Let’s say my goal is to eat 1800-2000 calories per day. What’s the advantage of eating that in a certain time frame if at the end of the day the calories are the same?
I agree with the other comments.
Personally, I find it easier to eat one filling meal a day then attempt to eat two or three smaller meals a day. It is mentally easier to do than to cut eating short after you start eating.
At the end of the day - IF is easier to accomplish to get calorie reduction and hence weight loss. It also lowers insulin as others have stated. I think our bodies are made to feast in times of plenty and fast in times of famine. Our bodies can not deal with limiting intake when food available. Hence, why so many diets fail….although theoretically they should function the same as IF from a calorie perspective.
My personal opinion, beyond tbe magic and science of it, is that it is an easier way to achieve your daily consumption goal. With IF you are only eating cals during a limited portion of the day, the rest of the time no cals so no snacking, off schedule eating that tends to bust our plans. I do 16:8 noon-8pm 2MAD so I dont even snack between my meals. I just have to focus on planning 2 meals to get my nutrition and cals that is it. Also what I am eating for meals is not different from what I formerly ate so no need to fuss over new food choices, although I am more prone to add fruit and veg to most meals just to make sure there is balanced nutrition. Another thing is that the practice developed (for me) discipline around eating, and allowing myself to feel/tolerate hunger without immediately satiating it. I can actually be hungry noe and carry on doing whatever I need to until it is time for my next meal. I did this as a kid since we were not allowed access to food since it was needed for meals and we might spoil our appetite.