ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
General Health & Fitness
Nutrition and Supplements
IF vs Standard Diet
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Will Brink" data-source="post: 103758" data-attributes="member: 2074"><p>Intermittent fasting (IF) is all the rage, but is it any more effective for weight loss than typical dieting? Many studies that looked at the Q were too short and or too small. This one ran a year and was 100+ people enrolled. What did it find? IF (5:2) no better than standard dieting on various measures. No surprise to me. What it does indicate however is that there's room for individual approaches to weight loss, and if people prefer IF, then do that, but don't buy into the claims it has magical metabolic effects, at least on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors:</p><p></p><p>Via J.Nutrition, Metabolism & Cardiovascular Diseases:</p><p></p><p>Highlights</p><p></p><p> •Intermittent energy restriction resulted in weight loss and maintenance in free-living men and women with abdominal obesity after one year similar to that achieved with continuous energy restriction.</p><p></p><p> •Both diets improved cardiovascular risk factors.</p><p></p><p> •Feeling of hunger may limit long-term adherence to intermittent energy restriction.</p><p></p><p>Abstract</p><p></p><p>Background & aims</p><p></p><p>Long-term adherence to conventional weight-loss diets is limited while intermittent fasting has risen in popularity. We compared the effects of intermittent versus continuous energy restriction on weight loss, maintenance and cardiometabolic risk factors in adults with abdominal obesity and ≥1 additional component of metabolic syndrome.</p><p></p><p>Methods & results</p><p></p><p>In total 112 participants (men [50%] and women [50%]) aged 21-70 years with BMI 30-45 kg/m2 (mean 35.2 [SD 3.7]) were randomized to intermittent or continuous energy restriction. A 6-month weight-loss phase including 10 visits with dieticians was followed by a 6-month maintenance phase without additional face-to-face counselling. The intermittent energy restriction group was advised to consume 400/600 kcal (female/male) on two non-consecutive days. Based on dietary records both groups reduced energy intake by ∼26-28%. Weight loss was similar among participants in the intermittent and continuous energy restriction groups (8.0 kg [SD 6.5] versus 9.0 kg [SD 7.1]; p=0.6). There were favorable improvements in waist circumference, blood pressure, triglycerides and HDL-cholesterol with no difference between groups. Weight regain was minimal and similar between the intermittent and continuous energy restriction groups (1.1 kg [SD 3.8] versus 0.4 kg [SD 4.0]; p=0.6). <strong>Intermittent restriction participants reported higher hunger scores than continuous restriction participants on a subjective numeric rating scale</strong> (4.7 [SD 2.2] vs 3.6 [SD 2.2]; p=0.002).</p><p></p><p>Conclusions</p><p></p><p>Both intermittent and continuous energy restriction resulted in similar weight loss, maintenance and improvements in cardiovascular risk factors after one year. However, feelings of hunger may be more pronounced during intermittent energy restriction.</p><p></p><p>Source:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.nmcd-journal.com/article/S0939-4753(18)30100-5/fulltext" target="_blank">http://www.nmcd-journal.com/article/S0939-4753(18)30100-5/fulltext</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Will Brink, post: 103758, member: 2074"] Intermittent fasting (IF) is all the rage, but is it any more effective for weight loss than typical dieting? Many studies that looked at the Q were too short and or too small. This one ran a year and was 100+ people enrolled. What did it find? IF (5:2) no better than standard dieting on various measures. No surprise to me. What it does indicate however is that there's room for individual approaches to weight loss, and if people prefer IF, then do that, but don't buy into the claims it has magical metabolic effects, at least on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors: Via J.Nutrition, Metabolism & Cardiovascular Diseases: Highlights •Intermittent energy restriction resulted in weight loss and maintenance in free-living men and women with abdominal obesity after one year similar to that achieved with continuous energy restriction. •Both diets improved cardiovascular risk factors. •Feeling of hunger may limit long-term adherence to intermittent energy restriction. Abstract Background & aims Long-term adherence to conventional weight-loss diets is limited while intermittent fasting has risen in popularity. We compared the effects of intermittent versus continuous energy restriction on weight loss, maintenance and cardiometabolic risk factors in adults with abdominal obesity and ≥1 additional component of metabolic syndrome. Methods & results In total 112 participants (men [50%] and women [50%]) aged 21-70 years with BMI 30-45 kg/m2 (mean 35.2 [SD 3.7]) were randomized to intermittent or continuous energy restriction. A 6-month weight-loss phase including 10 visits with dieticians was followed by a 6-month maintenance phase without additional face-to-face counselling. The intermittent energy restriction group was advised to consume 400/600 kcal (female/male) on two non-consecutive days. Based on dietary records both groups reduced energy intake by ∼26-28%. Weight loss was similar among participants in the intermittent and continuous energy restriction groups (8.0 kg [SD 6.5] versus 9.0 kg [SD 7.1]; p=0.6). There were favorable improvements in waist circumference, blood pressure, triglycerides and HDL-cholesterol with no difference between groups. Weight regain was minimal and similar between the intermittent and continuous energy restriction groups (1.1 kg [SD 3.8] versus 0.4 kg [SD 4.0]; p=0.6). [B]Intermittent restriction participants reported higher hunger scores than continuous restriction participants on a subjective numeric rating scale[/B] (4.7 [SD 2.2] vs 3.6 [SD 2.2]; p=0.002). Conclusions Both intermittent and continuous energy restriction resulted in similar weight loss, maintenance and improvements in cardiovascular risk factors after one year. However, feelings of hunger may be more pronounced during intermittent energy restriction. Source: [url]http://www.nmcd-journal.com/article/S0939-4753(18)30100-5/fulltext[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
General Health & Fitness
Nutrition and Supplements
IF vs Standard Diet
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top