I was trying to find some studies that would compare these two diets but couldn’t find anything. I’m thinking of starting one of the two and I’m currently leaning more toward 23:1 IF but I’d really like to know which one is more beneficial. I don’t care about losing weight, I want to improve my healthspan, gain more energy, have better mental clarity and hopefully even increase my lifespan. So if anybody knows which one of these diets is better for these purposes, please let me know.
I (52F) chose 40:8 back in March. I love it. I do it for autophagy and immunity. My energy increased, my endurance increased, my mind is clear, and a few other issues cleared up. I was hoping for more progress with bad sinuses but I didn’t cut dairy and I think that is related. I need way more electrolytes than I expected. My sugar addiction disappeared. Hope this helps!
Both have their advantages, and it’s really hard to study the characteristics you mention in proper studies. So I recommend you do what works best for you, because the results come mostly from sticking with it.
Why either or?
I stalled on IF (eating what I want in a restricted eating window with no calorie counting) and instead of reducing my eating window or reducing/monitoring my daily calorie intake/energy I threw in what I call a “skip day” each week and progress started again.
I’m sure just about anything else would have restarted my progress but adding a skip day, reducing my total weekly calorie intake (plus possible other affects) was simply the easiest thing I could do with the minimal impact on those I live with.
Now if I stall again I may add another skip day, start low carb or monitoring food intake but the key is if you stall before you reach your goals change something, anything and see if it has an affect…..
I know you are asking for research but unless it’s on you a lot of it may be irrelevant. Also as dreiter points out be careful when looking at studies because a lot of the ADF actually feed folks on fasting days…. amazing as that may seem…..
I personally prefer longer fasting (40hrs and onwards) over these two options but whichever works. I just find it easier to keep fasting once you start, rather than starting and stopping constantly. The health benefits are supposed to get better the longer you fast (up until a point) so working your way up to doing 3-4-5 day ones might work for you.
Whichever one you decide to do I would recommend going into it gradually. Like maybe start off with 16:8 IF to get you used to not eating for a longer period of time than you are used to. Once you have managed that without giving up and your body has gotten use to it then you can adjust your window of eating to a smaller period of eating such as 20:4. And go from there. If you start straight off on 23:1 then it is more likely you will give up. At least with 16:8 you can look forward to eating much sooner than 23:1.