> with the number of dietary science that turned out to be wrong over time, I must be skeptical about every new study. This I agree with. There is so much nois

> with the number of dietary science that turned out to be wrong over time, I must be skeptical about every new study. This I agree with. There is so much noise and so many confounding factors affecting the underlying data that you are bound to frequently get conflicting results. Compound this with the fact that studies with the most surprising (read: contrarian) results tend to get the most press, and you get an infinite see-saw in the literature. > Am I wrong to have suspicions about the possibility that food conglomerates may have funded this study? This I don't agree with. I think your model of more fasting equals less spending on food is overly simplicitic. The sort of health conscious people who are interested in IF tend to be wealthy and willing to spend on premium health related products. I'd wager that you can make a lot more money selling a few premium, organic, protein bars that you pitch as premium feel-full-for-12-hour-guaranteed products than you can by selling the same old breakfast cereals. Besides, Occam's razor. Intermittent fasting is not a subject where there is or ever has been an overwhelming consensus in the literature, as opposed to say, climate science. It's not surprising or suspicious in the least to see a contrarian result in this field.