Post-Competition Recovery: Is It Better to Eat More and Move More, or Eat Less and Move Less?

 Abstract

The competition diet for physique sports and bodybuilding often places athletes in a profound state of physiological and psychological crisis, which is a consequence of prolonged low energy availability caused by the diet. The post-competition period is characterized by individual physical and psychological changes. Typical changes include alterations in endocrine function, such as suppressed testosterone and thyroid hormone levels; significant metabolic adaptation; loss of lean mass; and even considerable psychological distress, including an elevated risk of binge eating and body image disorders. An optimal recovery strategy is required to restore the body's homeostasis and to build a foundation for future progress.

This article analyzes two opposing recovery strategies through the "high flux" paradigm. In Finnish sports nutrition, the high flux state is also referred to as the "zone of efficient metabolism." The two scenarios being compared are:

• The Low-Flux Method: Achieving a small caloric surplus by combining low energy intake with low energy expenditure ("Eat Little, Move Little").

• The High-Flux Method: Achieving the same small caloric surplus by combining high energy intake with high energy expenditure ("Eat More, Move More").

The article reveals that the high-flux method is likely superior to the low-flux method. The low-flux approach can slow the recovery of metabolism and endocrine function and promote unfavorable nutrient partitioning. Together, these factors can lead to more fat storage than lean mass restoration and perpetuate a psychologically damaging restrictive eating mindset, which in turn increases the risk of the "body fat overshooting" phenomenon. In contrast, the high-flux method can actively and more effectively promote recovery. It can accelerate the restoration of metabolism, endocrine function, and lean mass. Strength training acts as a potent partitioning agent, potentially directing more nutrients toward lean mass restoration than fat mass restoration. Furthermore, a high training volume improves appetite regulation and provides a more psychologically empowering environment that focuses on performance, not restriction.

The conclusion is that physique and bodybuilding athletes should adopt a planned high-flux approach to post-competition recovery. This strategy not only repairs the damage from contest preparation more effectively and efficiently but also creates a more robust physiological and psychological foundation for long-term health and competitive success. The article provides a detailed analysis of these mechanisms and a practical blueprint for implementing this superior recovery model.

Introduction

Preparing for physique and bodybuilding competitions is an exceptional feat of physical and psychological discipline.

Physiological and Psychological Changes Caused by Competition Dieting

Changes in Endocrine Function

The endocrine system, which regulates the body's internal balance, is heavily strained during competition preparation. A prolonged and severe energy deficit, combined with a critically low body fat percentage, triggers a series of adaptive mechanisms. These mechanisms are designed to ensure survival but are at the same time detrimental to the athlete's health and performance.

Suppression of the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Gonadal (HPG) Axis

When the body perceives a state of starvation, the reproductive system is one of the first functions to be shut down. In male athletes, this manifests as a dramatic suppression of the HPG axis. Studies consistently show that total and free testosterone levels decrease significantly, often falling to clinically low or sub-clinical levels. Simultaneously, the secretion of luteinizing hormone (LH) decreases. For example, one case study reported a 75% decrease in testosterone levels during preparation, dropping from 9.22 ng/mL to 2.27 ng/mL.

In female athletes, the consequences are equally severe, manifesting as menstrual dysfunction or functional hypothalamic amenorrhea. Low energy availability disrupts the pulsatile release of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) from the hypothalamus. This, in turn, suppresses the pituitary's production of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and LH, which halts ovulation and leads to clinically low estrogen levels. The loss of the menstrual cycle is not a sign of exceptional conditioning but a clear clinical indicator of profound physiological stress with long-term implications for bone density and cardiovascular health.

Downregulation of the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Thyroid (HPT) Axis

To conserve energy, the body also downregulates the HPT axis. This is primarily observed as a significant reduction in the conversion of thyroxine (T4) to its more metabolically active form, triiodothyronine (T3).

Dysregulation of Anabolic and Stress Hormones 

The hormonal environment shifts entirely from an anabolic (growth-promoting) state to a catabolic (breakdown) survival state. The levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), a potent anabolic hormone, decrease significantly, which is directly correlated with the loss of lean mass during the competition diet.

Simultaneously, the levels of the stress hormone cortisol become chronically elevated. Prolonged high cortisol levels promote the breakdown of muscle protein for energy (catabolism), weaken the immune system, and are strongly linked to the negative moods, anxiety, and sleep disturbances that plague competitors.

Chaos of Appetite-Regulating Hormones

The body's appetite-regulating hormones are thrown into complete disarray, creating a biological imperative for overeating (hyperphagia). The concentration of leptin, the satiety hormone produced by fat cells, plummets as body fat percentage reaches its minimum.

Metabolic Adaptation and Slowdown

In response to the prolonged energy deficit, the body activates powerful energy-saving mechanisms, slowing its metabolism to a crawl.

Slowing of Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR) 

One of the most significant and frustrating physiological adaptations is the slowing of the resting metabolic rate. During a diet, RMR decreases. Part of this is due to the loss of metabolically active tissue, but a large part is explained by what is known as adaptive thermogenesis, or metabolic adaptation. This condition has been confirmed in both male and female physique athletes. This is a consequence of, among other things, suppressed reproductive function and a decline in the immune system.

Reduction in Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT)

Energy-saving measures extend beyond resting metabolism. The energy expenditure from non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT)—such as walking, maintaining posture, and small subconscious movements—also decreases significantly. This reduction in subconscious movement can reduce daily energy expenditure by several hundred calories and is an essential, though often overlooked, part of the body's adaptive response.

Deterioration of Body Composition and Performance 

Although the goal of contest preparation is to maximize muscle mass and minimize fat, the extreme nature of the process inevitably leads to negative consequences.

Loss of Lean Mass

Despite carefully planned high-protein diets and intensive strength training, the loss of lean mass is nearly unavoidable. The combination of a caloric deficit, low anabolic hormone levels, and high catabolic hormone levels makes maintaining muscle mass challenging. The rate of weight loss significantly impacts the extent of this loss. A slower rate of weight loss, around 0.5–1% of body weight per week, has been found to be more effective for preserving lean mass and thus also muscle mass.

Decrease in Strength and Power 

The loss of lean mass, combined with depleted glycogen stores and an unfavorable hormonal environment, leads to a significant decrease in muscular strength and power. Athletes consistently report feeling weaker and less explosive as competitions approach. This is not just a subjective feeling; objective measurements, such as one-repetition maximums (1RMs), confirm the decline in strength levels.

Psychological Burden

The mental and emotional strain of contest preparation is at least as great as the physiological stress. The constant self-discipline and restrictions take a significant toll on the athlete's psychological well-being.

Mood Disorders and "Post-Competition Blues"

The journey to the competition stage is often filled with negative emotional states, including anxiety, depression, irritability, and confusion. These symptoms are caused by the stress of a restrictive lifestyle, sleep disturbances, social isolation, and the direct effects of hormonal imbalances. Often, these mood swings do not end on competition day but peak in the weeks that follow. This phenomenon is commonly known as the "post-competition blues."

Disordered Eating Behaviors and Food Focus 

Months of strict dietary control can fundamentally alter an athlete's relationship with food. Focusing on food and calories becomes obsessive, which can lead to disordered thought patterns that are difficult to break free from after the competition.

Body Image Disorder

One of the biggest psychological challenges is adjusting to the change in body image after the competition. The athlete works for months to achieve a physique that is inherently temporary and unhealthy. As recovery begins and body fat percentage increases, the rapid change from "stage-lean" condition can cause significant anxiety and body image disorders. The physique that was the goal becomes a source of negative self-perception, making the recovery process even more difficult.

Table 1: Summary of Physiological and Psychological Adaptations to Physique and Bodybuilding Contest Preparation

The Necessity of Recovery: Defining and Restoring Homeostasis

Given the profound and widespread disruption described above, the post-competition recovery phase should not be seen as a passive break but as an active and planned period that is a crucial part of the athlete's overall development. Many athletes and coaches make the mistake of treating this period without much planning, as a "recovery period" or a vacation from physique sports, or as a so-called "off-season," which can lead to uncontrolled eating and excessive fat gain, i.e., the body fat overshooting phenomenon.

Energy availability refers to the amount of energy that remains for the body's basic functions (such as maintaining the immune system and metabolism) after the energy expended during exercise has been subtracted from the total intake. Therefore, one of the most important goals of the recovery phase is to ensure adequate energy availability by creating a consistent and appropriate caloric surplus. All other aspects of recovery—hormonal, metabolic, and psychological—depend on this foundation. Without sufficient energy intake, the body lacks the resources to begin the repair processes. All the negative changes caused by dieting, from a drop in testosterone to a slowing of the resting metabolic rate, are ultimately reversed by increasing energy availability and as the body's fat mass begins to increase.

Recovery Timelines: A Marathon, Not a Sprint

The true goal of recovery is not to maximize muscle growth immediately but to restore the body's ability to grow and develop in the future. An athlete must understand that recovery is a long process whose duration varies individually.

• Fast Responders: Certain hormonal factors, especially the HPT axis function, can recover relatively quickly. Studies have shown that free T3 hormone levels can return to normal within a few weeks of increasing energy intake.

• Medium-Paced Responders: The recovery of the HPG axis is slower. Although testosterone levels in men and the menstrual cycle in women begin to recover in the first few weeks, complete normalization often takes 1–3 months or more and requires the restoration of a sufficient body fat percentage.

• Slow Responders: The recovery of psychological characteristics and performance can take the longest. The normalization of appetite regulation and the breaking of restrictive thought patterns can take several months.

This staggered timeline highlights that the recovery phase is an important stage toward the next development period. Many athletes mistakenly believe that the post-competition period would be the most anabolic. Although the body is metabolically sensitive to nutrients, it is hormonally and structurally in a fragile state. The true goal of recovery is not to maximize muscle growth immediately but to restore the body's ability to grow and develop in the future.

Defining the Optimal Recovery Strategy

An optimal recovery method can be defined by its ability to achieve the following goals:

• Accelerate physiological recovery: It should effectively restore endocrine function (HPG and HPT axes) and metabolism, as well as normalize appetite regulation.

• Optimize nutrient partitioning: It should direct nutrients primarily to restoring lean mass and glycogen stores while minimizing excessive fat gain ("body fat overshooting").

• Support psychological well-being: It should help the athlete move away from a restrictive mindset, normalize their relationship with food, and manage the "post-competition blues."

• Create a foundation for future development: It should prepare the body hormonally, metabolically, and structurally to respond to the stimuli of the next training period.

Two Recovery Models: The Low vs. High Energy Flux Methods 

The basic requirement for post-competition recovery is a caloric surplus. However, the energy balance equation ("calories in vs. calories out") does not tell the whole story. It does not take into account the physiological effects of the total amount of energy circulating through the body, i.e., the energy flux.

• Energy flux = total daily calorie turnover = the sum of energy intake and expenditure.

• Energy availability (EA) describes how much energy is left for bodily functions after exercise. It is calculated with the formula:

  EA = [Energy Intake (EI) - Exercise Energy Expenditure (EEE)] / Fat-Free Mass (FFM, kg)

  and is expressed in units of kcal · kg FFM⁻¹ · day⁻¹.

  • ≥ 45 kcal · kg FFM⁻¹ = optimal for an athlete

  • ≈ 30 kcal · kg FFM⁻¹ = the LEA threshold; below this, hormonal and metabolic decline begins (risk of RED-S).

Unlike energy flux, EA only considers the energy consumed by planned training and indicates whether the fuel remaining for the body's basic functions is sufficient.

Let's consider two different hypothetical practical situations. Imagine two individuals with stable weight: a sedentary office worker who consumes and expends 2000 kcal per day, and an active athlete who consumes and expends 3500 kcal per day. Although both maintain their weight, different things are happening in their bodies. The athlete is in a state of high metabolic activity, while the office worker's metabolism is slower. This shows that the rate of energy turnover itself shapes metabolic health, even if the net balance is zero.

Defining the Two Recovery Models

The next two methods achieve the same net caloric surplus but represent opposite ends of the energy flux spectrum.

• The Low-Flux Method ("Eat Little, Move Little"): In this model, a small caloric surplus is achieved by keeping both energy intake and expenditure low.

  • Example:

    • Resting and basal metabolism: 1,600 kcal

    • Other expenditure (minimal exercise): 400 kcal

    • Total expenditure (TDEE): 2,000 kcal

    • Target energy intake: 2,200 kcal

    • Net surplus: +200 kcal

• The High-Flux Method ("Eat a Lot, Move a Lot"): In this model, the same surplus is achieved through high energy intake and high expenditure.

  • Example:

    • Resting and basal metabolism: 1,700 kcal

    • Other expenditure (structured training): 1,300 kcal

    • Total expenditure (TDEE): 3,000 kcal

    • Target energy intake: 3,200 kcal

    • Net surplus: +200 kcal

Key Hypothesis

Although both models produce the same 200 kcal surplus on paper, their physiological and psychological effects are different. The hypothesis of this article is that the high-flux method creates a metabolically stronger, more anabolic, and psychologically healthier environment, making it unequivocally the better method for post-competition recovery. In contrast, the low-flux method threatens to perpetuate the problems caused by the diet, whereas the high-flux method promotes recovery.

Hypothesis: The high-flux method is metabolically, hormonally, and psychologically more beneficial after competition than the low-flux method, even if the net caloric surplus is the same.

Analysis of the Low-Flux Method (Minimal Intake and Expenditure)

The low-flux recovery model, which aims for a small caloric surplus by keeping both energy intake and expenditure low, is physiologically and psychologically disadvantageous. Although the strategy may seem controlled, it maintains many of the negative adaptations caused by the competition diet.

• Metabolism remains in a conservation state. The key problem with this model is its inability to give the body a sufficient signal to revive its metabolism. Low physical activity and low exercise-induced energy expenditure do not raise the resting metabolic rate (RMR). As a result, the adaptive thermogenesis that developed during the diet dissipates slowly. This phenomenon has been confirmed in both female and male physique athletes, whose body-composition-adjusted resting metabolic rate slowed during the competition diet. Therefore, the low-flux model, by slowing the recovery of resting energy expenditure, further prolongs adaptive thermogenesis.

• Energy availability (EA) is constantly at the risk limit, and hormonal recovery is slow. Because exercise energy expenditure is low, total energy intake is also kept low. This easily leads to a situation where energy availability is dangerously close to the low energy availability (LEA) threshold, which increases the risk of Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S) syndrome. This, in turn, slows the normalization of endocrine function. Our study (Isola et al., 2023) showed that the competition diet significantly lowered both leptin and T3 hormone levels in both sexes. The low-flux recovery, by slowing the restoration of energy balance, prolongs this state of hormonal suppression.

• Nutrient partitioning is weaker. In a low-stimulus model, surplus calories are more likely directed toward building fat tissue than restoring muscle mass. This is particularly detrimental for male athletes who, according to your research, lost more lean mass than women during the competition diet. A poor recovery strategy further compromises this already diminished lean mass.

• Psychological stress increases. The strategy forces the athlete to continue strict restriction even when the body's hunger signals are at their strongest. This intense hunger is a result of documented hormonal changes, such as an increase in ghrelin and a decrease in leptin. Continuous restriction combined with intense hunger increases the likelihood of binge eating episodes and a "giving up" reaction, which is also supported by previous case studies.

Analysis of the High-Flux Method (High Intake and Expenditure)

This model, based on high energy intake and expenditure, is likely physiologically and psychologically superior. It not only avoids the pitfalls of the conservation model but also actively promotes and accelerates the body's recovery.

• Resting metabolic rate (RMR) recovers faster. High levels of eating and exercise effectively accelerate metabolism. High exercise energy expenditure (EAT) and the thermic effect of food (TEF) from a large food intake together raise the daily total energy expenditure. This strong energy turnover signals the body to exit its conservation state and speeds up the return of the resting metabolic rate to a normal level, which is also supported by the activation of the sympathetic nervous system.

• Energy availability (EA) remains at a safe level. Although exercise energy expenditure (EEE) is high, energy intake is also plentiful. This compensates for the expenditure and ensures that energy availability remains at a safe level for most athletes (above 35 kcal · kg FFM⁻¹), which is a prerequisite for the normalization of endocrine function. Sufficient energy intake, and particularly carbohydrates, is important, as studies have shown that a low-carbohydrate diet raises cortisol and lowers testosterone.

• Nutrient partitioning improves. Strength training is key in the dynamic model. It increases the activity of GLUT-4 transporters in muscle cells and enhances the transport of amino acids into the cells, making muscles an effective "nutrient sink." In this case, surplus calories are efficiently directed to muscle recovery and growth.

• Appetite regulation becomes more precise. A large daily energy expenditure makes hunger and satiety signals more accurate (so-called appetite coupling).

• The psychological "permission to eat" is liberating. The dynamic model shifts the athlete's focus from monitoring their appearance to improving their performance. When food is seen as fuel for hard training, a psychological "permission to eat" is created, which breaks down the restrictive mindset from the diet period. This is crucial, as studies show that restrictive eating increases the risk of bingeing.

Conclusion: Building a Foundation for Long-Term Development 

The post-competition period for a physique athlete is a critical time that determines not only their immediate health but also the direction of their next competition diet. The choice of recovery strategy is key here.

It can be concluded that the low- and high-flux methods are not equal. The low-flux ("eat little, move little") method does not restore metabolism and endocrine function as effectively. In addition, it may also direct more calories to fat stores and maintain a psychologically taxing restrictive mindset, which exposes the athlete to uncontrolled weight gain.

In contrast, the high-flux model ("eat a lot, move a lot") is unequivocally a more effective and healthier method. It creates a dynamic environment that actively restores metabolism and endocrine function. It utilizes strength training to direct nutrients to muscle growth and at the same time provides a psychologically empowering model that normalizes the relationship with food and focuses on performance. It transforms recovery from a battle of willpower into a positive cycle where one eats to be able to train, and trains to be able to eat.

High energy intake and expenditure together create a positive cycle: Training -> High energy demand -> "Justification" to eat a lot -> Faster recovery -> Better performance and mood -> More motivation to train.

A successful recovery is the most important, but often the most neglected, aspect of long-term success. A well-executed dynamic recovery not only repairs the damage caused by the competition diet but also builds a stronger physiological foundation. By restoring metabolic health, optimizing body composition, and promoting psychological well-being, it prepares the athlete for a more productive and sustainable development period. The work done in the months following a competition, guided by the principles of dynamic recovery, lays the groundwork for success on stage in the future. The post-competition period is not the end of the journey—it is the stage where the foundation for the next victory is built.

References:

Beaulieu, K., Hopkins, M., Blundell, J., & Finlayson, G. (2016). Does habitual physical activity increase the sensitivity of the appetite control system? A systematic review. Sports Medicine, 46(11), 1699–1719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0518-9

Blundell, J. E., & Beaulieu, K. (2023). The complex pattern of the effects of prolonged frequent exercise on appetite control, and implications for obesity. Appetite, 183, 106482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.106482

Bravata, D. M., Smith-Spangler, C., Sundaram, V., Gienger, A. L., Lin, N., Lewis, R., Stave, C. D., Olkin, I., & Sirard, J. R. (2007). Using pedometers to increase physical activity and improve health: A systematic review. JAMA, 298(19), 2296–2304. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.19.2296

Chappell, A. J., Simper, T., Trexler, E. T., & Helms, E. R. (2021). Biopsychosocial effects of competition preparation in natural bodybuilders. Journal of Human Kinetics, 79, 259–276. https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2021-0073

Deighton, K., Batterham, R. L., & Stensel, D. J. (2018). Appetite and gut peptide responses to exercise in the heat: A randomised controlled trial. Nutrients, 10(9), 1140. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10091140

Hall, K. D., & Kahan, S. (2018). Maintenance of lost weight and long-term management of obesity. Medical Clinics of North America, 102(1), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2017.08.012

Helms, E. R., Aragon, A. A., & Fitschen, P. J. (2014). Evidence-based recommendations for natural bodybuilding contest preparation: nutrition and supplementation. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 11(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1550-2783-11-20

Isola, V. (2017). Fitnessurheilijoiden kehonkoostumus, lihaskoko ja hormonitasapaino kilpailudieetillä ja palautumisjaksolla [Pro gradu -tutkielma]. Jyväskylän yliopisto.

Isola, V. (2018). Fitnessurheilun lajianalyysi ja valmennuksen ohjelmointi [Valmentajaseminaarityö]. Jyväskylän yliopisto.

Isola, V., Hulmi, J. J., Mbay, T., Kyröläinen, H., Häkkinen, K., Ahola, V., Helms, E. R., & Ahtiainen, J. P. (2024). Changes in hormonal profiles during competition preparation in physique athletes. European Journal of Applied Physiology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-024-05606-z

Isola, V., Hulmi, J. J., Petäjä, P., Helms, E. R., Karppinen, J. E., & Ahtiainen, J. P. (2023). Weight loss induces changes in adaptive thermogenesis in female and male physique athletes. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 48(4), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2022-0372

Longstrom, J. M., Colenso-Semple, L. M., Waddell, B. J., Mastrofini, G., Trexler, E. T., & Campbell, B. I. (2020). Physiological, psychological and performance-related changes following physique competition: A case-series. Journal of Func tional Morphology and Kinesiology, 5(2), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk5020027 

Loucks, A. B. (2020). Low energy availability: History, definition and evidence of its physiological effects. Sports Medicine, 50, 183–198. (Huom: Tämä viite on yleiskatsaus, tarkkaa DOI:ta ei välttämättä ole yhdelle artikkelille, mutta aihetta on käsitelty laajasti esim. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-01316-8)

McLean, J. A., Barr, A. J., & Garrow, J. S. (1981). A computer based analysis of energy expenditure and body composition changes in man. Human Nutrition: Clinical Nutrition, 35C(4), 269–275.

Mintz, S. I. (2020). An examination of compensatory eating behaviors in female collegiate athletes [Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University]. Rutgers Theses & Dissertations. https://doi.org/10.7282/t3-7j0y-v630

Mountjoy, M., Ackerman, K. E., Bailey, D. M., Burke, L. M., Constantini, N., Budgett, R., & Ljungqvist, A. (2023). 2023 International Olympic Committee's (IOC) consensus statement on relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs). British Journal of Sports Medicine, 57(17), 1073-1097. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2023-106994

Peos, J. J., Helms, E. R., & Fournier, P. A. (2022). A scoping review of post-contest recovery strategies for physique athletes. Sports, 10(7), 103. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports10070103

Poehlman, E. T., & Danforth, E., Jr. (1994). Endurance training increases metabolic rate and norepinephrine appearance rate in older individuals. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 89(7), 3573–3579. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2003-032014  

Pontzer, H., Durazo-Arvizu, R., Dugas, L. R., Plange-Rhule, J., Bovet, P., Forrester, T. E., Lambert, E. V., Cooper, R. S., Sch oeller, D. A., & Luke, A. (2016). Constrained total energy expenditure and metabolic adaptation to physical activity in adult humans. Current Biology, 26(3), 410–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.046 

Rose, A. K., & Stachenfeld, N. S. (2022). The reproductive neuroendocrine response to macronutrient manipulation in active women. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 13, 1025093. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.1025093

Rossow, L. M., Fukuda, D. H., Fahs, C. A., Loenneke, J. P., & Stout, J. R. (2013). Natural bodybuilding competition preparation and recovery: a 12-month case study. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 8(5), 582–592. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.8.5.582

Sarin, H. V., Ahtiainen, J. P., Hulmi, J. J., Ihalainen, J. K., Walker, S., Küüsmaa-Schildt, M., Perola, M., & Peltonen, H. (2019). Resistance training induces antiatherogenic effects on metabolomic pathways. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 51(9), 1866–1875. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000002003

Trexler, E. T., Hirsch, K. R., Campbell, B. I., & Smith-Ryan, A. E. (2017). Physiological changes following competition in male and female physique athletes: A pilot study. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 27(5), 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsnem.2017-0038

Volpe, S. L. (2008). Physical activity and the regulation of body weight. ACSM'S Health & Fitness Journal, 12(5), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1249/fit.0b013e318181615f

Willis, L. H., Slentz, C. A., Bateman, L. A., Shields, A. T., Piner, L. W., Bales, C. W., Houmard, J. A., & Kraus, W. E. (2012). Effects of aerobic and/or resistance training on body mass and fat mass in overweight or obese adults. Journal of Applied Physiology, 113(12), 1831–1837. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01370.2011