Next Article in Journal
Breakfast Consumption May Improve Fasting Insulin, HOMA-IR, and HbA1c Levels in Predominately Low-Income, Hispanic Children 7–12 Years of Age
Previous Article in Journal
Perioperative Administration of Cystine and Theanine Suppresses Inflammation and Facilitates Early Rehabilitation and Recovery after Esophagectomy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Clinical Trial
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 14
Issue 11
10.3390/nu14112315
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Comparison of the Effects of Intermittent Energy Restriction and Continuous Energy Restriction among Adults with Overweight or Obesity: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

by
Jun Wang
†,
Fang Wang
†,
Hongxiu Chen
,
Li Liu
,
Shuai Zhang
,
Wenjing Luo
,
Guan Wang
* and
Xiuying Hu
*
West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University/Innovation Center of Nursing Research, Nursing Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No.37 Guoxue Lane, Wuhou District, Chengdu 610041, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Nutrients 2022, 14(11), 2315; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14112315
Submission received: 15 March 2022 / Revised: 28 May 2022 / Accepted: 29 May 2022 / Published: 31 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Nutrition and Obesity)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
There is considerable heterogeneity across the evidence regarding the effects of intermittent energy restriction and continuous energy restriction among adults with overweight or obesity which presents difficulties for healthcare decision-makers and individuals. This overview of systematic reviews aimed to evaluate and synthesize the existing evidence regarding the comparison of the two interventions. We conducted a search strategy in eight databases from the databases’ inception to December 2021. The quality of 12 systematic reviews was assessed with A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). One review was rated as high quality, 1 as moderate, 4 as low, and 6 as critically low. A meta-analysis of the original studies was conducted for comparison of primary intermittent energy restriction protocols with continuous energy restriction. Intermittent energy restriction did not seem to be more effective in weight loss compared with continuous energy restriction. The advantages of intermittent energy restriction in reducing BMI and waist circumference and improvement of body composition were not determined due to insufficient evidence. The evidence quality of systematic reviews and original trials remains to be improved in future studies.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

According to the definition of obesity given by the World Health Organization (WHO), body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 is obesity, and 25 < BMI < 30 kg/m2 is overweight in adults [1]. Studies from different countries show that the number of adults with overweight or obese has been rising rapidly [2,3,4,5]. It is estimated that 38% and 20% of adults will be overweight and obese by 2030, respectively [6]. Overweight and obesity result in a great burden for both individuals and society: To be specific, it contributes to the increased risk of many diseases including cardiovascular disease (CVD), hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and even certain cancers, which impose huge social, medical, and economic burdens [7,8,9,10]. The Global Burden of Disease study reported 4.7 million people died prematurely in 2017 due to obesity [11]. Hence, efforts to provide more effective and economical strategies for weight loss in individuals with overweight or obesity are required to reduce the burden of obesity-related diseases.
Calorie restriction (CR) is a primary popular non-pharmaceutical intervention for weight loss in individuals with overweight or obesity [12,13,14,15], which includes two main forms: intermittent energy restriction (IER) and continuous energy restriction (CER). IER is characterized by periods of marked energy restriction combined with a normal energy intake [16]. The primary popular IER protocols would be 5:2 diet, alternate-day fasting (ADF), and time-restricted feeding (TRF) [17]. CER is a diet strategy of reducing 15–40% of the baseline calorie needs for a continuous period for weight loss [18]. Since the appearance of IER after CER, there has been increasing controversy about the effects of IER and CER among adults with overweight or obesity on weight loss, waist circumference, and body composition [19,20,21].
In recent years, many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have focused on whether IER could replace CER on the benefits and advantages of reducing body weight, waist circumference, and improvement of body composition. Although CR has been identified as an effective life intervention [22], there is a lack of relevant evidence addressing the issue: which type of CR intervention has more advantages in weight loss, reducing waist circumference, and improvement of body composition? There is abundant evidence targeting the comparison of the effects of IER and CER on those indicators; however, the quality of evidence is discrepant and the conclusions remain inconsistent and unclear [19,23,24,25,26].
The evidence is not sufficient to draw conclusions and a more comprehensive evaluation is necessary, and as such, we implemented an overview of systematic reviews to integrate and sort out the consistent and different parts for improving the integrity and accuracy of the evidence. It will provide evidence on choosing more suitable and beneficial diet strategies for adults with overweight or obesity and offer evidence to support the actions of reducing the burden of obesity and its related diseases.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Protocol and Registration

This overview of systematic reviews was conducted with the Statement of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) [27] (Supplementary Materials S1) and was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the number CRD42021272442.

2.2. Deviations from the Registered Protocol

There are some deviations from the registered protocol that needs to mention. First, we decided not to report cardiovascular diseases related indicators since the unclear statements in evidence with low quality and heterogeneity of the studies. Second, we added time-restricted feeding (TRF) as a primary protocol of IER, and periodic fasting was deleted because its main forms were the 5:2 diet and alternate-day fasting (ADF). Third, the restriction of intervention duration was canceled for more comprehensive evidence. Fourth, we decided to conduct an additional meta-analysis rather than narrative text to provide more convincing evidence.

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

2.3.1. Type of Included Reviews

We included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials that compared IER and CER in adults with overweight or obesity. The non-systematic narrative reviews, individual studies, case reports, case series, editorials, and clinical guide publications were out of consideration. All included reviews in this work met the following items:
  • A systematic search strategy was used to guide literature retrieval;
  • The criteria for included studies were explicit;
  • More than two databases were searched;
  • The outcomes of data extraction and quality assessment of included studies were finished and presented.

2.3.2. Type of Intervention

The 5:2 diet, ADF, and TRF were included in our study as primary IER protocols. Definitions are as follows:
  • 5:2 diet [28]: It consists of 2 days (consecutive or non-consecutive) of complete fasting or lower calorie intake than needed plus ad libitum eating on the other days per week;
  • Alternate-day fasting, ADF [17]: It involves alternating ad libitum feeding days with fasting days. On fasting days, one is allowed to have a lower calorie intake than needed or complete fasting;
  • Time-restricted feeding, TRF [17]: It involves following the same eating routine each day, with a certain number of hours designated as the fasting window and the remaining hours as the feeding window.
The comparison is with CER [18] or daily calorie restriction, which reduces 15–60% of the baseline calorie needs each day.

2.3.3. Participants

We included adults with overweight or obesity (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, age ≥ 18 years old). The following targeting populations were excluded: participants with neuropsychiatric disease; participants undergoing or previously received bariatric surgery; participants who are pregnant or breastfeeding; and participants taking medication associated with weight loss or weight gain.

2.3.4. Outcomes

The outcomes of this study are as follows:
  • Bodyweight (kg);
  • Body mass index (kg/m2);
  • Waist circumference (cm);
  • Fat mass (kg);
  • Fat-free mass (kg).

2.4. Search Methods

Eight electronic databases were searched from databases inception to December 2021: The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Clinical Trials, PubMed, Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, PROSPERO, and Web of Science. The search strategy was presented in Supplementary Materials S2. The search phrases consist of medical subject heading (MeSH) terms and free-text words related to “intermittent energy restriction”, “5:2 diet”, “alternate day fasting”, “time-restricted feeding”, “continuous energy restriction”, “overweight”, “obesity”, “systematic review”, and “meta-analysis”.

2.5. Selection and Data Extraction

After deleting duplicates, two authors independently screened the remaining records according to the title and abstract and then selected the potentially qualified systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Then the two authors evaluated the potentially qualified literature in full text independently for including qualified records in this work. The following data in reviews were extracted: author, published year, the number of included studies, population type, sample size, age, BMI, intervention, comparison, and outcomes. p-values were also extracted, and the differences were considered statistically significant when p < 0.05. We found there were many duplications of individual studies included in systematic reviews and high heterogeneity existed in intervention and comparison protocols during the assessment of included reviews. We also extracted the author, published year, population type, sample size, mean difference, standard deviation, IER protocol, and CER protocol from trials of included reviews according to the inclusion criteria as prescribed in the method section to further conduct a new meta-analysis or subgroup analysis. Original studies were included in our meta-analysis, and we compared the results of our meta-analysis with those of the included systematic reviews.

2.6. Quality Assessment

Two authors assessed the quality of each review and RCT independently. As for included reviews, the evidence quality of included reviews was assessed by referring to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system [29]. By using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2), the methodological quality of included reviews was assessed [30]. AMSTAR 2 is composed of 16 items scored as “yes”, “no”, “partial yes”, and “no meta-analysis”. The overall quality is categorized as “high”, “moderate”, “low”, and “critically low” [30]. Reviews rated as low or critically low were not excluded to screen RCTs that met the inclusion criteria. Regarding included RCTs, the bias assessment was completed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB2), which rates five domains as being high, low, or some concerns of bias [31]. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion or the involvement of the third author.

3. Results

3.1. Results of the Search

The selection process is shown in Figure 1. A total of 5806 references were identified through database searching, and 2257 duplicate references were removed after screening. Based on the titles and abstracts, 3515 references were excluded. The remaining 34 references were then reviewed, and 22 references did not meet the inclusion criteria for different reasons. Finally, the remaining 12 reviews were included in the study, one of which was a Cochrane Database of Systematic Review (CDSR). We excluded 82 papers that were duplicated and 44 papers that did not meet the inclusion criteria from 137 trials of included reviews (Supplementary Materials S3). A total of 11 RCTs were included in our study.

3.2. Characteristics of Included Reviews and RCTs

The main characteristics of the included reviews and RCTs are presented in Table 1; Table 2, respectively. As shown in Table 1, only one of the twelve systematic reviews was a Cochrane review [32], and the remaining were non-Cochrane systematic reviews [19,24,25,26,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. Most participants in the included reviews were adults with overweight or obese and were over 18 years of age. The target populations of ten reviews included adults with T2DM [19,25,26,32,34,35,36,37,38,39], of which only one review included adults with T2DM [36]. All analyzed articles of the included reviews were RCTs ranging from five to forty in number. The duration of interventions ranged from four to ninety-six weeks. The non-primary IER protocols prescribed in all included reviews differed from the duration of fasting days to the intensity of calorie restriction. Regular diet or no control were also considered as the comparison in the studies of eleven [19,24,25,26,32,33,34,35,36,38,39] and four [19,25,34,37] included reviews, respectively. One review included studies that considered the Mediterranean diet as a comparison [36], and one included VLED [34].
As shown in Table 2, no trials that performed TRF intervention met the inclusion criteria. Three RCTs used ADF [40,41,42] as IER intervention, while the others considered the 5:2 diet [20,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. The target population of two RCTs was T2DM [43,44] and six were adults with no diabetes [20,40,41,42,48,49]. One RCT only included males [45] and two RCTs only considered females as the target population [46,47]. The duration of intervention of included RCTs that ranged from four to ninety-six weeks.

3.3. Outcomes for Reported Data of Included Reviews and Included RCTs

Five reported outcomes were scattered in included reviews and RCTs (Figure 2). Change in body weight was reported most frequently in included reviews, followed by waist circumference, FM, and FFM. The reported numbers of BMI between included reviews and RCTs showed an apparent difference.

3.4. Summary of Findings from the Meta-Analyses of the Included Reviews and Results of Our Meta-Analysis

As presented in Supplementary Materials S4, we assembled the meta-analyses data of preset outcomes from included reviews including weight loss, BMI, waist circumference, and body composition. Four separate tables were developed with the type of intervention and comparison, anticipated absolute effects (95% CI), p-value, and evidence quality of each outcome. Most designs of IER protocols described in RCTs of included reviews were much different from the inclusion criteria. The comparison types in most RCTs of included reviews were various including CER, regular diet, VLED, and no control. Moreover, the most of evidence quality was low or very low among outcomes of included reviews after the assessment. The limited evidence quality and heterogeneity among intervention or comparison protocols might increase bias in the conclusion. Therefore, an additional meta-analysis was developed based on the original studies from included reviews. MD (mean difference) indicates the mean difference in change between the post-intervention and baseline of the IER vs. that of the CER arms and a random-effect meta-analysis was performed. Furthermore, we conducted subgroup analysis by different IER forms (Figures S1, S4 and S5) and sensitivity analysis (Figures S2 and S3) as required. Table 3 summarizes the p-values of the nine quantitative reviews with meta-analyses included in the overview (the remaining three included qualitative reviews without meta-analysis were not presented in the table) and the meta-analysis we performed additionally. Among which, three quantitative reviews analyzed IER vs. CER separately from IER vs. regular diet while the remaining six did not. Moreover, the inconsistent results were explained in the discussion.

3.4.1. The Effect of IER vs. CER on Body Weight

In Figure 3 and Table 3, the MD in bodyweight reduction was not statistically significant in the comparison of IER and CER (MD −0.33, 95% CI −1.17 to 0.51; I2 = 46%) which was consistence with seven quantitative reviews [19,24,26,32,33,34,38] and three qualitative reviews [25,36,37]. However, two reviews [35,39] reported that IER could result in a greater reduction in body weight.
In the subgroup analysis, neither 5:2 diet (MD 0.19, 95% CI −0.67 to 1.05; I2 = 0%) or ADF (MD −1.22, 95% CI −3.37 to 0.93; I2 = 89%) had more effective on bodyweight that was no difference between the primary analysis (Figure S1). In the sensitivity analysis, the exclusion of Parvaresh 2019 [42] reduced the I2 from 46% to 0% (Figure S2).

3.4.2. The Effect of IER vs. CER on BMI

In Figure 4, six trials of 500 participants comparing IER to CER showed that IER had no greater effective on BMI (MD −0.35, 95% CI −0.81 to 0.12; I2 = 54%). Inconsistent with the results of Allaf et al. [32], it reported a statistically significant effect of IER on BMI with duration ≤ 12 weeks (MD −0.43, 95% CI −0.76 to −0.10, p = 0.01), whereas the impact of IER disappeared when duration >12 weeks (MD −0.15, 95% CI −0.58 to 0.29, p = 0.51) (Table 3).
In our meta-analysis, the MD became significant after the exclusion of Sundfør 2018 [49] and the I2 changed from 54% to 5% (MD −0.57, 95% CI −0.97 to −0.18, I2 = 5%, p = 0.004) in the sensitivity analysis (Figure S3).

3.4.3. The Effect of IER vs. CER on Waist Circumference

In Figure 5 of our meta-analysis, trials comparing IER with CER showed no statistically significant effect regarding waist circumference (MD −0.71, 95% CI −2.49 to 1.06; I2 = 66%) in consistence with six quantitative reviews [19,24,26,32,35,39] and two qualitative reviews [25,36]. However, IER showed a greater reduction in waist circumference compared with CER in the results of Harris and Hamilton et al. [33] (MD −2.14, 95% CI −3.53 to −0.75, p = 0.002) (Table 3).
We found the heterogeneity in the subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis could not be formally assessed in the insufficient studies with different variables among study designs.

3.4.4. The Effects of IER vs. CER on Body Composition

In Figure 6 and Table 3, four quantitative reviews [19,24,26,39] and three qualitative reviews [25,36,37] showed that IER was not distinguishable from CER in effect on FM, consistent with our meta-analysis (MD −0.01, 95% CI −0.95 to 0.97; I2 = 0%). However, two quantitative reviews reported a statistically significant effect of IER compared with CER [33,35]. In our meta-analysis, the comparison of IER with CER suggested that IER was no more effective on FFM (MD −0.14, 95% CI −0.78 to 0.50; I2 = 16%), in accordance with four quantitative reviews [19,24,33,39] and two qualitative reviews [25,37]. However, the results of one review indicated that IER was associated with a greater reduction in FFM compared with CER or regular diet [26].
In the subgroup analysis, neither the 5:2 diet (MD 0.06, 95% CI −1.02 to 1.14; I2 = 0%) nor ADF (MD −0.19, 95% CI −2.29 to 1.91; I2 = 0%) had a greater effect on FM compared to CER (Figure S4). Additionally, the results of subgroup analysis revealed that neither of two subtypes (5:2 diet: MD −0.23, 95% CI −0.97 to 0.51; I2 = 29%; ADF: MD 0.60, 95% CI −1.93 to 3.13; p = 0.64) was distinguishable from CER in effect on FFM (Figure S5).

3.5. The Methodological Quality of the Included Reviews According to AMSTAR 2

The methodological quality assessment of the included reviews is summarized in Supplementary Materials S5. Of the 12 included reviews, one was rated as high-quality, one was of moderate-quality according to AMSTAR 2, whereas all the others were of critically low (six reviews) to low quality (four reviews). The main reason for judging six reviews to be of critically low quality according to the AMSTAR 2 was that the review authors did not carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias or discuss its likely impact on the results of the review. Regarding judging four reviews to be of low quality was that the review authors did not provide a list of the excluded studies or justify the exclusions. It is important to note that the primary studies of the included reviews were identified as a limitation of the study design that did not meet the criterion of the blinding of participants and providers to group assignments and outcome measures, many of which were categorized by reviewers as poor or moderate methodological quality and as having a high risk of bias.

3.6. Assessment of the Included RCTs According to ROB2

The assessment results of ROB2 indicated either low or some concerns for most of the parameters of included trials (Figure 7 and Figure 8).

3.6.1. Allocation

Two trials reported adequately on the randomization sequence. One stated that group allocation was established by opaque and sealed envelopes that contained the assignment for each subject [46]. The other stated that a computer-generated random number list prepared by a statistician was used [49]. Five trials stated that computer-generated random numbers were used for the assignment to either IER or CER group with equal probability [20,42,43,48,49]. Reports on the generation of the randomization sequence were unclear in the remaining 5 trials [40,41,44,45,47].
Concealment of allocation and the methods used for allocation concealment were described in 3 trials [42,45,46]. Only one RCT was reported as being double-blinded [42]. Whether the researchers of two RCTs were blinded to the intervention group was not clear [45,46]. Two trials reported that researchers and participants were not blinded to the intervention group [43,49], whereas the rest trials did not provide any information regarding blinding [20,40,41,44,47,48].

3.6.2. Deviations from Intended Interventions

There was no deviation reported from the intended intervention that arose because of the experimental context in all trials. It was unclear whether an intention-to-treat analysis was carried out in three trials, thus giving some concerns about the risk of bias [42,45,47]. Intention-to-treat analysis was adequate in 8 RCTs giving a low risk of bias [20,40,41,43,44,46,48,49]. In 2 RCTs, the withdrawn participants were not included in the final analysis and consequently an intention-to-treat analysis was not applied [20,43].

3.6.3. Missing Outcome Data

Four trials reported available data of outcomes for nearly all participants randomized [20,42,45,49] while the rest reported the availability of data from less than 95% of the participants [40,41,43,44,46,47,48]. There was no evidence that the result was not biased by missing the outcome data in all trials. The missingness in the outcomes of five trials could depend on its true value which reported the withdrawn reasons including poor health status [43,44,46,47,48]. As such, the 5 trials above were assessed as ‘some concerns’ in this domain. Two RCTs with missingness in the outcomes could not depend on their true value that was assessed as low risk [40,41].

3.6.4. Measurement of the Outcome

There was no inappropriate method of measuring the outcome reported and no difference between intervention groups in all trials. Only one trial reported all measurements were taken by a blinded investor [45]. All RCTs in this domain were assessed as having a low risk of bias.

3.6.5. Selection of the Reported Result

Three trials were assessed as ‘some concerns’ since they did not analyze the data in accordance with a prespecified analysis plan [20,45,47], whereas the rest were assessed as low risk of bias [40,41,42,43,44,46,48,49].

4. Discussion

4.1. Main Findings and Possible Explanations

This overview provides a synthesis of the state of knowledge related to the effects of IER and CER among adults with overweight or obesity based on the comparison of weight loss, BMI, waist circumference, and body composition. To integrate and sort out the consistent and different parts for improving the integrity and accuracy of the evidence. We conducted an additional meta-analysis including original trials from included reviews that met the inclusion criteria and compared the results with those of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In addition, we also assessed RCTs by using ROB2. Although we found numerous limitations of the current evidence, the results of the original trials did not show any significant differences in the comparison of IER and CER for anthropometric outcomes.
There were some inconsistencies between the results of our meta-analysis and included reviews among outcomes. As for body weight, Schwingshackl et al. [35] and He et al. [39] reported a greater reduction of 0.55 and 0.95 kg, respectively, in the IER group, while the study designs of some trials were not completely accordant with inclusion criteria. For instance, the intervention of one study combined exercise with IER [50]. One trial combined two consecutive days with 70% energy restriction and 5 days on the Mediterranean diet as IER intervention [51], while another trial changed the intensity of IER or fasting days per week that were much different from our inclusion criteria [52]. The influence of other different interventions might increase the effect of IER on weight loss such as combination with physical activity and harder intensity of calorie restriction. Regarding the reduction of BMI, Allaf et al. [32] conducted meta-analyses according to the length of duration. The results indicated that IER could result in more reduction in BMI in the short term, while the advantage disappeared when the duration was more than 12 weeks. In our meta-analysis, the duration of trials was almost more than 12 weeks, and the results also showed no significant difference between the two interventions. As for waist circumference, although Harris and Hamilton et al. [33] reported that IER was associated with more reduction in waist circumference, the number of participants was unclear in RCTs. On the other hand, the heterogeneity during meta-analysis in this study could not be assessed formally since insufficient studies with various results. Thus, the effect of IER on waist circumference needs more studies. With regard to FM, Harris and Hamilton et al. [33] and Schwingshackl et al. [35] reported that IER was associated with more reduction in FM. The possible reasons for the difference were discussed above. As for FFM, one study [53] in Roman et al. [26] might contribute to a greater effect of IER on FFM since its change in intensity of calorie restriction and duration of fasting days results in inconsistency.
It is worth noting that heterogeneity exists since the IER described in some trials did not meet the inclusion criteria, for example, more than two consecutive fasting days per week [54], the period unit of diet protocol is rather than one week [53,54,55] or combined physical activity [56,57]. Moreover, various conditions of the target subject, such as the age, gender, or BMI range might contribute to the discrepancies in the results: For instance, participants with normal weight were also included in two included reviews [25,32], and only T2DM or male or female were included in some trials [43,44,45,46,47]. Furthermore, the distinguishing discussion between adults with overweight and those with obesity was not clear in the analysis of included trials.
The quality of evidence was found to be very low to moderate variously among different outcomes according to GRADE which was associated with risk of bias and small sample size in original trials. The concealment of both researchers and participants in most trials of included reviews was not available that increases the risk of bias. It is worth noting that whether the included reviews compared IER with CER separately from IER vs. regular diet or not, some IER protocols with various designs in included reviews were not primary subtypes, which were not included in our meta-analysis might contribute to the inconsistency or consistency between results. Overall, the low to critically very low certainty of included evidence prevents us from drawing any firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of all IER protocols compared to CER, which all require further study.
There are several other research directions for the future. First, there is limited convincing evidence related to the effect of CR on adults with normal weight which we found in some trials of the included reviews. More studies are needed to find if there are similar benefits of CR when interpreting to different populations. Second, for the target subjects, the range of age, BMI, and gender are important elements regarding the basic metabolism in the study design, which might be related to the discrepancy in outcomes. Third, the other forms of IER are not considered to compare with CER, and more studies of high quality are needed for exploring the advantages and benefits of non-primary or new IER protocols. Fourth, the flexibility of diet strategies in IER or CER and the difference between the daily-life trajectory of a single person should be considered. It could be more individualized and specific for each adult with overweight or obesity, since in the context of increasing adults with overweight and obesity around the world, to adhere IER or CER for the long term may be an efficient and economical approach to maintaining a long and healthy life [58,59].

4.2. Limitations of the Present Study

Some limitations need to be acknowledged in the present work. First, we have less confidence in the accuracy of the compared results since the intervention designs of trials in included reviews are much different from the 5:2 diet and ADF. Furthermore, the small number of trials included in our meta-analysis might be insufficient to enhance the evidence. Second, all trials of our meta-analysis were the 5:2 diet and ADF with similar intensity of fasting days whereas no TRF vs. CER meeting the inclusion criteria was found during study selection, which may decrease the accuracy of the results. On the other hand, we did not analyze studies that conducted non-CR diet regimens that were excluded during the selection process. Third, considering the insufficient original trials that met the inclusion and the risk of bias, the subgroup analysis of only T2DM or male or female was not implemented in our meta-analysis. Fourth, we did not explore the influence on adherence, appetite, or adverse events of IER and CER intervention and their association with follow-up time. Therefore, it is worthy of more studies in the future. Fifth, at present, there is limited evidence focused specifically on adults with T2DM, and as such it is unclear whether two interventions would have the same results reported above in this work when delivered to adults with T2DM. Sixth, a critical limitation with currently available evidence is the poor quality of reviews that suggests a need to improve the conducting and reporting of systematic reviews.

5. Conclusions

Although the results of this work showed no difference between IER and CER for anthropometric outcomes, the evidence obtained in the present work confirmed that IER and CER have an essential and active influence on weight loss among adults with overweight or obesity for a short term in their life. However, researchers should strive to design and conduct new long-term RCT studies that help to improve the evidence quality of IER protocols implemented in adults with overweight or obesity and adults with diabetes.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/nu14112315/s1, Figure S1: Forest plot for body weight in trials that compared subtypes of IER with CER, Figure S2: Forest plot of sensitivity analysis for body weight in trials that compared IER with CER, Figure S3: Forest plot of sensitivity analysis for BMI in trials that compared IER with CER, Figure S4: Forest plot for FM in trials that compared subtypes of IER with CER, Figure S5: Forest plot for FFM in trials that compared subtypes of IER with CER, Supplementary Materials S1: PRISMA-2009-checklist, Supplementary Materials S2: Search strategy, Supplementary Materials S3: Information of excluded RCTs. Supplementary Materials S4: Summary of findings from the meta-analysis of the outcomes, Supplementary Materials S5: Quality assessment of systematic reviews by AMSTAR 2.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and supervision, X.H. and G.W.; Data curation and visualization, L.L., S.Z. and W.L.; Writing—original draft, J.W. and F.W.; Writing—review and editing, H.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 22177083; 81803755), West China Nursing Discipline Development Special Fund Project, Sichuan University (grant number HXHL20015; HXHL21011), Sichuan Science and Technology Program (grant number 2020JDS0128; 2021YJ0016), and Sichuan University Postdoctoral Research and Development Foundation (grant number 2020SCU12062).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Quanlei Li, from the School of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, for his kind assistance and advice during manuscript revision.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

ADFAlternate Day Fasting
AMSTARA Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews
BMIBody Mass Index
CERContinuous Energy Restriction
CRCalorie Restriction
CVDCardiovascular Disease
CGControl Group
CIConfidence Interval
EREnergy Restriction
EGExperimental Group
FMFat Mass
FFMFat-Free Mass
GRADEThe Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation
IERIntermittent Energy Restriction
MDMean Difference
PRISMAThe Statement of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses
PFPeriodic Fasting
RCTRandomized Control Trial
ROBThe Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool
TRFTime-Restricted Feeding
T2DMDiabetes Mellitus Type 2
VLEDVery Low Energy Diet
WHOWorld Health Organization

References

  1. Rapando, C.; Nyagero, J.; Wakhu, F. Feeding Habits associated with overweight and obesity amongst secondary School students in Private and Public schools in Langata Nairobi Kenya. IJSRP 2017, 7, 498–505. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hajek, A.; Brettschneider, C.; van der Leeden, C.; Lühmann, D.; Oey, A.; Wiese, B.; Weyerer, S.; Werle, J.; Fuchs, A.; Pentzek, M.; et al. Prevalence and factors associated with obesity among the oldest old. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2020, 89, 104069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ward, Z.J.; Bleich, S.N.; Cradock, A.L.; Barrett, J.L.; Giles, C.M.; Flax, C.; Long, W.M.; Gortmaker, S.L. Projected U.S. State-Level Prevalence of Adult Obesity and Severe Obesity. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 381, 2440–2450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lemamsha, H.; Randhawa, G.; Papadopoulos, C. Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity among Libyan Men and Women. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 8531360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Luhar, S.; Timæus, I.M.; Jones, R.; Cunningham, S.; Patel, S.A.; Kinra, S.; Clarke, L.; Houben, R. Forecasting the prevalence of overweight and obesity in India to 2040. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0229438. [Google Scholar]
  6. Koliaki, C.; Spinos, T.; Spinou, Μ.; Brinia, Μ.E.; Mitsopoulou, D.; Katsilambros, N. Defining the Optimal Dietary Approach for Safe, Effective and Sustainable Weight Loss in Overweight and Obese Adults. Healthcare 2018, 6, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Norris, T.; Cole, T.J.; Bann, D.; Hamer, M.; Hardy, R.; Li, L.; Viner, R.; Johnson, W. Duration of obesity exposure between ages 10 and 40 years and its relationship with cardiometabolic disease risk factors: A cohort study. PLoS Med. 2020, 17, e1003387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bragg, F.; Li, L.; Yang, L.; Guo, Y.; Chen, Y.; Bian, Z.; Chen, J.; Collins, R.; Peto, R.; Wang, C.; et al. Risks and Population Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases Associated with Diabetes in China: A Prospective Study of 0.5 Million Adults. PLoS Med. 2016, 13, e1002026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Liu, S.; Li, Y.; Zeng, X.; Wang, H.; Yin, P.; Wang, L.; Liu, Y.; Liu, J.; Qi, J.; Ran, S.; et al. Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases in China, 1990–2016: Findings From the 2016 Global Burden of Disease Study. JAMA Cardiol. 2019, 4, 342–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Roth, G.A.; Mensah, G.A.; Johnson, C.O.; Addolorato, G.; Ammirati, E.; Baddour, L.M.; Barengo, N.C.; Beaton, A.Z.; Benjamin, E.J.; Benziger, C.P.; et al. Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases and Risk Factors, 1990–2019: Update from the GBD 2019 Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2020, 76, 2982–3021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Global Burden of Disease. Obesity. 2017. Available online: https://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool (accessed on 16 December 2021).
  12. Halpern, B.; Mendes, T.B. Intermittent fasting for obesity and related disorders: Unveiling myths, facts, and presumptions. Arch. Endocrinol. Metab. 2021, 65, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pannen, S.T.; Maldonado, S.G.; Nonnenmacher, T.; Sowah, S.A.; Gruner, L.F.; Watzinger, C.; Nischwitz, K.; Ulrich, C.M.; Kaaks, R.; Schübel, R.; et al. Adherence and Dietary Composition during Intermittent vs. Continuous Calorie Restriction: Follow-Up Data from a Randomized Controlled Trial in Adults with Overweight or Obesity. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Maroofi, M.; Nasrollahzadeh, J. Effect of intermittent versus continuous calorie restriction on body weight and cardiometabolic risk markers in subjects with overweight or obesity and mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia: A randomized trial. Lipids Health Dis. 2020, 19, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Schubel, R.; Nattenmuller, J.; Sookthai, D.; Nonnenmacher, T.; Graf, M.E.; Riedl, L.; Schlett, C.L.; von Stackelberg, O.; Johnson, T.; Nabers, D.; et al. Effects of intermittent and continuous calorie restriction on body weight and metabolism over 50 wk: A randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 108, 933–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Okechukwu, C.E. Intermittent energy restriction as a health promotion strategy to improve visceral adiposity and cardiometabolic health in obese older adults. J. Educ Health Promot. 2020, 9, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tinsley, G.M.; La Bounty, P.M. Effects of intermittent fasting on body composition and clinical health markers in humans. Nutr. Rev. 2015, 73, 661–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Varady, K.A. Intermittent versus daily calorie restriction: Which diet regimen is more effective for weight loss? Obes. Rev. 2011, 12, e593–e601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cioffi, I.; Evangelista, A.; Ponzo, V.; Ciccone, G.; Soldati, L.; Santarpia, L.; Contaldo, F.; Pasanisi, F.; Ghigo, E.; Bo, S. Intermittent versus continuous energy restriction on weight loss and cardiometabolic outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Transl. Med. 2018, 16, 371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Pinto, A.M.; Bordoli, C.; Buckner, L.P.; Kim, C.; Kaplan, P.C.; Del Arenal, I.M.; Jeffcock, E.J.; Hall, W.L. Intermittent energy restriction is comparable to continuous energy restriction for cardiometabolic health in adults with central obesity: A randomized controlled trial; the Met-IER study. Clin. Nutr. 2020, 39, 1753–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Steger, F.L.; Donnelly, J.E.; Hull, H.R.; Li, X.; Hu, J.; Sullivan, D.K. Intermittent and continuous energy restriction result in similar weight loss, weight loss maintenance, and body composition changes in a 6 month randomized pilot study. Clin. Obes. 2021, 11, e12430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Donna Ryan Heaner, M. Guidelines (2013) for managing overweight and obesity in adults. Obesity 2014, 22, S1–S410. [Google Scholar]
  23. Harvie, M.; Howell, A. Potential Benefits and Harms of Intermittent Energy Restriction and Intermittent Fasting amongst Obese, Overweight and Normal Weight Subjects-A Narrative Review of Human and Animal Evidence. Behav. Sci. 2017, 7, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Enriquez Guerrero, A.; San Mauro Martin, I.; Garicano Vilar, E.; Camina Martin, M.A. Effectiveness of an intermittent fasting diet versus continuous energy restriction on anthropometric measurements, body composition and lipid profile in overweight and obese adults: A meta-analysis. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2021, 75, 1024–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Seimon, R.V.; Roekenes, J.A.; Zibellini, J.; Zhu, B.; Gibson, A.A.; Hills, A.P.; Wood, R.E.; King, N.A.; Byrne, N.M.; Sainsbury, A. Do intermittent diets provide physiological benefits over continuous diets for weight loss? A systematic review of clinical trials. Mol. Cell Endocrinol. 2015, 418, 153–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Roman, Y.M.; Dominguez, M.C.; Easow, T.M.; Pasupuleti, V.; White, C.M.; Hernandez, A.V. Effects of intermittent versus continuous dieting on weight and body composition in obese and overweight people: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int. J. Obes. 2019, 43, 2017–2027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Jane, L.; Atkinson, G.; Jaime, V.; Hamilton, S.; Waller, G.; Harrison, S. Intermittent fasting interventions for the treatment of overweight and obesity in adults aged 18 years and over: A systematic review protocol. JBI Database Syst. Rev Implement Rep. 2015, 13, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Grade Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004, 328, 1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Shea, B.J.; Reeves, B.C.; Wells, G.; Thuku, M.; Hamel, C.; Moran, J.; Moher, D.; Tugwell, P.; Welch, V.; Kristjansson, E. AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017, 358, j4008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Minozzi, S.; Dwan, K.; Borrelli, F.; Filippini, G. Reliability of the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB2) improved with the use of implementation instruction. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2022, 141, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Allaf, M.; Elghazaly, H.; Mohamed, O.G.; Fareen MF, K.; Zaman, S.; Salmasi, A.M.; Tsilidis, K.; Dehghan, A. Intermittent fasting for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane. Database Syst. Rev. 2021, 1, CD013496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Harris, L.; Hamilton, S.; Azevedo, L.B.; Olajide, J.; De Brun, C.; Waller, G.; Vicki, W.; Tracey, S.; Mike, L.; Catherine, H.; et al. Intermittent fasting interventions for the treatment of overweight and obesity in adults aged 18 years and over: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JBI Database Syst. Rev. Implement Rep. 2018, 16, 507–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Headland, M.; Clifton, P.M.; Carter, S.; Keogh, J.B. Weight-Loss Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Intermittent Energy Restriction Trials Lasting a Minimum of 6 Months. Nutrients 2016, 8, 354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Schwingshackl, L.; Zahringer, J.; Nitschke, K.; Torbahn, G.; Lohner, S.; Kuhn, T.; Fontanae, L.; Veronese, N.; Schmucker, C.; Meerpohl, J.J. Impact of intermittent energy restriction on anthropometric outcomes and intermediate disease markers in patients with overweight and obesity: Systematic review and meta-analyses. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 61, 1293–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Vitale, R.; Kim, Y. The Effects of Intermittent Fasting on Glycemic Control and Body Composition in Adults with Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review. Metab. Syndr. Relat. Disord. 2020, 18, 450–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Davis, C.S.; Clarke, R.E.; Coulter, S.N.; Rounsefell, K.N.; Walker, R.E.; Rauch, C.E.; Huggins, C.E.; Ryan, L. Intermittent energy restriction and weight loss: A systematic review. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2016, 70, 292–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Harris, L.; McGarty, A.; Hutchison, L.; Ells, L.; Hankey, C. Short-term intermittent energy restriction interventions for weight management: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes. Rev. 2018, 19, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. He, S.; Wang, J.; Zhang, J.; Xu, J. Intermittent Versus Continuous Energy Restriction for Weight Loss and Metabolic Improvement: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Obesity 2021, 29, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Trepanowski, J.F.; Kroeger, C.M.; Barnosky, A.; Klempel, M.C.; Bhutani, S.; Hoddy, K.K.; Gabel, K.; Freels, S.; Rigdon, J.; Rood, J.; et al. Effect of Alternate-Day Fasting on Weight Loss, Weight Maintenance, and Cardioprotection among Metabolically Healthy Obese Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern. Med. 2017, 177, 930–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gabel, K.; Kroeger, C.M.; Trepanowski, J.F.; Hoddy, K.K.; Cienfuegos, S.; Kalam, F.; Varady, K.A. Differential Effects of Alternate-Day Fasting Versus Daily Calorie Restriction on Insulin Resistance. Obesity 2019, 27, 1443–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Parvaresh, A.; Razavi, R.; Abbasi, B.; Yaghoobloo, K.; Hassanzadeh, A.; Mohammadifard, N.; Safavi, S.M.; Hadi, A.; Clark, C.C.T. Modified alternate-day fasting vs. calorie restriction in the treatment of patients with metabolic syndrome: A randomized clinical trial. Complement Ther. Med. 2019, 47, 102187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Carter, S.; Clifton, P.M.; Keogh, J.B. The effects of intermittent compared to continuous energy restriction on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes; a pragmatic pilot trial. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2016, 122, 106–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Carter, S.; Clifton, P.M.; Keogh, J.B. The effect of intermittent compared with continuous energy restriction on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: 24-month follow-up of a randomised noninferiority trial. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2019, 151, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Conley, M.; Le Fevre, L.; Haywood, C.; Proietto, J. Is two days of intermittent energy restriction per week a feasible weight loss approach in obese males? A randomised pilot study. Nutr. Diet. 2018, 75, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Harvie, M.; Wright, C.; Pegington, M.; McMullan, D.; Mitchell, E.; Martin, B.; Cutler, R.G.; Evans, G.; Whiteside, S.; Maudsley, S.; et al. The effect of intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction v. daily energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers in overweight women. Br. J. Nutr. 2013, 110, 1534–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Harvie, M.N.; Pegington, M.; Mattson, M.P.; Frystyk, J.; Dillon, B.; Evans, G.; Cuzick, J.; Jebb, S.A.; Martin, B.; Cutler, R.G.; et al. The effects of intermittent or continuous energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers: A randomized trial in young overweight women. Int. J. Obes. 2011, 35, 714–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Headland, M.L.; Clifton, P.M.; Keogh, J.B. Effect of intermittent compared to continuous energy restriction on weight loss and weight maintenance after 12 months in healthy overweight or obese adults. Int. J. Obes. 2019, 43, 2028–2036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sundfor, T.M.; Svendsen, M.; Tonstad, S. Effect of intermittent versus continuous energy restriction on weight loss, maintenance and cardiometabolic risk: A randomized 1-year trial. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2018, 28, 698–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Hill, J.O.; Schlundt, D.G.; Sbrocco, T.; Sharp, T.; Popecordle, J.; Stetson, B.; Kaler, M.; Heim, C. Evaluation of an Alternating-Calorie Diet with and without Exercise in the Treatment of Obesity. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1989, 50, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Panizza, C.E.; Lim, U.; Yonemori, K.M.; Cassel, K.D.; Wilkens, L.R.; Harvie, M.N.; Maskarinec, G.; Delp, E.; Lampe, J.W.; Shepherd, J.; et al. Effects of Intermittent Energy Restriction Combined with a Mediterranean Diet on Reducing Visceral Adiposity: A Randomized Active Comparator Pilot Study. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Coutinho, S.R.; Halset, E.H.; Gasbakk, S.; Rehfeld, J.F.; Kulseng, B.; Truby, H.; Martins, C. Compensatory mechanisms activated with intermittent energy restriction: A randomized control trial. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 37, 815–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Byrne, N.M.; Sainsbury, A.; King, N.A.; Hills, A.P.; Wood, R.E. Intermittent energy restriction improves weight loss efficiency in obese men: The MATADOR study. Int. J. Obes. 2018, 42, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Ash, S.; Reeves, M.M.; Yeo, S.; Morrison, G.; Carey, D.; Capra, S. Effect of intensive dietetic interventions on weight and glycaemic control in overweight men with Type II diabetes: A randomised trial. Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord. 2003, 27, 797–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Arguin, H.; Dionne, I.J.; Senechal, M.; Bouchard, D.R.; Carpentier, A.C.; Ardilouze, J.L.; Tremblay, A.; Leblanc, C.; Brochu, M. Short-and long-term effects of continuous versus intermittent restrictive diet approaches on body composition and the metabolic profile in overweight and obese postmenopausal women: A pilot study. Menopause 2012, 19, 870–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Huffman, K.M.; Redman, L.M.; Landerman, L.R.; Pieper, C.F.; Stevens, R.D.; Muehlbauer, M.J.; Wenner, B.R.; Bain, J.R.; Kraus, V.B.; Newgard, C.B.; et al. Caloric restriction alters the metabolic response to a mixed-meal: Results from a randomized, controlled trial. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e28190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Tinsley, G.M.; Forsse, J.S.; Butler, N.K.; Paoli, A.; Bane, A.A.; La Bounty, P.M.; Morgan, G.B.; Grandjean, P.W. Time-restricted feeding in young men performing resistance training: A randomized controlled trial. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2017, 17, 200–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wilhelmi de Toledo, F.; Grundler, F.; Sirtori, C.R.; Ruscica, M. Unravelling the health effects of fasting: A long road from obesity treatment to healthy life span increase and improved cognition. Ann. Med. 2020, 52, 147–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Varady, K.A.; Cienfuegos, S.; Ezpeleta, M.; Gabel, K. Cardiometabolic Benefits of Intermittent Fasting. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 2021, 41, 333–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nutrients 14 02315 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of the study selection process.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the study selection process.
Nutrients 14 02315 g001
Nutrients 14 02315 g002 550
Figure 2. Outcomes for reported data of included reviews and included RCTs. Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; FM, fat mass; FFM, fat free mass.
Figure 2. Outcomes for reported data of included reviews and included RCTs. Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; FM, fat mass; FFM, fat free mass.
Nutrients 14 02315 g002
Nutrients 14 02315 g003 550
Figure 3. Forest plot for body weight in trials that compared IER with CER. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IER, intermittent energy restriction; CER, continuous energy restriction. The unit of mean difference in body weight is kg.
Figure 3. Forest plot for body weight in trials that compared IER with CER. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IER, intermittent energy restriction; CER, continuous energy restriction. The unit of mean difference in body weight is kg.
Nutrients 14 02315 g003
Nutrients 14 02315 g004 550
Figure 4. Forest plot for BMI in trials that compared IER with CER. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index; IER, intermittent energy restriction; CER, continuous energy restriction. The unit of mean difference in BMI is kg/m2.
Figure 4. Forest plot for BMI in trials that compared IER with CER. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index; IER, intermittent energy restriction; CER, continuous energy restriction. The unit of mean difference in BMI is kg/m2.
Nutrients 14 02315 g004
Nutrients 14 02315 g005 550
Figure 5. Forest plot for waist circumference in trials that compared IER with CER. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IER, intermittent energy restriction; CER, continuous energy restriction. The unit of mean difference in waist circumference is cm.
Figure 5. Forest plot for waist circumference in trials that compared IER with CER. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IER, intermittent energy restriction; CER, continuous energy restriction. The unit of mean difference in waist circumference is cm.
Nutrients 14 02315 g005
Nutrients 14 02315 g006 550
Figure 6. Forest plot for body composition in trials that compared IER with CER. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; FM, fat mass; FFM, fat-free mass; IER, intermittent energy restriction; CER, continuous energy restriction. The unit of mean difference in FM and FFM is kg.
Figure 6. Forest plot for body composition in trials that compared IER with CER. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; FM, fat mass; FFM, fat-free mass; IER, intermittent energy restriction; CER, continuous energy restriction. The unit of mean difference in FM and FFM is kg.
Nutrients 14 02315 g006
Nutrients 14 02315 g007 550
Figure 7. Risk of bias graph. Judgments about each risk of bias item were presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figure 7. Risk of bias graph. Judgments about each risk of bias item were presented as percentages across all included studies.
Nutrients 14 02315 g007
Nutrients 14 02315 g008 550
Figure 8. Risk of bias summary. Judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figure 8. Risk of bias summary. Judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Nutrients 14 02315 g008
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of included reviews.
Table 1. Characteristics of included reviews.
Author, YearDate of SearchNo. Studies IncludedPopulationInterventionComparison Intervention
TypeSample SizeAge
(Year)		BMI (kg/m2)Diet FormTotal Duration
(Week)		Diet FormTotal Duration
(Week)
Cochrane systematic review
Allaf, 2021
[32] 		2019.12261. Male
2. Menopausal women with metabolic syndrome
3. Adults with T2DM
4. Professional cyclists
5. Adults with overweight or obesity		112518–7020–45IER:
5:2 diet/ADF/TRF/Other*		16–96CER/Regular diet4–96
Non-Cochrane systematic review
Seimon, 2015 [25]2014.11121. Male with T2DM overweight/obesity
2. Female with overweight or obesity
3. Male with obesity and female
4. Male with obesity and female with T2DM		144017–7920–45IER:
ADF/Other*		5–50CER/Regular diet/No control5–50
Davis, 2016 [37]2013.0981. Adults with T2DM
2. Postmenopausal women
3. Premenopausal women		39034.3–61.828.6–37.3IER:
5:2 diet/Other*		5–48CER/No control5–48
Headland, 2016 [34]2016.0491. All Female
2. All Male
3. All female and male
4. Female with T2DM		98118–7024–40IER:
5:2 diet/Other*		10–96CER/Regular diet/VLED/No control10–96
Cioffi, 2018 [19]2018.0511All adults with overweight/obesity
(1) Men and women
(2) All men
(3) Adults with T2DM
(4) Dysmetabolic conditions
(5) All women		63030–7124–46IER:
5:2 diet/ADF/Other*		8–24CER/Regular diet/No control8–24
Harris and Hamilton, 2018 [33]2015.116Adults with overweight or obesity, except adults with diabetes40037–4926–35.6IER:
5:2 diet/ADF/Other*		12–48CER/Regular diet12–48
Harris and McGarty, 2018 [38]2015.095All adults with overweight/obesity
(1) Men and women
(2) Adults with T2DM
(3) All women		37642.6–61.033.1–44.6IER:
Other*		14–48CER/Regular diet14–48
Roman, 2019 [26]2018.0291. All adults with overweight/obesity
2. Only adults with diabetes
3. Excluded adults with diabetes		78239.6–61.524–45IER:
5:2 diet/Other*		12–52CER/Regular diet12–52
Vitale, 2020
[36]		2020.015Adults with T2DM and obesity (had T2DM between 1 and 25 years in duration)35146–7127.6–41.8IER:
5:2 diet/Other*		12–24CER/Mediterranean diet/12–24
Guerrero, 2021 [24]2019.0118Adults with overweight/obesity121918–70≥25IER:
5:2 diet/ADF/Other*		6–48CER/Regular diet6–48
He, 2021 [39]2019.1211All adults with overweight/obesity
(1) Men and women
(2) Adults with T2DM
(3) All women
(4) All men		85028–7126–43IER:
5:2 diet/ADF/Other*		8–48CER/Regular diet8–48
Schwingshackl, 2021 [35]2019.03171. Adults with overweight/obesity
2. Adults with T2DM		132831.7–67.626–35.3IER:
5:2 diet/ADF/Other*		12–52CER/Regular diet12–52
Abbreviations: ADF, alternate day fasting; BMI, body mass index; CER, continuous energy restriction; ER, energy restriction; IER, intermittent energy restriction; N/A: not applicable; PF, periodic fasting; TRF, time-restricted feeding; T2DM, diabetes mellitus type 2; VLED, very low energy diet. No IER protocols are prescribed in the inclusion criteria.
Table
Table 2. Characteristics of included RCTs.
Table 2. Characteristics of included RCTs.
Author, YearPopulationInterventionComparison Duration (Week)
TypeSample SizeBMI (kg/m2)Age (Year)IER FormIER ProtocolCER Protocol
Carter, 2016 [43]T2DMEG:25
CG:24		≥27>185:2 Diet400–600 kcal/day on 2 fast days and regular diet on 5 feed days1200–1500 kcal/day12
Carter, 2018 [44]T2DMEG:70
CG:67		≥27>185:2 Diet500–600 kcal/d for 2 days and regular diet for 5 days1200–1500 kcal/day96
Conley, 2018 [45]Male with no T2DMEG:11
CG:12		≥3055–755:2 Diet600 kcal/day on 2 fast days and regular diet on 5 feed days25% energy restriction every day24
Gabel, 2019 [41]Adults with no T2DMEG:11
CG:17		25.0–39.918–65ADF25% of the energy need on fast days and 125% of energy needs on feed days75% energy needs every day48
Harvie, 2011 [47]Premenopausal women with no T2DMEG:45
CG:47		24–4030–455:2 Diet25% of the energy need on 2 fast days and regular diet for 5 days25% energy restriction every day24
Harvie, 2013 [46]Women with no T2DMEG:33
CG:33		24–4520–695:2 Diet25% of the energy need on 2 fast days and regular diet for 5 days25% energy restriction every day16
Headland, 2019 [48]Adults with no T2DMEG:49
CG:53		>2518–725:2 Diet500/600 kcal (F/M) on 2 fast days and regular diet for 5 days1000–1200 kcal/day (F/M)48
Parvaresh, 2019 [42]Adults with no T2DMEG:35
CG:34		25–4025–60ADF25% energy needs on fast days; 100% needs
on alternating feast days		25% energy restriction every day8
Pinto, 2019 [20]Adults with no T2DMEG:21
CG:22		>2535–755:2 Diet600 kcal on 2 fast days and regular diet for 5 days25% energy restriction every day4
Sundfør, 2018 [49]Adults with no T2DMEG:54
CG:58		30–4521–705:2 Diet400/600 kcal (F/M) on 2 fast days and regular diet for 5 days26–28% energy restriction every day48
Trepanowski, 2017 [40]Adults with no T2DMEG:34
CG:35		25–39.918–64ADF25% of the energy need on fast days and 125% of energy needs on feed days25% energy restriction every day24
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; IER, intermittent energy restriction; CER, continuous energy restriction; T2DM, diabetes mellitus type 2; EG, experimental group; CG, control group.
Table
Table 3. Summarizes the p-values of included reviews with meta-analysis and our meta-analysis.
Table 3. Summarizes the p-values of included reviews with meta-analysis and our meta-analysis.
Author, YearBody WeightBMIWaist CircumferenceFMFFM
IER vs. CER (Analyzed separately from IER vs. regular diet)
Harris and Hamilton, 20180.156 b/0.002 b0.014 c0.958 b
Allaf, 2021 (≤12 weeks)0.05 b0.01 a0.20 a//
Allaf, 2021 (>12 weeks)0.33 b0.51 b0.49 c//
Schwingshackl, 20210.02 a/0.25 a0.007 a/
IER vs. CER (Not analyzed separately from IER vs. regular diet)
Headland, 20160.458 c////
Cioffi, 20180.27 a/0.83 c0.66 a0.58 a
Harris and McGarty, 20180.15 c////
Roman, 20190.29 a/0.71 b0.56 b0.03 b
Guerrero, 2021N aN aN bN cN c
He, 20210.006 a/0.61 b0.08 a0.09 a
Our meta-analysis0.440.140.430.980.66
Abbreviations: BMI, Body mass index, CER, Continuous energy restriction; FM: Fat mass; FFM: Fat-free mass; IER, Intermittent energy restriction. p-value a: The evidence quality was identified as moderate. p-value b: The evidence quality was identified as low. p-value c: The evidence quality was identified as very low. N: p-value was not available.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, J.; Wang, F.; Chen, H.; Liu, L.; Zhang, S.; Luo, W.; Wang, G.; Hu, X. Comparison of the Effects of Intermittent Energy Restriction and Continuous Energy Restriction among Adults with Overweight or Obesity: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2315. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14112315

AMA Style

Wang J, Wang F, Chen H, Liu L, Zhang S, Luo W, Wang G, Hu X. Comparison of the Effects of Intermittent Energy Restriction and Continuous Energy Restriction among Adults with Overweight or Obesity: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Nutrients. 2022; 14(11):2315. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14112315

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Jun, Fang Wang, Hongxiu Chen, Li Liu, Shuai Zhang, Wenjing Luo, Guan Wang, and Xiuying Hu. 2022. "Comparison of the Effects of Intermittent Energy Restriction and Continuous Energy Restriction among Adults with Overweight or Obesity: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses" Nutrients 14, no. 11: 2315. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14112315

APA Style

Wang, J., Wang, F., Chen, H., Liu, L., Zhang, S., Luo, W., Wang, G., & Hu, X. (2022). Comparison of the Effects of Intermittent Energy Restriction and Continuous Energy Restriction among Adults with Overweight or Obesity: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Nutrients, 14(11), 2315. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14112315

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop