Effect of planned pauses versus continuous energy restriction on weight loss and attrition: a systematic review.
systematic_review · Level I
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 38246879.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1002/oby.23976 and PMC identifier 11423418.
- Licence recorded as CC BY.
- The licence permits redistribution, so the abstract is shown in full and the full text is available from the publisher.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate whether pausing a weight loss program for a defined period of time could enhance weight loss and reduce attrition. Five databases and two trial registries were searched from inception to July 2023. Randomized-controlled trials of adults with overweight and/or obesity were included if they compared planned-pause interventions with continuous energy restriction (CER), usual care, or a minimal intervention. To be included, the weight loss intervention must have incorporated a pause of at least 1 week. Pooled mean differences for weight change and risk ratios for attrition were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. Nine intervention arms (N = 796 participants, 77% female) were included. Pooled results did not detect a significant difference in weight change between planned pauses and CER interventions at the end of the active intervention at a median 26 weeks (planned pauses vs. CER mean: -7.09 vs. -7.0 kg; mean difference: -0.09 kg; 95% CI: -1.10 to 0.93) or at final follow-up at a median 52 weeks (planned pauses vs. CER mean: -6.91 vs. -6.19 kg; mean difference: -0.72 kg; 95% CI: -2.92 to 1.48). There was no difference in attrition between planned pauses and CER interventions at the end of the active intervention (risk ratio: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.75) or at final follow-up (risk ratio: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.22). Planned pauses were consistently found to be no more or less effective than CER for weight loss or attrition.
Medical subject headings
- Caloric Restriction
- Obesity
- Weight Loss
- Weight Reduction Programs