Today, I found this article by Alan Aragon,
An Objective Look at Intermittent Fasting, that seems to be scientifically sound. I am a physicist and many articles I have found on IF were written by bodybuilders who thought posting a picture of their lean and muscular body was making a point. It was almost cult-like.
I suggest you read
the entire article. Here is the conclusion.
Quote:
Conclusion
It's given that personal goals and individual response are the ultimate navigators of any protocol. Therefore, training and meal schedules should be built upon individual preferences & tolerances, which undoubtedly will differ. However, the purpose of this article is to arm the reader with the facts, so that opinions and anecdotes can be judged accordingly. Personal testimony is invariably biased by the powerful placebo effect of suggestion, and sometimes by ulterior agenda. Science is perched on one end of the epistemological spectrum, and hearsay is on the opposite end. As the evidence clearly indicates, IF is not a bed of roses minus the thorns - there are definite pros and cons.
In the world of fitness, recommendations for improving performance and body composition often gain blind acceptance despite a dearth of objective data. This is common in a field where high hopes and obsessive-compulsive tendencies are united with false appeals and incomplete information. In order to be proven effective beyond the mere power of suggestion, supposed truths must be put through the crucible of science. Drawing conclusions from baseless assumptions is a good way to get nowhere - fast.
I teach and I tend to be very low energy/grumpy after an 8 AM class if I have not eaten, but I like eating late on mornings that are mellower. I will be intuitive and follow my cues.