← All sources
A meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of alternate day fasting, the 5:2 diet, and time-restricted eating for weight loss
Network-informed meta-analysis of intermittent fasting RCTs (24 trials, n=1,768): pooled intermittent fasting regimens produced similar mean weight loss to conventional caloric energy restriction (mean difference 0.26 kg; 95% CI −0.31 to 0.84; p = 0.37); exploratory network ranking favored alternate-day fasting, then caloric restriction, then time-restricted eating for weight loss (funder: Nestlé).
Design
- Included: RCTs comparing ADF, 5:2, or TRE vs caloric energy restriction (CER) or control (24 trials; n = 1,768)
- Analysis: random-effects models + exploratory network ranking (interpret cautiously)
Weight-loss outcomes (abstract)
- IF vs CER (pooled): mean difference 0.26 kg (95% CI −0.31 to 0.84; p = 0.37) — not statistically significant
- Exploratory ranking: ADF ranked highest for weight-loss probability, followed by CER, then TRE
- Compliance: generally >80% in trials <3 months in abstract summary
Evidence hygiene
- Industry funding / author employment disclosures include Nestlé entities—read COI tables before policy inference.
- Pair with trial-duration-matched primary RCTs (Liu 2022, Jamshed 2022, Lowe 2020) because this row is a cross-design literature summary, not a single intervention prescription.
Publication
Elortegui Pascual P, Rolands MR, Eldridge AL, et al. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2023 Feb;31 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):9-21. doi: 10.1002/oby.23568. Epub 2022 Nov 8. PMID 36349432.
Outcomes
- Pooled mean weight-loss difference intermittent fasting regimens vs conventional caloric energy restriction: 0.26 kg (95% CI −0.31 to 0.84; p = 0.37), not statistically significant per abstract.
- Exploratory network analysis ranked alternate-day fasting highest for weight-loss effectiveness probability, followed by caloric energy restriction, then time-restricted eating (abstract narrative; see erratum PMID 39978416).