Exploring Rates of Adherence and Barriers to Time-Restricted Eating.

Whilst the treatment and prevention of overweight and obesity-related disease is managed by restricting daily energy intake, long-term adherence to dietary strategies appears unsustainable. Time-restricted eating (TRE) aims to position energy intake in an eating window under 12 h per day and offers an alternative behavioral intervention, which can aid weight management and improve cardiometabolic health. Adherence to previous TRE protocols is estimated at between 63 and 100%, although the accuracy of reporting is unclear. This study therefore aimed to provide an objective, subjective, and qualitative overview of adherence to a prescribed TRE protocol, and to identify any potential barriers affecting adherence. Adherence after 5 weeks of TRE was estimated at ~63% based on continuous glucose monitoring data when compared with time-stamped diet diaries. Subjective participant responses reported adherence at an average of ~61% per week. Barriers to adopting TRE, including work schedules, social events, and family life, were identified by participants during qualitative interviews. The findings of this study suggest that the development of personalized TRE protocols may help to navigate the barriers to adherence leading to improved health-related outcomes.

Identification of factors influencing motivation to undertake time-restricted feeding in humans.

The interaction between time of day and energy intake, termed chrono-nutrition, has received considerable recent interest. One aspect of chrono-nutrition with potential to benefit long-term cardio-metabolic health is time-restricted feeding (TRF). Current support for TRF primarily derives from animal research, although recent small-scale human studies indicate possible translational benefit. Whether free-living humans, however, can incorporate TRF into their daily lives is poorly understood. This study reports data from participants (n = 608) who completed an online questionnaire to investigate daily routine, likelihood of TRF incorporation within work vs free-days, and key considerations influencing TRF uptake. The majority of participants reported a typical daily feeding window (time between first and last energy intake) of between 10 and 14 h on workdays and free days, 62.7 and 65.5% respectively. Likelihood of adherence to TRF declined with an increase in the proposed restriction of the feeding window by 0.5 to 4-h per day. We then examined data from participants with a typical daily feeding window of 12+ h on workdays (n = 221) and free-days (n = 223) to investigate the likelihood of using TRF, and the most important considerations in making this decision. Of these participants, (n = 132) on workdays and (n = 125) on free days would likely reduce their feeding window by 3-h. Multiple regression analysis revealed that key considerations determining the likelihood of adopting TRF were: cost, time availability, and perceived health benefits (on workdays); wake time, bed time, time availability, motivation to change and perceived health benefits (on free-days). These data provide novel information regarding public attitudes towards TRF and highlight important aspects to be considered when translating controlled laboratory studies to public dietary advice.