Intermittent fasting may be good, but factual errors in this piece made me stop reading further. It seems the author didn't study the topic well enough to write

Intermittent fasting may be good, but factual errors in this piece made me stop reading further. It seems the author didn't study the topic well enough to write about it. Others have already pointed out dubious claims about increased longevity. I'll take issue with section "Benefit #1. It supports with hormone regulation and lowers diabetes II risk." Sure eating less carbohydrates will lower your diabetes risk. But that doesn't mean you have to fast, just that you should eat less carbohydrates. And contrary to what is written under that heading, insulin lowers high sugar levels, it does not cause them. High insulin levels are caused by high blood sugar. While it is plausible that fasting will lower your risk of diabetes, that's foremost because you're eating less and thus the glycemic load is lower. (Glycemic load is how much your blood sugar rises from food.) You can lessen the load by eating less in quantity or by refining carbohydrates less (by eating fruits instead of drinking juice, for example) While I think that fasting is a valid and rather easy way of countering unhealthy eating habits, it is just one of many possible ways. And this is no myth: "If you go too long without food your body will start eating itself (muscle)". The article lists this together with other myths, as if starvation weren't a real danger. Sure most people won't get any ill effects from not eating for a day (it's healthy for most) but once the fat is gone, muscle is next.