Ok....time to rant a bit....
After these initial animal studies, human researches jumped on the IF bandwagon. People were expecting big things. Unfortunately, they were very disappointed with the results. Research started showing that people following IF, or even purposefully skipping a few meals per day were developing insulin resistance, decreased glucose tolerance, and increased blood pressure. These problems were not tremendous problems and some might argue that in real world IF, where people don’t fast every other day (only once or twice a week), the studied health problems wouldn’t occur.
It's the same old Mattson study about 1-3 meals a day that gets dragged around.....been rehashed enough. Moral of the story, 1 big carb bomb meal a day will not get weight loss or improve insulin sensitivity. Smaller insulin controlled meals always a better idea (except if you are doing an infrequent carb load after a workout)
Even if this is so, there is another problem with which we have to contend. The largest problem is a decrease in thermogenesis. Essentially saying that these people, even though they purposefully consumed as many total calories on IF as the control group, had drastically suppressed their metabolisms. This is why so many people have found such little real world fat loss from IF. In most real world applications - especially because people were eating diets in a significant caloric deficit - the body downregulated its thermogenesis to such an immense degree as to not allow for almost any weight loss. This to me is the final blow.
To me this is people who are too sold on BB mantra to think the body can actually operate a different way. There is no proof IF (when done correctly) lowers metabolism (in fact it may increase metabolism due to increased SNS response). IF is not starvation or CR. Also to think a faster metabolism is the only way to burn fat is pure silliness. As if a person who burns 4000 cal a day and eats 3500 has a -500 cal a day deficit....now a person who burns 3000 cal a day and eats 2500 has a -500 cal a day deficit. Hmmmmm......looks pretty similar. Add in the fact that fat loss is hormonal and IF has dramatically shown lower insulin levels and increased GH output....well looks like a pretty good fat loss environment, add in some good intensity training and an active lifestyle, and fat will fall off.
I like Eric's stuff usually but have to give a thumbs down on this one. Eric (technically Eric didn't even write it so can't fault him...although it's his blog) is new to the IF game and just rehashing what most people first think about IF when they first hear about it (starvation...Ahhhhhhhhh)......but I'm sick of everyone pulling up the one study as proof IF doesn't work when you only eat one big carb meal a day (which they usually neglect to share in their IF bashing). Really? Shocker.
I expect nothing less from most people though....as it threatens everything they ever knew about fat loss and health and would mean that all their advice in the past could of been......wrong? Hey even I bought into the 6x a day meal thing in the past.....but I already went to consuling and got over it. I'll be the first to admit that you can lose weight eating 6x a day....10x a day....or 3x a day. It's still all about insulin control and calorie deficit. That and IF is a threat to the hundreds of millions of dollars in the whole bar/shake/meal replacement industry. Imagine the horrors if people could lose weight just on real food!
Rant done.....I've already gone over this in more detail in the past when Eades came out with the same post about IF not working (mainly because he used it as a pass to pig out on carbs once a day). Now IF + lower or controlled carb is a different story. I went into more in the comments here about that study if anyone really wants to rehash this more: http://www.theiflife.com/2008/03/03/...-ferris-on-if/