Evidence Hub

A randomized controlled trial to isolate the effects of fasting and energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic health in lean adults

Iain Templeman, Harry A. Smith, Enhad A. Chowdhury, Yung-Chih Chen, H. Carroll, Drusus A. Johnson-Bonson, Aaron Hengist, R. Smith et al.

Science Translational Medicine, 2021

12 participants · 105 citations

Abstract

Daily energy restriction more effectively reduces body fat content than alternate-day fasting, with no evidence of fasting-specific health benefits. Not so fast Intermittent fasting is increasingly popular, but whether fasting itself offers specific nutritional benefits in lean individuals compared to traditional daily calorie restriction is unknown. In a small clinical trial of healthy individuals, Templeman et al. found that alternate-day fasting without energy restriction was ineffective at reducing body mass. Even with net energy intake restricted to that of daily dieters, alternate-day fasting less effectively reduced body fat content and offered no additional short-term improvements in metabolic or cardiovascular health compared to daily energy restriction. Intermittent fasting may impart metabolic benefits independent of energy balance by initiating fasting-mediated mechanisms. This randomized controlled trial examined 24-hour fasting with 150% energy intake on alternate days for 3 weeks in lean, healthy individuals (0:150; n = 12). Control groups involved a matched degree of energy restriction applied continuously without fasting (75% energy intake daily; 75:75; n = 12) or a matched pattern of fasting without net energy restriction (200% energy intake on alternate days; 0:200; n = 12). Primary outcomes were body composition, components of energy balance, and postprandial metabolism. Daily energy restriction (75:75) reduced body mass (−1.91 ± 0.99 kilograms) almost…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 12 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free