2020 Update:

A recent study following the popular 5:2 IF schedule vs a calorie matched restricted calorie diet, yet again, found no statistically significant differences in endpoints studied, which was weight weight cardiometabolic factors:

Intermittent energy restriction was as successful in achieving modest weight loss over a 24-month period as continuous energy restriction.

The study ran a full year and followed over 100 people. The Abstract is posted blow.

Intermittent Fasting (IF) continues to be a popular approach to weight loss. It’s not a new approach, and most of my comments HERE still hold up. Since that vid, a number of studies in humans have been done, and the effects have not been impressive. The study below, the largest to date, that ran 50 weeks, did not find major differences in weight loss, and other endpoints looked at.

I’m not ready to dismiss IF per se, as there’s still more questions then answers. In this case, in obese non-exercising people, a 5;2 IF protocol was not superior to calorie matched diet for weight loss. The next step would be comparing different IF protocols. For example, perhaps the  5:2 approach may not potentiate endocrine adaptation as well as other approaches, or maybe different protocols will be more effective for different populations. Fact is, we don’t have the answers at this time, and what exists for human studies small and or short term.

Also, what impact does IF have on performance or strength? Does a strength or physique athlete respond differently to IF than say an endurance athlete? What about lean vs people with higher bodyfat levels? There’s still plenty of Qs to be answered regarding IF…

Bottom line at this time: find the approach you find most beneficial to your goals, but don’t fall for IF being a magical approach to fat loss, cuz it’s not. It’s still about the calories. Some recent thoughts on calories vs exercise worth a read HERE also as well as understanding the 3,500 calorie myth HERE.

Effects of intermittent and continuous calorie restriction on body weight and metabolism over 50 wk: a randomized controlled trial
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 108, Issue 5, 1 November 2018, Pages 933–945,

Although preliminary evidence suggests that intermittent calorie restriction (ICR) exerts stronger effects on metabolic parameters, which may link obesity and major chronic diseases, compared with continuous calorie restriction (CCR), there is a lack of well-powered intervention studies.
We conducted a randomized controlled trial to test whether ICR, operationalized as the “5:2 diet,” has stronger effects on adipose tissue gene expression, anthropometric and body composition measures, and circulating metabolic biomarkers than CCR and a control regimen.
One hundred and fifty overweight and obese nonsmokers [body mass index (kg/m2) ≥25 to <40, 50% women], aged 35–65 y, were randomly assigned to an ICR group (5 d without energy restriction and 2 d with 75% energy deficit, net weekly energy deficit ∼20%), a CCR group (daily energy deficit ∼20%), or a control group (no advice to restrict energy) and participated in a 12-wk intervention phase, a 12-wk maintenance phase, and a 26-wk follow-up phase.
Loge relative weight change over the intervention phase was −7.1% ± 0.7% (mean ± SEM) with ICR, −5.2% ± 0.6% with CCR, and −3.3% ± 0.6% with the control regimen (Poverall < 0.001, PICR vs. CCR = 0.053). Despite slightly greater weight loss with ICR than with CCR, there were no significant differences between the groups in the expression of 82 preselected genes in adipose tissue implicated in pathways linking obesity to chronic diseases. At the final follow-up assessment (week 50), weight loss was −5.2% ± 1.2% with ICR, −4.9% ± 1.1% with CCR, and −1.7% ± 0.8% with the control regimen (Poverall = 0.01, PICR vs. CCR = 0.89). These effects were paralleled by proportional changes in visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue volumes. There were no significant differences between ICR and CCR regarding various circulating metabolic biomarkers.
Our results on the effects of the “5:2 diet” indicate that ICR may be equivalent but not superior to CCR for weight reduction and prevention of metabolic diseases.
Impact of intermittent vs. continuous energy restriction on weight and cardiometabolic factors: a 12-month follow-up. Int J Obes (2020)


Background and objective

Intermittent energy restriction continues to gain popularity as a weight loss strategy; however, data assessing it’s long-term viability is limited. The objective of this study was to follow up with participants 12 months after they had completed a 12-month dietary intervention trial involving continuous energy restriction and two forms of intermittent energy restriction; a week-on-week-off energy restriction and a 5:2 programme, assessing long-term changes on weight, body composition, blood lipids and glucose.

Subjects and methods

109 overweight and obese adults, aged 18–72 years, attended a 12-month follow-up after completing a 12-month dietary intervention involving three groups: continuous energy restriction (1000 kcal/day for women and 1200 kcal/day for men), week-on-week-off energy restriction (alternating between the same energy restriction as the continuous group for one week and one week of habitual diet), or 5:2 (500 kcal/day on modified fast days each week for women and 600 kcal/day for men). The primary outcome was weight change at 24 months from baseline, with secondary outcomes of change in body composition, blood lipids and glucose.


For the 109 individuals who completed the 12-month follow-up (82 female, 15 male, mean BMI 33 kg/m2), weight decreased over time with no differences between week-on and week-off and continuous energy restriction or 5:2 and continuous energy restriction with −4.5 ± 4.9 kg for continuous energy restriction, −2.8 ± 6.5 kg for week-on, week-off and −3.5 ± 5.1 kg for 5:2. Total cholesterol reduced over time and glucose, HDL, LDL and triglycerides were unchanged.

Discussion and conclusion

Intermittent energy restriction was as successful in achieving modest weight loss over a 24-month period as continuous energy restriction.

  1. elizabeth maron 2 years ago

    Will, are there any studies on other health benefits from IF that are not regarding weight loss? Cholesterol, insulin resistance, autophagy, as those are the band wagon claims for reasons to IF too.

    • Author
      Will Brink 2 years ago

      In this study, they looked at “various circulating metabolic biomarkers” and found no differences. The specifics can be found in the full paper linked. There are small studies that didn’t last long that have suggested improvements in various metabolic biomarkers other than weight loss were improved with IF, but larger studies being done coming out have been – as is often the case – much less impressive in those endpoints.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

©2020 Brinkzone.com


I'm not around right now. But you can send me an email and I'll get back to you soon.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?