BACKGROUND: The maternal metabolic milieu is challenged during pregnancy and may result in unwarranted metabolic complications. A time-restricted eating (TRE) pattern may optimize the metabolic response to pregnancy by improving glucose metabolism and reducing circulating glucose concentrations, as it does in nonpregnant individuals. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to 1) assess eating timing in pregnant women; 2) understand the perceptions of adopting a TRE pattern; 3) determine the barriers and support mechanisms for incorporating a TRE pattern; and 4) identify those most willing to adopt a TRE pattern during pregnancy. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional quantitative and quasi-qualitative online survey study for women who were pregnant at the time of study completion or had given birth in the prior 2 years. Group analyses were performed based off willingness to try a TRE pattern using chi-squared analyses, independent samples t-tests, or an analysis of variance. Three separate reviewers reviewed qualitative responses. RESULTS: A total of 431 women (BMI, 27.5 ± 0.3 kg/m2) completed the study. Of the participating women, 23.7% reported willingness to try a TRE pattern during pregnancy. Top barriers to adopting a TRE pattern during pregnancy were concerns for 1) safety; 2) nausea; and 3) hunger. The highest ranked support mechanisms were: 1) the ability to choose the eating window; 2) more frequent prenatal visits to ensure the health of the baby; and 3) receiving feedback from a dietician/nutritionist. Women who did not identify as White/Caucasian expressed a higher willingness to try a TRE pattern during pregnancy (P = 0.01). Women who were nulliparous expressed a higher willingness to try a TRE pattern (P = 0.05). DISCUSSION: TRE, an alternative dietary strategy shown to optimize metabolic control, may be effective to prevent and manage pregnancy-related metabolic impairments. To create an effective TRE intervention during pregnancy, the input of pregnant mothers is necessary to increase adherence and acceptability.
BACKGROUND: The maternal metabolic milieu is challenged during pregnancy and may result in unwarranted metabolic complications. A time-restricted eating (TRE) pattern may optimize the metabolic response to pregnancy by improving glucose metabolism and reducing circulating glucose concentrations, as it does in nonpregnant individuals. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to 1) assess eating timing in pregnant women; 2) understand the perceptions of adopting a TRE pattern; 3) determine the barriers and support mechanisms for incorporating a TRE pattern; and 4) identify those most willing to adopt a TRE pattern during pregnancy. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional quantitative and quasi-qualitative online survey study for women who were pregnant at the time of study completion or had given birth in the prior 2 years. Group analyses were performed based off willingness to try a TRE pattern using chi-squared analyses, independent samples t-tests, or an analysis of variance. Three separate reviewers reviewed qualitative responses. RESULTS: A total of 431 women (BMI, 27.5 ± 0.3 kg/m2) completed the study. Of the participating women, 23.7% reported willingness to try a TRE pattern during pregnancy. Top barriers to adopting a TRE pattern during pregnancy were concerns for 1) safety; 2) nausea; and 3) hunger. The highest ranked support mechanisms were: 1) the ability to choose the eating window; 2) more frequent prenatal visits to ensure the health of the baby; and 3) receiving feedback from a dietician/nutritionist. Women who did not identify as White/Caucasian expressed a higher willingness to try a TRE pattern during pregnancy (P = 0.01). Women who were nulliparous expressed a higher willingness to try a TRE pattern (P = 0.05). DISCUSSION: TRE, an alternative dietary strategy shown to optimize metabolic control, may be effective to prevent and manage pregnancy-related metabolic impairments. To create an effective TRE intervention during pregnancy, the input of pregnant mothers is necessary to increase adherence and acceptability.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Emily W Flanagan; Jasper Most; Abby D Altazan; Kristen E Boyle; Leanne M Redman Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2021-11 Impact factor: 9.298
Authors: Mya-Thway Tint; Suresh A Sadananthan; Shu-E Soh; Izzuddin M Aris; Navin Michael; Kok H Tan; Lynette P C Shek; Fabian Yap; Peter D Gluckman; Yap-Seng Chong; Keith M Godfrey; S Sendhil Velan; Shiao-Yng Chan; Johan G Eriksson; Marielle V Fortier; Cuilin Zhang; Yung S Lee Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Jasper Most; Nicholas T Broskey; Abby D Altazan; Robbie A Beyl; Marshall St Amant; Daniel S Hsia; Eric Ravussin; Leanne M Redman Journal: Cell Metab Date: 2018-12-27 Impact factor: 27.287
Authors: Stefanie N Hinkle; Mengying Li; Jagteshwar Grewal; Samrawit F Yisahak; William A Grobman; Roger B Newman; Deborah A Wing; Katherine L Grantz; Cuilin Zhang Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Erika F Werner; Christian M Pettker; Lisa Zuckerwise; Michael Reel; Edmund F Funai; Janice Henderson; Stephen F Thung Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 19.112