http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2623528 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullart... I give the reporting a

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2623528 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullart... I give the reporting an "eh" grade, but it's also the paper's fault. Here's my TL;DR: Long-term = 1 year. Sample size: 100 (includes control groups) Main metric: Weight loss. (Did measure other stuff, which is neat) Main confounding factors: People did not follow instructions; people may have not been unhealthy enough / the right kind of unhealthy; 26%-38% dropout rate, "Participants in the alternate-day fasting group ate more than prescribed on fast days, and less than prescribed on feast days" Other main issue: Original theory was not that alternate-day fasting would be more effective (in terms of weightloss), but that it would be easier for the participants to maintain than normal caloric restriction. (This would, presumably, correlate with more weightloss). I did not do a close read of this paper.