The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
the other one that I have now lost in my brain oh um so the idea that um I used to really kind of discourage people from intermittent fasting so the other thing I changed my opinion on was uh intermittent fasting in at least in terms of like your traditional 168
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
so the idea that um I used to really kind of discourage people from intermittent fasting so the other thing I changed my opinion on was uh intermittent fasting at least in terms of like your traditional 16-8 because I used to say well I'm worried about the the catabolic effects of it yeah you know that sort of thing at least when combined with resistance training and sufficient total protein and that the caveat should be that they also the in these studies they train within their feeding window there's some really good Studies by Grant Tinsley on this um there doesn't appear to be at least not statistically significant differences in lean mass between people who do 16-8 intermittent fasting versus people who just eat continuously
Time-restricted eating produces fat loss independent of total calories.
A 72-hour fast measurably improves autophagy markers in healthy adults.
One-meal-a-day (OMAD) eating patterns increase all-cause mortality in long-running cohort data.
Eating the largest meal before 3pm improves 24-hour glucose vs. an evening-heavy schedule, calorie-matched.