The effects of early time restricted eating plus daily caloric restriction compared to daily caloric restriction alone on continuous glucose levels.
The effects of early time restricted eating plus daily caloric restriction compared to daily caloric restriction alone on continuous glucose levels.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/osp4.702
复制
发表时间：
2024-02
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Thomas, Elizabeth A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Zaman, Adnin;Grau, Laura;Jeffers, Rebecca;Steinke, Sheila;Catenacci, Victoria A.;Cornier, Marc-Andre;Rynders, Corey A.;Thomas, Elizabeth A.
关键词：
在美国，进食时间的中位数为14.75小时，分布在整个清醒期和睡前。在不适当的昼夜节律时间摄入食物可能导致不良的代谢结果。新兴的文献表明，时间限制饮食（TRE）可以改善葡萄糖耐量和胰岛素敏感性。目的是比较完成12周基于早期TRE+每日热量限制（E-TRE +DCR）或单独DCR的行为减肥干预后参与者的24小时血糖谱和胰岛素敏感性。81名超重或肥胖的成人（年龄18-50岁，BMI 25-45 kg/m2）被随机分配至E-TRE +DCR或单独DCR组。每名受试者佩戴连续葡萄糖监测仪（CGM）7天，并在基线和第12周使用胰岛素抵抗的稳态模型评估（HOMA-IR）估计胰岛素敏感性。使用随机截距混合模型评估组内和组间CGM衍生指标和HOMA-IR自基线至第12周的变化。44名参与者在两个时间点都有有效的CGM数据，而38名参与者在两个时间点都有有效的葡萄糖、胰岛素、HOMA-IR和血红蛋白A1 c（A1 c）数据。两组之间在性别、年龄、BMI或前驱糖尿病受试者百分比方面没有显著差异（28%女性，年龄39.2 ± 6.9岁，BMI 33.8 ± 5.7 kg/m2，16%前驱糖尿病）。调整体重后，总体平均探头葡萄糖、葡萄糖水平标准差、葡萄糖水平变异系数、日间或夜间平均探头葡萄糖、空腹血糖、胰岛素、HOMA-IR或A1 c的变化在组间无差异。然而，两组之间血糖波动的平均幅度随时间变化不同，与E-TRE +DCR相比，DCR的降幅更大（p = 0.03）。干预后12周，E-TRE +DCR组和DCR组之间的连续葡萄糖曲线或胰岛素敏感性无重大差异。由于研究样本包括基线平均血糖和胰岛素敏感性正常的受试者，因此检测这些结果变化的能力可能有限。目的是比较44名超重或肥胖成年受试者的24小时血糖谱和胰岛素敏感性，这些受试者完成了基于早期限制饮食加每日热量限制（E-TRE +DCR）或单独DCR的12周行为干预。调整干预导致的体重减轻后，总体平均探头葡萄糖、葡萄糖水平标准差、葡萄糖水平变异系数、日间或夜间平均探头葡萄糖、空腹血糖、胰岛素、胰岛素抵抗稳态模型或血红蛋白A1 c的变化在组间无差异，尽管两组间血糖波动的平均幅度随时间变化不同，与E-TRE +DCR相比，DCR的降低幅度更大（p = 0.03）。由于研究样本包括基线平均血糖和胰岛素敏感性正常的受试者，因此检测这些结果变化的能力可能有限。
The median eating duration in the U.S. is 14.75 h, spread throughout the period of wakefulness and ending before sleep. Food intake at an inappropriate circadian time may lead to adverse metabolic outcomes. Emerging literature suggests that time restricted eating (TRE) may improve glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity. The aim was to compare 24‐h glucose profiles and insulin sensitivity in participants after completing 12 weeks of a behavioral weight loss intervention based on early TRE plus daily caloric restriction (E‐TRE+DCR) or DCR alone. Eighty‐one adults with overweight or obesity (age 18–50 years, BMI 25–45 kg/m2) were randomized to either E‐TRE+DCR or DCR alone. Each participant wore a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) for 7 days and insulin sensitivity was estimated using the homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA‐IR) at Baseline and Week 12. Changes in CGM‐derived measures and HOMA‐IR from Baseline to Week 12 were assessed within and between groups using random intercept mixed models. Forty‐four participants had valid CGM data at both time points, while 38 had valid glucose, insulin, HOMA‐IR, and hemoglobin A1c (A1c) data at both timepoints. There were no significant differences in sex, age, BMI, or the percentage of participants with prediabetes between the groups (28% female, age 39.2 ± 6.9 years, BMI 33.8 ± 5.7 kg/m2, 16% with prediabetes). After adjusting for weight, there were no between‐group differences in changes in overall average sensor glucose, standard deviation of glucose levels, the coefficient of variation of glucose levels, daytime or nighttime average sensor glucose, fasting glucose, insulin, HOMA‐IR, or A1c. However, mean amplitude of glycemic excursions changed differently over time between the two groups, with a greater reduction found in the DCR as compared to E‐TRE+DCR (p = 0.03). There were no major differences between E‐TRE+DCR and DCR groups in continuous glucose profiles or insulin sensitivity 12 weeks after the intervention. Because the study sample included participants with normal baseline mean glucose profiles and insulin sensitivity, the ability to detect changes in these outcomes may have been limited. The aim was to compare 24‐h glucose profiles and insulin sensitivity in 44 adult participants with overweight or obesity completing a 12‐week behavioral intervention based on early time restricted eating plus daily caloric restriction (E‐TRE+DCR) or DCR alone. After adjusting for weight loss from the intervention, there were no between‐group differences in changes in overall average sensor glucose, standard deviation of glucose levels, the coefficient of variation of glucose levels, daytime or nighttime average sensor glucose, fasting glucose, insulin, homeostatic model of insulin resistance, or hemoglobin A1c although mean amplitude of glycemic excursions changed differently over time between the two groups, with a greater reduction found in the DCR as compared toE‐TRE+DCR (p = 0.03). Because the study sample included participants with normal baseline mean glucose profiles and insulin sensitivity, the ability to detect changes in these outcomes may have been limited.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
8.2
作者：
Kahleova, Hana;Belinova, Lenka;Pelikanova, Terezie
通讯作者：
Pelikanova, Terezie
影响因子：
29
作者：
Hatori M;Vollmers C;Zarrinpar A;DiTacchio L;Bushong EA;Gill S;Leblanc M;Chaix A;Joens M;Fitzpatrick JA;Ellisman MH;Panda S
通讯作者：
Panda S
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
Cai, Hua;Qin, Yue-Lan;Chen, Zhi-Yuan
通讯作者：
Chen, Zhi-Yuan
影响因子：
6.9
作者：
Hutchison, Amy T.;Regmi, Prashant;Heilbronn, Leonie K.
通讯作者：
Heilbronn, Leonie K.
DOI：
10.1093/ajcn/nqaa192
发表时间：
2020-10-01
期刊：
The American journal of clinical nutrition
影响因子：
--
作者：
Jones R;Pabla P;Mallinson J;Nixon A;Taylor T;Bennett A;Tsintzas K
通讯作者：
Tsintzas K