Intermittent Fasting Tops Calorie Counting in Study

The finding bucks a research trend that has shown little difference in pounds lost between the two diet strategies

Comparing intermittent fasting with traditional daily calorie restriction, researchers at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus found greater weight loss among the intermittent fasting group, a significant finding given that most previous studies reported no notable difference between the two diet strategies.

Singling out the 4:3 plan of the popular intermittent fasting (IMF) model - where dieters eat freely four days a week with three days a week of intense calorie restriction - the researchers found an average body weight loss of 7.6% among IMF participants at the one-year mark compared with 5% in the daily caloric restriction (DCR) group.

The study was published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine and funded by the National Institutes of Health.

"It was surprising and exciting to me that it was better," said Victoria Catenacci, MD, co-lead author and associate professor of endocrinology at the CU School of Medicine.

"The more important message to me is that this is a dietary strategy that is an evidence-based alternative, especially for people who have tried DCR and found it difficult," Catenacci said, noting the weight-loss difference was modest.

An endocrinologist who specializes in obesity medicine, Catenacci's work targets a decades-long health crisis in this country, with 40% of Americans 20 and older meeting the medical criteria for obesity. She works at the CU Anschutz Health and Wellness Center (AHWC), the study's primary site.

She and co-lead author Danielle Ostendorf, PhD, who worked on the study as a post-doctoral fellow with Catenacci in 2018 and has since moved to the University of Tennessee Knoxville, share more about the research in the Q&A below.

/Public Release. This material from the originating organization/author(s) might be of the point-in-time nature, and edited for clarity, style and length. Mirage.News does not take institutional positions or sides, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s).View in full here.