[VernorVintage]

Having a meal period <4.5 hours is a form of intermittent fasting called Daily Time-Restricted Feeding. You're fasting 19.5 hours each day.

There are many intermittent fasting protocols including multi-day fasts which have been shown to prolong life in mice. But daily fasting is included in those protocols.

A lot of health hype has focused on Daily Time-Restricted feedings. This kind of IF is typically characterized by a daily meal period of 8 hours or less, with only water or snacks under 50 calories allowed during the rest of the time.

This is supposed to promote changes like reducing insulin resistance, but there are questions about the hype vs truth of this.

[piqi]

Like I said.... the linked article literally says nothing about "fasting." Feel free to quote the part that mentions it. It only discusses "meal skipping." No mention of snacking.

> ...snacks under 50 calories allowed during the rest of the time.

This is not fasting. Even just 20 calories is generally expected to stop the fast. 50 calories would definitely stop the fast.

[VernorVintage]

The article mentions feeding periods of <4.5 hours, which is a well known intermittent fasting protocol, which I have already defined. You have willfully ignored that, suggesting you might not respect my time or the truth.

I caution you that you are using a nonstandard definition of fasting that does not include all the currently recognized forms of intermittent fasting. Nor have you presented a definition of intermittent fasting - it's likely your definition is too narrow to cover the current practices.

I refer you once more to the wikiepdia article on IF (which leads . Again, the relevant term is "Daily Restricted Feeding". That information is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_fasting

It's entirely fair to regard the current research as having to do with Daily Restricted Feeding, which is a form of IF.

And yes, the article does not mention snacking. I was simply claiming that some IF protocls even allow light snacks, to help persuade you that IF protocols are more diverse that you think.

The goal of these protocols is to reduce things like insulin resistance, which happens when the body is in a physiologically fasted state. Some nutritionists claim a snack under 50 cals won't compromise the outcomes, supposedly because the 50 cals is too small to physiologically break the fast.

This is informally called the "50 calorie rule", and it's relevant because the IF community and nutritionists sometimes endorse it. The point was to communicate that there is a variety of IF protocols beyond what you recognize as fasting.

I will say that it's frustrating for me that you dispute well known concepts and trends in the nutrition community - at least acknowledge what I am saying, and give counter arguments if you disagree. If you can't, I will conclude your motivation here has to do with something other than seeking the truth about our state of understanding of IF. If that's the case, lets end the convo.