The composition
of weight loss is important. While greater deficits yield faster weight loss, this
strategy makes you lose more lean body mass than slower weight loss programs
due to the size of the caloric deficit, and dietary factors. For example,
resistance exercise or high protein diets may modify
the proportion of weight loss resulting from body fat versus lean tissue (1,2,3).
Lean body mass is lost in concert with body fat during
weight loss (4,5). As the size of
the caloric deficit increases weight loss coming from lean body mass also tends
to increase (6,7,8).
As I have argued before, not all diets can be considered successful, the importance of keeping lean body mass loses to a minimum during a diet is paramount. That is, the ratio of body fat to lean mass should be high, for example 80% of fat mass to 20% of lean mass.
As I have argued before, not all diets can be considered successful, the importance of keeping lean body mass loses to a minimum during a diet is paramount. That is, the ratio of body fat to lean mass should be high, for example 80% of fat mass to 20% of lean mass.
The higher the initial body fat, the greater the required cumulative energy deficit required to produce a given amount of weight loss. This
has implications for women, since women typically have more body fat than
men of similar body weight, and this may explain why men tend to lose more weight than women for a given energy deficit (6). However greater weight loss is
associated with a lower average cumulative energy deficit meaning that over time more weight is lost for the
same degree of energy deficit (6).
Another fact to keep in mind is that weight loss typically slows over time for a
prescribed constant diet (6,9) suggesting that either the energy expenditure
decreases with time, or the dietary intervention is relaxed over time, or both
(6).
The energy deficit
is closely related with the loss of body weight rate per week.
A study compared changes in body composition, strength, and power during a weekly body-weight (BW) loss of 0.7% slow reduction (SR) vs. 1.4% fast reduction (FR) (8). Twenty-four athletes followed energy-restricted diets promoting the predetermined weekly WL. They consumed about 1.2–1.8 g/kg of daily protein, 3.2–3.6 g/kg of daily carbohydrate (54-55.5%) and ≥20% of fat.
BW and fat mass decreased in SR (0.7%/week) by 5.6%
and 5.5%, and decreased in FR (1.4%/week) by 31% and 21%, respectively. LBM
increased in SR by 2.1% whereas it was unchanged in FR.
Results show that a total body weight loss rate of
0.7-1.4% per week doesn’t cause lean body
mass loss (8).
Another study by the same authors
studied the effect of WL rate on long-term changes in body composition and performance in 23 elite athletes 6 and 12 months after 2 different weight loss interventions
promoting loss of 0.7% vs. 1.4% of
body weight per week (10).
Body mass decreased by 6% in both groups during the intervention but was
not different from baseline values after 12 mo. Fat mass decreased more in SR
(31%) than FR (23%) but was not different from baseline after 12 mo. Lean body mass and upper body strength
increased more in SR (2.0% and 12%, respectively) than in FR (0.8% and 6% respectively) during the intervention, but after 12 mo there were no significant differences
between groups in body composition or performance.
No significant differences between groups were observed after 12 months
compared to baseline, suggesting that weight
loss rate is not the most important factor in maintaining body composition and
performance after weight loss in elite athletes (10).
In another
study of weight loss rates in strength training women, weekly losses of 1 kg over 4 weeks resulted in a 5% decrease
in bench press strength and a 30% greater reduction in testosterone levels compared
to 0.5 kg per week (11).
Weight loss
rates of 0.5-1.4% per week are advisable to keep lean body mass loss to a minimum. Rates closer to the low end (0.5%) are safer.
Would you like to know more? Subscribe!
Summary of 34 articles with
36.528 words and 1121 references on
Exercise and nutrition
References
1. Hansen D, Dendale P, Berger
J, van Loon LJ, Meeusen R. Sports medicine. Vol. 37. Auckland, NZ: 2007. The
effects of exercise training on fatmass loss in obese patients during energy
intake restriction; pp. 31–46.
2. Layman DK, Evans E, Baum
JI, Seyler J, Erickson DJ, Boileau RA. Dietary protein and exercise have
additive effects on body composition during weight loss in adult women. The
Journal of nutrition. 2005;135:1903–1910.
3. Stiegler P, Cunliffe A. Sports
medicine. Vol. 36. Auckland, NZ: 2006. The role of diet and exercise for the
maintenance of fat-free mass and resting metabolic rate during weight loss; pp.
239–262.
4. Forbes GB. Lean body
mass-body fat interrelationships in humans. Nutrition reviews. 1987;45:225–231.
5. Forbes GB. Body fat content
influences the body composition response to nutrition and exercise. Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences. 2000;904:359–365.
6. Hall KD: What is the required energy deficit per unit
weight loss? Int J Obes 2007, 32:573–576.
7. Hall KD: Body fat and fat-free mass
inter-relationships: Forbes's theory revisited. Br J Nutr 2007, 97:1059–1063.
8. Garthe I,
Raastad T, Refsnes PE, Koivisto A, Sundgot-Borgen J: Effect of two different weight-loss rates on body composition and
strength and power-related performance in elite athletes. Int J Sport
Nutr Exerc Metab 2011, 21:97–104.
9. Heymsfield
SB, Harp JB, Reitman ML, Beetsch JW, Schoeller DA, Erondu N, et al. Why do
obese patients not lose more weight when treated with low-calorie diets? A
mechanistic perspective. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2007;85:346–354.
10. Garthe I1, Raastad
T, Sundgot-Borgen J. Long-term effect of weight loss on body composition and
performance in elite athletes. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2011 Oct;21(5):426-35. Epub 2011 Aug 29.
11. Mero AA,
Huovinen H, Matintupa O, Hulmi JJ, Puurtinen R, Hohtari H, Karila T. Moderate energy restriction with high protein
diet results in healthier outcome in women. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2010,
7:4.