Intermittent v. continuous energy restriction: differential effects on postprandial glucose and lipid metabolism following matched weight loss in overweight/obese participants

The intermittent energy restriction (IER) approach to weight loss involves short periods of substantial (>70 %) energy restriction (ER) interspersed with normal eating. Studies to date comparing IER to continuous energy restriction (CER) have predominantly measured fasting indices of cardiometabo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:British journal of nutrition 2018-03, Vol.119 (5), p.507-516
Hauptverfasser: Antoni, Rona, Johnston, Kelly L., Collins, Adam L., Robertson, M. Denise
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 516
container_issue 5
container_start_page 507
container_title British journal of nutrition
container_volume 119
creator Antoni, Rona
Johnston, Kelly L.
Collins, Adam L.
Robertson, M. Denise
description The intermittent energy restriction (IER) approach to weight loss involves short periods of substantial (>70 %) energy restriction (ER) interspersed with normal eating. Studies to date comparing IER to continuous energy restriction (CER) have predominantly measured fasting indices of cardiometabolic risk. This study aimed to compare the effects of IER and CER on postprandial glucose and lipid metabolism following matched weight loss. In all, twenty-seven (thirteen male) overweight/obese participants (46 (sem 3) years, 30·1 (sem 1·0) kg/m2) who were randomised to either an IER intervention (2638 kJ for 2 d/week with an overall ER of 22 (sem 0·3) %, n 15) or a CER intervention (2510 kJ below requirements with overall ER of 23 (sem 0·8) %) completed the study. Postprandial responses to a test meal (over 360 min) and changes in anthropometry (fat mass, fat-free mass, circumferences) were assessed at baseline and upon attainment of 5 % weight loss, following a 7-d period of weight stabilisation. The study found no statistically significant difference in the time to attain a 5 % weight loss between groups (median 59 d (interquartile range (IQR) 41–80) and 73 d (IQR 48–128), respectively, P=0·246), or in body composition (P≥0·437). For postprandial measures, neither diet significantly altered glycaemia (P=0·266), whereas insulinaemia was reduced comparatively (P=0·903). The reduction in C-peptide tended (P=0·057) to be greater following IER (309 128 (sem23 268) to 247781 (sem20 709) pmol×360 min/l) v. CER (297 204 (sem25 112) to 301 655 (sem32 714) pmol×360 min/l). The relative reduction in TAG responses was greater (P=0·045) following IER (106 (sem30) to 68 (sem 15) mmol×360 min/l) compared with CER (117 (sem 43) to 130 (sem 31) mmol×360 min/l). In conclusion, these preliminary findings highlight underlying differences between IER and CER, including a superiority of IER in reducing postprandial lipaemia, which now warrant targeted mechanistic evaluation within larger study cohorts.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S0007114517003890
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2011275502</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0007114517003890</cupid><sourcerecordid>2011275502</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c421t-69dc6f4030a6797b183dbc5f987bfc215bf7651da51e2fd2de16662113d73ac43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1Uctu1TAQtRCIXi58ABtkiQ2btB7n4YQdqnhUqsQCWEeOPU5dOXawnVb9Kn4RX90LSCBW9sycOTNzDiEvgZ0DA3HxhTEmAJoWBGN1P7BHZAeNaCvedfwx2R3K1aF-Rp6ldFvCHtjwlJzxoWV9N9Q78uPKZ4yLzRl9pnfnVAWfrd_Clih6jPMDjZhytCrb4N9SbY3BWLBWOorlr3KiwdM1pLxG6fUhP7tNhYS0hNTZ1Wq6YJZTcDYt1ATnwr31M11kVjeo6T3a-SZTF1Ki1tNwh_GYuggTFppVxmyVXaXP6Tl5YqRL-OL07sm3D--_Xn6qrj9_vLp8d12phkOuukGrzjSsZrITg5igr_WkWjP0YjKKQzsZ0bWgZQvIjeYaoSuaAdRa1FI19Z68OfKuMXzfigLjYpNC56THos3IGQAXbct4gb7-C3obtujLdiOHoR6K1kXqPYEjSsVyZ0QzrtEuMj6MwMaDm-M_bpaeVyfmbVpQ_-74ZV8B1CdSuUzR6hn_zP4_7U8VuK4T</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2193995069</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Intermittent v. continuous energy restriction: differential effects on postprandial glucose and lipid metabolism following matched weight loss in overweight/obese participants</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Antoni, Rona ; Johnston, Kelly L. ; Collins, Adam L. ; Robertson, M. Denise</creator><creatorcontrib>Antoni, Rona ; Johnston, Kelly L. ; Collins, Adam L. ; Robertson, M. Denise</creatorcontrib><description>The intermittent energy restriction (IER) approach to weight loss involves short periods of substantial (&gt;70 %) energy restriction (ER) interspersed with normal eating. Studies to date comparing IER to continuous energy restriction (CER) have predominantly measured fasting indices of cardiometabolic risk. This study aimed to compare the effects of IER and CER on postprandial glucose and lipid metabolism following matched weight loss. In all, twenty-seven (thirteen male) overweight/obese participants (46 (sem 3) years, 30·1 (sem 1·0) kg/m2) who were randomised to either an IER intervention (2638 kJ for 2 d/week with an overall ER of 22 (sem 0·3) %, n 15) or a CER intervention (2510 kJ below requirements with overall ER of 23 (sem 0·8) %) completed the study. Postprandial responses to a test meal (over 360 min) and changes in anthropometry (fat mass, fat-free mass, circumferences) were assessed at baseline and upon attainment of 5 % weight loss, following a 7-d period of weight stabilisation. The study found no statistically significant difference in the time to attain a 5 % weight loss between groups (median 59 d (interquartile range (IQR) 41–80) and 73 d (IQR 48–128), respectively, P=0·246), or in body composition (P≥0·437). For postprandial measures, neither diet significantly altered glycaemia (P=0·266), whereas insulinaemia was reduced comparatively (P=0·903). The reduction in C-peptide tended (P=0·057) to be greater following IER (309 128 (sem23 268) to 247781 (sem20 709) pmol×360 min/l) v. CER (297 204 (sem25 112) to 301 655 (sem32 714) pmol×360 min/l). The relative reduction in TAG responses was greater (P=0·045) following IER (106 (sem30) to 68 (sem 15) mmol×360 min/l) compared with CER (117 (sem 43) to 130 (sem 31) mmol×360 min/l). In conclusion, these preliminary findings highlight underlying differences between IER and CER, including a superiority of IER in reducing postprandial lipaemia, which now warrant targeted mechanistic evaluation within larger study cohorts.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-1145</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1475-2662</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0007114517003890</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29508693</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Anthropometry ; Blood glucose ; Body composition ; Body fat ; Body weight ; Body weight loss ; Cardiovascular disease ; Diabetes ; Diet ; Energy ; Family medical history ; Fat-free body mass ; Glucose ; Glucose metabolism ; Health risks ; Human and Clinical Nutrition ; Insulin resistance ; Intervention ; Lipid metabolism ; Lipids ; Metabolism ; Obesity ; Overweight ; Reduction ; Risk factors ; Statistical analysis ; Triglycerides ; Weight control ; Weight loss ; Women</subject><ispartof>British journal of nutrition, 2018-03, Vol.119 (5), p.507-516</ispartof><rights>Copyright © The Authors 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c421t-69dc6f4030a6797b183dbc5f987bfc215bf7651da51e2fd2de16662113d73ac43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c421t-69dc6f4030a6797b183dbc5f987bfc215bf7651da51e2fd2de16662113d73ac43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007114517003890/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,776,780,27903,27904,55607</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29508693$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Antoni, Rona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnston, Kelly L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Collins, Adam L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robertson, M. Denise</creatorcontrib><title>Intermittent v. continuous energy restriction: differential effects on postprandial glucose and lipid metabolism following matched weight loss in overweight/obese participants</title><title>British journal of nutrition</title><addtitle>Br J Nutr</addtitle><description>The intermittent energy restriction (IER) approach to weight loss involves short periods of substantial (&gt;70 %) energy restriction (ER) interspersed with normal eating. Studies to date comparing IER to continuous energy restriction (CER) have predominantly measured fasting indices of cardiometabolic risk. This study aimed to compare the effects of IER and CER on postprandial glucose and lipid metabolism following matched weight loss. In all, twenty-seven (thirteen male) overweight/obese participants (46 (sem 3) years, 30·1 (sem 1·0) kg/m2) who were randomised to either an IER intervention (2638 kJ for 2 d/week with an overall ER of 22 (sem 0·3) %, n 15) or a CER intervention (2510 kJ below requirements with overall ER of 23 (sem 0·8) %) completed the study. Postprandial responses to a test meal (over 360 min) and changes in anthropometry (fat mass, fat-free mass, circumferences) were assessed at baseline and upon attainment of 5 % weight loss, following a 7-d period of weight stabilisation. The study found no statistically significant difference in the time to attain a 5 % weight loss between groups (median 59 d (interquartile range (IQR) 41–80) and 73 d (IQR 48–128), respectively, P=0·246), or in body composition (P≥0·437). For postprandial measures, neither diet significantly altered glycaemia (P=0·266), whereas insulinaemia was reduced comparatively (P=0·903). The reduction in C-peptide tended (P=0·057) to be greater following IER (309 128 (sem23 268) to 247781 (sem20 709) pmol×360 min/l) v. CER (297 204 (sem25 112) to 301 655 (sem32 714) pmol×360 min/l). The relative reduction in TAG responses was greater (P=0·045) following IER (106 (sem30) to 68 (sem 15) mmol×360 min/l) compared with CER (117 (sem 43) to 130 (sem 31) mmol×360 min/l). In conclusion, these preliminary findings highlight underlying differences between IER and CER, including a superiority of IER in reducing postprandial lipaemia, which now warrant targeted mechanistic evaluation within larger study cohorts.</description><subject>Anthropometry</subject><subject>Blood glucose</subject><subject>Body composition</subject><subject>Body fat</subject><subject>Body weight</subject><subject>Body weight loss</subject><subject>Cardiovascular disease</subject><subject>Diabetes</subject><subject>Diet</subject><subject>Energy</subject><subject>Family medical history</subject><subject>Fat-free body mass</subject><subject>Glucose</subject><subject>Glucose metabolism</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>Human and Clinical Nutrition</subject><subject>Insulin resistance</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Lipid metabolism</subject><subject>Lipids</subject><subject>Metabolism</subject><subject>Obesity</subject><subject>Overweight</subject><subject>Reduction</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Triglycerides</subject><subject>Weight control</subject><subject>Weight loss</subject><subject>Women</subject><issn>0007-1145</issn><issn>1475-2662</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1Uctu1TAQtRCIXi58ABtkiQ2btB7n4YQdqnhUqsQCWEeOPU5dOXawnVb9Kn4RX90LSCBW9sycOTNzDiEvgZ0DA3HxhTEmAJoWBGN1P7BHZAeNaCvedfwx2R3K1aF-Rp6ldFvCHtjwlJzxoWV9N9Q78uPKZ4yLzRl9pnfnVAWfrd_Clih6jPMDjZhytCrb4N9SbY3BWLBWOorlr3KiwdM1pLxG6fUhP7tNhYS0hNTZ1Wq6YJZTcDYt1ATnwr31M11kVjeo6T3a-SZTF1Ki1tNwh_GYuggTFppVxmyVXaXP6Tl5YqRL-OL07sm3D--_Xn6qrj9_vLp8d12phkOuukGrzjSsZrITg5igr_WkWjP0YjKKQzsZ0bWgZQvIjeYaoSuaAdRa1FI19Z68OfKuMXzfigLjYpNC56THos3IGQAXbct4gb7-C3obtujLdiOHoR6K1kXqPYEjSsVyZ0QzrtEuMj6MwMaDm-M_bpaeVyfmbVpQ_-74ZV8B1CdSuUzR6hn_zP4_7U8VuK4T</recordid><startdate>20180314</startdate><enddate>20180314</enddate><creator>Antoni, Rona</creator><creator>Johnston, Kelly L.</creator><creator>Collins, Adam L.</creator><creator>Robertson, M. Denise</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180314</creationdate><title>Intermittent v. continuous energy restriction: differential effects on postprandial glucose and lipid metabolism following matched weight loss in overweight/obese participants</title><author>Antoni, Rona ; Johnston, Kelly L. ; Collins, Adam L. ; Robertson, M. Denise</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c421t-69dc6f4030a6797b183dbc5f987bfc215bf7651da51e2fd2de16662113d73ac43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Anthropometry</topic><topic>Blood glucose</topic><topic>Body composition</topic><topic>Body fat</topic><topic>Body weight</topic><topic>Body weight loss</topic><topic>Cardiovascular disease</topic><topic>Diabetes</topic><topic>Diet</topic><topic>Energy</topic><topic>Family medical history</topic><topic>Fat-free body mass</topic><topic>Glucose</topic><topic>Glucose metabolism</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>Human and Clinical Nutrition</topic><topic>Insulin resistance</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Lipid metabolism</topic><topic>Lipids</topic><topic>Metabolism</topic><topic>Obesity</topic><topic>Overweight</topic><topic>Reduction</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Triglycerides</topic><topic>Weight control</topic><topic>Weight loss</topic><topic>Women</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Antoni, Rona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnston, Kelly L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Collins, Adam L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robertson, M. Denise</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>British journal of nutrition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Antoni, Rona</au><au>Johnston, Kelly L.</au><au>Collins, Adam L.</au><au>Robertson, M. Denise</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Intermittent v. continuous energy restriction: differential effects on postprandial glucose and lipid metabolism following matched weight loss in overweight/obese participants</atitle><jtitle>British journal of nutrition</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Nutr</addtitle><date>2018-03-14</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>119</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>507</spage><epage>516</epage><pages>507-516</pages><issn>0007-1145</issn><eissn>1475-2662</eissn><abstract>The intermittent energy restriction (IER) approach to weight loss involves short periods of substantial (&gt;70 %) energy restriction (ER) interspersed with normal eating. Studies to date comparing IER to continuous energy restriction (CER) have predominantly measured fasting indices of cardiometabolic risk. This study aimed to compare the effects of IER and CER on postprandial glucose and lipid metabolism following matched weight loss. In all, twenty-seven (thirteen male) overweight/obese participants (46 (sem 3) years, 30·1 (sem 1·0) kg/m2) who were randomised to either an IER intervention (2638 kJ for 2 d/week with an overall ER of 22 (sem 0·3) %, n 15) or a CER intervention (2510 kJ below requirements with overall ER of 23 (sem 0·8) %) completed the study. Postprandial responses to a test meal (over 360 min) and changes in anthropometry (fat mass, fat-free mass, circumferences) were assessed at baseline and upon attainment of 5 % weight loss, following a 7-d period of weight stabilisation. The study found no statistically significant difference in the time to attain a 5 % weight loss between groups (median 59 d (interquartile range (IQR) 41–80) and 73 d (IQR 48–128), respectively, P=0·246), or in body composition (P≥0·437). For postprandial measures, neither diet significantly altered glycaemia (P=0·266), whereas insulinaemia was reduced comparatively (P=0·903). The reduction in C-peptide tended (P=0·057) to be greater following IER (309 128 (sem23 268) to 247781 (sem20 709) pmol×360 min/l) v. CER (297 204 (sem25 112) to 301 655 (sem32 714) pmol×360 min/l). The relative reduction in TAG responses was greater (P=0·045) following IER (106 (sem30) to 68 (sem 15) mmol×360 min/l) compared with CER (117 (sem 43) to 130 (sem 31) mmol×360 min/l). In conclusion, these preliminary findings highlight underlying differences between IER and CER, including a superiority of IER in reducing postprandial lipaemia, which now warrant targeted mechanistic evaluation within larger study cohorts.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>29508693</pmid><doi>10.1017/S0007114517003890</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0007-1145
ispartof British journal of nutrition, 2018-03, Vol.119 (5), p.507-516
issn 0007-1145
1475-2662
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2011275502
source EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete
subjects Anthropometry
Blood glucose
Body composition
Body fat
Body weight
Body weight loss
Cardiovascular disease
Diabetes
Diet
Energy
Family medical history
Fat-free body mass
Glucose
Glucose metabolism
Health risks
Human and Clinical Nutrition
Insulin resistance
Intervention
Lipid metabolism
Lipids
Metabolism
Obesity
Overweight
Reduction
Risk factors
Statistical analysis
Triglycerides
Weight control
Weight loss
Women
title Intermittent v. continuous energy restriction: differential effects on postprandial glucose and lipid metabolism following matched weight loss in overweight/obese participants
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T01%3A13%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Intermittent%20v.%20continuous%20energy%20restriction:%20differential%20effects%20on%20postprandial%20glucose%20and%20lipid%20metabolism%20following%20matched%20weight%20loss%20in%20overweight/obese%20participants&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20nutrition&rft.au=Antoni,%20Rona&rft.date=2018-03-14&rft.volume=119&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=507&rft.epage=516&rft.pages=507-516&rft.issn=0007-1145&rft.eissn=1475-2662&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0007114517003890&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2011275502%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2193995069&rft_id=info:pmid/29508693&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0007114517003890&rfr_iscdi=true