<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Intermittent Fasting on noema</title>
    <link>https://noema.sindro.me/tags/intermittent-fasting/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Intermittent Fasting on noema</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://noema.sindro.me/tags/intermittent-fasting/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Intermittent fasting: what actually works</title>
      <link>https://noema.sindro.me/posts/2026/digiuno-intermittente-cosa-funziona-davvero/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://noema.sindro.me/posts/2026/digiuno-intermittente-cosa-funziona-davvero/</guid>
      <description>&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Abstract.&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;ldquo;Intermittent fasting&amp;rdquo; has entered public discourse as a single category, but very different practices live under the same label — from daily 16:8 to the five-days-a-month &lt;em&gt;fasting-mimicking diet&lt;/em&gt;. On the daily protocols the literature is by now clear: at equal calories, they don&amp;rsquo;t drive more weight loss than a classic diet, and the &amp;ldquo;extra&amp;rdquo; metabolic benefits are small or extrapolated from mice. The case that holds up clinically is the FMD: five days a month of heavily reduced intake, with replicated human data on insulin sensitivity, inflammatory markers, and cardiometabolic profile. The molecular rationale runs through mTOR — the amino-acid and insulin sensor that periodic fasting modulates over a long enough stretch, while sixteen hours of daily fasting modulates only briefly. A disproportionate enthusiasm remains: 16:8 autophagy, white-fat &lt;em&gt;browning&lt;/em&gt;, &amp;ldquo;demonstrated&amp;rdquo; longevity are still mostly rodent stories. Here I try to separate the solid case (FMD, &lt;em&gt;early&lt;/em&gt; time-restricted eating for specific profiles) from the noise.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;When an idea actually works in medicine and nutrition, it usually doesn&amp;rsquo;t need evangelists. When it does, it&amp;rsquo;s worth looking carefully.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Intermittent fasting reached the general public around 2012-2013 with Michael Mosley&amp;rsquo;s &lt;em&gt;The Fast Diet&lt;/em&gt; and the 5:2 protocol, and from there it never stopped: 16:8, 18:6, 20:4, OMAD, alternate-day fasting, &lt;em&gt;fasting-mimicking diet&lt;/em&gt;, prolonged fasts of three, five, seven days. Every variant has its book, its influencer, its biological rationale told as if it were the answer.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Yet if you go back to the basic question — &lt;em&gt;which intermittent fasting does something unique that a good normal diet doesn&amp;rsquo;t?&lt;/em&gt; — the answer that emerges from the better literature of the last ten years is one and specific: the protocol with the most convincing clinical data isn&amp;rsquo;t 16:8, but the fasting-mimicking diet developed by Valter Longo&amp;rsquo;s lab at USC. Five days a month, not sixteen hours a day. It&amp;rsquo;s a different thing, and it has to be told as such.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
