ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The standard of care for treating overweight and obesity is daily caloric restriction (DCR). While this approach produces modest weight loss, adherence to DCR declines over time and weight regain is common. Intermittent fasting (IMF) is an alternative dietary strategy for reducing energy intake (EI) that involves >60% energy restriction on 2-3 days per week, or on alternate days, with habitual intake on fed days. While numerous studies have evaluated IMF as a weight loss strategy, there are several limitations including lack of a standard-of-care DCR control, failure to provide guideline-based behavioral support, and failure to rigorously evaluate dietary and PA adherence using objective measures. To date, only three longer-term (52-week) trials have evaluated IMF as a weight loss strategy. None of these longer-duration studies reported significant differences between IMF and DCR in changes in weight. However, each of these studies has limitations that prohibit drawing generalizable conclusions about the relative long-term efficacy of IMF vs. DCR for obesity treatment. METHODS: The Daily Caloric Restriction vs. Intermittent Fasting Trial (DRIFT) is a two-arm, 52-week block randomized (1:1) clinical weight loss trial. The two intervention arms (DCR and IMF) are designed to prescribe an equivalent average weekly energy deficit from baseline weight maintenance energy requirements. Both DCR and IMF will be provided guideline-based behavioral support and a PA prescription. The primary outcome is change in body weight at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes include changes in body composition (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)), metabolic parameters, total daily energy expenditure (TDEE, doubly labeled water (DLW)), EI (DLW intake-balance method, 7-day diet diaries), and patterns of physical activity (PA, activPAL device). DISCUSSION: Although DCR leads to modest weight loss success in the short-term, there is wide inter-individual variability in weight loss and poor long-term weight loss maintenance. Evidence-based dietary approaches to energy restriction that are effective long-term are needed to provide a range of evidence-based options to individuals seeking weight loss. The DRIFT study will evaluate the long-term effectiveness of IMF vs. DCR on changes in objectively measured weight, EI, and PA, when these approaches are delivered using guideline-based behavioral support and PA prescriptions.
Subject(s)
Caloric Restriction , Fasting , Caloric Restriction/methods , Energy Intake , Humans , Obesity/diagnosis , Obesity/therapy , Overweight/diagnosis , Overweight/therapy , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Weight LossABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of timing of exercise initiation on weight loss within a behavioral weight loss program. METHODS: Adults with overweight or obesity (N = 170; age 18-55 years; BMI 25-42 kg/m2 ; 83.5% women) were enrolled in an 18-month behavioral weight loss program consisting of a reduced-calorie diet, exercise, and group-based support. The standard group (STD) received a supervised exercise program (progressing to 300 min/wk of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise) during months 0 to 6. The sequential group (SEQ) was asked to refrain from changing exercise during months 0 to 6 and received the supervised exercise program during months 7 to 12. On completion of supervised exercise, both groups were instructed to continue 300 min/wk of moderate-intensity exercise for the study duration. RESULTS: At 6 months, the STD group exhibited greater reductions in body weight (-8.7 ± 0.7 kg) compared with the SEQ group (-6.9 ± 0.6 kg; P = 0.047). Between 6 and 18 months, the STD group regained more weight (2.5 ± 0.8 kg vs. 0.0 ± 0.8 kg; P = 0.02). At 18 months, there were no between-group differences in changes in weight (STD: -6.9 ± 1.2 kg; SEQ: -7.9 ± 1.2 kg), fat mass, lean mass, physical activity, or attrition. CONCLUSIONS: Both immediate and delayed exercise initiation within a behavioral weight loss program resulted in clinically meaningful weight loss at 18 months. Thus, timing of exercise initiation can be personalized based on patient preference.