Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 26, 2025

Assessment of the Metabolic Effects of Isocaloric 2:1 Intermittent Fasting in Mice
Published on: November 27, 2019
Efficacy and Safety of Use of the Fasting Algorithm for Singaporeans With Type 2 Diabetes (FAST) During Ramadan: A
Zheng Kang Lum1, Zi Rui Khoo1, Wei Yann See Toh2
1Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore.
Purpose:
We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of use of the Fasting Algorithm for Singaporeans with Type 2 Diabetes (FAST) during Ramadan.
Methods:
We performed a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. The inclusion criteria were age ≥21 years, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level ≤9.5%, and intention to fast for ≥10 days during Ramadan. Exclusion criteria included baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min, diabetes-related hospitalization, and short-term corticosteroid therapy. Participants were randomized to intervention (use of FAST) or control (usual care without FAST) groups. Efficacy outcomes were HbA1c level and fasting blood glucose and postprandial glucose changes, and the safety outcome was incidence of major or minor hypoglycemia during the Ramadan period. Glycemic variability and diabetes distress were also investigated. Linear mixed models were constructed to assess changes.
Results:
A total of 97 participants were randomized (intervention: n = 46, control: n = 51). The HbA1c improvement during Ramadan was 4 times greater in the intervention group (-0.4%) than in the control group (-0.1%) (P = .049). The mean fasting blood glucose level decreased in the intervention group (-3.6 mg/dL) and increased in the control group (+20.9 mg/dL) (P = .034). The mean postprandial glucose level showed greater improvement in the intervention group (-16.4 mg/dL) compared to the control group (-2.3 mg/dL). There were more minor hypoglycemic events based on self-monitered blood glucose readings in the control group (intervention: 4, control: 6; P = .744). Glycemic variability was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P = .284). No between-group differences in diabetes distress were observed (P = .479).
Conclusions:
Our findings emphasize the importance of efficacious, safe, and culturally tailored epistemic tools for diabetes management.
More Related Videos
06:13Author Spotlight: Exploring the Impact of Reduced Resistance Exercise Volume on Metabolic Health
Published on: December 1, 2023
12:59Improving Strength, Power, Muscle Aerobic Capacity, and Glucose Tolerance through Short-term Progressive Strength Training Among Elderly People
Published on: July 5, 2017
Related Concept Videos
Diabetes: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Complications
Metabolic States of the Body: Fasting and Starvation
Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients
Diabetes Mellitus: Type 2 and Gestational
Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors