[paipa]

Title is misleading, the intermittent fasting this paper is talking about is a brutal 350-550 calories per day restriction. That's just fasting.

[pessimizer]

You don't think they looked up intermittent fasting? The diet was 5-6 days of eating whatever you want, and 35-60 hrs with the 350-550 calorie restriction. It's not brutal, it's standard.

I did M-W-F 400kcal days when I would intermittent fast, for 6 months straight, 3-4 times over about 6 years, and the last time my weight never went up again. I've been years in a 5lb range around my perfect high school weight with no effort or thought, and I completely blame IF.

edit: they buried it pretty good in the paper, but was it really worth commenting about if it wasn't worth checking?

[throwaway290]

yes, the original commenter doesn't know what he's talking about. 35 hr is low end of IF. I did it on a whim with 0 calorie intake (water only), my colleague done it too.

I didn't even know that with 500 calories per day (it's like a whole bagel with cheese) you can still call it "IF", sounds cheaty.

[grecy]

There are 140 calories in a can of coke. All a person has to do is stop drinking two cans a day and make zero other changes and they’ve about met your 300 calorie reduction.

Hardly sounds like fasting to me.

[hombre_fatal]

No, you got it backwards. They were restricted to a few hundred calories per day.

[asdfqwertzxcv]

Was confused by this, as well. It appears they skilled the intermittent part entirely.

[nikolay]

That's starvation, not fasting.