> restricting eating to a short window - often about eight hours

8 hours is not a short window. I'm pretty sure Golden Corral will kick you out somewhere around hour #3.

I've lost over 100lbs in the past year.

* I only eat one meal a day (supper). It's usually a very large meal, very high in lean protein.

* I avoid sugars and starches of all kinds and minimize other carbs (fruit, root veg, grains).

* After eating, I do 30 minutes on the treadmill.

For a middle-aged woman (a category which finds it particularly hard to lose weight) this has worked rather well. I can eat as much meat, (non-root) veg, dairy and soy as I want and I just keep losing weight.

So no, calorie restriction isn't the 'only way'.

My understanding of intermittent fasting is that it can encourage "garbage collection" of the body pruning the dead/sickly cells. Weight loss/gain is still driven by calories in/out.

> Intermittent fasting may make little difference to weight loss.

My personal experience is quite the opposite. In fact, this is the first time I have heard anybody claim that intermittent fasting, when done correctly, does not make you lose weight. Sounds like a study done by people who sell weight-loss drugs or meals.

Intermittent fasting is one of the more reliable ways to lose weight.

Personal experience says otherwise. Low carb/slow carb diet plus fasting 100% did it for me. 40 lbs gone, and have kept it off even while backing off of the initial rigidity. Everything in moderation, especially alcohol. Beer is a huge carb load, so that had to go entirely. Pasta as well. Potatoes too. Sure, I have a couple fries (or chippies for the BBC crew), but it’s all about those being scarce. It’s actually pretty easy to intermittent fast. Eat dinner and be done before 8pm and have lunch around 1pm the next day. Have coffee or tea in the morning.

What really accelerated weight loss for me was extremely rigid ketogenesis. Felt amazingly sharp and dialed in every morning, slept well, shredded pounds.

Others have said this too: My personal experience says quite the opposite as well. 224->205 over fall to spring timeline.

That being said, it is an extraordinarily difficult way losing weight and probably is not sustainable long term.

I am sure it's personal, but when I fast 24 hours (once per week), the next two days I look for less food, to the point that I can skip lunch without noticing.

The big deal for me is not eating stuff with flour (starch?) or sugar.

I already eat healthy, although I switched from chicken to a full protein tofu that's low on calories and that has been a blessing for protein intake (along with egg white). I can eat 60g of protein at lunch in about 350 calories.

That gives me everything I need for the gym.

My snack is apple with a teaspoon of pure pistachio butter, which calms down my desire for sweets (I love pistachio)

What made the most difference for me was strength training a few times per week. I do circuit training classes where you spend 6 minutes per station. I didn't change my diet that much, and I really didn't lose much weight. But the muscle displaced the fat and I'm slimmer and look better.

It's hilarious that people describe their anecdotal experience of being in a calorie deficit as a proof that "intermittent fasting works". This was never the question, but whether intermittent fasting brings additional weight loss benefits as compared to calorie deficit with frequent meals.

My anecdotal experience from 20y of bodybuilding and doing ~3 cuts a year: for cutting, I tried IF, 6 meals a day, low fat, low carb, high fat true keto, balanced... everything works. And works equally well - this is backed by numerous studies. The only difference is the impact on health parameters (different will get worse on low fat vs high fat), satiety, and how easy it is for someone to sustain the diet and stay in a deficit. This will depend on the lifestyle and personal preferences. So my preferred way to cut is high protein, low carb, essential fats, a ton of fiber. When building muscle I go high everything but balanced.

Anything else and more is sectarianism and people bragging about their choices not having verified their true claimed efficacy or benefits.

In a couple of days ~2 billion people world-wide will begin intermittent fasting, done from dawn to sunset, for a month, which is one of the components of the month of Ramadan. Nobody does this to lose weight, or even changes their diet, yet everyone loses some weight. 5lb is typical. Most people who fast Ramadan also gain it back afterward because they didn't make any changes to their diet, which points to the effectiveness of intermittent fasting to lose weight.

There is one difference between Ramadan fasting and modern intermittent fasting: Ramadan fasts are 'dry' fasts no water is imbibed and the alimentary canal stays completely unstimulated for long periods of time.

It's clear that given the same calorie input, there is little difference.

The main benefits of intermittent fasting are not in weight loss, but:

- Give your bowels the time to run the "cleaning program" (rumbling) - Reduce inflammation

This is how all dieting works. Specific techniques in isolation rarely have a huge impact, but that doesn't actually matter.

Any framework that causes an overwieght person to genuinely pay attention to what they eat will have a weight loss impact, because all you have to do to lose weight is eat less. The wide variety of dieting techniques are a good thing because it maximizes the likelihood that any individual will find a framework that induces them to pay attention to their eating habits.

I've gone through many weight loss cycles using various techniques including OMAD. Eating once a day changes your relationship with food, and disrupting that relationship is a thousand times more important than whatever obscure biological processes the fitness gurus suppose are in play.

Intermittent fasting can be not only about weight loss but helping manage, balance or regulate many bodily functions.

Also, assertions in support of consumption should be reviewed to make sure it's not put forward into media and study by consumptionists.

How do people that do this exercise? are they mostly sedentary?

I mostly ride bikes for exercise and need fuel at least every hour on a ride or else I will bonk out. My output is 500kcal/hour based on power meter, a 4 hour ride would be 2000kcal, it's not doable without some food intake.