AJCN North Carolina Research Campus
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sweeney, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by DiGirolamo, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sweeney, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by DiGirolamo, M.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Sweeney, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by DiGirolamo, M.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 57, 127-134, Copyright © 1993 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc

ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Severe vs moderate energy restriction with and without exercise in the treatment of obesity: efficiency of weight loss

ME Sweeney, JO Hill, PA Heller, R Baney and M DiGirolamo
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322.

Thirty obese women were randomly assigned to either 40% [severe energy restriction (SER)] or 70% [moderate energy restriction (MER)] of their maintenance energy requirements and to no exercise, aerobic exercise (walking), or aerobic exercise plus circuit weight training. Body composition by hydrostatic weighing and energy expenditure by indirect calorimetry were measured at 0, 3, and 6 mo. In addition, we developed a deficit-efficiency factor (DEF), calculated as body energy loss/dietary energy deficit, to attempt to quantify the effectiveness of the weight-reduction interventions. Subjects in the SER group lost more weight (mean +/- SE: 15.1 +/- 1.4 vs 10.8 +/- 1.0 kg), fat (11.7 +/- 1.1 vs 8.3 +/- 0.6 kg), and fat-free mass (2.8 +/- 0.3 vs 1.8 +/- 0.3 kg) than the MER group (P < or = 0.05). However, the overall DEF was greatest in the MER group (0.80 +/- 0.07) compared with the SER group (0.52 +/- 0.05; P < or = 0.01). Exercise had no significant effect. This study demonstrates that MER may offer an advantage over SER because it produces a greater energy loss relative to energy deficit.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Am. Coll. Nutr.Home page
R. W. Bryner, I. H. Ullrich, J. Sauers, D. Donley, G. Hornsby, M. Kolar, and R. Yeater
Effects of Resistance vs. Aerobic Training Combined With an 800 Calorie Liquid Diet on Lean Body Mass and Resting Metabolic Rate
J. Am. Coll. Nutr., April 1, 1999; 18(2): 115 - 121.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
W. J. Kraemer, J. S. Volek, K. L. Clark, S. E. Gordon, T. Incledon, S. M. Puhl, N. T. Triplett-McBride, J. M. McBride, M. Putukian, and W. J. Sebastianelli
Physiological adaptations to a weight-loss dietary regimen and exercise programs in women
J Appl Physiol, July 1, 1997; 83(1): 270 - 279.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1993 by The American Society for Nutrition