'For me it's about not feeling like I'm on a diet': a thematic analysis of women's experiences of an intermittent energy restricted diet to reduce breast cancer risk.

BACKGROUND: Weight-loss programmes requiring intermittent energy restriction offer an alternative to continuous energy restriction programmes that typically have low adherence. We reported greater weight loss, better adherence and spontaneous reduced energy intake on healthy eating days with intermittent as opposed to continuous energy restriction. The present study aims to explore why intermittent energy restriction diets exert these positive effects. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 13 women aged 39-62 years, who followed a 4-month intermittent energy restriction (2 days of low energy/low carbohydrate, 5 days of healthy eating). Nine of the 13 women successfully lost >5% of their total body weight. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The intermittent regimen redefined the meaning of dieting and normal eating. Women reconceptualised dieting as only two low energy days per week, even though this often differed from their pre-diet eating patterns. Women reported that they could adhere more closely to the rules of the intermittent diet compared to previously attempted continuous diets. They found that the intermittent diet was less cognitively demanding because the restrictive and clear rules of the intermittent diet were easier to understand and easier to follow than with continuous dieting. CONCLUSIONS: Many participants found intermittent dieting preferable to previous experiences of continuous dieting. The findings provide some insight into the ways in which intermittent dieting is successful, and why it could be considered a viable alternative to continuous energy restriction for weight loss.

The effects of intermittent or continuous energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers: a randomized trial in young overweight women.

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 (∼ 2710 kJ/day for 2 days/week) or CER (∼ 6276 kJ/day for 7 days/week) in 107 overweight or obese (mean (± s.d.) body mass index 30.6 (± 5.1) kg m(-2)) 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 -6.4 (-7.9 to -4.8) kg vs -5.6 (-6.9 to -4.4) kg for CER (P-value for difference between groups = 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 -1.2 (-1.4 to -1.0) µU ml(-1) and for insulin resistance was -1.2 (-1.5 to -1.0) µU mmol(-1) l(-1) (both P = 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.