What the trial actually tested
A specific protocol
The randomised RESET for Remission trial enrolled 96 adults aged 18 to 45 with obesity and early-onset type 2 diabetes who were not using insulin. For the first 12 weeks, the intervention group followed an 800–900 kcal daily diet, two supervised exercise sessions and one independent session each week. The next 12 weeks focused on weight maintenance. The comparison group received usual care.
Diet, exercise and clinical monitoring were combined, so the trial cannot isolate the effect of any one component.
The intervention took place at three centres in the UK and Canada. The first two weeks used total meal replacement; some food was then reintroduced while the prescribed energy intake continued. Medication changes and glucose monitoring happened under clinical supervision. That level of support is part of the intervention itself, not a minor detail that can be removed when interpreting the outcome.
What does remission mean?
HbA1c broadly reflects blood glucose exposure over the previous few months. In this trial, a value below 6.5% was only part of the definition: participants also had to be off glucose-lowering medication for at least 12 weeks. This gives researchers a consistent outcome to compare, but describes status at a particular time rather than the permanent disappearance of diabetes.
Blood glucose can rise again after remission. Ongoing checks of HbA1c, cardiovascular risk factors and complications remain relevant. Medication was adjusted by the clinical team within the trial; no reader should reduce or stop treatment because of a blog post or a study headline.
Results at 24 weeks
Remission occurred in 27 of 50 people in the intervention group (54%), compared with 2 of 46 (4%) receiving usual care. The trial defined remission as HbA1c below 6.5% without glucose-lowering medication for at least 12 weeks.
Remission is not a permanent cure. Continued follow-up matters, and this study does not establish how long the result lasts.
Of the 96 randomised participants, 86 attended the final assessment. In the primary analysis, anyone without final data was counted as not being in remission. This approach avoids inflating success by looking only at people who completed the programme. It still cannot answer what happens beyond the 24-week follow-up.
Weight, body fat and adverse effects
At 24 weeks, average weight loss was 8.4 kg in the intervention group and 1.2 kg with usual care. After statistical adjustment, the between-group difference was about 7.5 kg, including 6.6 kg more fat mass lost. These are group averages, not a prediction of what an individual would experience.
The intensive programme had costs as well as benefits. Adverse events were reported by 43 of 50 intervention participants and 6 of 46 controls, mainly early effects such as constipation, headache, dizziness and fatigue. No severe adverse event was reported in this summary, but the frequency of symptoms underscores the need for suitable supervision.
Why muscle matters
Rapid weight loss can reduce lean mass alongside body fat. The researchers combined aerobic and resistance exercise with the dietary programme and reported preservation of muscle mass and improvements in physical function.
This shifts attention beyond the number on the scale. It does not prove that resistance training alone caused remission.
The team also measured body composition and physical fitness. “Lean mass” includes muscle but also other tissues and water; it is not identical to muscle strength. RESET is valuable partly because it followed several dimensions of health rather than treating every drop on the scale as automatically beneficial.
What about intermittent fasting?
RESET did not study intermittent fasting or compare different eating windows. It used a very low energy intake, meal replacements, food reintroduction and structured exercise. Applying its remission rate to a 16:8 fasting schedule would be an unsupported leap.
A more relevant question for someone who fasts is whether the chosen schedule allows adequate nutrition and appropriate physical activity. If fasting brings dizziness, excessive restriction or medication-related glucose risks, personal clinical advice matters. This trial provides neither an ideal fasting window nor a universal rule.
A practical reading
Weight change is only one measure of progress. Strength, energy and the ability to sustain habits also matter. Appropriate strength activity and adequate nutrition may be discussed as part of a personalised plan.
The 800–900 kcal diet in this trial was an intensive medical intervention. It is not a calorie target to copy without clinical supervision, particularly if you have diabetes or take medication that affects blood glucose.
For a person considering weight management, the trial suggests better questions than “How quickly can I lose weight?” Can this approach supply adequate nutrition? Can I stay active and retain strength? What support will I have if the plan becomes hard to sustain? The answers depend on health status, medication and personal circumstances.
Keeping the benefit is another task
The intensive phase lasted 12 weeks and was followed by 12 weeks focused on weight maintenance. Reaching a lower weight and keeping it are different challenges. The authors themselves note that partial or full weight regain follows many weight-loss programmes over time.
Preserving strength might help physical function during that period, but this trial does not prove it prevents weight regain or prolongs remission. Longer follow-up is needed to learn who keeps the benefit, what support helps, and whether the programme can work in less intensive care settings.
Limits and next steps
The participants were young adults with obesity and early-onset type 2 diabetes. The published follow-up lasted 24 weeks, so the durability of remission and relevance to other groups remain uncertain.
If you live with diabetes, discuss major diet or exercise changes with your healthcare team. Never adjust medication on the basis of a blog article.
The comparison group received usual care, not the same low-energy diet without exercise. The study therefore cannot attribute the remission difference to resistance training alone or calculate the independent effect of exercise. Meal replacements, appointments and time for supervised training were also required; effectiveness in routine care still needs testing.