Intermittent cuts dropouts
A recent randomized trial found intermittent calorie restriction and continuous restriction were similarly effective for T2D body composition and resting energy expenditure, but the intermittent arm had a roughly 60% lower dropout rate—meaning better adherence in practice X post. That adherence gap could be decisive when matching patients to sustainable plans for weight and glycemic control X post.
The post-hoc analysis by C. D. Caw and colleagues was published in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN on January 23, 2026, and lists funding from Achmea BV, the Dutch Research Council and Erasmus MC. (scilit.com) Researchers pooled intervention arms from two Netherlands trials, E‑DIET and TIMED, enrolling adults with type 2 diabetes and BMI >27 kg/m2 for a three‑month intervention. (news-medical.net) The continuous‑restriction arm used a very‑low‑energy meal‑replacement protocol (~750 kcal/day), while the intermittent arm followed an early time‑restricted eating window (08:00–18:00) with ~1,300 kcal/day for women and ~1,500 kcal/day for men. (news-medical.net) Body composition was assessed by multi‑frequency bioelectrical impedance (including phase‑angle measurement) and resting energy expenditure was measured to track fat‑free mass and metabolic rate changes. (news-medical.net) The authors note an absence of dropouts in the intermittent‑eating arms versus nonzero attrition in the continuous arms, a between‑group adherence difference the paper flags as notable but exploratory. (sciencedirect.com) Because the comparison was a pooled, post‑hoc analysis of two trials and lasted only three months, the authors call for direct, adequately powered head‑to‑head trials with longer follow‑up to confirm whether the adherence advantage persists and affects long‑term diabetes outcomes. (news-medical.net)
