Alternating periods of food deprivation with those of unlimited provision of food depressed the growth of Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus , below that of controls. Fish that were deprived of food and then fed on alternate weeks (1:1) were larger than those that were exposed to periods of 1 5‐ or 3‐week deprivation and feeding (1·5:1·5 or 3:3). On receiving excess food supplies following 24 weeks on the restricted feeding regimes the previously‐restricted fish grew more rapidly than the controls. The greatest compensatory growth was displayed after the 3:3 regime, followed by the 1·5: 1·5 and then the 1:1 feeding regime. At the termination of the experiment there were no significant differences in body weight between fish fed according to the different regimes during the period that food restriction was imposed. Growth patterns of the immature males and females were similar, but mature males were significantly lighter than the immature fish by the end of the experiment. Both immature and maturing fish displayed a compensatory growth response on return to adequate feeding. Beginning food restriction in May did not influence the proportions of male fish ( c . 60%) which were mature in the autumn.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jobling et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: