Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background This systematic review and meta-analysis summarized the most recent evidence on the efficacy of intermittent energy restriction (IER) versus continuous energy restriction on weight-loss, body composition, blood pressure and other cardiometabolic risk factors. Methods Randomized controlled trials were systematically searched from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, TRIP databases, EMBASE and CINAHL until May 2018. Effect sizes were expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Eleven trials were included (duration range 8–24 weeks). All selected intermittent regimens provided ≤ 25% of daily energy needs on “fast” days but differed for type of regimen (5:2 or other regimens) and/or dietary instructions given on the “feed” days (ad libitum energy versus balanced energy consumption). The intermittent approach determined a comparable weight-loss (WMD: − 0.61 kg; 95% CI − 1.70 to 0.47; p = 0.87) or percent weight loss (WMD: − 0.38%, − 1.16 to 0.40; p = 0.34) when compared to the continuous approach. A slight reduction in fasting insulin concentrations was evident with IER regimens (WMD = − 0.89 µU/mL; − 1.56 to − 0.22; p = 0.009), but the clinical relevance of this result is uncertain. No between-arms differences in the other variables were found. Conclusions Both intermittent and continuous energy restriction achieved a comparable effect in promoting weight-loss and metabolic improvements. Long-term trials are needed to draw definitive conclusions.

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 allowed ad libitum protein and fat (IECR+PF). Overweight women (n 115) 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.

Obesity in the United States and Western countries represents a major health challenge associated with an increased risk of metabolic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, and certain cancers. Our past work revealed a more pronounced obesity–cancer link in certain ethnic groups, motivating us to develop a tailored dietary intervention called the Healthy Diet and Lifestyle 2 (HDLS2). The study protocol is described herein for this randomized six-month trial examining the effects of intermittent energy restriction (5:2 Diet) plus the Mediterranean dietary pattern (IER + MED) on visceral adipose tissue (VAT), liver fat, and metabolic biomarkers, compared to a standard MED with daily energy restriction (DER + MED), in a diverse participant group. Using MRI and DXA scans for body composition analysis, as well as metabolic profiling, this research aims to contribute to nutritional guidelines and strategies for visceral obesity reduction. The potential benefits of IER + MED, particularly regarding VAT reduction and metabolic health improvement, could be pivotal in mitigating the obesity epidemic and its metabolic sequelae. The ongoing study will provide essential insights into the efficacy of these energy restriction approaches across varied racial/ethnic backgrounds, addressing an urgent need in nutrition and metabolic health research. Registered Trial, National Institutes of Health, ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05132686).

Objective: To compare the effects of continuous energy restriction (CER) and intermittent energy restriction (IER) in bodyweight loss plan in sedentary individuals with normal bodyweight and explore the influence factors of effect and individual retention. Methods: 26 participants were recruited in this randomized controlled and double-blinded trial and allocated to CER and IER groups. Bodyweight (BW), body mass index (BMI), and resting metabolic rate (RMR) would be collected before and after a 4-week (28 days) plan which included energy restriction (CER or IER) and moderate-intensity exercise. Daily intake of three major nutrients (protein, carbohydrate, fat) and calories were recorded. Results: A significant decrease in BW and BMI were reported within each group. No statistically significant difference in the change of RMR in CERG. No statistically significant difference was reported in the effect between groups, neither as well the intake of total calories, three major nutrients, and individual plan retention. The influence factors of IER and CER are different. Conclusion: Both CER and IER are effective and safe energy restriction strategies in the short term. Daily energy intake and physical exercise are important to both IER and CER.

There is considerable heterogeneity across the evidence regarding the effects of intermittent energy restriction and continuous energy restriction among adults with overweight or obesity which presents difficulties for healthcare decision-makers and individuals. This overview of systematic reviews aimed to evaluate and synthesize the existing evidence regarding the comparison of the two interventions. We conducted a search strategy in eight databases from the databases’ inception to December 2021. The quality of 12 systematic reviews was assessed with A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). One review was rated as high quality, 1 as moderate, 4 as low, and 6 as critically low. A meta-analysis of the original studies was conducted for comparison of primary intermittent energy restriction protocols with continuous energy restriction. Intermittent energy restriction did not seem to be more effective in weight loss compared with continuous energy restriction. The advantages of intermittent energy restriction in reducing BMI and waist circumference and improvement of body composition were not determined due to insufficient evidence. The evidence quality of systematic reviews and original trials remains to be improved in future studies.

Energy restriction (ER) has anti-ageing effects and probably protects from a range of chronic diseases including cancer, diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Specifically, ER has a positive impact on experimental kidney ageing, CKD (diabetic nephropathy, polycystic kidney disease) and acute kidney injury (nephrotoxic, ischaemia–reperfusion injury) through such mechanisms as increased autophagy, mitochondrial biogenesis and DNA repair, and decreased inflammation and oxidative stress. Key molecules contributing to ER-mediated kidney protection include adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase, sirtuin-1 and PPAR-γ coactivator 1α. However, CKD is a complex condition, and ER may potentially worsen CKD complications such as protein–energy wasting, bone–mineral disorders and impaired wound healing. ER mimetics are drugs, such as metformin and Na–glucose co-transporter-2 which mimic the action of ER. This review aims to provide comprehensive data regarding the effect of ER on CKD progression and outcomes.

Energy restriction (ER; also known as caloric restriction) is the only nutritional intervention that has repeatedly been shown to increase lifespan in model organisms and may delay ageing in humans. In the present review we discuss current scientific literature on ER and its molecular, metabolic and hormonal effects. Moreover, criteria for the classification of substances that might induce positive ER-like changes without having to reduce energy intake are summarised. Additionally, the putative ER mimetics (ERM) 2-deoxy-d-glucose, metformin, rapamycin, resveratrol, spermidine and lipoic acid and their suggested molecular targets are discussed. While there are reports on these ERM candidates that describe lifespan extension in model organisms, data on longevity-inducing effects in higher organisms such as mice remain controversial or are missing. Furthermore, some of these candidates produce detrimental side effects such as immunosuppression or lactic acidosis, or have not been tested for safety in long-term studies. Up to now, there are no known ERM that could be recommended without limitations for use in humans.

This pilot randomised controlled study evaluated the effects of a nutrient-supported intermittent energy restriction nutrition programme to prevent weight gain in healthy overweight adults during the 6-week winter holiday period between Thanksgiving and New Year. For 52 d, twenty-two overweight adults (mean age 41·0 years, BMI 27·3 kg/m 2 ) were assigned to either the nutrition programme ( n 10; two fasting days of 730 kcal/d (3050 kJ/d) of balanced shake and dietary supplements to support weight management efforts, followed by 5 d of habitual diet) or a control group ( n 12; habitual diet). A significant weight loss from baseline (pre-holiday 10 d before Thanksgiving) to day 52 (post-holiday 3 January) was observed in the nutrition programme (75·0 ( sd 9·8) v. 76·3 ( sd 9·8) kg; P < 0·05). Body weight did not significantly change in the control group and there was no between-group difference. Increases from baseline in fasting insulin (42·9 %; P = 0·0256), updated homoeostasis model assessment (HOMA2) (43 %; P = 0·025), LDL-cholesterol (8·4 %; P = 0·0426) and total cholesterol (7·1 %; P = 0·0154) levels were also reported in the control group. In the nutrition programme group, baseline HDL-cholesterol and TAG levels measured after two fasting days increased (13 %; P = 0·0245) and decreased (22·8 %; P = 0·0416), respectively. There was no significant change in HOMA2. Between-group differences in changes in insulin levels ( P = 0·0227), total cholesterol:HDL-cholesterol ratio ( P = 0·0419) and HOMA2 ( P = 0·0210) were significant. Overall compliance rate was 98 % and no severe adverse events were reported. These preliminary findings suggest that this intermittent energy restriction intervention might support weight management efforts and help promote metabolic health during the winter holiday season.

Dietary interventions have a significant impact on body metabolism. The sensitivity of cancer cells to nutrient and energy deficiency is an evolving characteristic of cancer biology. Preclinical studies provided robust evidence that energy and caloric restrictions could hinder both cancer growth and progression, besides enhancing the efficacy of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Moreover, several, albeit low-powered, clinical trials have demonstrated clinical benefits in cancer patients. Future research will inform and firmly establish the potential efficacy and safety of these dietary interventions. Here, we review the current evidence and ongoing research investigating the relationship between various dietary restriction approaches and cancer outcomes.

The proliferation in the rate of diagnosis of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus continues unabated, with current recommendations for primary lifestyle changes (i.e. modification to dietary patterns) having a limited impact in reducing the incidence of these metabolic diseases. Part of the reason for the failure to alter nutritional practices is that current dietary recommendations may be unrealistic for the majority of adults. Indeed, round-the-clock access to energy-dense, nutrient-poor food makes long-term changes to dietary habits challenging. Hence, there is urgent need for innovations in the delivery of evidence-based diet interventions to rescue some of the deleterious effects on circadian biology induced by our modern-day lifestyle. With the growing appreciation that the duration over which food is consumed during a day has profound effects on numerous physiological and metabolic processes, we discuss dietary protocols that modify the timing of food intake to deliberately alter the feeding–fasting cycle. Such chrono-nutrition functions to optimise metabolism by timing nutrient intake to the acrophases of metabolic rhythms to improve whole-body insulin sensitivity and glycaemic control, and thereby positively impact metabolic health.