Categories
Change Password!
Reset Password!
Compared to daily calorie restriction, time-restricted eating regimen was less advantageous in terms of body fat, body weight, or metabolic risk factors reduction.
For weight loss, a time-restricted eating regimen may not be beneficial when compared to daily calorie restriction, as elucidated from a study published in "The New England Journal of Medicine". In this study, long-term safety and efficacy of time-restricted eating (eating only between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.) for losing weight were evaluated by Deying Liu et al.
Time-restricted eating + daily calorie restriction or calorie restriction alone was randomly allocated to 139 obese individuals. All of the participants were requested to adhere to a calorie-restricted diet for 12 months, which included 1200-1500 kcal for women and 1500-1800 kcal per day for males.
The major endpoint was the difference in body weight changes between the two groups from baseline; secondary endpoints were variations in metabolic risk factor measures, body fat amount, body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference.
Notably, 118 (84.9%) of the 139 individuals who were randomly assigned to the study finished the 12-month follow-up visit. The mean weight reduction from baseline at 12 months in the time-restriction group and in the daily-calorie-restriction group, is depicted in Table 1:
At the 12-month evaluation, there was no discernible inter-group difference in weight changes (net difference, -1.8 kg). The findings of assessments of blood pressure, body lean mass, body fat, BMI, waist circumferences, and metabolic risk variables were in line with those of the primary outcome. The number of side effects did not substantially differ across groups either. When it came to lowering metabolic risk factors, body fat, or body weight in obese individuals, a time-restricted eating plan was not more useful than daily calorie restriction.
The New England Journal of Medicine
Calorie Restriction with or without Time-Restricted Eating in Weight Loss
Deying Liu et al.
Comments (0)