A Reply to Contrary to the Conclusions Stated in the Paper, Only Dry Fat-Free Mass Was Different between Groups upon Reanalysis—Comment on: “Intermittent Energy Restriction Attenuates the Loss of Fat-Free Mass in Resistance Trained Individuals: A Randomized Controlled Trial”

We would like to thank Dr [...]

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Bill I. Campbell
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	MDPI AG 2020-11-01
Series:	Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology
Subjects:	n/a
Online Access:	https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5142/5/4/86

id	doaj-1b4dd02037af45c89ba40ee2a2ebfdc7
record_format	Article
spelling	doaj-1b4dd02037af45c89ba40ee2a2ebfdc72020-11-27T07:52:33ZengMDPI AGJournal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology2411-51422020-11-0158686010.3390/jfmk5040086A Reply to Contrary to the Conclusions Stated in the Paper, Only Dry Fat-Free Mass Was Different between Groups upon Reanalysis—Comment on: “Intermittent Energy Restriction Attenuates the Loss of Fat-Free Mass in Resistance Trained Individuals: A Randomized Controlled Trial”Bill I. Campbell0Exercise Science Program, Performance and Physique Enhancement Laboratory, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, USAWe would like to thank Dr [...]https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5142/5/4/86n/a
collection	DOAJ
language	English
format	Article
sources	DOAJ
author	Bill I. Campbell
spellingShingle	Bill I. Campbell A Reply to Contrary to the Conclusions Stated in the Paper, Only Dry Fat-Free Mass Was Different between Groups upon Reanalysis—Comment on: “Intermittent Energy Restriction Attenuates the Loss of Fat-Free Mass in Resistance Trained Individuals: A Randomized Controlled Trial” Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology n/a
author_facet	Bill I. Campbell
author_sort	Bill I. Campbell
title	A Reply to Contrary to the Conclusions Stated in the Paper, Only Dry Fat-Free Mass Was Different between Groups upon Reanalysis—Comment on: “Intermittent Energy Restriction Attenuates the Loss of Fat-Free Mass in Resistance Trained Individuals: A Randomized Controlled Trial”
title_short	A Reply to Contrary to the Conclusions Stated in the Paper, Only Dry Fat-Free Mass Was Different between Groups upon Reanalysis—Comment on: “Intermittent Energy Restriction Attenuates the Loss of Fat-Free Mass in Resistance Trained Individuals: A Randomized Controlled Trial”
title_full	A Reply to Contrary to the Conclusions Stated in the Paper, Only Dry Fat-Free Mass Was Different between Groups upon Reanalysis—Comment on: “Intermittent Energy Restriction Attenuates the Loss of Fat-Free Mass in Resistance Trained Individuals: A Randomized Controlled Trial”
title_fullStr	A Reply to Contrary to the Conclusions Stated in the Paper, Only Dry Fat-Free Mass Was Different between Groups upon Reanalysis—Comment on: “Intermittent Energy Restriction Attenuates the Loss of Fat-Free Mass in Resistance Trained Individuals: A Randomized Controlled Trial”
title_full_unstemmed	A Reply to Contrary to the Conclusions Stated in the Paper, Only Dry Fat-Free Mass Was Different between Groups upon Reanalysis—Comment on: “Intermittent Energy Restriction Attenuates the Loss of Fat-Free Mass in Resistance Trained Individuals: A Randomized Controlled Trial”
title_sort	reply to contrary to the conclusions stated in the paper, only dry fat-free mass was different between groups upon reanalysis—comment on: “intermittent energy restriction attenuates the loss of fat-free mass in resistance trained individuals: a randomized controlled trial”
publisher	MDPI AG
series	Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology
issn	2411-5142
publishDate	2020-11-01
description	We would like to thank Dr [...]
topic	n/a
url	https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5142/5/4/86
work_keys_str_mv	AT billicampbell areplytocontrarytotheconclusionsstatedinthepaperonlydryfatfreemasswasdifferentbetweengroupsuponreanalysiscommentonintermittentenergyrestrictionattenuatesthelossoffatfreemassinresistancetrainedindividualsarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT billicampbell replytocontrarytotheconclusionsstatedinthepaperonlydryfatfreemasswasdifferentbetweengroupsuponreanalysiscommentonintermittentenergyrestrictionattenuatesthelossoffatfreemassinresistancetrainedindividualsarandomizedcontrolledtrial
_version_	1724414108344778752

A Reply to Contrary to the Conclusions Stated in the Paper, Only Dry Fat-Free Mass Was Different between Groups upon Reanalysis—Comment on: “Intermittent Energy Restriction Attenuates the Loss of Fat-Free Mass in Resistance Trained Individuals: A Randomized Controlled Trial”

Similar Items