Are intermittent calorie deficits better for fat loss than continuous deficits?  The MATADOR study suggested this to be the case, but there’s more to this study than meets the eye.  Learn all the details in this video research review.

Key Takeaways

  • Alternating 2 weeks of 33% calorie restriction with 2 weeks of maintenance resulted in superior fat loss to continuous restriction for 16 straight weeks.
  • While the researchers suggested attenuation of adaptive thermogenesis may have been the mechanism, this is likely not the case.  This conclusion is not consistent with the data in the study, and is also not consistent with data from other studies.
  • The most probable mechanism was superior dietary adherence, as nearly a 1000 calorie per day deficit is easier to stick to for only 2 weeks at a time, compared to 16 straight weeks.

Practical Application

  • Intermittent calorie restriction, with frequent diet breaks where an individual consumes at maintenance calories, can be a good strategy for fat loss for some individuals if it helps maintain long-term compliance.  However, it will likely not mitigate the adaptive thermogenesis that occurs with weight loss.
  • The best dietary strategy for fat loss is the one that results in the best adherence.

Continuous or Intermittent Calorie Deficits Which is Better for Fat Loss

Continuous or Intermittent Calorie Deficits Which is Better for Fat Loss

Click here to download a PDF of the slides (contains hyperlinks to all mentioned studies)

Click here to download an MP4 of the video