A constant in science is to compare #intermittentfasting strategies versus conventional calorie restriction on body composition parameters (body fat and muscle mass) and health markers.

What’s new in the scientific evidence on this?
Well, although several studies have been published recently, they only confirm what I always comment: there is no significant difference between caloric restriction and intermittent fasting in terms of fat loss and health improvement. In some studies fasting shows slight benefits versus conventional restriction in some health parameter, such as insulin resistance, but basically this benefit is given either by the direct or indirect caloric restriction generated by fasting, or by the weight loss that such caloric restriction provides.

An example of this is the latest published studies:

Schwingshackl et al 2020 have published a systematic review with meta-analysis, where the studies available to date are analyzed, comparing both protocols in weight loss, fat loss, blood pressure, triglycerides and waist circumference in overweight and obese subjects. The results: NO significant DIFFERENCE between the two protocols.
Stratton et al 2020 conclude in their intervention study that there was no difference in fat loss, muscle mass or strength between subjects doing fasting or a conventional dietary intervention.
Jones et al 2020 conclude that an intermittent fasting protocol (IFRT) led to improvements in insulin resistance independently of weight loss. They forgot to mention that there was no weight loss because the study only lasted two weeks, but the subjects were in caloric deficit, which by itself as I discussed earlier improves health markers even though there is no detectable weight loss.
Maroofi et al 2020 conclude that both protocols are equally effective in reducing blood triglycerides and it appears that the intermittent fasting protocol was slightly superior in improving insulin resistance.
At the moment, more of the same….

Leave a Reply