16/8 IF schedule- does it have the same health benefits as longer fasts?

The “health benefits” of intermittent fasting are in the comparatively early stages of research and the results so far are largely inconclusive. But there are a lot of woo peddlers who have cherry picked study results and misapplied findings in animal studies to humans to confer magical properties upon intermittent fasting.

Right now, people are doing it because it’s the current fad (along with keto) and they mistakenly believe in the magical properties conferred as described above.

The study I’ve seen linked/quoted most often in regards to the benefits of IF was done on earthworms. I haven’t seen any other reputable peer reviewed research which conclusively shows health benefits in humans.

Egger29 wrote: »

jennk5309 wrote: »

Are you guys kidding me? I've read a ton about the health benefits- from lowering Igf-1 to autophagy to protecting chemo patients from the side effects...there are so many! I thought this was why most people do it. I just don't know the magic number meaning how many hours until the benefits kick in.

Dr Ted Naiman has a GREAT breakdown on IF on his site: http://burnfatnotsugar.com/intermittent-fasting.html

As well, Dr John Berardi did a complete self-experimentation on various degrees of Fasting. His 80 page report can be found here: http://danjohn.net/wp-content/uploads/Intermittent-Fasting_Precision-Nutrition.pdf

Both are excellent references and resources.

The first link has zero links to any research. None. And Dr. Naiman hardly appears to be an impartial researcher, since "burnfatnotsugar.com" is his website. He's also linked/quoted on dietdoctor.com and Fung's site - both of which are woo-filled propaganda sites. If you'd like a more factual, unbiased, evidence-based source regarding insulin, try James Krieger: https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/

As to the second link, here's an excerpt from Dr. Berardi's report that you linked to (it's on page 14, for reference):

Although animals (like rats and monkeys) are convenient test subjects, they’re not perfect models for predicting human response patterns. So, all the animal data suggesting strong benefits with IF aren’t necessarily helpful in predicting what will happen when humans try it.

When we look to the human data, we find – disappointingly – that experiments using IF are very limited. Also, those experiments that have been done often use poor experimental control groups. This makes their descriptive and predictive power limited. (There are some excellent reviews on this and I’ll point to them in the resources section in case you’re interested.)

I know this is annoying. I wish science were done perfectly every time, too. But right now, based on the available research, we’re left with far more questions about IF than answers. Nothing is definitive.

[ETA:] I'm more than open to changing my mind about IF, if/when research shows that these purported benefits actually exist. I've actually spent some time digging around on reputable evidence-based sites looking for peer-reviewed research which shows anything conclusive one way or the other. But as Berardi says, the evidence (reliable/credible evidence, that is) is very scant and inconclusive right now.

I more or less adhere to a 16/8 IF schedule myself, since I've found that it works well for satiety and adherence, so I don't think IF is a total crock of crap. I just think the "magic" is highly overstated right now, based upon what we know.