2 pp. / To gain weight, athletes need to consume more calories than they use. This weight gain will include water, fat, and protein in muscle. To limit the amount of fat gain and increase muscle gains, athletes need to use effective exercise training and nutrition programs.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The principal aim of this thesis was to investigate the effects of altering the energy density of the diet (kJ/g) on post-restriction weight regain in domestic cats and laboratory mice. Secondly, evidence for body weight regulation was examined in mice. In cats, consumption of the same number of calories of a low energy dense diet (with added water) induced significantly less weight rebound than a more energy dense diet (with no added water). This was accounted for by differences in physical activity, as cats on the low energy dense diet were significantly more active. It was assumed the less energy dense diet held cats in a perceived state of energy restriction and they were actively searching for more food. In mice, cellulose was used to alter the energy density of the diet. Post-restriction body weight rebound was also observed on an energy dense diet (no cellulose). However, body weight not did reach pre-restriction levels when consuming a low energy dense diet (with added cellulose) and digestibility was significantly reduced. It was likely that the fibre-rich induced a gut processing limit on the bulk of digestible food that could be consumed. Overall, the energy density of the diet was shown to modulate post-restriction body weight rebound, but results varied with species and the energy dilutant used. The implications for human weight management have yet to be elucidated. The second principle finding was that post-restriction hyperphagia was induced to replenish food deficiencies incurred during caloric restriction, rather than to replenish body mass loss in mice. This provided preliminary evidence for a ‘calorie-counting’ body weight regulatory system in mammals.

Psychosocial differences between weight loss maintainers and weight loss non-maintainers were compared at least one year after reaching a medically approved weight goal through a medically supervised weight loss program. Research questions addressed differences between groups on the dimensions of somatization, obsessive/compulsive issues, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, ability to resolve past emotional issues, social interpersonal relationships, and tolerance of ambiguity. The all-female sample consisted of maintainers of weight loss (N=30), non-maintainers (N=33), psychotherapy maintainers (N=14), and psychotherapy non-maintainers (N=ll). Research instruments administered were the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised, Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior, Personal Orientation Inventory, and Budner Scale for Tolerance/Intolerance of Ambiguity. To determine differences between groups, a t test was performed on data relating to the maintaining and non-maintaining groups. An analysis of variance was performed on data related to the maintaining, non-maintaining, psychotherapy maintaining, and psychotherapy non-maintaining groups. An intercorrelation matrix was completed for all variables. Non-maintainers of weight loss had significantly more difficulty with somatic problems as indicated in the results of both the t test and the analysis of variance (p < .009, p < .02, respectively). Non-maintainers expressed more complaints which focused on cardio-vascular, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and somatic equivalents of anxiety (headaches, pain, discomfort of the gross musculature). An analysis of variance showed non-maintainers (p < .05) to be significantly less effective in resolving past emotional issues than maintainers, psychotherapy maintainers, and psychotherapy non-maintainers. Non-maintainers were more burdened by guilt, regrets, and resentments from the past. Results of the analysis of variance indicated that psychotherapy maintainers (p < .03) were more socially adjusted than maintainers, non-maintainers, and psychotherapy non-maintainers. Inclusion and control subscales characterized psychotherapy maintainers to be more socially adaptable and flexible. They assumed responsibility without support of others and were less burdened with fears of helplessness and incompetence.

This dissertation examined whether factors specific to the perceiver influence whom he/she labels as “fat.” Building upon research examining the role that one‟s level of identification with a group (Castano, Yzerbyt, Bourguignon, & Seron, 2002; Leyens & Yzerbyt, 1992) and one‟s prejudice level (Allport, 1954; Allport & Kramer, 1946) play in the process of categorizing others, this dissertation examined whether one‟s body weight centrality and prejudice against fat people influence whom he/she labels as “fat.” Further, to understand the mechanism explaining the link between these factors and the labeling process, this dissertation also explored whether motivational factors underlie whom a perceiver labels as “fat.” Undergraduate females who self-identified as “not fat” were recruited for two studies that addressed these goals. Study one examined whether perceivers‟ prejudice levels and body weight centrality levels influenced how they categorized others based upon body weight and whether this categorization process represented a threat to the self. Study two examined further examined the role of prejudice and body weight centrality in body weight-based categorization as well as whether the desire to protect the in-group from contamination motivates the categorization process. Hypotheses were tested through a series of multiple regression analyses. Findings suggest that both prejudice towards fat people and the importance that one places upon body weight in one‟s feelings of self-worth predicted the fat threshold. Further, evidence did not support the hypothesized impact of motivational factors on the link between prejudice or body weight centrality and the fat threshold. Implications and limitations are discussed.