Not sure why you're being downvoted, and I appreciate you finding studies. > Humans, difference in body composition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/

Not sure why you're being downvoted, and I appreciate you finding studies. > Humans, difference in body composition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/ So this study is actually not bad. It has three small flaws that I can find, but is still compelling regardless. It is one of the only studies I have ever seen that did a decent job controlling the food. I'd like to see it repeated and at a larger scale, of course. The flaws are: 1. Malabsorption is a real issue when consuming nearly 2400 calories in a small window. This could be a real confounder with regards to metabolic differences. The malabsorption could be resulting in fewer calories being consumed. 2. Massive withdrawal rate in comparison to other dietary studies. The authors address this, I think reasonably, by concluding that IF is actually really difficult for a lot of people to comply to. This isn't necessarily a strike against IF being metabolically better, but if we dig into exactly why the diet is hard to comply to and force the people who didn't want to comply to comply, we might get different metabolic results. There is a large potential for survivorship bias here. 3. Sample size is tiny blah blah. This doesn't disregard the study but it does limit its applicability. Good find, though, thanks! As for the other two, I don't think they meet the requirements really.