4.5 Article

The Fasting and Shifted Timing (FAST) of Eating Study: A pilot feasibility randomized crossover intervention assessing the acceptability of three different fasting diet approaches

期刊

APPETITE
卷 176, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2022.106135

关键词

Intermittent fasting; Time-restricted feeding; Alternate day fasting; Dietary acceptability; Weight loss; Diet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to assess the acceptability of three different fasting protocols. The results showed that the Time-restricted Feeding (TRF) diet had the highest acceptability, while the Alternate Day Fasting (ADF) diet had the lowest. There were no significant differences in weight loss or energy intake among the three diets. Participants mentioned that using a mobile app to track their diet and being provided with menu plans would help with adherence to their diets.
Background and aims: The aim of this study is to assess the acceptability of following three different fasting protocols [Early Time-restricted Feeding (eTRF; eating majority of kcals before 5pm), Time-restricted Feeding (TRF; restricting feeding window to 8 h/d), or Alternate Day Fasting (ADF; complete fasting every other day)]. Methods: In this remotely delivered six-week crossover intervention, participants were randomly assigned to follow either an eTRF, TRF, or ADF diet for one week, followed by a one-week washout period. Participants followed all three diets and completed questionnaires assessing self-reported weight, energy intake, dietary acceptability (Food Acceptability Questionnaire), and facilitators and barriers to adhering to each diet. Differences in main outcomes (e.g., dietary acceptability and weight loss) were assessed via repeated measures ANOVA. Results: A total of 32 of participants began the study (mean BMI of 32.6 +/- 6.0 kg/m(2)). There were no differences in kcals or weight loss among the three diets. Dietary acceptability was higher on the TRF diet (54.1 +/- 8.2) than the eTRF (50.2 +/- 6.6, p = 0.02) or ADF (48.0 +/- 7.9, p = 0.004) diets. The majority of participants (71%) indicated the TRF diet was the easiest to follow and 75% said that ADF was the most difficult. Participants cited having a mobile app to track their diet and being provided with menu plans would help facilitate adherence with their diets. Conclusions: This study found that acceptability was highest for an TRF diet and lowest for ADF, with no differences in weight loss or change in energy intake among the TRF, ADF, or eTRF groups.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据