Background:Obesity remains a major public health concern globally, with lifestyle modification forming the cornerstone of management. This randomized clinical trial evaluated the impact of intermittent fasting on weight reduction and metabolic parameters in obese individuals. Methods:Sixty obese adults were randomly assigned to either an Intermittent Fasting (IF) group (n=30) or a Standard Calorie Restriction (SCR) group (n=30) for eight weeks. The IF group followed a 16:8 fasting schedule, while the SCR group reduced daily caloric intake by approximately 20%. Anthropometric measurements (weight, BMI, waist circumference, body fat percentage) and biochemical parameters (fasting glucose and lipid profile) were recorded at baseline and at the end of the study. Adherence and tolerability were monitored throughout the trial. Statistical comparison between groups was performed, and significance was set at p < 0.05. Results:Baseline characteristics were similar across groups (Table 1). The IF group achieved greater weight loss (−4.1 ± 2.1 kg) compared to the SCR group (−2.7 ± 1.9 kg), with statistically significant differences (p=0.012). Reductions in BMI, waist circumference, and body fat percentage were also more pronounced in the IF group (Table 2). Improvements in fasting glucose (−7.2 ± 9.1 mg/dL vs. −3.1 ± 8.7 mg/dL; p=0.041) and triglyceride levels (p=0.048) were observed with IF, while changes in total cholesterol and LDL-C were modest in both groups (Table 3). Adherence was satisfactory, and no serious adverse events occurred (Table 4). Conclusion:Intermittent fasting demonstrated superior benefits in weight reduction and selected metabolic markers compared to standard calorie restriction over eight weeks. It was well-tolerated and feasible for regular clinical practice. Recommendations:Intermittent fasting may be considered a structured dietary intervention for weight management in obese adults. Long-term studies are recommended to assess sustained outcomes and adherence patterns.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Devasena et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: