1.
Effects of Intermittent Energy Restriction Compared with Those of Continuous Energy Restriction on Body Composition and Cardiometabolic Risk Markers - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials in Adults.
Schroor, MM, Joris, PJ, Plat, J, Mensink, RP
Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.). 2024;15(1):100130
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Intermittent energy restriction (IER) diets, such as the 5:2 diet, time-restricted eating (TRE), and alternate-day fasting (ADF), are gaining popularity. According to previous research, IER protocols effectively manage obesity and may have many other health benefits, including improving metabolic health. This systematic review and meta-analysis of twenty-eight parallel-design randomised controlled trials looked at the benefits of IER protocols, such as ADF, TRE, and the 5:2 diet, and the effects of continuous energy restriction (CER) on anthropometric and cardiometabolic outcomes. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that both the IER and CER are equally beneficial. However, IER protocols showed greater but clinically insignificant improvements in fat-free mass and waist circumference in healthy adults. IER and CER protocols were not different in improving the lipid profile, glucose and insulin levels and blood pressure. Different IER diets showed different positive effects on metabolic parameters. Future robust studies are required to assess the effects of these energy-restriction diets on metabolic and anthropometric parameters because of the high variability in the included studies. However, healthcare professionals can use the results of this review to understand the potential clinical utility of various energy-restriction diets.
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.