Comparative effects of intermittent versus continuous energy restriction on metabolism following matched weight-loss

Comparative effects of intermittent versus continuous energy restriction on postprandial glucose and lipid metabolism following matched weight-loss

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

ISRCTN

Registry ID

ISRCTN13687043

Enrollment

Registered

2016-12-05

Start date

2015-05-01

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2019-02-11

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Weight-loss Nutritional, Metabolic, Endocrine Weight-loss

Interventions

Participants are randomised to one of two groups: Intermittent energy restriction (IER): The study utilises a commercially available IER diet by LighterLife (Essex, UK). On two consec

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Overweight and obese participants (BMI =25 kg/m2) 2. Aged 18 to 65 years 3. Weight-stable (±2 kg) over the preceding three months 4. No significant medical history 5. To control for the potential influence of the menstrual cycle between visits, female participants were either post-menopausal or taking oral contraceptives

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Individuals not meeting the inclusion criteria.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
1. 6-hour postprandial glucose (glucose, insulin, c-peptide) to a liquid mixed test meal is measured before and after attainment of 5% weight-loss 2. Lipid responses (triacylglycerol, non-esterified fatty acids) to a liquid mixed test meal is measured before and after attainment of 5% weight-loss	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
All outcomes are measured before and after 5% weight-loss: 1. Body composition is assessed via tape measure and bioimpedance 2. Rate of weight-loss 3. Fasting substrate utilisation is assessed via indirect calorimetry (respiratory quotient) 4. Postprandial substrate utilisation is assessed via serial blood sampling (3-hydroxybutyrate) for 6 hours after a liquid mixed test meal (400ml Fortisip, Nutricia, Trowbridge, UK: 2510kJ, 74g carbohydrate, 24g protein and 23g fat) 5. Fasting cardiometabolic risk markers (glucose, insulin, lipid profiles) 6. Resting energy expenditure (indirect calorimetry) 7. Sleep quality is measured using the Pittsburgh sleep quality index and Epworth sleep scale 8. Eating behaviour is measured using the Dutch eating behaviour questionnaire 9. Mood is measured using the positive affect negative affect scale 10. Self-efficacy is measured using a self-efficacy questionnaire 11. Hedonic food preference is measured using the Flanker psychometric task and power of food scale	—

Measure

Time frame

All outcomes are measured before and after 5% weight-loss: 1. Body composition is assessed via tape measure and bioimpedance 2. Rate of weight-loss 3. Fasting substrate utilisation is assessed via indirect calorimetry (respiratory quotient) 4. Postprandial substrate utilisation is assessed via serial blood sampling (3-hydroxybutyrate) for 6 hours after a liquid mixed test meal (400ml Fortisip, Nutricia, Trowbridge, UK: 2510kJ, 74g carbohydrate, 24g protein and 23g fat) 5. Fasting cardiometabolic risk markers (glucose, insulin, lipid profiles) 6. Resting energy expenditure (indirect calorimetry) 7. Sleep quality is measured using the Pittsburgh sleep quality index and Epworth sleep scale 8. Eating behaviour is measured using the Dutch eating behaviour questionnaire 9. Mood is measured using the positive affect negative affect scale 10. Self-efficacy is measured using a self-efficacy questionnaire 11. Hedonic food preference is measured using the Flanker psychometric task and power of food scale

—

Countries

United Kingdom

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026