Impact of intermittent vs. continuous energy restriction on weight and cardiometabolic factors: a 12-month follow-up

Headland, Michelle L; Clifton, Peter; Keogh, Jennifer B.

doi:10.1038/s41366-020-0525-7

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Weight change at wk102 after baseline was slightly, but not significantly lower with ICR than CCR (−4.3% ± 1.0% vs. −5.0% ± 1.1%). Again, this result is in agreement with those from two Australian trials on "5:2 ICR", from which data on weight after 24 months were reported [27,28]. The first study showed −3.5 kg weight loss with ICR vs. −4.5 kg with CCR among people with metabolically healthy overweight [27], the second study among people with type 2 diabetes showed a weight loss of −3.9 kg with both regimens [28].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…With regard to the energy intakes on NR and R days in the ICR group, the reported intakes suggest that the intended energy difference of 75% between NR and R days was not fully achieved, while there was no overcompensation of calorie intake on NR days (mean energy intake on NR days: 90-95%, R days:~40%). The similar weight loss with both regimens over one year is in line with other published studies on weight loss with ICR and CCR [14,15,[27][28][29][30] and indicates that in the short-term, ICR seems to be as easy to follow as CCR. At wk 102, participants in the ICR group reported to have integrated R days in only 16 out of the previous 52 weeks, i.e., in the year after the initial one-year study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adherence and Dietary Composition during Intermittent vs. Continuous Calorie Restriction: Follow-Up Data from a Randomized Controlled Trial in Adults with Overweight or Obesity

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although intermittent calorie restriction (ICR) has become popular as an alternative weight loss strategy to continuous calorie restriction (CCR), there is insufficient evidence on diet quality during ICR and on its feasibility over longer time periods. Thus, we compared dietary composition and adherence between ICR and CCR in a follow-up analysis of a randomized trial. A total of 98 participants with overweight or obesity [BMI (kg/m2) 25–39.9, 35–65 years, 49% females] were randomly assigned to ICR, operationalized as a “5:2 diet” (energy intake: ~100% on five non-restricted (NR) days, ~25% on two restricted (R) days), or CCR (daily energy intake: ~80%). The trial included a 12-week (wk) intervention phase, and follow-up assessments at wk24, wk50 and wk102. Apart from a higher proportion of energy intake from protein with ICR vs. CCR during the intervention (wk2: p < 0.001; wk12: p = 0.002), there were no significant differences with respect to changes in dietary composition over time between the groups, while overall adherence to the interventions appeared to be good. No significant difference between ICR and CCR regarding weight change at wk102 was observed (p = 0.63). However, self-reported adherence was worse for ICR than CCR, with 71.1% vs. 32.5% of the participants reporting not to or only rarely have followed the regimen to which they were assigned between wk50 and wk102. These results indicate that within a weight management setting, ICR and CCR were equivalent in achieving modest weight loss over two years while affecting dietary composition in a comparable manner.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Adherence and Dietary Composition during Intermittent vs. Continuous Calorie Restriction: Follow-Up Data from a Randomized Controlled Trial in Adults with Overweight or Obesity

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Eighty‐two and 61% of participants in CONT and IER achieved at least 5% weight loss from their initial body weight in this trial, an amount widely accepted to produce clinically relevant health improvements 1,3,38 . Headland et al 39 conducted a 12‐month follow‐up of participants who were randomized to (a) CONT, (b) week‐on, week‐off energy restriction, or (c) the 5:2 diet, with 5 days of normal eating and 2 days of ~75% energy restriction. Thirty‐seven percent of participants achieved a 5% weight loss goal after 24 weeks with no differences between groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…However, IER is a promising solution for people who struggle with CONT or who are at a plateau with their weight loss efforts. In a 12‐month follow‐up of their 12‐month intervention, Headland et al 39 reported that participants in IER (implemented as the 5:2 diet) had regained ~46% of the weight lost, with no differences compared to the CONT group. Carter et al 49 also found similar weight regain (33% of weight lost) between IER and CONT after 24 months.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intermittent and continuous energy restriction result in similar weight loss, weight loss maintenance, and body composition changes in a 6 month randomized pilot study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Poor adherence is a barrier to successful weight control. Intermittent energy restriction (IER) provides an alternative approach to those for whom daily energy restriction is not ideal. This study assessed changes in weight, body composition, and macronutrient intake for an IER and a continuous energy restriction (CONT) approach within a multicomponent weight management intervention. We randomized 35 adults with overweight/obesity (BMI = 31.2 ± 2.4 kg/m2) to CONT or IER for 24 weeks (12‐week weight loss intervention and 12 weeks of weight loss maintenance). Diets were delivered within a multimodal weight management program including weekly group meetings with a registered dietitian, increased physical activity, and a comprehensive lifestyle change program. Retention and adherence were similar for CONT and IER. Weight, BMI, fat mass, percentage body fat, waist circumference, hip circumference, blood pressure, and heart rate all decreased after 24 weeks (all, P < .01), but there were no main effects of group (all, P > .27). Weight loss was clinically relevant in both CONT (11.38 ± 7.9%) and IER (9.37 ± 9.7%), and the proportion of each group achieving 5% weight loss was 82 and 61% (P = .16), respectively. Participant satisfaction was high in both groups. The results from this study (a) support the feasibility of IER as an alternative for weight loss and weight loss maintenance, (b) indicate that IER is an effective alternative to CONT for weight control and improvements in body composition, and (c) emphasize the importance of intensive lifestyle interventions with ongoing support for effective behaviour modification.

show abstract

“…In recent years, a focus on several forms of IF has emerged in the scienti c literature (i.e. alternate-day fasting, intermittent energy restriction and time-restricted feeding) [4,5]. Time-restricted feeding (TRF) is a form of IF that recently gained popularity because it encompasses a cyclic alternation between feasting (ad libitum energy intake) and fasting on a daily basis (from 12-21 h per day) [3,6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of time-restricted feeding on supramaximal exercise performance and body composition: a randomized and counterbalanced crossover study in healthy men

Correia

Santos

Pezarat‐Correia

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundUsing a crossover design, we explored the effects of both short- and long-term TRF vs. regular diet on Wingate (WnT) performance and body composition in well-trained young men. MethodsTwelve healthy male physical education students were included. The order of dieting was randomized and counterbalanced, and all participants served as their own controls. TRF was limited to an 8-h eating window and non- TRF involved a customary meal pattern. Participants performed WnT tests and body composition scans at baseline, post-1 and 4 weeks of the assigned diet. Before testing, participants were asked to fill out a dietary record over 4 consecutive days and were instructed to continue their habitual training throughout the study. Energy intake and macronutrient distribution were similar at baseline in both conditions. ResultsWnT mean power and total work output increased post-4 weeks of TRF. Both conditions were similarly effective in increasing fat-free mass after 4 weeks of intervention. However, there was no correlation between change in fat-free mass and WnT mean power after TRF. Neither condition elicited any changes in WnT performance or body composition 1 week post-intervention. ConclusionsThus, long- term TRF can be used in combination with regular training to improve supramaximal exercise performance in well-trained men. Trial registration: This study has been 'retrospectively registered' in Clinical Trials and its registration number is NCT04756635.

show abstract

Impact of intermittent vs. continuous energy restriction on weight and cardiometabolic factors: a 12-month follow-up

Cited by 15 publications

References 25 publications

Adherence and Dietary Composition during Intermittent vs. Continuous Calorie Restriction: Follow-Up Data from a Randomized Controlled Trial in Adults with Overweight or Obesity

Adherence and Dietary Composition during Intermittent vs. Continuous Calorie Restriction: Follow-Up Data from a Randomized Controlled Trial in Adults with Overweight or Obesity

Intermittent and continuous energy restriction result in similar weight loss, weight loss maintenance, and body composition changes in a 6 month randomized pilot study

Effects of time-restricted feeding on supramaximal exercise performance and body composition: a randomized and counterbalanced crossover study in healthy men

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About