Abstract

The interest in intermittent energy restriction (IER) diets as a weight-loss approach is increasing. Different IER protocols exist, including time-restricted eating (TRE), alternate-day fasting (ADF), and the 5:2 diet. This meta-analysis compared the effects of these IER diets with continuous energy restriction (CER) on anthropometrics and cardiometabolic risk markers in healthy adults. Twenty-eight trials were identified that studied TRE (k = 7), ADF (k = 10), or the 5:2 diet (k = 11) for 2-52 wk. Energy intakes between intervention groups within a study were comparable (17 trials), lower in IER (5 trials), or not reported (6 trials). Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. Changes in body weight [WMD: -0.42 kg; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.96 to 0.13; P = 0.132] and fat mass (FM) (WMD: -0.31 kg; 95% CI: -0.98 to 0.36; P = 0.362) were comparable when results of the 3 IER diets were combined and compared with those of CER. All IER diets combined reduced fat-free mass (WMD: -0.20 kg; 95% CI: -0.39 to -0.01; P = 0.044) and waist circumference (WMD: -0.91 cm; 95% CI: -1.76 to -0.06; P = 0.036) more than CER. Effects on body mass index [BMI (kg/m2)], glucose, insulin, homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), serum lipid and lipoprotein concentrations, and blood pressure did not differ. Further, TRE reduced body weight, FM, and fat-free mass more than CER, whereas ADF improved HOMA-IR more. BMI was reduced less in the 5:2 diet compared with CER. In conclusion, the 3 IER diets combined did not lead to superior improvements in anthropometrics and cardiometabolic risk markers compared with CER diets. Slightly greater reductions were, however, observed in fat-free mass and waist circumference. To what extent differences in energy intakes between groups within studies may have influenced these outcomes should be addressed in future studies.

Abstract

Background: The potential positive interaction between intermittent fasting (IF) and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) on cognitive function has been widely discussed. This systematic review tried to assess the efficacy of interventions with different IF regimens on BDNF levels and their association with cognitive functions in humans. Interventions with different forms of IF such as caloric restriction (CR), alternate-day fasting (ADF), time-restricted eating (TRE), and the Ramadan model of intermittent fasting (RIF) were targeted. Methods: A systematic review was conducted for experimental and observational studies on healthy people and patients with diseases published in EMBASE, Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases from January 2000 to December 2023. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statements (PRISMA) for writing this review. Results: Sixteen research works conducted on healthy people and patients with metabolic disorders met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Five studies showed a significant increase in BDNF after the intervention, while five studies reported a significant decrease in BDNF levels, and the other six studies showed no significant changes in BDNF levels due to IF regimens. Moreover, five studies examined the RIF protocol, of which, three studies showed a significant reduction, while two showed a significant increase in BDNF levels, along with an improvement in cognitive function after RIF. Conclusions: The current findings suggest that IF has varying effects on BDNF levels and cognitive functions in healthy, overweight/obese individuals and patients with metabolic conditions. However, few human studies have shown that IF increases BDNF levels, with controversial results. In humans, IF has yet to be fully investigated in terms of its long-term effect on BDNF and cognitive functions. Large-scale, well-controlled studies with high-quality data are warranted to elucidate the impact of the IF regimens on BDNF levels and cognitive functions.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE As the number of adults aged over 40 with obesity increases dramatically, intermittent fasting interventions (IF) may help them to lose fat and weight. This systematic review investigated the most recent research on the effects of intermittent fasting and a regular diet on body composition and lipids in adults aged over 40 with obesity without the metabolic disease. DATA SOURCES Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on IF on adults aged over 40 with obesity were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, China Knowledge Network (CNKI), VIP database, Wanfang database with the experimental group using IF and the control group using a regular diet. Revman was used for meta-analysis. Effect sizes are expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). STUDY SELECTION A total of 9 articles of randomised controlled trials that met the requirements were screened for inclusion. Studies typically lasted 2-6 weeks. The experimental population was aged 42-66 years, with a BMI range of 25.7-35 kg/m2. SYNTHESIS A total of 9 RCTs were included. meta-analysis showed that body weight (MD: -2.05 kg; 95% CI (-3.84, -0.27); p = 0.02), BMI (MD: -0.73 kg/m2; 95% CI (-1.05, -0.41); p < 0.001), fat mass (MD: -2.14 kg; 95% CI (-3.81, 0.47); p = 0.01), and TG (MD = -0.32 mmol/L, 95% CI (-0.50, -0.15, p < 0.001) were significantly lower in the experimental group than in the control group. No significant reduction in lean body mass (MD: -0.31 kg; 95% CI (-0.96, 0.34); p = 0.35). CONCLUSION IF had a reduction in body weight, BMI, fat mass, and TG in adults aged over 40 with obesity without metabolic disease compared to RD, and IF did not cause a significant decrease in lean body mass, which suggests healthy and effective fat loss. However, more long-term and high-quality trials are needed to reach definitive conclusions.

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and pilot trial studies to compare the effectiveness of intermittent fasting (IF) and continuous calorie restriction (CCR) in overweight and obese people. The parameters included body mass index (BMI), body weight, and other metabolism-related indicators. A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted up to January 2022. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to measure the effectiveness. Publication bias was assessed using Egger's test. The stability of the results was evaluated using sensitivity analyses. The significance of body weight change (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.40, -0.02) p = 0.028) was more significant after IF than CCR. There was no significant difference in BMI (SMD = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.16, 0.20) p = 0.848) between IF and CCR. These findings suggest that IF may be superior to CCR for weight loss in some respects.

Abstract

Intermittent fasting is a form of time restricted eating (typically 16 h fasting and 8 h eating), which has gained popularity in recent years and shows promise as a possible new paradigm in the approach to weight loss and the reduction of inflammation, and has many potential long term health benefits. In this review, the authors will incorporate many aspects of fasting, mainly focusing on its effects on the cardiovascular system, involving atherosclerosis progression, benefits for diabetes mellitus type 2, lowering of blood pressure, and exploring other cardiovascular risk factors (such as lipid profile and inflammation).

Abstract

Caloric restriction and intermittent fasting are known to prolong life- and healthspan in model organisms, while their effects on humans are less well studied. In a randomized controlled trial study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02673515), we show that 4 weeks of strict alternate day fasting (ADF) improved markers of general health in healthy, middle-aged humans while causing a 37% calorie reduction on average. No adverse effects occurred even after >6 months. ADF improved cardiovascular markers, reduced fat mass (particularly the trunk fat), improving the fat-to-lean ratio, and increased β-hydroxybutyrate, even on non-fasting days. On fasting days, the pro-aging amino-acid methionine, among others, was periodically depleted, while polyunsaturated fatty acids were elevated. We found reduced levels sICAM-1 (an age-associated inflammatory marker), low-density lipoprotein, and the metabolic regulator triiodothyronine after long-term ADF. These results shed light on the physiological impact of ADF and supports its safety. ADF could eventually become a clinically relevant intervention.

Abstract

Importance: Alternate-day fasting has become increasingly popular, yet, to date, no long-term randomized clinical trials have evaluated its efficacy. Objective: To compare the effects of alternate-day fasting vs daily calorie restriction on weight loss, weight maintenance, and risk indicators for cardiovascular disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: A single-center randomized clinical trial of obese adults (18 to 64 years of age; mean body mass index, 34) was conducted between October 1, 2011, and January 15, 2015, at an academic institution in Chicago, Illinois. Interventions: Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 groups for 1 year: alternate-day fasting (25% of energy needs on fast days; 125% of energy needs on alternating "feast days"), calorie restriction (75% of energy needs every day), or a no-intervention control. The trial involved a 6-month weight-loss phase followed by a 6-month weight-maintenance phase. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in body weight. Secondary outcomes were adherence to the dietary intervention and risk indicators for cardiovascular disease. Results: Among the 100 participants (86 women and 14 men; mean [SD] age, 44 [11] years), the dropout rate was highest in the alternate-day fasting group (13 of 34 [38%]), vs the daily calorie restriction group (10 of 35 [29%]) and control group (8 of 31 [26%]). Mean weight loss was similar for participants in the alternate-day fasting group and those in the daily calorie restriction group at month 6 (-6.8% [95% CI, -9.1% to -4.5%] vs -6.8% [95% CI, -9.1% to -4.6%]) and month 12 (-6.0% [95% CI, -8.5% to -3.6%] vs -5.3% [95% CI, -7.6% to -3.0%]) relative to those in the control group. Participants in the alternate-day fasting group ate more than prescribed on fast days, and less than prescribed on feast days, while those in the daily calorie restriction group generally met their prescribed energy goals. There were no significant differences between the intervention groups in blood pressure, heart rate, triglycerides, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, insulin resistance, C-reactive protein, or homocysteine concentrations at month 6 or 12. Mean high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels at month 6 significantly increased among the participants in the alternate-day fasting group (6.2 mg/dL [95% CI, 0.1-12.4 mg/dL]), but not at month 12 (1.0 mg/dL [95% CI, -5.9 to 7.8 mg/dL]), relative to those in the daily calorie restriction group. Mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were significantly elevated by month 12 among the participants in the alternate-day fasting group (11.5 mg/dL [95% CI, 1.9-21.1 mg/dL]) compared with those in the daily calorie restriction group. Conclusions and Relevance: Alternate-day fasting did not produce superior adherence, weight loss, weight maintenance, or cardioprotection vs daily calorie restriction. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00960505.