Adapted by:
Pablo Martínez-Juarez
WriterEnvironmental economist and science journalist. For a few years, I worked as a researcher on the economics of climate change adaptation. Now I write about that and much more.
Alba Mora
WriterAn established tech journalist, I entered the world of consumer tech by chance in 2018. In my writing and translating career, I've also covered a diverse range of topics, including entertainment, travel, science, and the economy.
Intermittent fasting is one of the most popular diets in recent years. The key concept isn’t to restrict what you eat but rather to limit the times you eat. Based on this idea, several methods for managing your intake exist, depending on the hours and days you choose to fast.
Positive results. A recent study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine has shown evidence supporting the effectiveness of intermittent fasting, specifically the 4:3 intermittent fasting (4:3 IMF) method. Researchers observed that this approach led to a greater average reduction in body mass among participants. However, it should be noted that participants were also encouraged to do physical activity.
4:3 intermittent fasting. In the study, the experimental group followed the 4:3 IMF. This method involves reducing caloric intake by 80% on three non-consecutive days each week.
Participants were part of an extensive weight loss program. The plan also included behavioral support and recommendations to increase moderate-intensity physical activity to 300 minutes per week.
12 months. The study included 165 overweight or obese adults who were divided into two groups. The experimental group followed the 4:3 IMF. Meanwhile, the control group adhered to a constant caloric restriction diet, reducing caloric intake by about 34.3%. Both groups received the same supportive intervention. The diet and program lasted for 12 months.
Modest results. The team described the difference in outcomes between the two groups as modest. However, researchers also noted that the experimental group achieved greater reductions in body mass compared to the control group.
The experimental group lost an average of 7.6% of their body mass, while the control group lost 5%. Additionally, a higher percentage of participants in the experimental group reduced their weight by 5% or more. Additionally, the average difference in weight loss between the two groups was about 6 pounds.
More than just weight loss. Several motivations can lead individuals to lose weight. While aesthetic concerns play a significant role, being overweight or obese is a risk factor for several diseases and disorders.
The relationship between these factors is complex, and simply losing weight isn’t a definitive indicator of improved health. As such, the research team also assessed how the diet affected cardiometabolic markers, including blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and fasting glucose. Notably, the 4:3 IMF method also improved these markers.
Image | Rumman Amin
Log in to leave a comment