Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Time-Restricted Eating With and Without Caloric Restriction for Weight Loss
Fernandes-Alves D, Teixeira GP, Guimarães KC, Crispim CA
Nutrition reviews · 3 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Government
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
- Government
- CNPq
- Grants
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (#401761/2022-3)
Based on 2 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2025-03-31 · Nutr Rev · vol. 84 · issue 3 · pp. 463–486
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Cited
- 6 citations · more than 76% of similar papers · 1.3× the field average
- References
- 70 works
- Access
- Paywalled
- Research areas
- Dietary Effects on Health · Circadian rhythm and melatonin · Genetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
- Keywords
- Context (archaeology), Medicine, Overweight, Weight loss, Meta-analysis, Body mass index, Obesity, Anthropometry, Randomized controlled trial, Internal medicine, Biology
- MeSH
- humans, obesity, weight loss, caloric restriction, diet, reducing, fasting, body composition, adult, overweight, randomized controlled trials as topic
4 authors
From BR
- Danielle Fernandes-AlvesUniversidade Federal de Uberlândia
- Gabriela Pereira TeixeiraUniversidade Federal de Uberlândia
- Kisian Costa GuimarãesUniversidade Federal de Uberlândia
- Cibele Aparecida Crispim · correspondingUniversidade Federal de Uberlândia
Abstract
Context
Although it is well established that caloric restriction (CR) is the primary driver of weight loss, circadian-driven metabolic benefits have been recognized as possibly enhancing the effects of CR. Time-restricted eating (TRE) has emerged as a promising approach in this context.
Objective
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects of TRE with isocaloric diet controls (analysis 1) and non-isocaloric controls (analysis 2) on anthropometric and body-composition parameters in adults with overweight or obesity.
Data sources
A search was carried out in the Medline, LILACS, Embase, and CENTRAL databases using Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) and similar terms such as "Obesity," "Obesity, Abdominal," "Time-restricted eating," "Body weight," "Changes in body weight," and others.
Data extraction
We included 30 studies involving a total of 1341 participants. Studies were screened based on titles and abstracts followed by full-text reading, and data were extracted from eligible studies using a pre-established form. All these steps were performed by 2 authors independently and blinded, with discrepancies resolved by a third author.
Data analysis
The results of main findings revealed that, in studies using non-isocaloric controls, the TRE group showed significant reductions in body weight (BW) (mean difference [MD]: -2.82 kg; 95% CI: -3.49, -2.15), fat mass (FM) (MD: -1.36 kg; 95% CI: -2.09, -0.63), and fat-free mass (FFM) (MD: -0.86 kg; 95% CI: -1.23, -0.49). In studies that used isocaloric control strategies, the TRE group showed significant reductions in BW (MD: -1.46 kg; 95% CI: -2.65, -0.26), FM (MD: -1.50 kg; 95% CI: -2.77, -0.24), and FFM (MD: -0.41 kg; 95% CI: -0.79, -0. 03).
Conclusion
TRE yields favorable anthropometric and clinical outcomes, even when intake is isocaloric between the intervention and control groups. This result suggests that circadian effects may enhance the impact of CR on excess weight.
Systematic review registration
PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022301594.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
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.