Criticism of interval fasting
The hype around the interval chamfered developed, after it could be shown impressively at the animal model that regular chamfering leads both to a reduction of the body weight, and lowers the risk to get sick at chronic cardiovascular diseases or diabetes. Also the cancer risk could be lowered in the animal model by interval chamfering. Altogether a life-prolonging effect showed up with the interval chamfered at the animal model.
Studies to the interval chamfered with humans are present so far hardly and only in very small numbers of cases. Already this small portion of studies lets however assume that the effects of interval-chamfered at the animal model cannot be transferred easily to humans. Obviously interval chamfered seems to come off neither better nor worse regarding the weight reduction in relation to parliamentary allowance, with which durably on a calorie deficit one pays attention.
Also regarding the question whether interval chamfering can lead to an improvement of the glucose metabolism and thus to a reduction of diabetes illnesses, there are so far no safe data. However, recent studies on animal models have indicated that an opposite effect, i.e. an increase in the risk of diabetes through interval fasting, could also be a conceivable consequence. Regarding the question whether interval chamfered can lower the rate at diabetes diseases, the study situation is up-to-date thus ambivalent.
Valid long-term studies at humans do not give it so far to this. As main criticism at the interval-chamfered applies thus up-to-date that the studies, which determined large successes by interval-chamfered, were all studies at the animal model and that there are so far no meaningful studies to interval-chamfered with humans. So far there is thus no safe proof for the fact that interval-chamfered has advantages in relation to conventional reduction parliamentary allowance.
The coming years will bring for this however surely new realizations. In principle interval chamfered, both which the possible effects, and which concerns the adherence (thus long-term adherence), seems to have quite potential. A further point of criticism at the interval chamfered is that regarding the food selection hardly guidelines are made.
Therefore the danger exists that despite chamfering periods in the meal times further an unhealthy and unbalanced nutrition takes place. Interval chamfered does not plan thus a nourishing conversion. That can have both pro and cons.
