Time-restricted eating comparable to traditional calorie restriction for weight loss, study finds
Patient preference and other considerations such as ease of use can guide clinical choice of dietary weight loss interventions, according to an editorial accompanying a small randomized trial.
Time-restricted eating was more effective for weight loss when compared with a control group but not more effective than calorie counting and restriction, a recent small study found.
A total of 90 racially diverse adults with obesity were randomly assigned to one of three plans: an eight-hour (noon to 8 p.m.) time-restricted eating strategy, without calorie counting; calorie restriction (25% reduction in daily calories); or no change in their eating. The time-restricted eating group could drink fluids without calories outside the eight-hour window.
Both the time-restricted eating and calorie restriction groups met weekly, then biweekly with a dietician for six months (weight-loss phase), then monthly between six and 12 months (maintaining lost weight phase). Patients had measurements taken at the start of the study, at six months, and at 12 months. All groups were asked not to change their exercise or activity level. Results of the trial were published June 27 by Annals of Internal Medicine, along with a free patient summary.
Compared with the control group, the time-restricted eating group reduced their calories by an average of 425 more per day and lost 4.61 additional kg at 12 months. Similarly, the calorie restriction group reduced their consumption by an average of 405 more calories per day and lost 5.42 kg more than the control group. No significant differences were seen between the time-restricted eating and calorie restriction groups in terms of reduced calorie intake and weight loss.
An editorial concluded that while time-restricted eating has become popular, its effects are comparable to those of traditional caloric restriction diets. “Thus, patient preference and other individual-specific considerations regarding ease of implementation can guide clinical choice of dietary weight loss intervention,” the editorialists wrote.
An Ideas & Opinions article also published on June 27 by Annals offered additional context about weight loss following the uptick in use of medications for this purpose. The article notes that research has established that the genetic component of obesity accounts for 40% to 80% of variability in body weight and that while caloric restriction diets and lifestyle alterations offer promising cures, actual results vary.
“Although these medications seem promising, they are likely to require long-term use, with patients regaining the majority of weight lost within only 1 year after drug cessation,” the piece stated. “Furthermore, their efficacy in clinical trials has only been shown alongside dietary and lifestyle interventions. We should therefore view these drugs not as quick fixes but as powerful adjuncts that complement a sustained and multifaceted approach to weight management.”