Researchers at Bond University in Robina, Australia, have found that meal timing strategies such as time-restricted eating, reducing meal frequency, and consuming calories earlier in the day are associated with modest weight loss over 12 weeks.

Obesity affects one in eight people worldwide, contributing to increased risks of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and certain types of cancer, making it a primary driver of premature mortality.

Traditional weight loss approaches set limits on calorie intake and specific food choices. Meal timing strategies are a potential alternative, simplifying dietary management by aligning eating patterns with circadian rhythms, to improve metabolic efficiency, regulate appetite hormones, and reduce late-day snacking behaviors

In a meta-data study, "Meal Timing and Anthropometric and Metabolic Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers looked into previous studies to see if they provide a signal for how well meal timing strategies have worked.

The research evaluated 29 randomized clinical trials involving 2,485 adults, 69% female, with a mean age of 44 and an average body mass index (BMI) of 33. Weight loss interventions included time-restricted eating (TRE) in 17 studies, meal frequency reduction in eight, and altered calorie distribution in four.

TRE was associated with an average weight loss of 1.37 kilograms compared to control groups. Lower meal frequency resulted in a weight reduction of 1.85 kilograms, while earlier caloric distribution resulted in a weight decrease of 1.75 kilograms.

Metabolic outcomes showed that TRE was linked to reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting glucose levels (making trial participants less likely to get diabetes). Theses effect sizes were small, leaving the clinical significance remaining unclear.

According to the findings, TRE may offer a simpler, more modest approach to weight management, but the modest weight loss observed may not translate into meaningful health benefits.

At least, that is what the data showed the researchers. The analysis also revealed a risk of bias in 76% of the included studies, with a high risk in 66%, raising concerns about the certainty of the evidence. Most studies faced challenges in blinding dietary interventions and relied on self-reported outcome measures, limiting confidence in the findings. With more rigorous research, it would be possible to know with greater certainty.

The team suggests further trials with larger sample sizes, standardized interventions, and longer follow-up periods to better understand the long-term effects of these dietary approaches.