Abstract
BACKGROUND: Time-restricted eating (TRE), a feasible form of intermittent fasting, has been proven to benefit metabolic health in animal models and humans. To our knowledge, specific guidance on the appropriate period for eating during TRE has not yet been promoted. Therefore, to compare and assess the relative effectiveness estimates and rankings of TRE with different eating windows on human metabolic health, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). METHOD: PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared different eating windows on human metabolic health for adults. A Bayesian NMA was used to compare direct and indirect effects to determine the best different eating windows, and scientific evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: Twenty-seven RCTs comparing TRE with different eating windows on human metabolic health were reviewed, and all were included in the NMA. Compared with the normal diet group (non-TRE), the TRE group has certain benefits in reducing weight and fasting insulin. In terms of reducing fasting insulin, the 18:6 group (eating time = 6 h) was better than the 14:10 group (eating time = 10 h) and 16:8 group (eating time = 8 h) (P < 0.05); The < 6 group (eating time < 6 h) was better than the 14:10 group (P < 0.05). In terms of reducing fasting glucose, the < 6 group was better than the 14:10 group (P < 0.05). There were no statistical variations in weight, HDL, TG, and LDL across the different modes of TRE (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our research showed that no particular metabolic advantages of various eating windows were found. Therefore, our results suggested that different eating windows could promote similar benefits for metabolic parameters.