> It may be the case that these two processes lead to similar outcomes. But for me, it is much easier to stay faithful to an IF lifestyle than a "continuously calorically restricted" lifestyle. I find the binary aspect of the IF system to be very helpful. If the other system is easier for other folks to maintain, that's great, and they should do that.
In the 8-16 IF study I linked to, the IF/TRE group actually had worse adherence:
> Self-reported adherence to the diets was 1002 of 1088 (92.1%) in the CMT group (did not miss any meals) and 1128 of 1351 (83.50%) in the TRE group
The fact that more people couldn't adhere to an IF plan than a the other plan isn't really relevant. It's easy for someone (like me) to be able to ascertain if it I am able to stick to IF, so it doesn't matter if other people find it harder. Like I said, if other people find the other plan easier to do, and also effective, then it makes sense for them to do it. I don't understand the name-calling, as if no rational person could choose IF.
In the 8-16 IF study I linked to, the IF/TRE group actually had worse adherence:
> Self-reported adherence to the diets was 1002 of 1088 (92.1%) in the CMT group (did not miss any meals) and 1128 of 1351 (83.50%) in the TRE group