Background: The problems of adherence to energy restriction in humans are well known. Objective: 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. Design: Randomized comparison of a 25% energy restriction as IER (B2710 kJ/day for 2 days/week) or CER (B6276 kJ/day for 7 days/week) in 107 overweight or obese (mean ( ± s.d.) body mass index 30.6 ( ± 5.1) kg m À2 ) 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. Results: 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 À6.4 (À7.9 to À4.8) kg vs À5.6 (À6.9 to À4.4) kg for CER (P-value for difference between groups ¼ 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 À1.2 (À1.4 to À1.0) mU ml À1 and for insulin resistance was À1.2 (À1.5 to À1.0) mU mmol À1 l À1 (both P ¼ 0.04). Conclusion: 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.

Humans in modern societies typically consume food at least three times daily, while laboratory animals are fed ad libitum. Overconsumption of food with such eating patterns often leads to metabolic morbidities (insulin resistance, excessive accumulation of visceral fat, etc.), particularly when associated with a sedentary lifestyle. Because animals, including humans, evolved in environments where food was relatively scarce, they developed numerous adaptations that enabled them to function at a high level, both physically and cognitively, when in a food-deprived/fasted state. Intermittent fasting (IF) encompasses eating patterns in which individuals go extended time periods (e.g., 16–48h) with little or no energy intake, with intervening periods of normal food intake, on a recurring basis. We use the term periodic fasting (PF) to refer to IF with periods of fasting or fasting mimicking diets lasting from 2 to as many as 21 or more days. In laboratory rats and mice IF and PF have profound beneficial effects on many different indices of health and, importantly, can counteract disease processes and improve functional outcome in experimental models of a wide range of age-related disorders including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancers and neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease Parkinson’s disease and stroke. Studies of IF (e.g., 60% energy restriction on 2 days per week or every other day), PF (e.g., a 5 day diet providing 750–1100 kcal) and time-restricted feeding (TRF; limiting the daily period of food intake to 8 h or less) in normal and overweight human subjects have demonstrated efficacy for weight loss and improvements in multiple health indicators including insulin resistance and reductions in risk factors for cardiovascular disease. The cellular and molecular mechanisms by which IF improves health and counteracts disease processes involve activation of adaptive cellular stress response signaling pathways that enhance mitochondrial health, DNA repair and autophagy. PF also promotes stem cell-based regeneration as well as long-lasting metabolic effects. Randomized controlled clinical trials of IF versus PF and isoenergetic continuous energy restriction in human subjects will be required to establish the efficacy of IF in improving general health, and preventing and managing major diseases of aging.

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 þ 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 þ PF for a 3-month weight-loss period and 1 month of weight maintenance (IECR or IECR þ PF for 1 d/week). Insulin resistance reduced with the IECR diets (mean 20·34 (95 % CI 2 0·66, 2 0·02) units) and the IECR þ PF diet (mean 2 0·38 (95 % CI 20·75, 2 0·01) units). Reductions with the IECR diets were significantly greater compared with the DER diet (mean 0·2 (95 % CI 2 0·19, 0·66) mU/unit, P¼0·02). Both IECR groups had greater reductions in body fat compared with the DER group (IECR: mean 2 3·7 (95 % CI 22·5, 24·9) kg, P¼0·007; IECR þ PF: mean 23·7 (95 % CI 2 2·8, 24·7) kg, P¼0·019; DER: mean 22·0 (95 % CI 21·0, 3·0) kg). During the weight maintenance phase, 1 d of IECR or IECR þ 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.Key words: Intermittent energy restriction: Low-carbohydrate diets: Weight loss: Daily energy restriction: Insulin resistanceThe global health burden of obesity-related conditions such as diabetes, CVD, dementia and certain cancers, including breast cancer, may be reduced by weight loss and the associated improvements in insulin sensitivity. The difficulties of achieving and sustaining weight loss by energy restriction are well known (1) . Even when reduced weights are maintained, metabolic benefits achieved with weight loss are often attenuated because of non-compliance or adaptation (2 -4) . Effective dietary interventions are needed that promote long-term adherence and sustained beneficial effects on metabolic and disease markers. Such interventions need to be palatable and satiating, meet minimal nutritional requirements, promote loss of fat and preserve lean body mass, ensure long-term safety, be simple to administer and monitor and have widespread public health utility. Multiple dietary approaches have been studied that vary in macronutrient composition (5) and the degree of energy restriction (6) . These typically achieve long-term 5 % weight loss in

Although major research efforts have focused on how specific components of foodstuffs affect health, relatively little is known about a more fundamental aspect of diet, the frequency and circadian timing of meals, and potential benefits of intermittent periods with no or very low energy intakes. The most common eating pattern in modern societies, three meals plus snacks every day, is abnormal from an evolutionary perspective. Emerging findings from studies of animal models and human subjects suggest that intermittent energy restriction periods of as little as 16 h can improve health indicators and counteract disease processes. The mechanisms involve a metabolic shift to fat metabolism and ketone production, and stimulation of adaptive cellular stress responses that prevent and repair molecular damage. As data on the optimal frequency and timing of meals crystalizes, it will be critical to develop strategies to incorporate those eating patterns into health care policy and practice, and the lifestyles of the population. metabolism | circadian rhythm | time-restricted feeding | feeding behavior | obesity

IntroductionBreast cancer remains a significant scientific, clinical and societal challenge. This gap analysis has reviewed and critically assessed enduring issues and new challenges emerging from recent research, and proposes strategies for translating solutions into practice.MethodsMore than 100 internationally recognised specialist breast cancer scientists, clinicians and healthcare professionals collaborated to address nine thematic areas: genetics, epigenetics and epidemiology; molecular pathology and cell biology; hormonal influences and endocrine therapy; imaging, detection and screening; current/novel therapies and biomarkers; drug resistance; metastasis, angiogenesis, circulating tumour cells, cancer ‘stem’ cells; risk and prevention; living with and managing breast cancer and its treatment. The groups developed summary papers through an iterative process which, following further appraisal from experts and patients, were melded into this summary account.ResultsThe 10 major gaps identified were: (1) understanding the functions and contextual interactions of genetic and epigenetic changes in normal breast development and during malignant transformation; (2) how to implement sustainable lifestyle changes (diet, exercise and weight) and chemopreventive strategies; (3) the need for tailored screening approaches including clinically actionable tests; (4) enhancing knowledge of molecular drivers behind breast cancer subtypes, progression and metastasis; (5) understanding the molecular mechanisms of tumour heterogeneity, dormancy, de novo or acquired resistance and how to target key nodes in these dynamic processes; (6) developing validated markers for chemosensitivity and radiosensitivity; (7) understanding the optimal duration, sequencing and rational combinations of treatment for improved personalised therapy; (8) validating multimodality imaging biomarkers for minimally invasive diagnosis and monitoring of responses in primary and metastatic disease; (9) developing interventions and support to improve the survivorship experience; (10) a continuing need for clinical material for translational research derived from normal breast, blood, primary, relapsed, metastatic and drug-resistant cancers with expert bioinformatics support to maximise its utility. The proposed infrastructural enablers include enhanced resources to support clinically relevant in vitro and in vivo tumour models; improved access to appropriate, fully annotated clinical samples; extended biomarker discovery, validation and standardisation; and facilitated cross-discipline working.ConclusionsWith resources to conduct further high-quality targeted research focusing on the gaps identified, increased knowledge translating into improved clinical care should be achievable within five years.