scholarly journals The effects of intermittent or continuous energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers: a randomized trial in young overweight women

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 714-727 ◽  
Author(s):  
M N Harvie ◽  
M Pegington ◽  
M P Mattson ◽  
J Frystyk ◽  
B Dillon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Metabolic Disease ◽  
Weight Loss ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Energy Restriction ◽  
Risk Markers ◽  
Overweight Women ◽  
Continuous Energy ◽  
Metabolic Disease Risk

The effect of intermittent energy restriction on weight loss and diabetes risk markers in women with a history of gestational diabetes: a 12-month randomized control trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristy L Gray ◽  
Peter M Clifton ◽  
Jennifer B Keogh
Keyword(s):  
Weight Loss ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Serum Insulin ◽  
Dropout Rate ◽  
Energy Restriction ◽  
Diabetes Risk ◽  
Oral Glucose ◽  
Risk Markers ◽  
Overweight Women ◽  
The Mean

ABSTRACT Background Weight loss after gestational diabetes (GDM) can prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes. Intermittent energy restriction (IER) may offer an alternative to continuous energy restriction (CER) for weight loss. Objectives We compared the effects of IER (2 days per week) to daily CER over 12 mo on weight loss and diabetes risk markers in overweight women with previous GDM. Methods Overweight females (n = 121) ≥18 y were randomized 1:1 to either IER [2-d 500 kcal (2100 kJ); n = 61] or CER [1500 kcal (6000 kJ); n = 60] in this 12-mo noninferiority trial. Results The trial was completed by 62 participants with a median age of 39.6 y [Quartile (Q) 1 to Quartile 3, 34.9 to 43.9 y] with a median BMI of 32.6 kg/m2 (Q1 to Q3, 28.5 to 37.9 kg/m2) at a median of 2.9 y after GDM (Q1 to Q3, 2.1 to 6.4 y; 49% attrition; IER n = 29; CER n = 30; P = 0.8). The mean ± SD weight loss was significant over time (P < 0.001) but not by diet group (IER −4.8 ± 5.0 kg; CER −3.2 ± 5.0; P = 0.2). The mean between-group difference was −1.6 kg (95% CI: −4.2 to 1.0 kg; P = 0.2). There were no significant between-group differences in change in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, fasting serum insulin, HOMA-IR or 2-h oral glucose tolerance at 12 mo (p>0.05). The trial was registered at https://www.anzctr.org.au/ (ACTRN12617001476325). Conclusions IER produces comparable weight loss to CER over 12 mo in overweight women with previous GDM. The high dropout rate in this study is a limitation in the interpretation of these results. Larger studies are needed to confirm noninferiority of IER compared to CER.

scholarly journals Weight Loss Efficacy of 4-Hour Versus 6-Hour Time Restricted Feeding in Adults with Obesity

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. 584-584
Author(s):  
Sofia Cienfuegos ◽  
Kelsey Gabel ◽  
Faiza Kalam ◽  
Mark Ezpeleta ◽  
Vasiliki Pavlou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Metabolic Disease ◽  
Insulin Resistance ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Weight Loss ◽  
Body Weight ◽  
Fat Mass ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Metabolic Disease Risk ◽  
Ad Libitum

Abstract Objectives This study was undertaken to compare the effects of 4-h TRF to that of 6-h TRF on body weight, body composition, and metabolic disease risk factors in adults with obesity. We hypothesized that 4-h TRF would produce the greatest decreases in body weight, fat mass, blood pressure, and insulin resistance, compared to 6-h TRF. Methods Adults with obesity (n = 49) were randomized to 1 of 3 interventions for 8 weeks: 4-h TRF (ad libitum eating between 3:00 to 7:00 pm, water fasting between 7:00 to 3:00 pm); 6-h TRF (ad libitum eating between 1:00 to 7:00 pm, water fasting between 7:00 to 1:00 pm); or control (ad libitum food intake with no timing restrictions). Results Body weight decreased similarly in the 4-h TRF group (–3.3 ± 0.5%) and 6-h TRF group (–2.6 ± 0.5%) relative to controls over 8 weeks (P < 0.001). Fat mass, blood pressure and insulin sensitivity also decreased in the 4-h TRF and 6-h TRF groups versus controls. LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting glucose, and HbA1c were not significantly different from controls after 8 weeks. Conclusions This is the first trial to examine the effects of 4-h vs. 6-h TRF on body weight and metabolic disease risk factors. We show here that 8 weeks of 4-h and 6-h TRF decreases body weight by ∼3–4% relative to controls. We also demonstrate that this fasting regimen produces significant reductions in blood pressure, fat mass, insulin and insulin resistance. These preliminary data offer promise for the use of 4-h and 6-h TRF as a weight loss techniques in adults with obesity, but larger, longer-term trials are needed to confirm these findings. Funding Sources Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition, University of Illinois Chicago

scholarly journals The effect of intermittent energy and carbohydrate restrictionv. daily energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers in overweight women

2013 ◽  
Vol 110 (8) ◽  
pp. 1534-1547 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Harvie ◽  
Claire Wright ◽  
Mary Pegington ◽  
Debbie McMullan ◽  
Ellen Mitchell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Insulin Resistance ◽  
Weight Loss ◽  
Insulin Sensitivity ◽  
Body Fat ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Weight Maintenance ◽  
Energy Restriction ◽  
Overweight Women ◽  
Daily Energy

Intermittent energy restriction may result in greater improvements in insulin sensitivity and weight control than daily energy restriction (DER). We tested two intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction (IECR) regimens, including one which allowedad libitumprotein and fat (IECR+PF). Overweight women (n115) aged 20 and 69 years with a family history of breast cancer were randomised to an overall 25 % energy restriction, either as an IECR (2500–2717 kJ/d, < 40 g carbohydrate/d for 2 d/week) or a 25 % DER (approximately 6000 kJ/d for 7 d/week) or an IECR+PF for a 3-month weight-loss period and 1 month of weight maintenance (IECR or IECR+PF for 1 d/week). Insulin resistance reduced with the IECR diets (mean − 0·34 (95 % CI − 0·66, − 0·02) units) and the IECR+PF diet (mean − 0·38 (95 % CI − 0·75, − 0·01) units). Reductions with the IECR diets were significantly greater compared with the DER diet (mean 0·2 (95 % CI − 0·19, 0·66) μU/unit,P= 0·02). Both IECR groups had greater reductions in body fat compared with the DER group (IECR: mean − 3·7 (95 % CI − 2·5, − 4·9) kg,P= 0·007; IECR+PF: mean − 3·7 (95 % CI − 2·8, − 4·7) kg,P= 0·019; DER: mean − 2·0 (95 % CI − 1·0, 3·0) kg). During the weight maintenance phase, 1 d of IECR or IECR+PF per week maintained the reductions in insulin resistance and weight. In the short term, IECR is superior to DER with respect to improved insulin sensitivity and body fat reduction. Longer-term studies into the safety and effectiveness of IECR diets are warranted.

scholarly journals Impact of Weight Regain on Metabolic Disease Risk: A Review of Human Trials

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia M. Kroeger ◽  
Kristin K. Hoddy ◽  
Krista A. Varady
Keyword(s):  
Metabolic Disease ◽  
Weight Loss ◽  
Weight Regain ◽  
Plasma Lipids ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Weight Maintenance ◽  
Metabolic Disease Risk ◽  
Complete Reversal ◽  
Risk Parameters ◽  
The Impact

Dietary restriction interventions are effective for weight loss and reduction of chronic disease risk. Unfortunately, most people tend to regain much of this lost weight within one year after intervention. While some studies suggest that minor degrees of weight regain have no effect on metabolic disease risk parameters, other studies demonstrate a complete reversal in metabolic benefits. In light of these conflicting findings, it is of interest to determine how complete weight maintenance versus mild weight regain affects key risk parameters. These findings would have important clinical implications, as they could help identify a weight regain threshold that could preserve the metabolic benefits of weight loss. Accordingly, this review examined the impact of no weight regain versus mild regain on various metabolic disease risk parameters, including plasma lipids, blood pressure, glucose, and insulin concentrations, in adult subjects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document