mirror the same method as increasing muscle mass, focusing on nutrient-dense carbohydrate, fat, and protein sources to meet, and generally exceed, your needs. Exercise is how you can make the most noticeable changes to your body composition by increasing muscle mass.
Exercise, in general, has been shown to increase lean mass in normal-fat individuals and reduce fat mass in overfat and obese adults. Lowering fat mass and building or maintaining lean mass will improve body composition.
Research shows that adults with excess body fat may particularly benefit from resistance exercise. Studies show that resistance exercise affects lean and fat mass percentages, whereas aerobic exercise only affects fat mass.
If you aim to change your body composition, don't skip exercise. Losing weight with diet alone will result in loss of lean mass, including muscle, which will further cause adverse metabolic adaptations and will not cause the desired change in your body composition.
Sleep, stress, and hormonal factors interplay to impact body composition as well. For instance, a lack of sleep can impact your hormones, including those that control feelings of hunger and cravings.
This could get in the way of your body getting the nutrients it's craving. As well, without energizing sleep , you'll likely move less and not perform as well during your workouts. Recovery from training will also suffer, impeding muscle gain and fat loss results. Growth hormone is released while you sleep and impacts your muscle mass growth and loss of fat mass.
If you do not get enough sleep, your growth hormone levels may not be optimal. Some people have hormonal shifts that will make fat loss or muscle gain more difficult.
Hormone abnormalities such as PCOS or the reduced levels of testosterone and estrogen that come with age and menopause can significantly impact your results.
Similarly, stress can impact food choices, sleep, hormones , and more to make fat loss or muscle gain more challenging. Cortisol, which is a stress hormone, is considered to be catabolic muscle wasting and will make anabolism—muscle growth—difficult if it gets too high for too long.
Implementing stress reduction and sleep-promoting practices into your lifestyle will help you counteract these effects. Some people require a substantial break from calorie deficits and intense training to help their bodies relax and de-stress.
To address serious issues with stress and hormone levels, it's best to seek guidance from a healthcare professional. When it comes to cardiovascular exercise, you can choose whatever form you enjoy.
This means so long as your calorie burn is the same, you will get the same results whether performing HIIT or steady-state cardio, so choosing whatever you prefer and can be consistent with will work best. If you are eating correctly to support muscle gain, then performing resistance-based exercises will help you build more lean mass.
If you are new to resistance training, you may even see increases in muscle mass while eating maintenance or even deficit calories. Strength training also helps prevent the loss of lean mass, including muscle tissue, while in a calorie deficit. Types of resistance training range from bodyweight movements to heavy weight lifting.
If your goal is to build muscle size , follow best practices for hypertrophy-based strength training by using progressive overload , adding volume consistently over time, and managing fatigue with deload phases. It's also key to track your progress , so you know when to make adjustments to keep on track toward your body composition goals.
To put together an effective workout plan to improve your body composition, begin with a minimum of two weekly strength training sessions for each major muscle group.
If you have the time, splitting your workouts into 3 to 4 strength training sessions per week will likely be best. Gradually add sets and reps over time to help build muscle mass.
Nutrition for body composition of the International Society Body toning with HIIT Sports Nutrition volume 14Article number: compoosition Cite this Composiiton. Metrics details. Position Statement: The International Society Nutrition for body composition Sports Dor ISSN bases the following position stand on a critical analysis of the literature regarding the effects of diet types macronutrient composition; eating styles and their influence on body composition. The ISSN has concluded the following. The higher the baseline body fat level, the more aggressively the caloric deficit may be imposed.
Ich denke, dass Sie den Fehler zulassen. Geben Sie wir werden besprechen. Schreiben Sie mir in PM.
Wieviel auch immer.