Dataset Information

Severely restricting energy intake for 24 h does not affect markers of bone metabolism at rest or in response to re-feeding.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Intermittent energy restriction commonly refers to ad libitum energy intake punctuated with 24 h periods of severe energy restriction. This can improve markers of metabolic health but the effects on bone metabolism are unknown. This study assessed how 24 h severe energy restriction and subsequent refeeding affected markers of bone turnover. METHODS:In a randomised order, 16 lean men and women completed 2, 48 h trials over 3 days. On day 1, participants consumed a 24 h diet providing 100% [EB: 9.27 (1.43) MJ] or 25% [ER: 2.33 (0.34) MJ] of estimated energy requirements. On day 2, participants consumed a standardised breakfast (08:00), followed by an ad libitum lunch (12:00) and dinner (19:30). Participants then fasted overnight, returning on day 3. Plasma concentrations of C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX), procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) and parathyroid hormone (PTH) were assessed as indices of bone metabolism after an overnight fast on days 1-3, and for 4 h after breakfast on day 2. RESULTS:There were no differences between trials in fasting concentrations of CTX, P1NP or PTH on days 1-3 (P?>?0.512). During both trials, consuming breakfast reduced CTX between 1 and 4 h (P?

SUBMITTER: Clayton DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7669762 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Severely restricting energy intake for 24 h does not affect markers of bone metabolism at rest or in response to re-feeding.

Clayton David J DJ James Lewis J LJ Sale Craig C Templeman Iain I Betts James A JA Varley Ian I

European journal of nutrition 20200203 8

<h4>Purpose</h4>Intermittent energy restriction commonly refers to ad libitum energy intake punctuated with 24 h periods of severe energy restriction. This can improve markers of metabolic health but the effects on bone metabolism are unknown. This study assessed how 24 h severe energy restriction and subsequent refeeding affected markers of bone turnover.<h4>Methods</h4>In a randomised order, 16 lean men and women completed 2, 48 h trials over 3 days. On day 1, participants consumed a 24 h diet ...[more]

PMID: 32016644

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVarious recommendations exist for total water intake (TWI), yet it is seldom reported in dietary surveys. Few studies have examined how real-life consumption patterns, including beverage type, variety and timing relate to TWI and energy intake (EI).MethodsWe analysed weighed dietary records from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey of 1724 British adults aged 19-64 years (2000/2001) to investigate beverage consumption patterns over 24 hrs and 7 days and associations with TWI and EI. TWI was calculated from the nutrient composition of each item of food and drink and compared with reference values.ResultsMean TWI was 2.53 L (SD 0.86) for men and 2.03 L (SD 0.71) for women, close to the European Food Safety Authority "adequate Intake" (AI) of 2.5 L and 2 L, respectively. However, for 33% of men and 23% of women TWI was below AI and TWI:EI ratio was <1 g/kcal. Beverages accounted for 75% of TWI. Beverage variety was correlated with TWI (r 0.34) and more weakly with EI (r 0.16). Beverage consumption peaked at 0800 hrs (mainly hot beverages/ milk) and 2100 hrs (mainly alcohol). Total beverage consumption was higher at weekends, especially among men. Overall, beverages supplied 16% of EI (men 17%, women 14%), alcoholic drinks contributed 9% (men) and 5% (women), milk 5-6%, caloric soft drinks 2%, and fruit juice 1%.In multi-variable regression (adjusted for sex, age, body weight, smoking, dieting, activity level and mis-reporting), replacing 100 g of caloric beverages (milk, fruit juice, caloric soft drinks and alcohol) with 100 g non-caloric drinks (diet soft drinks, hot beverages and water) was associated with a reduction in EI of 15 kcal, or 34 kcal if food energy were unchanged. Using within-person data (deviations from 7-day mean) each 100 g change in caloric beverages was associated with 29 kcal change in EI or 35 kcal if food energy were constant. By comparison the calculated energy content of caloric drinks consumed was 47 kcal/100 g.ConclusionsTWI and beverage consumption are closely related, and some individuals appeared to have low TWI. Compensation for energy from beverages may occur but is partial. A better understanding of interactions between drinking and eating habits and their impact on water and energy balance would give a firmer basis to dietary recommendations.

Project description:BackgroundRestricting fluids and foods during labour is common practice across many birth settings with some women only being allowed sips of water or ice chips. Restriction of oral intake may be unpleasant for some women, and may adversely influence their experience of labour.ObjectivesTo determine the benefits and harms of oral fluid or food restriction during labour.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2013) and reference lists of retrieved studies.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of restricting fluids and food for women in labour compared with women free to eat and drink.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction.Main resultsWe identified 19 studies of which we included five, involving 3130 women. We excluded eight studies, one awaits classification and five are ongoing studies. All the included studies looked at women in active labour and at low risk of potentially requiring a general anaesthetic. One study looked at complete restriction versus giving women the freedom to eat and drink at will; two studies looked at water only versus giving women specific fluids and foods and two studies looked at water only versus giving women carbohydrate drinks.When comparing any restriction of fluids and food versus women given some nutrition in labour, the meta-analysis was dominated by one study undertaken in a highly medicalised environment. There were no statistically significant differences identified in: caesarean section (average risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 1.25, five studies, 3103 women), operative vaginal births (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.10, five studies, 3103 women) and Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (average RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.68, four studies, 2902 infants), nor in any of the other outcomes assessed. Women's views were not assessed. The pooled data were insufficient to assess the incidence of Mendelson's syndrome, an extremely rare outcome. Other comparisons showed similar findings, except one study did report a significant increase in caesarean sections for women taking carbohydrate drinks in labour compared with water only, but these results should be interpreted with caution as the sample size was small.Authors' conclusionsSince the evidence shows no benefits or harms, there is no justification for the restriction of fluids and food in labour for women at low risk of complications. No studies looked specifically at women at increased risk of complications, hence there is no evidence to support restrictions in this group of women. Conflicting evidence on carbohydrate solutions means further studies are needed and it is critical in any future studies to assess women's views.

Project description:BackgroundTechnology-assisted 24-h dietary recalls (24HRs) have been widely adopted in population nutrition surveillance. Evaluations of 24HRs inform improvements, but direct comparisons of 24HR methods for accuracy in reference to a measure of true intake are rarely undertaken in a single study population.ObjectivesTo compare the accuracy of energy and nutrient intake estimation of 4 technology-assisted dietary assessment methods relative to true intake across breakfast, lunch, and dinner.MethodsIn a controlled feeding study with a crossover design, 152 participants [55% women; mean age 32 y, standard deviation (SD) 11; mean body mass index 26 kg/m2, SD 5] were randomized to 1 of 3 separate feeding days to consume breakfast, lunch, and dinner, with unobtrusive weighing of foods and beverages consumed. Participants undertook a 24HR the following day [Automated Self-Administered Dietary Assessment Tool-Australia (ASA24); Intake24-Australia; mobile Food Record-Trained Analyst (mFR-TA); or Image-Assisted Interviewer-Administered 24-hour recall (IA-24HR)]. When assigned to IA-24HR, participants referred to images captured of their meals using the mobile Food Record (mFR) app. True and estimated energy and nutrient intakes were compared, and differences among methods were assessed using linear mixed models.ResultsThe mean difference between true and estimated energy intake as a percentage of true intake was 5.4% (95% CI: 0.6, 10.2%) using ASA24, 1.7% (95% CI: -2.9, 6.3%) using Intake24, 1.3% (95% CI: -1.1, 3.8%) using mFR-TA, and 15.0% (95% CI: 11.6, 18.3%) using IA-24HR. The variances of estimated and true energy intakes were statistically significantly different for all methods (P < 0.01) except Intake24 (P = 0.1). Differential accuracy in nutrient estimation was present among the methods.ConclusionsUnder controlled conditions, Intake24, ASA24, and mFR-TA estimated average energy and nutrient intakes with reasonable validity, but intake distributions were estimated accurately by Intake24 only (energy and protein). This study may inform considerations regarding instruments of choice in future population surveillance. This trial was registered at Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry as ACTRN12621000209897.

Dataset Information

Severely restricting energy intake for 24 h does not affect markers of bone metabolism at rest or in response to re-feeding.

Publications

Severely restricting energy intake for 24 h does not affect markers of bone metabolism at rest or in response to re-feeding.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets