The Effects of Training Load During Dietary Intervention Upon Fat Loss: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

Purpose: To date no studies have compared resistance training loading strategies combined with dietary intervention for fat loss. Methods: Thus, we performed a randomised crossover design comparing four weeks of heavier- (HL; ~80% 1RM) and lighter-load (LL; ~60% 1RM) resistance training, combined with calorie restriction and dietary guidance, including resistance trained participants (n=130; males=49, females=81). Both conditions performed low-volume, (single set of 9 exercises, 2x/week) effort matched (to momentary failure), but non-work-matched protocols. Testing was completed pre- and post-each intervention. Fat mass (kg) was the primary outcome, and a smallest effect size of interest (SESOI) was established at 3.3% loss of baseline bodyweight. Body fat percentage, lean mass, and strength (7-10RM) for chest press, leg press, and pull-down exercises were also measured. An 8-week washout period of traditional training with normal calorie interspersed each intervention. Results: Both interventions showed small statistically equivalent (within the SESOI) reductions in fat mass (HL: -0.67 kg [95%CI -0.91 to 0.42]; LL: -0.55 kg [95%CI -0.80 to -0.31]) which were also equivalent between conditions (HL - LL: -0.113 kg [95%CI -0.437 kg to 0.212 kg]). Changes in body fat percentage and lean mass were also minimal. Strength increases were small, similar between conditions, and within a previously determined SESOI for the population included (10.1%). Conclusions: Fat loss reductions are not impacted by resistance training load; both HL and LL produce similar, yet small, changes to body composition over a 4-week intervention. However, the maintenance of both lean mass and strength highlights the value of resistance training during dietary intervention.

Short-term supervised virtual training maintains intensity of effort and represents an efficacious alternative to traditional studio-based, supervised strength training.

BACKGROUND: Virtual personal training might represent an uncomplicated, accessible, and time-efficient approach to supervised strength training, particularly under government-imposed lockdown or closure of fitness facilities. However, there appears a dearth of literature evaluating the efficacy of virtual personal training. METHODS: The present project considered two studies considering supervised virtual strength training. Study 1 considered trained participants being supervised one-to-one through traditional resistance exercise sessions in a strength training studio (STUD), compared to a virtual personal training protocol performed using bodyweight resistance exercises (VIRT). This study utilized a crossover design whereby male (n = 13) and female (n = 7) participants were tested for body composition using BodPod, and strength for bench press, leg press, and high-row exercises. Participants were then randomly assigned to 3-weeks of VIRT or 3-weeks of STUD training. Following each 3-week training period, participants had a 1-week period without training whereby mid-intervention testing occurred, after which participants then completed the alternate training intervention. For study 2, we surveyed the client base of a chain of training facilities that had begun offering virtual personal training during lockdown to explore their views on this approach. RESULTS: Strength and body composition changes were similar between groups, however for neither condition did results surpass the smallest meaningful change. The remaining survey data suggests that supervised virtual resistance training yields similar perceptions of effort, motivation, enjoyment, and supervision quality, compared to traditional supervised studio training. CONCLUSION: Based on the current data, it appears that short-term supervised virtual resistance training is as efficacious as traditional supervised studio-based resistance training.