Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing time-restricted eating with and without caloric restriction for weight loss
Thirty randomized trials (n = 1,341) in adults with overweight or obesity: pooled mean differences favored time-restricted eating for body weight, fat mass, and fat-free mass versus both non-isocaloric and isocaloric comparators—interpret alongside heterogeneity and control-group designs in the full text.
Design
Systematic review + meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42022301594); 30 RCTs, n = 1,341 adults with overweight/obesity.
Primary stratification
- Analysis 1: TRE vs isocaloric diet controls
- Analysis 2: TRE vs non-isocaloric controls
Pooled mean differences (abstract)
Non-isocaloric comparators
- Body weight: −2.82 kg (95% CI −3.49, −2.15)
- Fat mass: −1.36 kg (−2.09, −0.63)
- Fat-free mass: −0.86 kg (−1.23, −0.49)
Isocaloric comparators
- Body weight: −1.46 kg (−2.65, −0.26)
- Fat mass: −1.50 kg (−2.77, −0.24)
- Fat-free mass: −0.41 kg (−0.79, −0.03)
Evidence hygiene
Abstract-reported MDs are literature summaries, not individual predictions; verify heterogeneity, risk of bias, activity co-interventions, and adherence in the full article before clinical or coaching inference.
Distinct protocols
5:2 low-energy-day patterns and longer multi-day fasting sit primarily under Intermittent fasting (intermittent-fasting)—this synthesis is daily eating-window (TRE) focused.
Outcomes
- otherNon-isocaloric controls: TRE vs control MD body weight −2.82 kg (95% CI −3.49 to −2.15); fat mass −1.36 kg (−2.09 to −0.63); fat-free mass −0.86 kg (−1.23 to −0.49) across included RCTs (abstract).
- otherIsocaloric controls: TRE vs control MD body weight −1.46 kg (95% CI −2.65 to −0.26); fat mass −1.50 kg (−2.77 to −0.24); fat-free mass −0.41 kg (−0.79 to −0.03) across included RCTs (abstract).