Real World Self Selective Intermediate Nutrition (IF) Vs. The Continuous Energy Restriction Study (CER) finds that 73% of EIAs and 61% of CER participants do not last even 6 months


So what happens when you offer people with obesity the choice between 5: 2 intermittent fasting (very low calorie (VLC) 2 days a week with 5 days less restricted diet) and more traditional calorie restriction 7 days a week? Would it encourage people to choose between two strategies to increase their chances of successful weight management a year later? Will one team lose more weight than the other? Will compliance be the same?

That was the question postdoctoral RD Rona Antoni and their colleagues began to investigate and recently published a paper discussing their results.

197 obese patients presenting at the Rotherham Institute for Obesity had the choice of 5: 2 IF (630 calories from VLC days) or targeting daily calorie intake of 500 calories (CER) 7 days a week with a diet based on what is recommended by the UK dietary guidelines. Both groups received support from specialist obesity nurses for 6 months and were also asked to return for measurements and discussion in one year. Everyone also had access to, "a variety of specialized facilities, resources and multidisciplinary specialists, including practitioners and speech therapists"And all were examined in a monthly clinic where measurements were taken (weight, total body fat, fat mass (FFM), waist circumference, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and fasting blood sample) and adhesion was discussed.

99 patients chose IF and 98 chose CER. Six months later, 73% of patients with IF and 61% of patients with CER had left. In one year, 83% of CAs and 70% of CER patients were lost to follow-up.

Of those who quit 6 months, 18% explicitly stated that they did so because they could not tolerate the diet, which was not reported by any of the CER culprits, other men who quit reported quitting because of fainting or hypoglycaemia.

In terms of weight loss completed at 6 months, patients with PM lost statistically significant, but probably clinically meaningless, 4 kg more than the CER group. All blood measures (including fasting glucose, insulin, hsCRP, and lipids) were found to be the same between groups. Changes in blood pressure were also not different between the groups.

In one year, the remaining 17 patients with AE were found to have lost their weight, while the 30 patients with CER were found to maintain their slight weight loss (3%).

So what should we do about this study?

I think the most impressive finding was the overall fracture rate of 66% on both weapons. Certainly this study does not suggest that IF is easier to follow than CER (at least not when provided at the Rotherham Institute for Obesity – since weight management support is a service and not a product, it is certainly likely that different providers will have seen it. different results for the two weapons, but I think this is talking about causing the scalability of intrusive behaviors). But what I really think this study highlights is the fact that the true chance of purely dietary interventions facing our growing burdens is very low. Instead, we need more tools for treatment (including, of course, drugs and surgery), and most importantly, if we are to see change, we will need changes in the environment to turn this boat around.

As to whether IF or CER will work for you, remember that one person's terribly restrictive diet is another person's happy lifestyle. If you are trying to find your own path, even if the first path fails, and even if the angry guru and jealousy try to tell you that there is no other way, try different forks until you find the one that suits you best. , as in the case of diets, adherence is all that matters in the end, and if you do not like the way you live, you are not likely to continue living it.

.