The effect of intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction v. daily energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers in overweight women

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

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.

Related collections

Most cited references 42

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors.

Jonathan Tyrer, Stephen W Duffy, Jack Cuzick (2004)

Many factors determine a woman's risk of breast cancer. Some of them are genetic and relate to family history, others are based on personal factors such as reproductive history and medical history. While many papers have concentrated on subsets of these risk factors, no papers have incorporated personal risk factors with a detailed genetic analysis. There is a need to combine these factors to provide a better overall determinant of risk. The discovery of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes has explained some of the genetic determinants of breast cancer risk, but these genes alone do not explain all of the familial aggregation of breast cancer. We have developed a model incorporating the BRCA genes, a low penetrance gene and personal risk factors. For an individual woman her family history is used in conjuction with Bayes theorem to iteratively produce the likelihood of her carrying any genes predisposing to breast cancer, which in turn affects her likelihood of developing breast cancer. This risk was further refined based on the woman's personal history. The model has been incorporated into a computer program that gives a personalised risk estimate. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0 comments Cited 362 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The effects of intermittent or continuous energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers: a randomized trial in young overweight women.

M N Harvie, M Pegington, M P Mattson … (2011)

The problems of adherence to energy restriction in humans are well known. To compare the feasibility and effectiveness of intermittent continuous energy (IER) with continuous energy restriction (CER) for weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other metabolic disease risk markers. Randomized comparison of a 25% energy restriction as IER (∼ 2710 kJ/day for 2 days/week) or CER (∼ 6276 kJ/day for 7 days/week) in 107 overweight or obese (mean (± s.d.) body mass index 30.6 (± 5.1) kg m(-2)) premenopausal women observed over a period of 6 months. Weight, anthropometry, biomarkers for breast cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dementia risk; insulin resistance (HOMA), oxidative stress markers, leptin, adiponectin, insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1 and IGF binding proteins 1 and 2, androgens, prolactin, inflammatory markers (high sensitivity C-reactive protein and sialic acid), lipids, blood pressure and brain-derived neurotrophic factor were assessed at baseline and after 1, 3 and 6 months. Last observation carried forward analysis showed that IER and CER are equally effective for weight loss: mean (95% confidence interval ) weight change for IER was -6.4 (-7.9 to -4.8) kg vs -5.6 (-6.9 to -4.4) kg for CER (P-value for difference between groups = 0.4). Both groups experienced comparable reductions in leptin, free androgen index, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, total and LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure and increases in sex hormone binding globulin, IGF binding proteins 1 and 2. Reductions in fasting insulin and insulin resistance were modest in both groups, but greater with IER than with CER; difference between groups for fasting insulin was -1.2 (-1.4 to -1.0) μU ml(-1) and for insulin resistance was -1.2 (-1.5 to -1.0) μU mmol(-1) l(-1) (both P = 0.04). IER is as effective as CER with regard to weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other health biomarkers, and may be offered as an alternative equivalent to CER for weight loss and reducing disease risk.

0 comments Cited 307 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Effects of energy-restricted high-protein, low-fat compared with standard-protein, low-fat diets: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Thomas P Wycherley, Lisa J. Moran, Peter M. Clifton … (2012)

It is currently unclear whether altering the carbohydrate-to-protein ratio of low-fat, energy-restricted diets augments weight loss and cardiometabolic risk markers. The objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared energy-restricted, isocaloric, high-protein, low-fat (HP) diets with standard-protein, low-fat (SP) diets on weight loss, body composition, resting energy expenditure (REE), satiety and appetite, and cardiometabolic risk factors. Systematic searches were conducted by using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify weight-loss trials that compared isocalorically prescribed diets matched for fat intake but that differed in protein and carbohydrate intakes in participants aged ≥18 y. Twenty-four trials that included 1063 individuals satisfied the inclusion criteria. Mean (±SD) diet duration was 12.1 ± 9.3 wk. Compared with an SP diet, an HP diet produced more favorable changes in weighted mean differences for reductions in body weight (-0.79 kg; 95% CI: -1.50, -0.08 kg), fat mass (FM; -0.87 kg; 95% CI: -1.26, -0.48 kg), and triglycerides (-0.23 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.33, -0.12 mmol/L) and mitigation of reductions in fat-free mass (FFM; 0.43 kg; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.78 kg) and REE (595.5 kJ/d; 95% CI: 67.0, 1124.1 kJ/d). Changes in fasting plasma glucose, fasting insulin, blood pressure, and total, LDL, and HDL cholesterol were similar across dietary treatments (P ≥ 0.20). Greater satiety with HP was reported in 3 of 5 studies. Compared with an energy-restricted SP diet, an isocalorically prescribed HP diet provides modest benefits for reductions in body weight, FM, and triglycerides and for mitigating reductions in FFM and REE.