Alternate-day versus daily energy restriction diets: which is more effective for weight loss? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Alternate-day versus daily energy restriction diets: which is more effective for weight loss? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/osp4.52
复制
发表时间：
2016-09
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Cheskin, L J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Alhamdan, B A;Garcia-Alvarez, A;Alzahrnai, A H;Karanxha, J;Stretchberry, D R;Contrera, K J;Utria, A F;Cheskin, L J
隔日禁食（ADF）已被提议作为一种有效的节食方法。研究发现，它还可以延长啮齿动物的寿命，并减少人类的炎症。本文的目的是系统评价 ADF 与极低热量节食 (VLCD) 相比在减肥、减少脂肪量和无脂肪量方面的功效。 系统回顾：进行了 PubMed 文献检索。采用了固定的审查程序。研究进行了质量评估。纳入了二十八项研究。荟萃分析：进一步分析 10/28 研究（四项 ADF 和六项匹配的 VLCD）。调整BMI和持续时间后，平均体重减轻（VLCD比ADF体重减轻多0.88 kg，95％CI：−4.32，2.56）或无脂体重（VLCD比ADF多1.69 kg无脂体重减轻，95％CI：−3.62，0.23）没有显着差异；观察到脂肪量存在显着差异（ADF 比 VLCD 多减少 3.31 kg 脂肪量，95% CI：0.05，6.56）。荟萃分析显示，在 ADF 研究中，体重、脂肪量和去脂体重的汇总变化分别为 4.30 kg (95% CI: 3.41, 5.20)、4.06 kg (95% CI: 2.99, 5.13) 和 0.72 kg (95% CI: -0.07, 1.51)，而在 VLCD 中研究中，汇总变化分别为 6.28kg (95% CI: 6.08, 6.49)、4.22kg (95% CI: 3.95, 4.50) 和 2.24kg (95% CI: 1.95, 2.52)。我们的系统评价和荟萃分析结果表明，ADF 是一种有效的饮食方法，对于某些患者来说可能优于 VLCD，因为易于依从性、更大的脂肪量损失和相对保留的无脂肪量。需要进行头对头随机临床试验来进一步评估这两种方法的相对疗效。
Alternate‐day‐fasting (ADF) has been proposed as an effective dieting method. Studies have found that it also can increase life span in rodents, and reduce inflammation in humans. The aim of this paper was to systematically review the efficacy of ADF compared to very‐low‐calorie dieting (VLCD) in terms of weight loss, and reduction of fat mass and fat‐free mass. Systematic review: PubMed literature searches were performed. Fixed review procedures were applied. Studies were evaluated for quality. Twenty‐eight studies were included. Meta‐analysis: 10/28 studies (four ADF and six matched VLCD) were further analyzed. After adjustment for BMI and duration, there was no significant difference in mean body weight loss (VLCD 0.88 kg more weight loss than ADF, 95% CI: −4.32, 2.56) or fat‐free mass (VLCD 1.69 kg more fat‐free mass loss than ADF, 95% CI: −3.62, 0.23); there was a significant difference observed in fat mass (ADF 3.31 kg more fat mass loss than VLCD, 95% CI: 0.05, 6.56). Meta‐analysis showed that, among ADF studies, the pooled change in body weight, fat mass and fat‐free mass was 4.30 kg (95% CI: 3.41, 5.20), 4.06 kg (95% CI: 2.99, 5.13) and 0.72 kg (95% CI: −0.07, 1.51), respectively, while among VLCD studies, the pooled change was 6.28 kg (95% CI: 6.08, 6.49), 4.22 kg (95% CI: 3.95, 4.50) and 2.24 kg (95% CI: 1.95, 2.52), respectively. Our results from both the systematic review and the meta‐analysis suggest that ADF is an efficacious dietary method, and may be superior to VLCD for some patients because of ease of compliance, greater fat‐mass loss and relative preservation of fat‐free mass. Head‐to‐head randomized clinical trials are needed to further assess relative efficacy of these two approaches.