Alternate-day versus daily energy restriction diets: which is more effective for weight loss? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Alhamdan BA, Garcia-Alvarez A, Alzahrnai AH, Karanxha J, Stretchberry DR, Contrera KJ, Utria AF, Cheskin LJ
Obesity science & practice · 70 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (classified by our AI screen)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Government
- Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission
- Government
- Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission (SACM)
Based on 2 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2016-07-15 · Obes Sci Pract · vol. 2 · issue 3 · pp. 293–302
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Cited
- 97 citations · more than 73% of similar papers · 1.0× the field average
- References
- 48 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY-NC-ND
- Research areas
- Dietary Effects on Health · Genetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms · Diet and metabolism studies
- Keywords
- Weight loss, Medicine, Dieting, Very low calorie diet, Meta-analysis, Intermittent fasting, Animal science, Obesity, Internal medicine, Biology
8 authors
From US
- B. A. Alhamdan · correspondingJohns Hopkins University
- Alicia García-ÁlvarezJohns Hopkins University
- A. H. AlzahrnaiJohns Hopkins University
- J. KaranxhaJohns Hopkins University
- D. R. StretchberryJohns Hopkins University
- Kevin J. ContreraJohns Hopkins University; Johns Hopkins Medicine
Abstract
Background
Alternate-day-fasting (ADF) has been proposed as an effective dieting method. Studies have found that it also can increase life span in rodents, and reduce inflammation in humans. The aim of this paper was to systematically review the efficacy of ADF compared to very-low-calorie dieting (VLCD) in terms of weight loss, and reduction of fat mass and fat-free mass.
Methods
Systematic review: PubMed literature searches were performed. Fixed review procedures were applied. Studies were evaluated for quality. Twenty-eight studies were included. Meta-analysis: 10/28 studies (four ADF and six matched VLCD) were further analyzed.
Results
After adjustment for BMI and duration, there was no significant difference in mean body weight loss (VLCD 0.88 kg more weight loss than ADF, 95% CI: -4.32, 2.56) or fat-free mass (VLCD 1.69 kg more fat-free mass loss than ADF, 95% CI: -3.62, 0.23); there was a significant difference observed in fat mass (ADF 3.31 kg more fat mass loss than VLCD, 95% CI: 0.05, 6.56). Meta-analysis showed that, among ADF studies, the pooled change in body weight, fat mass and fat-free mass was 4.30 kg (95% CI: 3.41, 5.20), 4.06 kg (95% CI: 2.99, 5.13) and 0.72 kg (95% CI: -0.07, 1.51), respectively, while among VLCD studies, the pooled change was 6.28 kg (95% CI: 6.08, 6.49), 4.22 kg (95% CI: 3.95, 4.50) and 2.24 kg (95% CI: 1.95, 2.52), respectively.
Conclusions
Our results from both the systematic review and the meta-analysis suggest that ADF is an efficacious dietary method, and may be superior to VLCD for some patients because of ease of compliance, greater fat-mass loss and relative preservation of fat-free mass. Head-to-head randomized clinical trials are needed to further assess relative efficacy of these two approaches.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY-NC-ND).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.