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 evidence-based medicine people are always way off because they say there is no evidence to suggest that five days of fasting once a year is beneficial there right but they're completely wrong from a clinical perspective because there's also no evidence that five days of fasting a year and a person whose normal weight and otherwise healthy is harmful to you
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 now you have to say what is the risk of doing that five days of fasting so five days so in a year you will eat three meals a day one year you'll eat a thousand meals for five days you're gonna miss 15 meals out of a thousand that's it that's the extent of what you're doing what is the risk of that I'll tell you it's just about zero like yeah you're gonna be hungry and stuff but if you're otherwise healthy the risk is very very very low and then you say what is the benefit well there's not really any great evidence of benefit either but because your risk is so low your risk to reward ratio is pretty reasonable
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.