Intermittent v. continuous energy restriction: differential effects on postprandial glucose and lipid metabolism following matched weight loss in overweight/obese participants
Intermittent v. continuous energy restriction: differential effects on postprandial glucose and lipid metabolism following matched weight loss in overweight/obese participants
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/s0007114517003890
复制
发表时间：
2018-03-14
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Robertson, M. Denise
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Antoni, Rona;Johnston, Kelly L.;Robertson, M. Denise
间歇性能量限制（IER）减肥方法包括短期的大量（> 70%）能量限制（ER），并穿插正常饮食。迄今为止比较IER与持续能量限制（CER）的研究主要测量心脏代谢风险的空腹指数。本研究旨在比较IER和CER对匹配减肥后餐后糖脂代谢的影响。总共二十七个（13名男性）超重/肥胖受试者（46（SEM 3）岁，30.1（SEM 1.0）kg/m2），随机接受IER干预（2638 kJ，2天/周，总体ER为22（SEM 0.3）%，n 15）或CER干预（低于要求2510 kJ，总体ER为23（SEM 0.8）%）完成研究。在基线和体重减轻5%后，在7天的体重稳定期后，评估对试验餐（超过360分钟）的餐后反应和人体测量学（脂肪量、去脂肪量、周长）的变化。研究发现，两组之间体重减轻5%的时间（中位数分别为59天（四分位距（IQR）41-80）和73天（IQR 48-128），P=0.246）或身体成分（P=0.437）无统计学显著差异。对于餐后测量，两种饮食均未显著改变胰岛素血症（P=0.266），而胰岛素血症相对减少（P=0.903）。IER（309128（SEM 23268）至247781（SEM 20 709）pmol x 360 min/l）v. CER（297204（SEM 25112）至301655（SEM 32714）pmol x 360 min/l）后，C肽的降低趋势（P=0.057）更大。与CER（117（SEM 43）至130（SEM 31）mmol x 360 min/l）相比，IER（106（SEM 30）至68（SEM 15）mmol x 360 min/l）后TAG反应的相对降低更大（P=0.045）。总之，这些初步研究结果突出了IER和CER之间的潜在差异，包括IER在降低餐后脂血症方面的优势，现在需要在更大的研究队列中进行有针对性的机制评价。
The intermittent energy restriction (IER) approach to weight loss involves short periods of substantial (> 70 %) energy restriction (ER) interspersed with normal eating. Studies to date comparing IER to continuous energy restriction (CER) have predominantly measured fasting indices of cardiometabolic risk. This study aimed to compare the effects of IER and CER on postprandial glucose and lipid metabolism following matched weight loss. In all, twenty-seven (thirteen male) overweight/obese participants (46 (SEM 3) years, 30.1 (SEM 1.0) kg/m(2)) who were randomised to either an IER intervention (2638 kJ for 2 d/week with an overall ER of 22 (SEM 0.3) %, n 15) or a CER intervention (2510 kJ below requirements with overall ER of 23 (SEM 0.8) %) completed the study. Postprandial responses to a test meal (over 360 min) and changes in anthropometry (fat mass, fat-free mass, circumferences) were assessed at baseline and upon attainment of 5% weight loss, following a 7-d period of weight stabilisation. The study found no statistically significant difference in the time to attain a 5% weight loss between groups (median 59 d (interquartile range (IQR) 41-80) and 73 d (IQR 48-128), respectively, P=0.246), or in body composition (P=0.437). For postprandial measures, neither diet significantly altered glycaemia (P=0.266), whereas insulinaemia was reduced comparatively (P=0.903). The reduction in C-peptide tended (P=0.057) to be greater following IER (309128 (SEM 23268) to 247781 (SEM 20 709) pmol x 360 min/l) v. CER (297204 (SEM 25112) to 301655 (SEM 32714) pmol x 360 min/l). The relative reduction in TAG responses was greater (P=0.045) following IER (106 (SEM 30) to 68 (SEM 15) mmol x 360 min/l) compared with CER (117 (SEM 43) to 130 (SEM 31) mmol x 360 min/l). In conclusion, these preliminary findings highlight underlying differences between IER and CER, including a superiority of IER in reducing postprandial lipaemia, which now warrant targeted mechanistic evaluation within larger study cohorts.