This study’s results showed that those on the ketogenic diet lost more fat free mass and had lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels as well as lower serum triglycerides level, leading to a lower risk of heart disease, when compared with their low-fat diet counterparts (Yancy Jr., Olsen, Guyten, Bakst & Westman, 2006). The expected mean body weight change was -12.0 kg for the low-carbohydrate diet group as compared to the low-fat diet expected to lose 6.5 kg and a mean difference of 5.5 kg, all with a 95% confidence interval (Yancy Jr., Olsen, Guyten, Bakst & Westman, 2006). Loss of weight can be attributed to the reduced amount of caloric intake, although the two groups were told to restrict different parts of the diet. Subjects in the low-fat diet group were told to restrict fat, cholesterol and calories, while subjects in the low-carbohydrate group was only told to reduce their intake of carbohydrates, but not necessarily reduce their caloric intake (Yancy Jr., Olsen, Guyten, Bakst & Westman, 2006). Participants within the low-carbohydrate group may have experienced more weight loss due to three explanations: the low-carbohydrate diet may have had an appetite suppressing property, loss of calories through ketonuria, and increased thermogenesis from the high-protein diet (Yancy Jr., Olsen, Guyten, Bakst & Westman, 2006). The researchers did, however, admit to some limitations to the study. They could not definitively distinguish effects of the low-carbohydrates against the effects of the supplements given to the participants (Yancy Jr., Olsen, Guyten, Bakst & Westman, 2006). The supplements may have caused further weight loss for the participants of the study. However, in Yanovski & Yanovski (2002), it was found that the ingredients in the supplements did not effectively induce weight loss in the subjects. Another limitation was that the duration of this study was that it only lasted for only 24 weeks, or 6 months. This may limit the generalizability of the results to the normal population as they may want to follow the diet long-term in hopes for better weight loss methods. Davis et al. (2008) looked at the effect of delayed-onset muscle soreness by pre-resistance cardioacceleration before each set. The researchers compared delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) caused by anaerobic resistance training and whether cardioacceleration had an effect on them. Cardioacceleration is the use of cardiovascular workout in between sets of resistance training to elevate heart rate. Davis et al. (2009) used cardioacceleration due to the hypothesis that and elevated heart rate may be useful in speeding recovery of muscles and reducing eccentric contraction damage. Using a total of 48 subjects (20 men, 28 women) who were well-conditioned, they assigned them to one of two groups, experimental or control (Davis, Wood, Andrews, Elkind & Davis, 2008). They changed the heart rate of the experimental group subjects (Davis, Wood, Andrews, Elkind & Davis, 2008). While the control group rested in between sets of resistance training, the experimental group was made to do cardiovascular exercises to increase their heart rate (Davis, Wood, Andrews, Elkind & Davis, 2008). The onset of DOMS was self-reported by the subject using Borg’s Rating of Perceived Pain scale (Davis, Wood, Andrews, Elkind & Davis, 2008). The resultant mean DOMS among the experimental group was lower across both genders (Davis, Wood, Andrews, Elkind & Davis, 2008). The pain rating was less for each muscle group that was used in nine different resistance exercises for both men and women (Davis, Wood, Andrews, Elkind & Davis, 2008). This effect was also significant where p < 0.025 in 15 occasions out of a total of 18. Lower mean DOMS scores also seemed to be showing up in all of the workouts where there was significant difference in 32% of workouts for men and 55% of workouts for women (Davis, Wood, Andrews, Elkind & Davis, 2008). DOMS was seen to disappear after each workout for the experimental group after the fourth week, but the effect did not occur for the control group (Davis, Wood, Andrews, Elkind & Davis, 2008).