4.6 Review

Clinical application of intermittent fasting for weight loss: progress and future directions

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 18, 期 5, 页码 309-321

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41574-022-00638-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [R01DK119783]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intermittent fasting diets, which involve periods of fasting alternating with periods of eating, have gained popularity for their potential weight loss benefits. However, research on the health benefits of these diets in humans is limited, highlighting the need for further study in this area.
Intermittent fasting diets have become very popular in the past few years, as they can produce clinically significant weight loss. These diets can be defined, in the simplest of terms, as periods of fasting alternating with periods of eating. The most studied forms of intermittent fasting include: alternate day fasting (0-500 kcal per 'fast day' alternating with ad libitum intake on 'feast days'); the 5:2 diet (two fast days and five feast days per week) and time-restricted eating (only eating within a prescribed window of time each day). Despite the recent surge in the popularity of fasting, only a few studies have examined the health benefits of these diets in humans. The goal of this Review is to summarize these preliminary findings and give insights into the effects of intermittent fasting on body weight and risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases in humans. This Review also assesses the safety of these regimens, and offers some practical advice for how to incorporate intermittent fasting diets into everyday life. Recommendations for future research are also presented. Intermittent fasting diets are increasingly popular alternatives to traditional weight loss methods; however, their efficacy and safety are currently unclear. This Review evaluates the current research on intermittent fasting and discusses the benefits and challenges of these diets.

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

4.6
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