Energy restriction induces physiological effects that hinder further weight loss. Thus, deliberate periods of energy balance during weight loss interventions may attenuate these adaptive responses to energy restriction and thereby increase the efficiency of weight loss (i.e. the amount of weight or fat lost per unit of energy deficit). To address this possibility, we systematically searched MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, PubMed and Cinahl and reviewed adaptive responses to energy restriction in 40 publications involving humans of any age or body mass index that had undergone a diet involving intermittent energy restriction, 12 with direct comparison to continuous energy restriction. Included publications needed to measure one or more of body weight, body mass index, or body composition before and at the end of energy restriction. 31 of the 40 publications involved 'intermittent fasting' of 1-7-day periods of severe energy restriction. While intermittent fasting appears to produce similar effects to continuous energy restriction to reduce body weight, fat mass, fat-free mass and improve glucose homeostasis, and may reduce appetite, it does not appear to attenuate other adaptive responses to energy restriction or improve weight loss efficiency, albeit most of the reviewed publications were not powered to assess these outcomes. Intermittent fasting thus represents a valid--albeit apparently not superior--option to continuous energy restriction for weight loss.
Background The existence of metabolic adaptation, following weight loss, remains a controversial issue. To our knowledge, no study has evaluated the role of energy balance (EB) in modulating metabolic adaptation. Objectives The aim of this study was to determine if metabolic adaptation, at the level of resting metabolic rate (RMR), is modulated by participants’ EB status. A secondary aim was to investigate if metabolic adaptation was associated with weight regain. Methods Seventy-one individuals with obesity (BMI: 34.6 ± 3.4 kg/m2; age: 45.4 ± 8.2 y; 33 men) enrolled in a 1000-kcal/d diet for 8 wk, followed by 4 wk of weight stabilization and a 9-mo weight loss maintenance program. Body weight/composition and RMR were measured at baseline, week 9 (W9), week 13 (W13), and 1 y (1Y). Metabolic adaptation was defined as a significantly different (lower or higher) measured compared with predicted RMR. Results Participants lost on average 14 kg by W9, followed by weight stabilization at W13, and regained 29% of their initial weight loss at 1Y. Metabolic adaptation was found at W9 (−92 ± 110 kcal/d, P < 0.001) and W13 (−38 ± 124 kcal/d, P = 0.011) but was not correlated with weight regain. A significant reduction in metabolic adaptation was seen between W9 and W13 (−53 ± 101 kcal/d, P < 0.001). In a subset of participants who gained weight between W9 and W13 (n = 33), no metabolic adaptation was seen at W13 (−26.8 ± 121.5 kcal/d, P = 0.214). In a subset of participants with data at all time points (n = 45), metabolic adaptation was present at W9 and W13 (−107 ± 102 kcal/d, P < 0.001 and −49 ± 128 kcal/d, P = 0.013) but not at 1Y (−7 ± 129, P = 0.701). Conclusion After weight loss, metabolic adaptation at the level of RMR is dependent on the EB status of the participants, being reduced to half after a period of weight stabilization. Moreover, metabolic adaptation does not predict weight regain at 1Y follow-up. These trials were registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02944253 and NCT03287726.
SummarySevere dietary energy restriction is often used for overweight or obese individuals to achieve rapid weight loss and related health improvements. However, the extent of putative adverse effects on eating behaviour is unknown. We thus systematically searched seven databases for studies that assessed binge eating before and after severe dietary energy restriction (low or very low energy diets) in overweight or obese individuals. Fifteen clinically supervised interventions from 10 publications (nine of which involved only women) were included. Among individuals with clinically relevant pre--treatment binge eating disorder, severe dietary energy restriction significantly decreased binge eating in all four interventions involving this population, at least during the weight loss programme. In contrast, no consistent association between severe dietary energy restriction and the onset of bingeing was found in 11 interventions involving individuals without pre--treatment binge eating disorder, with four such interventions showing significant increases, two showing no change, and five showing significant decreases in binge eating. We conclude that clinically supervised severe dietary energy restriction appears safe and beneficial for overweight or obese individuals with pre--treatment binge eating disorder, and does not necessarily trigger binge eating in those without binge eating disorder.Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CBT, cognitive behavioural therapy; LED, low energy diet; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses; VLED, very low energy diet. IntroductionObesity continues to be an epidemic problem around the world [1, 2]. In order to treat this condition, health professionals are increasingly prescribing more radical treatments for their patients. One of these treatments involves the prescription of severe dietary energy restriction in the form of low energy diets (LEDs, 3.3-5 MJ d−1) or very low energy diets (VLEDs, <3.3 MJ d−1), typically achieved using meal replacement formulae with essential micronutrients [3,4].The use of severe dietary energy restriction has advantages over weight--reducing diets involving less severe energy restriction. These include reduced appetite during adherence to the diet [5], rapid and motivating weight loss leading to reductions in cardiovascular risk, as well as improvements in fertility and respiratory disorders [6,7]. Fast weight loss via VLED predicts significant long--term (3 years) weight loss maintenance [8]. In addition, meal replacement formulae are widely available to consumers, and their simplicity of use aids adherence [9--11]. However, potential long--term side effects of this dietary intervention are not completely understood [12], notably with respect to disordered eating behaviours such as binge eating.There are several reasons why clinicians may be concerned about the effect of severe dietary energy restriction on eating behaviour. Dieting often precedes binge eating [13--16]. Moreover, the cognitive behavioural formulatio...
Background The practical relevance of metabolic adaptation remains a controversial issue. To the best of our knowledge, no study has properly evaluated the role of metabolic adaptation in modulating weight loss outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the association between metabolic adaptation, at the level of resting metabolic rate (RMR), and weight and fat mass (FM) loss after low-energy diets (LED), after adjusting for dietary adherence and other confounders. Methods 71 individuals with obesity (BMI: 34.6 ± 3.4 kg/m2; age: 45.4 ± 8.2 years; 33 males) were randomized to one of three 1000 kcal/day diets for 8 weeks. Body weight, FM and fat-free mass (FFM) (air displacement plethysmography), RMR (indirect calorimetry) and physical activity level (PAL) (armbands) were measured at baseline and at week 9. Metabolic adaptation at week 9 was defined as measured RMR minus predicted RMR at week 9. An equation to predict RMR was derived from baseline data of all participants that were part of this analysis and included age, sex, FM and FFM as predictors. Dietary adherence was calculated from RMR, PAL and body composition changes. Linear regression was used to assess the potential role of metabolic adaptation in predicting weight and FM loss after adjusting for dietary adherence, average PAL, sex, baseline FM and FFM and randomization group. Results Participants lost on average 14 ± 4 kg of body weight (13 ± 3%) and presented with metabolic adaptation (−92 ± 110 kcal/day, P < 0.001). Metabolic adaptation was a significant predictor of both weight (β = −0.009, P < 0.001) and FM loss (β = −0.008, P < 0.001), even after adjusting for confounders (R2 = 0.88, 0.93, respectively, P < 0.001 for both). On average, an increase in metabolic adaptation of 50 kcal/day was associated with a 0.5 kg lower weight and FM loss in response to the LED. Conclusion In individuals with obesity, metabolic adaptation at the level of RMR is associated with less weight and FM loss in response to LED. Trial registration ID: NCT02944253.
Purpose of review The popularity of ketogenic diets in the treatment of obesity has increased dramatically over the last years, namely due to their potential appetite suppressant effect. The purpose of this review was to examine the latest evidence regarding the impact of ketogenic diets on appetite. Recent findings The majority of the studies published over the last 2 years adds to previous evidence and shows that ketogenic diets suppress the increase in the secretion of the hunger hormone ghrelin and in feelings of hunger, otherwise see when weight loss is induced by non-ketogenic diets. Research done using exogenous ketones point out in the same direction. Even though the exact mechanisms by which ketogenic diets suppress appetite remain to be fully determined, studies show that the more ketotic participants are (measured as β-hydroxybutyrate plasma concentration), the smaller is the increase in ghrelin and hunger and the larger is the increase in the release of satiety peptides. Further evidence for a direct effect of ketones on appetite comes from studies using exogenous ketones. Summary The appetite suppressant effect of ketogenic diets may be an important asset for improving adherence to energy restricted diets and weight loss outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.