OBJECTIVE: In contrast to intentionally restricting energy intake, restricting the eating window may be an option for treating obesity. By comparing time-restricted eating (TRE) with an unrestricted (non-TRE) control, it was hypothesized that TRE facilitates weight loss, alters body composition, and improves metabolic measures. METHODS:Participants (17 women and 3 men; mean [SD]: 45.5 [12.1] years; BMI 34.1 [7.5] kg/m2 ) with a prolonged eating window (15.4 [0.9] hours) were randomized to TRE (n = 11: 8-hour window, unrestricted eating within window) versus non-TRE (n = 9: unrestricted eating) for 12 weeks. Weight, body composition (dual x-ray absorptiometry), lipids, blood pressure, 2-hour oral glucose tolerance, 2-week continuous glucose monitoring, and 2-week physical activity (actigraphy assessed) were measured during the pre- and end-intervention periods. RESULTS: The TRE group significantly reduced the eating window (end-intervention window: 9.9 [2.0] hours) compared with the non-TRE group (end-intervention window: 15.1 [1.1] hours) (P < 0.01). Compared with non-TRE, TRE decreased the number of eating occasions, weight, lean mass, and visceral fat (all P ≤ 0.05). Compared with preintervention measures, the TRE group reduced the number of eating occasions (-21.9% [30.1%]) and reduced weight (-3.7% [1.8%]), fat mass (-4% [2.9%]), lean mass (-3.0% [2.7%]), and visceral fat (-11.1% [13.4%]) (all P ≤ 0.05). Physical activity and metabolic measures remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of a randomized trial, TRE presents a simplified view of food intake that reduces weight.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: In contrast to intentionally restricting energy intake, restricting the eating window may be an option for treating obesity. By comparing time-restricted eating (TRE) with an unrestricted (non-TRE) control, it was hypothesized that TRE facilitates weight loss, alters body composition, and improves metabolic measures. METHODS:Participants (17 women and 3 men; mean [SD]: 45.5 [12.1] years; BMI 34.1 [7.5] kg/m2 ) with a prolonged eating window (15.4 [0.9] hours) were randomized to TRE (n = 11: 8-hour window, unrestricted eating within window) versus non-TRE (n = 9: unrestricted eating) for 12 weeks. Weight, body composition (dual x-ray absorptiometry), lipids, blood pressure, 2-hour oral glucose tolerance, 2-week continuous glucose monitoring, and 2-week physical activity (actigraphy assessed) were measured during the pre- and end-intervention periods. RESULTS: The TRE group significantly reduced the eating window (end-intervention window: 9.9 [2.0] hours) compared with the non-TRE group (end-intervention window: 15.1 [1.1] hours) (P < 0.01). Compared with non-TRE, TRE decreased the number of eating occasions, weight, lean mass, and visceral fat (all P ≤ 0.05). Compared with preintervention measures, the TRE group reduced the number of eating occasions (-21.9% [30.1%]) and reduced weight (-3.7% [1.8%]), fat mass (-4% [2.9%]), lean mass (-3.0% [2.7%]), and visceral fat (-11.1% [13.4%]) (all P ≤ 0.05). Physical activity and metabolic measures remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of a randomized trial, TRE presents a simplified view of food intake that reduces weight.
Authors: Grant M Tinsley; M Lane Moore; Austin J Graybeal; Antonio Paoli; Youngdeok Kim; Joaquin U Gonzales; John R Harry; Trisha A VanDusseldorp; Devin N Kennedy; Megan R Cruz Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Kim S Stote; David J Baer; Karen Spears; David R Paul; G Keith Harris; William V Rumpler; Pilar Strycula; Samer S Najjar; Luigi Ferrucci; Donald K Ingram; Dan L Longo; Mark P Mattson Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Stefan M Pasiakos; Jay J Cao; Lee M Margolis; Edward R Sauter; Leah D Whigham; James P McClung; Jennifer C Rood; John W Carbone; Gerald F Combs; Andrew J Young Journal: FASEB J Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Katherine M Flegal; Deanna Kruszon-Moran; Margaret D Carroll; Cheryl D Fryar; Cynthia L Ogden Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thomas P Wycherley; Lisa J Moran; Peter M Clifton; Manny Noakes; Grant D Brinkworth Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2012-10-24 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Richard M Bergenstal; Andrew J Ahmann; Timothy Bailey; Roy W Beck; Joan Bissen; Bruce Buckingham; Larry Deeb; Robert H Dolin; Satish K Garg; Robin Goland; Irl B Hirsch; David C Klonoff; Davida F Kruger; Glenn Matfin; Roger S Mazze; Beth A Olson; Christopher Parkin; Anne Peters; Margaret A Powers; Henry Rodriguez; Phil Southerland; Ellie S Strock; William Tamborlane; David M Wesley Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2013-03-01
Authors: Tatiana Moro; Grant Tinsley; Antonino Bianco; Giuseppe Marcolin; Quirico Francesco Pacelli; Giuseppe Battaglia; Antonio Palma; Paulo Gentil; Marco Neri; Antonio Paoli Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Kelsey Gabel; Kristin K Hoddy; Nicole Haggerty; Jeehee Song; Cynthia M Kroeger; John F Trepanowski; Satchidananda Panda; Krista A Varady Journal: Nutr Healthy Aging Date: 2018-06-15
Authors: Max C Petersen; Molly R Gallop; Stephany Flores Ramos; Amir Zarrinpar; Josiane L Broussard; Maria Chondronikola; Amandine Chaix; Samuel Klein Journal: Physiol Rev Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 46.500
Authors: Emily N C Manoogian; Lisa S Chow; Pam R Taub; Blandine Laferrère; Satchidananda Panda Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 25.261
Authors: Jennifer M Blankenship; Rebecca C Rosenberg; Corey A Rynders; Edward L Melanson; Victoria A Catenacci; Seth A Creasy Journal: Int J Sports Med Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 2.997