For a nice review check out this one [1]. Although most of 16:8 effects are minor, they build up over time.
[1]: https://examine.com/supplements/16-8-intermittent-fasting/
https://examine.com/supplements/16-8-intermittent-fasting/re...
> ND 3007 ± 444.7 kcal/day, carbohydrates 54.7 ± 2.2 %, fat 23.9 ± 3.5 %, protein 21.4 ± 1.8)
Any ideas why the TRF group has less calories and more protein than the ND group in the linked study linked in the article [0]? _Maybe_ the TRF group has smaller humans than the ND group, but then why would TRF have a higher protein diet?
> Some studies have found that 16:8 can preferentially reduce fat mass while sparing muscle, but further research is still required to confirm this
Bro-Science Body Builders know that a high protein diet + calorie restrictions are perfect for cutting abdominal fat. I don't see what value IF provides here.
I wish they would have stricter diets in the study. They control for smokers, but I wonder if participants in one group consume alcohol or deep-fried calories more than the other. Or even one group getting better sleep than the other group.
[0] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6735806/
----
My understanding is that Intermittent Fasting (IF) is built on shaky science b/c research doesn't control for calorie reduction (CR).
There are papers that suggest CR improves longevity. There are papers that say IF improves longevity, but I haven't found any research that says IF without CR improves longevity. IF studies allow subjects to eat unrestricted during food periods, but don't actually record how many calories are consumed. We don't know if the subjects (unintentionally) also CR during IF.
If IF helps people CR, then great, but I think its misleading to say that IF actually has direct health benefits.