I'll preface this by saying I've not tried intermittent fasting, and I have no a priori opinion of it. That said, I read this in the Times yesterday, and I skimmed the source material, and I don't think the media interpretation of the study is really hitting the mark. People doing intermittent fasting, as I understand it, are trying not to calorie count. Therefore, comparing its effects to calorie counting really misses the point. The proper control is "eat whatever and whenever you want" to "eat whatever you want between hours A to B." Because in the end, they found that intermittent fasting works; it just doesn't work any better than controlling for calories. Controlling for calories is a lot harder than just setting up simple dietary rules to follow. I think the study was well-designed, and it looks like good work. I just think the media is using an opportunity to say I-told-you-so to a bunch of people who are trying to their best to do something good for themselves.
But both groups in this study restricted calories. So I wouldn’t conclude that intermittent fasting works as well as calorie restriction, just that it doesn’t improve calorie restriction. I agree that a better study would measure intermittent fasting versus no rules at all.People doing intermittent fasting, as I understand it, are trying not to calorie count. Therefore, comparing its effects to calorie counting really misses the point.
We randomly assigned 139 patients with obesity to time-restricted eating (eating only between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.) with calorie restriction or daily calorie restriction alone.