Study type: Meta-analysisConfidence: HighChecked against the abstract

Effects of intermittent energy restriction compared with those of continuous energy restriction on body composition and cardiometabolic risk markers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in adults

Schroor MM, Joris PJ, Plat J, Mensink RP

Year2024

JournalAdvances in Nutrition

AuthorsSchroor MM, Joris PJ, Plat J, Mensink RP

High-confidence evidence from multiple solid studies

Summary

A meta-analysis pooling 28 randomised controlled trials in healthy adults that compared intermittent energy restriction (time-restricted eating, alternate-day fasting, or the 5:2 diet) with continuous energy restriction. Combining the three protocols, changes in body weight (-0.42 kg) and fat mass (-0.31 kg) did not differ significantly from continuous restriction, nor did BMI, glucose, insulin, serum lipids or blood pressure. Fat-free mass (-0.20 kg) and waist circumference (-0.91 cm) were reduced slightly more with intermittent restriction.

Source (read the original)

View source

DOI: 10.1016/j.advnut.2023.10.003

Verification breakdown

Bibliography: Checked against Crossref (2026-07-27)
Content: The text of this record has been checked against the original abstract (2026-07-27)What was checked: measured outcomes, study design, population studiedThe abstract does not report a pooled participant count (28 trials: 7 TRE, 10 ADF, 11 on the 5:2 diet), so sampleSize is omitted.
Editorial review: 2026-07-27

Bibliographic checks are made by querying Crossref and PubMed. Content checks are made by AI matching the record against the original abstract; they are not expert judgements of validity. Every record is reviewed by the site operator before publication. What has not been checked is shown rather than hidden. About our verification process

Key Findings

Key findings

Key point

1
Combining the three intermittent protocols, body weight change did not differ from continuous restriction (WMD -0.42 kg, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.13, p=0.132).
2
Fat mass change also did not differ (-0.31 kg, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.36, p=0.362).
3
Fat-free mass was reduced more with intermittent restriction (-0.20 kg, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.01, p=0.044), as was waist circumference (-0.91 cm, p=0.036).
4
BMI, glucose, insulin, HOMA-IR, serum lipids and blood pressure did not differ.
5
Energy intake between groups was comparable in 17 of the 28 trials, lower in the intermittent arm in 5, and unreported in 6; the authors flag this as a limitation for future work.

Related Research

Related research

Randomized controlled trial

Intermittent energy restriction improves weight loss efficiency in obese men: the MATADOR study

International Journal of Obesity, 2018

An RCT in which men with obesity were randomised to 16 weeks of continuous energy restriction or to intermittent restriction delivered as 2-week blocks alternating with 2-week blocks of energy balance (30 weeks planned). Intake during restriction was 67% of maintenance requirements in both groups. Among the 36 who completed per protocol, the intermittent group lost more weight (14.1 vs 9.1 kg) and more fat mass (12.3 vs 8.0 kg), with no difference in fat-free mass loss. After adjusting for body composition change, the fall in resting energy expenditure was significantly smaller in the intermittent group.

View study details

Articles featuring this study

Research vs Bro-science
Does Eating More Often Boost Your Metabolism? Common Belief vs. Research
The idea that eating 5–6 smaller meals a day revs up your metabolism is everywhere in fitness culture. But what does the actual research say? We examine this claim through three lenses: thermic effect of food, body composition, and metabolic adaptation.
Shingo Yoshizaki

Last checked: 2026-07-27