International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, (Ahead of Print)

https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2021-0104
© 2022 Human Kinetics, Inc. BRIEF REVIEW
First Published Online: May 6, 2022

Effects of Weight Cutting on Exercise Performance in Combat

Athletes: A Meta-Analysis
Grant C. Brechney,1 Jack Cannon,2 and Stephen P. Goodman3
1
School of Allied Health, Exercise and Sports Science, Faculty of Science and Health, Charles Sturt University, Port Macquarie, NSW, Australia;
2
School of Allied Health, Exercise and Sports Science, Faculty of Science and Health, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW Australia;
3
School of Science and Technology, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia

Weight cutting in combat sports is a prevalent practice whereby athletes voluntarily dehydrate themselves via various methods to
induce rapid weight loss (RWL) to qualify for a lower weight category than that of their usual training body weight. The intention
behind this practice is to regain the lost body mass and compete at a heavier mass than permitted by the designated weight
category. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively synthesize the available evidence examining the effects of weight
cutting on exercise performance in combat-sport athletes. Following a systematic search of the literature, meta-analyses were
performed to compare maximal strength, maximal power, anaerobic capacity, and/or repeated high-intensity-effort performance
before rapid weight loss (pre-RWL), immediately following RWL (post-RWL), and 3 to 36 hours after RWL following recovery
and rapid weight gain (post-RWG). Overall, exercise performance was unchanged between pre-RWL and post-RWG (g = 0.22;
95% CI, −0.18 to 0.62). Between pre-RWL and post-RWL analyses revealed small reductions in maximal strength and repeated
high-intensity-effort performance (g = −0.29; 95% CI, −0.54 to −0.03 and g = −0.37; 95% CI, −0.59 to −0.16, respectively; both
P ≤ .03). Qualitative analysis indicates that maximal strength and power remained comparable between post-RWL and post-
RWG. These data suggest that weight cutting in combat-sport athletes does not alter short-duration, repeated high-intensity-effort
performance; however, there is evidence to suggest that select exercise performance outcomes may decline as a product of RWL.
It remains unclear whether these are restored by RWG.

Keywords: dehydration, rapid weight loss, rapid weight gain, martial arts, anaerobic exercise capacity

Combat sports are a group of regulated contact activities and
martial arts in which athletes engage in one-on-one physical
contests. Depending on the specific rule sets for competition,
athletes may strike, kick, hit, throw, punch, or grapple with their
opponent, with the aim of scoring more points or disabling their
rival and preventing the continuation of the match.1 A common
feature across all combat sports is the use of weight categories for
competition where athletes are paired with opponents of similar
anthropometrical characteristics to promote safety and physical
equality between participants.2 However, in an attempt to gain a
competitive advantage many combat sport athletes manipulate
their body mass through weight cutting so they are paired with an
opponent of lesser body mass.3 Weight cutting is a process
involving rapid weight loss (RWL) so combat sport athletes
can qualify for a lower competition weight category, followed
by rapid weight gain (RWG) where they attempt to recover body
mass losses before the start of competition. Up to 80% of athletes
across numerous combat sports partake in some form of weight
cutting before competition where the magnitude of RWL and
RWG reportedly ranges from 3% to 10% of pre-RWL body
mass.4,5
Although weight cutting procedures vary among combat sport
athletes, the process is typically performed over 2 to 7 days6,7 with
target body mass losses achieved immediately before the official
weigh-in where event organizers officially register the athlete’s
body mass to confirm they comply with weight category require-
ments. After weigh-in, athletes then have approximately 3 to
24 hours for RWG before their match commences, depending
Brechney (gbrechney@csu.edu.au) is corresponding author.
on the specific combat sport.8 Strategies used by combat sport
athletes to facilitate RWL in the days before weigh-in may include
various combinations of restricting total caloric intake, reducing
carbohydrate intake, manipulating fecal bulk and gastrointestinal
content, increasing energy expenditure and reducing glycogen
bound body fluid through exercise, and/or water loading.9
Although the magnitude of body mass losses associated with these
methods are poorly reported, one controlled study observed a body
mass reduction using a water loading technique applied over 5 days
of approximately 3% of pre-RWL body mass.10
During the hours leading up to competition, combat sport
athletes may achieve additional losses in body mass of up to 5% or
more by inducing acute dehydration through fluid restriction
combined with exercise, and/or sauna or steam room use to
facilitate sweating.5,11 Following weigh-in, strategies for RWG
generally involve regularly ingesting large volumes of fluids and
food consumption.12 The abrupt changes in body mass that occur
with weight cutting are associated with numerous physiological
effects. Specifically, RWL may result in decreased plasma volume,
increased submaximal heart rates, impaired thermoregulation,
electrolyte disturbances, muscle glycogen depletion, reduced mus-
cle buffering capacity, altered metabolic profiles, and changes in
serum hormone concentrations.2,13,14 Furthermore, it has been
reported that following RWG, athletes may remain dehydrated
based on urine osmolarity and urine specific gravity measurements
despite recovering almost all body mass losses.15–17 Additionally,
total hemoglobin mass, blood volume, and blood glucose concen-
trations may be impaired before competing.18,19 As such, the RWL
and RWG associated with weight cutting may impact exercise
capacity and have consequences for match performance.
1
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 07:32 PM UTC
2 Brechney, Cannon, and Goodman
Results from studies examining the effects of RWL on exercise
performance in combat sports athletes are conflicting.20–22 For
instance, Barley et al23 found reduced upper body maximal power
and repeated high-intensity effort performance measured via med-
icine ball throw distance and a novel sled pushing task, respec-
tively, in mixed martial arts athletes following RWL. However, no
changes were observed in handgrip strength or vertical jump
height. Conversely, Barbas et al24 reported that parameters of
upper body strength (handgrip strength, bear hug strength, and
hip and back strength) in a cohort of elite Greco-Roman wrestlers
were unchanged following RWL. Fewer studies have investigated
the effects of RWG on exercise performance. Pallarés et al17
observed increases in upper body strength (handgrip strength)
and upper and lower body power (bench press velocity and
countermovement jump) in Olympic combat sports athletes who
were dehydrated from RWL following RWG. Alternatively, Alves
et al25 found that handgrip strength remained compromised after
24 hours of RWG in their cohort of mixed martial artists. Further-
more, Barley et al23 reported that the decrements in performance
associated with RWL were shown to persist following a 24-hour
RWG period.
Given the inconsistencies across individual studies, a quanti-
tative assessment of the current literature examining the effects of
weight cutting on exercise performance in combat sports athletes is
warranted. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to
systematically search the literature for rigorous studies examining
the effects of RWL and RWG associated with weight cutting of
≥3% total body mass on exercise performance in combat sports
athletes and evaluate the strength of the combined evidence using a
meta-analytic procedure.
Methods
Study Protocol
The research study was designed in accordance with the specifica-
tions outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols, and the recommended
elaboration and explanation document.26,27
Eligibility Criteria
Studies were required to meet the following criteria to be eligible
for possible inclusion in the meta-analyses: (1) participants were
restricted to athletes with amateur and/or professional competitive
experience in appropriately governed combat sports (eg, boxing,
kick boxing/muay thai, mixed martial arts, wrestling, karate,
taekwondo, Brazilian jiu jitsu, and/or judo); (2) participants
were a minimum of 18 years of age; (3) studies employed either
a within or between participant design; (4) RWL was achieved
within a maximum of 7 days and/or RWG was achieved within a
maximum of 36 hours; (5) participants achieved RWL of ≥3%
using caloric restriction, increased energy expenditure, and/or total
body fluid manipulation procedures only; (6) data were collected at
a minimum of 2 of the following time points: pre-RWL, post-RWL,
and/or following RWG; (7) body mass changes in RWL and RWG
were verified by the investigators; and (8) outcome measures
included discernible tests of exercise performance. Studies using
research designs where exercise performance data may have been
influenced by confounding variables (eg, thermal strain at time of
testing, data collected immediately postcompetition or bout, or
experimentally controlled nutritional interventions) were excluded.
(Ahead of Print)
Systematic Search Strategy
The systematic literature search strategy and study eligibility pro-
cess is described in Figure 1. The search was conducted on March
31, 2020 by systematically exploring PubMed (MEDLINE), Sco-
pus, SPORTDiscus (EBSCO), Web of Science (via Thomas Reu-
ters) and Sports Medicine and Education (PROQUEST) databases
using the search terms (“Combat sport” OR “Mixed martial arts”
OR “MMA” OR “Box*” OR “Judo” OR “Judoka” OR “Karate” OR
“Taekwondo” OR “Wrestling”) AND (“Weight cut*” OR “Weight
loss” OR “Rapid weight loss” OR “Rapid weight gain” OR “Weight
cycl*”). Citations were limited to complete texts written in English
using human participants. A total of 15,009 studies were captured
from the initial search and imported to bibliographic management
software (EndNote, version X8.2, Clarivate). Following the
removal of duplicates, 11,920 studies remained. An extensive
manual search of the identified literature was then undertaken
where article titles and abstracts were screened for relevance.
Following this, 518 articles were assessed against the eligibility
criteria where their reference lists were screened for additional
literature pertinent to this study that may not have been captured
through the search (n = 0) where a total of 25 eligible studies were
identified for possible inclusion in this investigation.
Methodological Quality and Risk-of-Bias
Assessment
All 25 studies eligible for possible inclusion were assessed for
methodological quality and risk of bias using the Rosendal scale,
which is suitable for evaluating exercise studies.28 Due to the nature
of the research, blinding participants and/or investigators from
experimental conditions is not possible. Therefore, questions
related to blinding were removed from the scale as per the instru-
ment instructions and as performed by others.29,30 Two authors
(Brechney and Goodman) independently reviewed all citations that
were considered for inclusion in this study with any discrepancies
settled by consensus. Only studies scoring ≥50% on the scale were
accepted for data extraction as per scale instructions.28 Following
this, 8 studies were excluded based on low quality, and 17 studies
were accepted for final inclusion in this investigation (Figure 1;
Supplementary Table S1 [available online]).
Data Extraction
All exercise performance tests administered in the 17 included studies
were closely scrutinized where the underlying exercise capacity
assessed in each test was determined by consenus of all authors.
Individual tests were then collated for homogeneity to create sub-
groups based on convergent validity, which is defined as the extent to
which the test protocols evaluated the same exercise capacity con-
struct and tests results would likely be highly correlated.31 Four test
subgroups were identified where the tests included within each
subgroup were considered to be sufficiently similar to justify com-
bining for further analysis. The exercise capacity test subgroups
identified were: (1) tests of anaerobic capacity, which measured
performance during tasks requiring participants to generate maximal
mechanical work during a single repetition of a short duration activity
(eg, 10–30 s)32; (2) tests of repeated high-intensity effort perfor-
mance, which measured performance during tasks requiring partici-
pants to repetitively generate maximal mechanical work during short
duration activity (eg, 5–30 s) across trials that are each separated by a
brief recovery period33; (3) tests of explosive power, which measured
performance during tasks requiring participants to rapidly exert
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 07:32 PM UTC

Figure 1 — Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram outlining the implemented search strategy
and eligibility process.
maximal muscular force for a single repetition of an activity34; and
(4) tests of maximal muscular strength, which measured performance
during tasks requiring participants to produce maximal muscular
force without reference to time for a single repetition of an activity.34
The exercise capacity test subgroups and associated outcome mea-
surements combined for analysis are described in Table 1.
Performance outcome data extracted were group mean and SD
or SE. When performance outcome data were not provided in text,
digitization was performed to extract data from relevant figures
(WebPlotDigitizer, version 3.8, Ankit Rohatgi). If data could not be
extracted from figures, the corresponding author was contacted,
and the data were requested. Where necessary, SE was converted to
SD for analysis using the following equation:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
SD = SE × N of participants:
All performance outcome data were catalogued in Microsoft Excel
(MS Excel 365, Microsoft) by Brechney, and reviewed by Good-
man who then completed the analysis.
(Ahead of Print)
Weight Cutting and Exercise Performance 3
Statistical Analysis
Outcome data were transferred into Comprehensive Meta-analysis
(version 3, BioStat) and analyzed using a generic inverse variance,
random effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A
random effects model was used to account for differences in research
designs and participant characteristics between studies. Significance
was investigated through examination of P values where alpha was
set at ≤.05. Standardized effect sizes were calculated and reported as
Hedges (g).35 The magnitude of such effects was determined using
standardized conventions and represented as trivial (<0.20), small
(0.20–0.49), moderate (0.50–0.79), and large (≥0.80).36 Heteroge-
neity between studies was evaluated using Cochrane Q where alpha
was set at P ≤ .10. The magnitude of heterogeneity was stratified
using the I2 statistic, where 0% to 40%, 30% to 60%, 50% to 90%,
and ≥75% denote low, moderate, substantial, and considerable,
respectively.37 Subgroup analyses were performed for each exercise
capacity test type across the following time points: pre-RWL,
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 07:32 PM UTC
4 Brechney, Cannon, and Goodman

Table 1 Exercise Capacities and Tests

Exercise capacities tested Administered tests No. of studies
Anaerobic capacity Wingate test (bike ergometer/arm crank) 5
Maximal strength Handgrip strength 7
Bear hug strength 1
Arm, trunk, knee, hip, and back flexion/extension strength 1
Power Bench press velocity and power 2
Maximal voluntary isometric contraction (knee extension) 3
Vertical jump height 1
Countermovement jump power 1
High-intensity repeat-effort performance Special judo fitness test 1
Repeated isokinetic knee extension 1
Intermittent arm crank sprint 1

post-RWL, and post-RWG. A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was
performed when heterogeneity was statistically significant to deter-
mine the robustness of the findings. Some studies reported both
absolute and/or relative exercise performance data. Given that
relative data were expressed with respect to body mass, sensitivity
analyses using only absolute performance data were also completed.
Publication bias was investigated statistically through the Begg and
Mazumdar’s rank correlation test and Eggers linear regression
method,35 which were applied to all analyses. Where publication
bias was detected, Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill correction was
applied and the resultant effects on Hedges g and the 95% CI were
explored.
Results
Study and Participant Characteristics
wrestling bouts. Given the probable confounding of the matches on
exercise performance, comparisons were made between baseline
and prior to the first match only (Table 2). Three studies17,24,44
tested participants throughout a real competitive period, while all
other studies were conducted in controlled laboratory settings.
Supplementary Table S2 (available online) shows the partici-
pant characteristic data from the studies included in the review.
Data were gathered from a total of 255 participants of which 4
studies38,39,45,46 did not disclose participant sex characteristics
leaving 120 participants unidentified. The mean (SD) age of all
participants was 22.3 (2.4) years. The mean (SD) of body mass
reduction between pre-RWL and post-RWL was −4.0 (1.5) kg
(absolute value undiscernible in 4 studies39,44,47,48) or 5.4% (2.0%).
While between post-RWL and post-RWG, the mean (SD) of body
mass recovered was 3.7 (1.1) kg (absolute value undiscernible in 4
studies17,24,42,44) or 4.2% (2.1%) (mean Δ = 1.2%).

Seventeen studies were accepted for inclusion in this analysis
(Figure 1). Separate data sets were identified in Mendes et al,22
Finn et al,38 Rankin et al39 and treated independently. Both Finn
et al38 and Rankin et al39 asked participants to engage in ad libitum
RWL (pre-RWL to post-RWL) and this data were incorporated into
the analysis. However, controlled nutritional RWG (post-RWL to
post-RWG) was adopted, thus, this data were excluded. Ööpik
et al40 used a similar approach, however, as participant samples
were not independent for each condition, data were combined
between pre-RWL and post-RWL. The assessment of vertical jump
in the study by Camarço et al21 was also removed from this analysis
due to extreme outlying results. Among the studies included, 7
combat sports were identified: Wrestling (9 studies n = 162),
Taekwondo (1 study, n = 62), Judo (5 studies; n = 56), mixed
martial arts (4 studies, n = 33), Boxing (1 study, n = 25), Karate
(1 study, n = 5), and Brazilian jiu jitsu (1 study, n = 2). One study41
did not specify the combat sport (n = 14). For RWL (pre-RWL to
post-RWL), 15 datasets contributed to the exercise performance
capacities. Three studies examined exercise performance during
RWG (post-RWL to post-RWG). Eight contributions informed
how weight cutting (pre-RWL to post-RWG) influences exercise
performances. Artioli et al42 expressed performance data relative to
body mass, while Timpmann et al43 provided both relative and
absolute values. The remaining studies used absolute values only.
Exercise performance data were found for anaerobic capacity
(n = 4), repeated high-intensity efforts (n = 4), power (n = 4), and
maximal muscular strength (n = 9). Barbas et al24 examined vertical
jump height in their cohort at baseline, before, and following 5
(Ahead of Print)
Assessment of Study Quality
Supplementary Table S1 (available online) shows the complete
assessment of study quality. A total of 8 studies were excluded
based on low quality. Mean quality across all 17 studies accepted
for inclusion was 62% (12%) with a range of 50% to 100%.
Pre-RWL to Post-RWL
Two contributions in this time point came from the same study.43 In
order to minimize bias of detecting a significant finding (by
artificially inflating analysis power), the effect demonstrating larger
impairment was removed (repeated high-intensity efforts;
g = −0.28; 95% CI, −0.53 to −0.03). Consequently, RWL impaired
exercise performance to a small extent (g = −0.33; 95% CI, −0.52 to
−0.14; P < .01), despite data being substantially heterogeneous
(Q13 = 36.21; P < .01; I2 = 64%). This finding remained consistent
following the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis (g from −0.27 to
−0.39; all P < .01; Supplementary Table S3 [available online]).
Additionally, using only absolute performance data in the analysis
did not alter this outcome (g = −0.36; 95% CI, −0.55 to −0.16;
P < .01; Supplementary Figure S1 [available online]).
Figure 2 shows the effects of RWL on exercise performance
subgroups. Only one study48 examined anaerobic capacity in
this time point. These authors asked participants to complete a
30-second lower body Wingate test pre-RWL and post-RWL. Data
are reported in Table 2, but suggest anaerobic capacity remained
unchanged by RWL (g = −0.06; 95% CI, −0.94 to 0.82; P = .89).
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 07:32 PM UTC
 Table 2 Study Characteristics and Key Findings
Recovery Exercise test(s) Results
Study citation Δ body mass (absolute, kg; relative, %) duration, h administered Mean (SD) and/or g (95% CI)
Abedelmalek et al47 Pre-RWLvs post-RWL: NR; −4.2% (NR%) NA Special judo fitness test Pre-RWL = 31 (3) (number of throws)
Post-RWL = 26 (3) (number of throws)
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −1.64 (−2.52 to −0.76)
Alves et al25 Pre-RWL vs post-RWL: −7.4 (2.7) kg; −9.9% (NR%) 24 Maximal handgrip strength Pre-RWL = 51.7 (5.4) kg
Post-RWL = 47.8 (5.8) kg
Post-RWG = 49.3 (5.1) kg
Post-RWL vs post-RWG: 4.6 (2.2) kg; 6.9% (NR%) Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.67 (−1.43 to 0.08)
Post-RWL vs post-RWG = 0.27 (−0.47 to 1.00)
Pre-RWL vs post-RWG = −0.44 (−1.18 to 0.30)
Artioli et al42 Pre-RWL vs post-RWL: −3.8 (NR) kg; −4.8% (1.1%) 4 30-s upper-body Wingate test Pre-RWL = 299.0 (34.1) W/kg
Post-RWL vs post-RWG: NR; 2.5% (0.1%) Post-RWG = 322.7 (38.5) W/kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWG = 0.61 (−0.30 to 1.52)
Barbas et al24 Pre-RWL vs post-RWL: NR; −6.0% (NR%) 12 Handgrip strength Pre-RWL = 52.9 (2.4) kg
Post-RWG = 55.1 (2.6) kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWG = 0.26 (−1.48 to 0.99)
Post-RWL vs post-RWG: NR; 1.2% (NR%) Bear hug strength Pre-RWL = 119.4 (4.1) kg
Post-RWG = 120.8 (5.0) kg

(Ahead of Print)
Pre-RWL vs post-RWG = 0.09 (−0.64 to 0.82)
Vertical jump height Pre-RWL = 40.1 (2.2) cm
Post-RWG = 41.7 (1.9) cm
Pre-RWL vs post-RWG = 0.23 (−0.51 to 0.96)
Hip and back strength Pre-RWL = 209.9 (6.8) kg
Post-RWG = 217.5 (7.2) kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWG = 0.32 (−0.42 to 1.05)
Barley et al41 Pre-RWL vs post-RWL: −3.0 (NR) kg; −3.2% (1.1%) 3 Knee extension MVIC Pre-RWL = 295 (48) N·m
Post-RWL vs post-RWG: 2.0 (NR) kg; 2.6% (1.1%) Post-RWG = 297 (49) N·m
Pre-RWL vs post-RWG = 0.04 (−0.65 to 0.73)
Camarço et al21 Pre-RWL vs post-RWL: −5.6 (1.6) kg; −7.2% (1.9%) 36 Handgrip strength:
Right hand Pre-RWL = 53.0 (2.4) kg
Post-RWL = 53.5 (3.5) kg
Post-RWG = 52.6 (2.0) kg
Post-RWL vs post-RWG: 6.1 (1.0) kg; 6.5% (1.1%) Pre- vs post-RWL = 0.105 (−0.41 to 0.62)
Post-RWL vs post-RWG = −0.18 (−0.69 to 0.33)
Pre-RWL vs post-RWG = −0.09 (−0.60 to 0.42)
(continued)

5
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 07:32 PM UTC
 Table 2 (continued)

6
Recovery Exercise test(s) Results
Study citation Δ body mass (absolute, kg; relative, %) duration, h administered Mean (SD) and/or g (95% CI)
Left hand Pre-RWL = 50.3 (5.7) kg
Post-RWL = 51.8 (4.8) kg
Post-RWG = 50.6 (2.0) kg
Pre- vs post-RWL = 0.16 (−0.35 to 0.68)
Post-RWL vs post-RWG = −0.19 (−0.70 to 0.33)
Pre-RWL vs post-RWG = 0.04 (−0.65 to 0.73)
Bench press power Pre-RWL = 251.8 (12.1) W
Post-RWL = 251.0 (22.3) W
Post-RWG = 257.1 (21.1) W
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.03 (−0.49 to 0.54)
Post-RWL vs post-RWG = 0.21 (−0.31 to 0.72)
Pre-RWL vs post-RWG = 0.47 (−0.06 to 1.00)
Coufalová et al45 Pre-RWL vs post-RWL: −3.4 (NR) kg; −4.6% (NR%) NA Maximal handgrip strength:
Right hand Pre-RWL = 48.3 (7.5) kg
Post-RWL = 49.9 (7.6) kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = 0.20 (−0.62 to 1.02)
Left hand Pre-RWL = 48.8 (7.1) kg
Post-RWL = 49.2 (7.7) kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = 0.05 (−0.76 to 0.87)
Maximal arm flexion strength:
Right arm Pre-RWL = 31.4 (3.7) kg

(Ahead of Print)
Post-RWL = 31.7 (6.1) kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = 0.05 (−0.76 to 0.87)
Left arm Pre-RWL = 29.3 (3.4) kg
Post-RWL = 30.6 (5.9) kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = 0.27 (−0.55 to 1.08)
Maximal arm extension strength:
Right arm Pre-RWL = 28.2 (5.1) kg
Post-RWL = 27.1 (3.8) kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.24 (−1.06 to 0.58)
Left arm Pre-RWL = 29.2 (5.4) kg
Post-RWL = 26.5 (3.8) kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.55 (−1.38 to 0.28)
Maximal trunk flexion strength Pre-RWL = 78.1 (16.6) kg
Post-RWL = 68.9 (17.1) kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.52 (−1.35 to 0.31)
Maximal trunk extension strength Pre-RWL = 79.5 (20.2) kg
Post-RWL = 70.4 (19.1) kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.44 (−1.26 to 0.39)
(continued)

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 07:32 PM UTC

 Table 2 (continued)
Recovery Exercise test(s) Results
Study citation Δ body mass (absolute, kg; relative, %) duration, h administered Mean (SD) and/or g (95% CI)
Maximal knee flexion strength:
Right knee Pre-RWL = 27.1 (5.6) kg
Post-RWL = 29.3 (6.4) kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = 0.35 (−0.48 to 1.17)
Left knee Pre-RWL = 26.7 (6.1) kg
Post-RWL = 28.6 (8.4) kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = 0.25 (−0.57 to 1.07)
Maximal knee extension strength:
Right knee Pre-RWL = 60.1 (12.2) kg
Post-RWL = 64.6 (12.0) kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = 0.36 (−0.47 to 1.18)
Left knee Pre-RWL = 57.9 (9.6) kg
Post-RWL = 59.2 (13.8) kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = 0.11 (−0.70 to 0.92)
Degoutte et al49 Pre-RWL vs post-RWL: −3.8 (NR) kg; −5.0% (NR%) NA Handgrip strength Pre-RWL = 53.6 (2.7) kg
Post-RWL = 50.4 (2.5) kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −1.18 (−2.03 to −0.32)
Finn et al38 A Pre-RWL vs post-RWL: −3.4 (NR); −4.6% (NR%) 2 Arm crank Wingate test Pre-RWL = 36.9 (5.2) kJ
Post-RWL = 37.8 (6.0) kJ
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = 0.16 (−0.69 to 1.01)
Finn et al38 B Pre-RWL vs post-RWL: −3.5 (NR); −4.6% (NR%) 2 Arm crank Wingate test Pre-RWL = 37.2 (6.8) kJ

(Ahead of Print)
Post-RWL = 35.4 (6.2) kJ
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.26 (−1.15 to 0.63)
McKenna et al48 Pre-RWL vs post-RWL: NR; −3.0% (0.3%) 1 30-s lower body Wingate test Pre-RWL = 656.0 (82.5) W
Post-RWL = 651.1 (70.2) W
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.06 (−0.94 to 0.82)
Mendes et al22 A Post-RWL vs post-RWG: −4.0 (NR) kg; −5.2% (1.3%) 4 Arm crank Wingate test:
Mean power Pre-RWL = 235.3 (33.5) W
Post-RWG = 224.1 (29.0) W
Pre-RWL vs post-RWG = −0.34 (−1.13 to 0.45)
Peak power Pre-RWL = 451.4 (40.5) W
Post-RWG = 446.9 (49.6) W
Pre-RWL vs post-RWG = −0.10 (−0.88 to 0.69)
Total work Pre-RWL = 27.7 (3.4) kJ
Post-RWG = 26.4 (3.1) kJ
Pre-RWL vs post-RWG = −0.39 (−1.18 to 0.41)
Mendes et al22 B Post-RWL vs post-RWG: −4.0 (NR) kg; −5.3% (1.0%) 4 Arm crank Wingate test:
Mean power Pre-RWL = 226.3 (42.4) W
Post-RWG = 217.4 (38.0) W
Pre-RWL vs post-RWG = −0.21 (−1.06 to 0.64)

7
(continued)

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 07:32 PM UTC

 8
Table 2 (continued)
Recovery Exercise test(s) Results
Study citation Δ body mass (absolute, kg; relative, %) duration, h administered Mean (SD) and/or g (95% CI)
Peak power Pre-RWL = 433.3 (90.1) W
Post-RWG = 433.3 (81.1) W
Pre-RWL vs post-RWG = −0.00 (−0.85 to 0.85)
Total work Pre-RWL = 26.7 (4.4) kJ
Post-RWG = 25.4 (3.9) kJ
Pre-RWL vs post-RWG = −0.29 (−1.15 to 0.56)
Ööpik et al40 Pre-RWL vs post-RWL: −4.0 (0.9) kg; −4.9% (0.9%) 17 Glucose only
Knee extensions:
Submaximal work Pre-RWL = 2973 (579) J
Post-RWL = 2894 (811) J
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.10 (−1.05 to 0.85)
Maximal work Pre-RWL = 5790 (3164) J
Post-RWL = 4746 (1814) J
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.37 (−1.33 to 0.60)
Total work Pre-RWL = 8684 (2662) J
Post-RWL = 7563 (2354) J
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.40 (−1.37 to 0.56)
Glucose and creatine
Knee extensions:
Submaximal work Pre-RWL = 3050 (695) J

(Ahead of Print)
Post-RWL = 2585 (656) J
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.62 (−1.60 to 0.36)
Maximal work Pre-RWL = 5520 (2315) J
Post-RWL = 4515 (1428) J
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.47 (−1.44 to 0.50)
Total work Pre-RWL = 8452 (2855) J
Post-RWL = 7023 (2006) J
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.52 (−1.49 to 0.45)
Pallarés et al17 Post-RWL vs post-RWG: NR; 3.1% (1.4%) 16 Bench press velocity Post-RWL = 0.527 (0.2) m/sa
Post-RWG = 0.566 (0.2) m/sa
Post-RWL vs post-RWG = 0.26 (−0.13 to 0.64)
Countermovement jump power Post-RWL = 1646 (367) Wa
Post-RWG = 1691 (360) Wa
Post-RWL vs post-RWG = 0.12 (−0.26 to 0.51)
Maximal handgrip strength:
Dominant hand Post-RWL = 40.9 (12.4) kga
Post-RWG = 40.7 (12.4) kga
Post-RWL vs post-RWG = −0.02 (−0.40 to 0.37)
(continued)

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 07:32 PM UTC

 Table 2 (continued)
Recovery Exercise test(s) Results
Study citation Δ body mass (absolute, kg; relative, %) duration, h administered Mean (SD) and/or g (95% CI)
Nondominant hand Post-RWL = 41.7 (10.7) kga
Post-RWG = 41.6 (11.5) kga
Post-RWL vs post-RWG = −0.01 (−0.39 to 0.38)
Rankin et al39 A Pre-RWL vs post-RWL: NR; −3.3% (NR%) 5 Modified arm crank Wingate test:
Average power Pre-RWL = 204.2 (17.7) W
Post-RWL = 189.2 (20.4) W
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.33 (−1.25 to 0.60)
Peak power Pre-RWL = 321.1 (31.4) W
Post-RWL = 310.7 (27.0) W
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.15 (−1.07 to 0.77)
Total work Pre-RWL = 24.3 (2.2) kJ
Post-RWL = 22.7 (2.4) kJ
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.29 (−1.22 to 0.63)
Rankin et al39 B Pre-RWL vs post-RWL: NR; −3.3% (NR%) 5 Modified arm crank Wingate test:
Average power Pre-RWL = 190.7 (14.8) W
Post-RWL = 175.4 (15.6) W
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.15 (−1.35 to 0.51)
Peak power Pre-RWL = 278.7 (27.6) W
Post-RWL = 255.5 (29.2) W

(Ahead of Print)
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.34 (−1.26 to 0.59)
Total work Pre-RWL = 22.8 (1.7) kJ
Post-RWL = 21.1 (1.7) kJ
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.39 (−1.32 to 0.54)
Ribas et al44 Pre-RWL vs post-RWL: NR; −8.5% (1.3%) NA Maximal handgrip strength:
Right hand Pre-RWL = 47.4 (9.9) kg
Post-RWL = 40.9 (9.4) kg
Post-RWL vs post-RWG: NR; 5.4% (0.8%) Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.66 (−1.27 to −0.06)
Left hand Pre-RWL = 43.9 (8.7) kg
Post-RWL = 37.9 (8.5) kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.68 (−1.29 to −0.08)
Timpmann et al43 Pre-RWL vs post-RWL: −4.4 (NR) kg; −5.4% (0.5%) 16 Intermittent arm crank sprint Pre-RWL = 192.6 (37.9) W
Post-RWL = 177.9 (34.2) W
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.40 (−1.05 to 0.26)
Timpmann et al46 Pre-RWL vs post-RWL: −3.7 (NR) kg; −5.1% (1.1%) NA MVIC peak torque: 1.57 rads/s Pre-RWL = 233.9 (41.5) N·m
Post-RWL = 218.5 (41.5) N·m
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.36 (−1.00 to 0.28)
(continued)

9
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 07:32 PM UTC
 Table 2 (continued)

10
Recovery Exercise test(s) Results
Study citation Δ body mass (absolute, kg; relative, %) duration, h administered Mean (SD) and/or g (95% CI)
3.14 rads/s Pre-RWL = 110.8 (26.2) N·m
Post-RWL = 98.5 (47.7) N·m
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.31 (−0.95 to 0.32)
4.17 rads/s Pre-RWL = 46.2 (10.8) N·m
Post-RWL = 41.5 (10.8) N·m
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.42 (−1.06 to 0.22)
MVIC relative peak torque:
1.57 rads/s Pre-RWL = 3.12 (0.5) N·m/kg
Post-RWL = 3.12 (0.5) N·m/kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = 0.00 (−0.63 to 0.63)
3.14 rads/s Pre-RWL = 1.50 (0.3) N·m/kg
Post-RWL = 1.40 (0.4) N·m/kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.27 (−0.90 to 0.37)
4.14 rads/s Pre-RWL = 0.62 (0.1) N·m/kg
Post-RWL = 0.62 (0.1) N·m/kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = 0.00 (−0.63 to 0.63)
Muscle endurance test absolute data:
Submaximal work Pre-RWL = 3018 (1962) J
Post-RWL = 2339 (1132) J
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.41 (−1.05 to 0.23)
Maximal work Pre-RWL = 4452 (2037) J

(Ahead of Print)
Post-RWL = 4000 (1584) J
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.24 (−0.88 to 0.39)
Total work Pre-RWL = 7471 (3018) J
Post-RWL = 6415 (2188) J
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.39 (−1.03 to 0.25)
Muscle endurance test relative data:
Submaximal work Pre-RWL = 39.8 (26.2) J/kg
Post-RWL = 33.0 (16.5) J/kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.30 (−0.94 to 0.33)
Maximal work Pre-RWL = 59.2 (23.3) J/kg
Post-RWL = 57.2 (20.4) J/kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.09 (−0.72 to 0.55)
Total work Pre-RWL = 98.9 (36.9) J/kg
Post-RWL = 90.2 (29.1) J/kg
Pre-RWL vs post-RWL = −0.26 (−0.89 to 0.38)
Abbreviations: Finn A, treatment group; Finn B, placebo group; Mendes A, weight cyclers; Mendes B, non-weight cyclers; MVIC, maximal voluntary isokinetic/metric contraction; NA, not assessed; NR, not reported;
Rankin A, high carbohydrate; Rankin B, moderate carbohydrate; RWG, rapid weight gain; RWL, rapid weight loss. Note: Data are mean (SD) unless otherwise stated. Recovery duration refers to the hours between the
real or simulated weigh-in and competition time points (post-RWL and post-RWG).
a
Data confirmed/provided by corresponding author.

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 07:32 PM UTC


Figure 2 — The domain-specific effects of rapid weight loss (pre to post). The size of the squares is proportional to the weight of the study. Negative
values reflect impaired exercise performance.
Repeated high-intensity effort performance declined to a small
extent (g = −0.37; 95% CI, −0.59 to −0.16; P < .01) with data
demonstrating homogeneity (Q7 = 8.73; P = .12; I2 = 31%).
Although small reductions in maximal strength were also found
between these time points (g = −0.29; 95% CI, −0.54 to −0.03;
P = .03), these data were substantially heterogeneous (Q5 = 19.75;
P < .01; I2 = 74%). Furthermore, this finding for maximal strength
was not robust as the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis demon-
strated nonsignificance when multiple studies were individually
removed25,44,49 (all P ≥ .06; Supplementary Table S4 [available
online]). When absolute performance data were incorporated into
the subgroup analyses, the output for repeated high-intensity effort
performance (g = −0.39; 95% CI, −0.61 to −0.05; P < .01;
Supplementary Figure S2 [available online]) and maximal strength
(g = −0.33; 95% CI, −0.61 to −0.05; P = .02; Supplementary Figure
S3 [available online]) was consistent with the main analysis.
Post-RWL to Post-RWG
Pallarés et al17 quantified measures of explosive strength/power,
while all other studies in this time point performed assessments of
maximal strength.21,25 Standardized mean differences between
these time points are summarized in Table 2, however, none
indicate a change in exercise performance as a product of regaining
reduced mass (g ranging from −0.19 to 0.27; all P ≥ .17).
Pre-RWL to Post-RWG
Given multiple contributions from24 in this time point, the data set
yielding the most outlying effect was removed from the analysis
(power; g = 0.22; 95% CI, −0.18 to 0.62). Consequently, weight
cutting procedures did not change exercise performance (g = 0.01;
95% CI, −0.18 to 0.20; P = .88). These data were homogenous
(Ahead of Print)
Weight Cutting and Exercise Performance 11
(Q6 = 7.70; P = .26; I2 = 22%). Removing the one study42 that
reported only relative exercise performance data did not alter
this finding (g = −0.00; 95% CI, −0.19 to 0.18; P = .96;
Supplementary Figure S4 [available online]).
Figure 3 shows the effects of weight cutting procedures on the
exercise performance subgroups. Anaerobic capacity remained
unchanged between pre-RWL and post-RWG (g = −0.10; 95%
CI, −0.48 to 0.29; P = .62). Similarly, maximal strength also
remained unchanged (g = 0.09; 95% CI, −0.13 to 0.32; P = .42).
Both findings were homogenous (Q2 = 3.03 and 2.29 respectively;
both P = .22 and I2 ≤ 34%). The main finding for anaerobic capac-
ity did not change when removing Artioli et al42 who only reported
relative exercise performance data (g = −0.22; 95% CI, −0.54 to
0.09; P = .16). Weight cutting did not alter measures of power in
the data reported by Barbas et al24 (g = 0.22; 95% CI, −0.18 to 0.62;
P = .28). Similarly, Barley et al41 quantified maximal isometric
knee extension torque pre-RWL and post-RWG. These data are
also reported in Table 2 but changes in power were not evident
(g = 0.04; 95% CI, −0.65 to 0.73; P = .91).
Publication Bias
Publication bias was found for the overall effect between pre-RWL
and post-RWL (Kendall τ = −.19; P = .17; intercept = −1.90; 95%
CI, −3.13 to −0.66; P = .01). Application of Duval and Tweedie’s
trim and fill correction indicated that 6 studies were missing to the
right of the analysis (implying RWL has a positive effect on
exercise performance). These studies ranged from a small to large
effect (g = 0.21 to 1.45; Figure 4). The corrected output indicated a
trivial negative effect (g = −0.09; 95% CI, −0.22 to −0.01).
Bias was also found for the maximal strength subgroup
between pre-RWL and post-RWL (Kendall τ = −.67; intercept =
−3.16; 95% CI, −5.06 to −1.26; both P ≤ .03). The correction
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 07:32 PM UTC
12 Brechney, Cannon, and Goodman

Figure 3 — The domain-specific effects of weight cutting (pre–rapid weight loss to post–rapid weight gain). The size of the squares is proportional to
weight of the study. Negative values reflect impaired exercise performance.

Figure 4 — Funnel plot of the overall effect between pre–rapid weight loss to post–rapid weight loss. Included and imputed studies are denoted by
white and black circles, respectively. Studies to the right of 0 indicate that weight loss has a positive effect on exercise performance.

suggested 3 missing studies exist with a moderate to large positive indicated statistically here was reported, that is, Fogelholm et al9
effect (g ranging from 0.59 to 1.10; Figure 5). The corrected output report large improvements in relative Wingate test performance
indicated a small impairment in maximal strength (g = −0.34; 95% (g = 1.92; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.88). We believe it is unlikely the
CI, −0.13 to 0.06). The remaining comparisons did not display bias studies indicated statistically here exist, at least those with suffi-
(all P ≥ .06). cient methodological rigor such that they could be included in
Several studies were not included in this analysis due to low qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis such as this. Therefore, we
study quality (n = 8), among these studies data at the upper range reject the imputed corrections.
(Ahead of Print)
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 07:32 PM UTC

Figure 5 — Funnel plot of the strength domain between pre–rapid weight loss to post–rapid weight loss. Included and imputed studies are denoted by
white and black circles, respectively. Studies to the right of 0 indicate that weight loss has a positive effect on exercise performance.
Discussion
This meta-analysis investigated the effects of weight cutting and
its components (RWL and RWG) on exercise performance in
combat sport athletes. Data were obtained from 17 studies with
participants achieving an average RWL of ≈5% and average RWG
of ≈4% body mass. The major finding from our quantitative
synthesis of the currently available evidence is that weight cutting
has no influence on overall exercise performance. However,
overall exercise performance and subgroup analyses for repeated
high-intensity effort and maximal muscle strength performance
demonstrated small to moderate impairments following RWL. It
should be noted that heterogeneity was observed among some
data sets within several analyses, and numerous data sets were
excluded from this investigation due to low study quality. As
such, more studies examining the effects of weight cutting, RWL,
and RWG on exercise performance using robust research designs
and rigorous experimental procedures are needed to further
strengthen available literature. Furthermore, coaches and athletes
should carefully consider the quality, bias, and limitations of
previous investigations when evaluating the available evidence to
guide decision making around the use of weight cutting practices
in preparation for competition.
Weight Cutting
This meta-analysis revealed that weight cutting had no effect on
overall exercise performance over the course of weight cutting, nor
did it influence the performance of any exercise capacity subgroups
explored. These findings suggest that the substantial physiological
(Ahead of Print)
Weight Cutting and Exercise Performance 13
stress associated with implementing various acute dehydration
strategies to induce RWL followed the use of athlete-driven
methods to achieve RWG had a negligible net impact on physical
function. If weight cutting is not detrimental to exercise perfor-
mance, it is plausible that athletes may obtain an advantage from
using this precompetition preparation strategy and being matched
with a smaller opponent, likely shorter in height and limb length, as
it may increase their relative striking range.50 However, these
results should be interpreted with caution as only 6 studies
compared exercise performance between pre-RWL to following
RWG and the only outcome measures assessed were anaerobic
performance, power, and maximal strength. Therefore, generaliz-
ing these findings across a wider scope of exercise capacities
should be restricted until additional evidence is available. Further-
more, the fact that none of these studies assessed repeated high-
intensity effort performance between pre-RWL and following
RWG is critically important. Time–motion analyses of combat
sports competitions, including mixed martial arts, have demon-
strated a 1:4 ratio of high- to low-intensity efforts of exercise.51 As
such, the ability to perform repeated high-intensity efforts is likely
a critical determinant of match performance for combat sports
athletes and the use of these task types probably provides a more
discriminant assessment for evaluating the influence of weight
cutting on exercise performance. This is especially so, given that a
previous meta-analysis reported that dehydration only impaired
exercise performance in those activities that were greater than
30 seconds in duration.52 Thus, the inclusion of repeated high-
intensity effort outcome measures in future weight cutting studies is
strongly encouraged.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 07:32 PM UTC
14 Brechney, Cannon, and Goodman
Rapid Weight Loss
Findings of reduced anaerobic capacity, maximal strength, power,
and repeated high-intensity effort performance following acute
dehydration associated with RWL have previously been reported
in some,17,25,40 but not all studies.22,42,45 This meta-analysis found
small to moderate detriments in overall exercise performance and
the maximal muscle strength and repeated high-intensity effort
performance subgroups between pre-RWL and post-RWL. Previ-
ously, Alves et al25 have suggested that extracellular sodium (Na+)
and intracellular potassium (K+) concentrations may be reduced by
RWL. In turn, such alterations may disrupt electrochemical fluid
gradients and subsequently decrease the capacity of nerve impulses
to properly stimulate sustained musculoskeletal activity, due to
compromised calcium (Ca2+) release from the sarcoplasmic retic-
ulum.25 Interestingly, others41,53 have reported that dehydration may
not alter neuromuscular function, as measured using a series of brief
maximal isometric contractions following RWL. Further investiga-
tions exploring neuromuscular function, and RWL and weight
cutting, should be undertaken to better understand this prospective
relationship, which may better explain our observation of reduced
maximal strength. Additionally, how dehydration may impair aero-
bic function could also be relevant to the reported decrement of
repeated high-intensity effort performance, as in practice (ie, during
competition), prolonging combat during the bout will require aerobic
metabolism. Previously, Sawka et al54 have provided a comprehen-
sive review of active dehydration processes (ie, heat and/or exercise
induced) and aerobic performance. Among the various mechanisms
discussed, increased cardiovascular strain (reduced stroke volume
and heightened heart rate) may be related to our finding, as this could
reduce localized perfusion to musculature responsible for perform-
ing repeated high-intensity efforts. However, it is worth noting that
others19 have reported that RWL of ≈5.5%, did not compromise
aerobic performance (VO2peak); despite also identifying reductions
in a range of hematologic and nonhematologic parameters (total
hemoglobin, reticulocytes, and erythropoietin).
Rapid Weight Gain
Few studies of sufficient quality have investigated the influence of
RWG following weight reduction. As such, we were unable to
perform a meta-analysis between post-RWL and post-RWG due to
insufficient data sets, while several exercise outcome domains
(power and repeated high-intensity effort performance) were
also not interpretable due to insufficient data. Thus, only qualitative
synthesis was performed. Although a limited number of studies
featured in this portion of the analysis,17,21,25 outcomes were
aligned to indices of power and maximal strength. However,
none of these studies reported improvements to any respective
performance outcomes, despite RWG ≈ 5.8%, and recovery dura-
tions that correspond and exceed (16–36 h) many professional or
high-level combat sport competitions such as mixed martial arts
and Boxing.1 Although our data are insufficient, maximal strength
is unlikely to be enhanced following RWG. This may be attribut-
able to an acute reduction in energy intake reducing muscle
glycogen stores, which have been linked to a compromised exci-
tation–contraction coupling in skeletal muscle cells.1,14 Further-
more, a longer period of time (≥48 h)55 may be required to
completely recover from the RWL phase of weight cutting. Indeed,
others15–17,25 have shown significant cellular dehydration in com-
bat sport athletes post-RWG between 24 and 36 hours. This may be
due to a possible discrepancy between regain of body mass and
complete cellular rehydration following RWL.55
(Ahead of Print)
Limitations and Future Research
The following should be considered when interpreting the findings
of our analysis. First, heterogeneity was present among several
findings despite the use of a random effects model and remained
following the leave-on-out sensitivity analyses. Meta-analyses
using a random effects model that have a high degree of heteroge-
neity may present challenges for interpretation as studies are
weighted almost equally, irrespective of sample sizes, yielding
results similar to the mean of the individual studies. However, it is
argued that such findings are not fatally flawed and that a more
cautious approach to their interpretation should be used.56 This is
particularly relevant for meta-analytic analyses performed using a
small number of studies, which is typical of most exercise-related
clinical trials and intervention studies.56 In addition to the small
number of studies identified for possible inclusion in this investi-
gation, a relatively large number of papers were excluded due to
insufficient methodological quality and an unacceptable risk of
bias, which may have further exacerbated the heterogeneity we
observed among data sets. As such, it is strongly recommended that
researchers refer to methodological quality and risk of bias assess-
ment criteria when planning and designing future weight cutting
studies.
Factors contributing to heterogeneity among those included
studies are likely related to differences in research design and data
obtained including participant characteristics, strategies used to
induce dehydration and facilitate weight recovery, the magnitude
of RWL and RWG achieved, measurement timing, measurement
types, analytical procedures, and/or the risk of bias.57 Although our
approach to combining outcome measurements between studies for
quantitative analyses may have contributed to heterogeneity, the
largest contributor to the variance observed is likely to be differ-
ences in studies designs, specifically differences related to RWL
and RWG experimental procedures and measurement timing.
Specifically, a wide range of RWL and RWG strategies and
timelines were observed between the studies included in this
investigation. Of specific note is the frequent use of participant
driven approaches to weight cutting among citations. While such
methods do provide greater ecological validity for the study of
weight cutting, the approach offers less experimental control and
may reduce consistency between studies. Thus, we recommend
future research be conducted using more consistent procedures and
measurement periods for assessing RWL and RWG that better
reflect the timelines related to combat sports competition. Further-
more, where athlete driven strategies are used for RWL and/or
RWG, studies should attempt to monitor and report participant
physical activity levels, diet, and fluid intake during the initial trial
and replicate these behaviors in subsequent treatments.
Additionally, we recommend that future researchers report
absolute exercise performance data. Weight cutting is likely to
produce greater losses in mass than recovery affords.11,15 Indeed,
we report this imbalance to be ≈1% across the studies included in
this investigation. However, within the context of performance,
relative data are likely to provide a biased estimate. For instance,
Table 2 shows Timpmann et al43 report both absolute and relative
strength performance. Interestingly, the former indicates a small to
moderate impairment in maximal peak isokinetic torque (g ranging
from −0.32 to −0.43), while the same data when expressed relative
to body mass, which declined by ≈4% from baseline, gives the
appearance that weight cutting is less detrimental (g ranging from 0
to −0.27). Although we accounted for this using a sensitivity
analysis (which did not alter our findings), we would encourage
authors to eliminate this from a methodological perspective, as
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 07:32 PM UTC

changes in absolute performance are likely to be of greater
importance to combat sport athletes.
Practical Applications and Conclusions
To our knowledge, this study presents the first meta-analytical
investigation of the effects of weight cutting used by combat sport
athletes on overall exercise performance and several underlying
exercise capacity subgroups. The data obtained from this analysis
suggest that overall exercise performance, maximal strength, and
repeated high-intensity effort performance are impaired to a small
to moderate extent following RWL. As such, it is recommended
that combat sport athletes avoid engaging in RWL where complete
RWG cannot be achieved before competition commences. Fur-
thermore, our findings also indicate that the entire weight cutting
process (RWL to RWG) may not influence overall exercise per-
formance, anaerobic capacity, or maximal strength. Therefore,
there may be no performance benefit derived from this process.
However, more high-quality studies examining these issues are
needed to reduce the heterogeneity between studies so that more
accurate conclusions can be drawn.
Acknowledgments
The authors of this paper would like to thank the contacted authors of the
studies who were considered for inclusion in this analysis who took the time
to respond to our queries. Your responses made literature selection and data
extraction go much smoother for us. Thank you to Professor Frank Marino
who assisted with complex conceptual debates among the authors in the
design of this study. This study was designed by all authors. Data extraction
and analysis were undertaken by Brechney and Goodman, with conceptual
and writing assistance by Cannon. Manuscript preparation was conducted
by all authors. The leading author is the recipient of an Australian Research
Training Program—Higher Degree of Research scholarship. There are no
additional conflicts of interest to declare.
References
1. Barley OR, Chapman DW, Abbiss CR. The current state of weight-
cutting in combat sports. Sports. 2019;7(5):123. doi:10.3390/
sports7050123
2. Franchini E, Brito C, Artioli G. Weight loss in combat sports:
physiological, psychological and performance effects. J Int Soc
Sports Nutr. 2012;9(52):1–6.
3. Gann J, Tinsley G, La Bounty P. Weight cycling: prevalence,
strategies, and effects on combat athletes. Strength Cond J. 2015;
37(5):105–111. doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000168
4. Brito CJ, Roas AFCM, Brito ISS, Marins JCB, Córdova C, Franchini E.
Methods of body mass reduction by combat sport athletes. Int J Sport
Nutr Exerc Metab. 2012;22(2):89–97. doi:10.1123/ijsnem.22.2.89
5. Matthews JJ, Stanhope EN, Godwin MS, Holmes MEJ, Artioli GG.
The magnitude of rapid weight loss and rapid weight gain in combat
sport athletes preparing for competition: a systematic review. Int J
Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2019;29(4):441–452.
6. Khodaee M, Olewinski L, Shadgan B, Kiningham RR. Rapid weight
loss in sports with weight classes. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2015;14(6):
435–441. doi:10.1249/JSR.0000000000000206
7. Burke L, Slater G, Matthews J, Langan-Evans C, Horswill C. ACSM
expert consensus statement on weight loss in weight-category sports.
Curr Sports Med Rep. 2021;20(4):199–217. doi:10.1249/JSR.
0000000000000831
(Ahead of Print)
Weight Cutting and Exercise Performance 15
8. Reale R, Slater G, Burke LM. Acute weight loss strategies for combat
sports and applications to Olympic success. Eur J Sport Sci. 2016;
12(2):142–151.
9. Fogelholm GM, Koskinen R, Laakso J, Rankinen T, Ruokonen I.
Gradual and rapid weight loss: effects on nutrition and performance in
male athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;25(3):371–377. doi:10.
1249/00005768-199303000-00012
10. Reale R, Slater G, Cox GR, Dunican IC, Burke LM. The effect of
water loading on acute weight loss following fluid restriction in
combat sports athletes. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2017;
20(6):1–9.
11. Brechney GC, Chia E, Moreland AT. Weight-cutting implications for
competition outcomes in mixed martial arts cage fighting. J Strength
Cond Res. 2021;35(12):3420–3424. doi:10.1519/JSC.00000000
00003368
12. Sagayama H, Yoshimura E, Yamada Y, et al. Effects of rapid weight
loss and regain on body composition and energy expenditure. Appl
Phsiol Nutr Me. 2013;39(1):21–27. doi:10.1139/apnm-2013-0096
13. Lakicevic N, Roklicer R, Bianco A, et al. Effects of rapid weight loss
on judo athletes: a systematic review. Nutrients. 2020;12(5):1220.
doi:10.3390/nu12051220
14. Reale R, Slater G, Burke LM. Individualised dietary strategies for
Olympic combat sports: acute weight loss, recovery and competition
nutrition. Eur J Sport Sci. 2017;17(6):727–740. doi:10.1080/
17461391.2017.1297489
15. Jetton MA, Lawrence MM, Meucci LM, et al. Dehydration and acute
weight gain in mixed martial arts fighters before competition. J
Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(5):1322–1326. doi:10.1519/JSC.
0b013e31828a1e91
16. Matthews JJ, Nicholas C. Extreme rapid weight loss and rapid weight
gain observed in UK mixed martial arts athletes preparing for
competition. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2017;27(2):122–129.
doi:10.1123/ijsnem.2016-0174
17. Pallarés JG, Martínez-Abellán A, López-Gullón JM, Morán-Navarro
R, De la Cruz-Sánchez E, Mora-Rodríguez R. Muscle contraction
velocity, strength and power output changes following different
degrees of hypohydration in competitive Olympic combat sports. J
Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2016;13:1–9.
18. Coswig VS, Fukuda DH, Del Vecchio FB. Rapid weight loss elicits
harmful biochemical and hormonal responses in mixed martial arts
athletes. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2015;25(5):480–486. doi:10.
1123/ijsnem.2014-0267
19. Reljic D, Feist J, Jost J, Kieser M, Friedmann‐Bette B. Rapid body
mass loss affects erythropoiesis and hemolysis but does not impair
aerobic performance in combat athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports.
2016;26(5):507–517. doi:10.1111/sms.12485
20. Artioli GG, Franchini E, Iglesias RT, et al. The effects of rapid weight
loss upon high-intensity performance in judo competitors. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2010;42(5):17. doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000384497.
49519.49
21. Camarço NF, Sousa Neto IV, Nascimento DC, et al. Salivary
nitrite content, cognition and power in mixed martial arts fighters
after rapid weight loss: a case study. J Clin Transl Res. 2016;2(2):
63–69.
22. Mendes SH, Tritto AC, Guilherme JPLF, et al. Effect of rapid weight
loss on performance in combat sport male athletes: does adaptation to
chronic weight cycling play a role? Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(18):
1155–1160. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2013-092689
23. Barley OR, Iredale F, Chapman DW, Hopper A, Abbiss C. Repeat
effort performance is reduced 24 h following acute dehydration in
mixed martial arts athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;32(9):2555–
2561. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002249
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 07:32 PM UTC
16 Brechney, Cannon, and Goodman
24. Barbas I, Fatouros I, Douroudos I, et al. Physiological and perfor-
mance adaptations of elite Greco-Roman wrestlers during a one-day
tournament. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011;111(7):1421–1436. doi:10.
1007/s00421-010-1761-7
25. Alves RC, Alves Bueno JC, Borges TO, Zourdos MC, de Souza
Junior TP, Aoki MS. Physiological function is not fully regained
within 24 hours of rapid weight loss in mixed martial artists. J Exerc
Physiol Online. 2018;21(5):73–83.
26. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the
PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/
journal.pmed.1000097
27. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for
systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015:
elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;349:g7647. doi:10.1136/bmj.
g7647
28. van Rosendal SP, Osborne MA, Fassett RG, Coombes JS. Guidelines
for glycerol use in hyperhydration and rehydration associated with
exercise. Sports Med. 2010;40(2):113–129. doi:10.2165/11530760-
000000000-00000
29. Goodman SP, Moreland AT, Marino FE. The effect of active
hypohydration on cognitive function: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Physiol Behav. 2019;204:297–308. doi:10.1016/j.
physbeh.2019.03.008
30. McCartney D, Desbrow B, Irwin C. The effect of fluid intake
following dehydration on subsequent athletic and cognitive perfor-
mance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med Open.
2017;3(1):1–23.
31. Carlson KD, Herdman AO. Understanding the impact of convergent
validity on research results. Organ Res Methods. 2012;15(1):17–32.
doi:10.1177/1094428110392383
32. Green S. A definition and systems view of anaerobic capacity. Eur J
Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1994;69(2):168–173. doi:10.1007/
BF00609411
33. Spencer M, Bishop D, Dawson B, Goodman C. Physiological and
metabolic responses of repeated-sprint activities. Sports Med. 2005;
35(12):1025–1044. doi:10.2165/00007256-200535120-00003
34. Sale D, Norman R. Testing strength and power. In: MacDougall J,
Duncan J, Wenger HA, Green HJ, eds, Physiological Testing of the
High-Performance Athlete. 2nd ed. Human Kinetics; Champaign, IL;
1991:21–106.
35. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. Introduction to
Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
36. Durlak JA. How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes.
J Pediatr Psychol. 2009;34(9):917–928. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsp004
37. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for
Systematic Reviews of Interventions. John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
38. Finn KJ, Dolgener FA, Williams RB. Effects of carbohydrate refeed-
ing on physiological responses and psychological and physical
performance following acute weight reduction in collegiate wrestlers.
J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(2):328–333.
39. Rankin JW, Ocel JV, Craft LL. Effect of weight loss and refeeding
diet composition on anaerobic performances in wrestlers [Effet
d’ une perte de poids et d’ un regime alimentaire de complement
sur la performance anaerobie des lutteurs]. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 1996;28(10):1292–1299. doi:10.1097/00005768-19961
0000-00013
40. Ööpik V, Paasurke M, Timpmann S, Medijainen L, Ereline J,
Gapejeva J. Effects of creatine supplementation during recovery from
rapid body mass reduction on metabolism and muscle performance
capacity in well-trained wrestlers [Effets de la supplementation en
creatine, lors de la recuperation suite a une perte rapide de la masse
(Ahead of Print)
corporelle, sur le metabolisme et les capacites de performances
musculaires chez des lutteurs bien entraines]. J Sports Med Phys
Fitness. 2002;42(3):330–339.
41. Barley OR, Chapman DW, Blazevich AJ, Abbiss CR. Acute dehydra-
tion impairs endurance without modulating neuromuscular function.
Front Physiol. 2018;9:1562–1571. doi:10.3389/fphys.2018.01562
42. Artioli GG, Iglesias RT, Franchini E, et al. Rapid weight loss
followed by recovery time does not affect judo-related performance.
J Sports Sci. 2010;28(1):21–32. doi:10.1080/02640410903428574
43. Timpmann S, Ööpik V, Pääsuke M, Medijainen L, Ereline J. Acute
effects of self-selected regimen of rapid body mass loss in combat
sports athletes. J Sports Sci Med. 2008;7(2):210–217.
44. Ribas MR, de Oliveira WC, de Souza HH, dos Santos Ferreira SC,
Walesko F, Bassan JC. The assessment of hand grip strength and
rapid weight loss in Muay Thai athletes. J Prof Exerc Physiol.
2019;16(3):130–141.
45. Coufalová K, Cochrane DJ, Malý T, Heller J. Changes in body
composition, anthropometric indicators and maximal strength due to
weight reduction in judo. Arch Budo. 2014;10(1):161–168.
46. Timpmann S, Burk A, Medijainen L, et al. Dietary sodium citrate
supplementation enhances rehydration and recovery from rapid body
mass loss in trained wrestlers. Appl Physiol Nutr Me. 2012;37(6):
1028–1037. doi:10.1139/h2012-089
47. Abedelmalek S, Chtourou H, Souissi N, Tabka Z. Caloric restriction
effect on proinflammatory cytokines, growth hormone, and steroid
hormone concentrations during exercise in judokas. Oxid Med Cell
Longev. 2015;2015:809492. doi:10.1155/2015/809492
48. McKenna ZJ, Gillum TL. Effects of exercise induced dehydration and
glycerol rehydration on anaerobic power in male collegiate wrestlers.
J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(11):2965–2968. doi:10.1519/JSC.
0000000000001871
49. Degoutte F, Jouanel P, Begue RJ, et al. Food restriction, performance,
biochemical, psychological, and endocrine changes in judo athletes.
Int J Sports Med. 2006;27(1):9–18. doi:10.1055/s-2005-837505
50. Pettersson S, Ekström MP, Berg CM. Practices of weight regulation
among elite athletes in combat sports: a matter of mental advantage?
J Athl Train. 2013;48(1):99–108. doi:10.4085/1062-6050-48.1.04
51. Miarka B, Vecchio FB, Camey S, Amtmann JA. Comparisons:
technical-tactical and time-motion analysis of mixed martial arts
by outcomes. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(7):1975–1984. doi:10.
1519/JSC.0000000000001287
52. Carlton A, Orr RM. The effects of fluid loss on physical performance:
a critical review. J Sport Health Sci. 2015;4(4):357–363. doi:10.
1016/j.jshs.2014.09.004
53. Stewart CJ, Whyte DG, Cannon J, Wickham J, Marino FE. Exercise-
induced dehydration does not alter time trial or neuromuscular
performance. Int J Sports Med. 2014;35(9):725–730. doi:10.1055/
s-0033-1364022
54. Sawka MN, Cheuvront SN, Kenefick RW. Hypohydration and
human performance: impact of environment and physiological me-
chanisms. Sports Med. 2015;45(suppl 1):51–60. doi:10.1007/s40279-
015-0395-7
55. Casa DJ. Exercise in the heat. II. Critical concepts in rehydration,
exertional heat illnesses, and maximizing athletic performance. J Athl
Train. 1999;34(3):253–262.
56. Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman D. Statistical heterogeneity
in systematic reviews of clinical trials: a critical appraisal of guide-
lines and practice. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7(1):51–61. doi:10.
1258/1355819021927674
57. Imrey PB. Limitations of meta-analyses of studies with high hetero-
geneity. JAMA Network Open. 2020;3(1):e1919325. doi:10.1001/
jamanetworkopen.2019.19325
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/16/22 07:32 PM UTC