Long daily intermittent fasting with one meal a day as the default eating pattern (and sometimes eating once every two days) is the healthy way to eat.
Original statement
يبدأ بصيام متقطّع طويل النهار يجعل وجبة واحدة هي الأصل، ثم وجبة الطبق الواحد (لا يُخلط فيها صنف بصنف)، وصولًا إلى صيامات أعمق.
verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
Long daily intermittent fasting with one meal a day as the default eating pattern (and sometimes eating once every two days) is the healthy way to eat.
Origin
- Source status
- Archive editors
- Attribution
- Archive editors summarising Elawady's view (homepage summary; not the quote box)
- Origin
- https://eltayebat.com/
- Attribution uncertainty
- Homepage summary written by the archive operators describing Elawady's views; partly cites his 'statement of the theory' video (aEbRfVSJIOw), otherwise no video reference.
- Claimed mechanism
Fewer meals mean fewer insulin peaks and fewer 'intestinal obstructions'.
- Claimed health effect
Better health, weight loss
- Population concerned
General population
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found
Diverging source versions
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! انتاج الطاقة مرتبط بانتاج الجذور الحرة (Open source)
- Published
- 14 September 2025
- Timestamp
- not available (transcript has no timings)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); no timestamps; 'published' is the date listed by the archive and may be the upload date. Live-stream transcripts can contain viewer comments read aloud; the quoted passage was checked in context to be spoken by Elawady.
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! ضغط النسيج البيني (Open source)
- Published
- 13 October 2025
- Timestamp
- not available (transcript has no timings)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); no timestamps; 'published' is the date listed by the archive and may be the upload date. Live-stream transcripts can contain viewer comments read aloud; the quoted passage was checked in context to be spoken by Elawady.
Scientific assessment
Potentially false – The available evidence tends to speak against the statement, but is not conclusive.
Certainty of evidence: low – Further research is likely to change the assessment considerably.
1. What was claimed?
One meal a day and long daily fasting are the basic healthy eating pattern.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
Intermittent fasting, including shortened eating windows, helps some people eat less and lose weight about as well as ordinary calorie restriction (I-FAST-113, I-FAST-05, I-FAST-02, I-FAST-03). One meal a day reduced fat mass in a small trial (I-FAST-115).
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
No good evidence shows that one meal a day or eating every second day is 'the healthy way'. Compared with standard dietary advice, intermittent fasting made little to no difference to weight loss (I-FAST-114). One meal a day raised blood pressure, LDL cholesterol and hunger (I-FAST-115) and was associated with higher mortality in an observational study (I-FAST-116). Alternate-day fasting raised LDL and had high dropout (I-FAST-02); 16:8 without calorie targets lost lean mass (I-FAST-04). People on glucose-lowering drugs who skip meals have more severe hypoglycaemia (I-FAST-10).
4. What remains unclear?
Long-term (multi-year) outcomes of one-meal-a-day patterns.
5. Which studies support it?
I-FAST-113 and I-FAST-05 (IF works about as well as calorie restriction); I-FAST-03; partly I-FAST-115 (fat mass reduction) and I-FAST-02.
6. Which studies contradict it?
I-FAST-114 (Cochrane 2026: no advantage over dietary advice), I-FAST-115 (BP, LDL, hunger up), I-FAST-116 (mortality association), I-FAST-04, I-FAST-07, I-FAST-10; partly I-FAST-02.
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
DGE recommends regular, balanced meals but accepts different meal patterns; no recommendation for one meal a day (not fetched).
8. What is known about Egypt?
Ramadan provides a cultural model of daily fasting; IDF-DAR guidelines describe risks for people with diabetes (I-FAST-11).
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
For healthy adults who like it, a shortened eating window is an acceptable option for weight control, comparable to other calorie-reduction methods, but not a superior or universal rule. People on diabetes medication must adapt doses with their physician before changing meal patterns.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
Intermittent fasting gives little to no difference in weight loss vs regular dietary advice (Cochrane 2026, MD -0.33%, low certainty; I-FAST-114) and is about equal to continuous energy restriction (BMJ 2025 NMA of 99 RCTs; I-FAST-113). One meal a day at equal calories reduced fat mass but raised blood pressure, LDL cholesterol and hunger (I-FAST-115); in a US cohort, one meal a day was associated with higher all-cause (HR 1.30) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.83) (observational; I-FAST-116). Eating every second day has not been studied as a lifelong pattern. Certainty low because the specific pattern is rarely tested directly.
- Source quality
Homepage paraphrase plus own words (advice to individual viewers; personal habit).
- Regional transferability
Universal.
- Individual exceptions
Unsuitable without supervision for people on insulin or sulfonylureas (hypoglycaemia), pregnant women, children, people with eating disorders or underweight.
- Regional scope of the claim
- general (biological/medical)
- Last reviewed
- 26 October 2026 provisional
Scientific evidence in detail
Not supported by high-quality evidence – There is no good evidence for the claim; this alone does not prove it wrong.
Research question: In adults, is eating one meal a day (and sometimes once every two days) healthier than other eating patterns?
Research question in detail (PICO)
- Population
- Adults (healthy, overweight)
- Intervention or exposure
- One meal a day / alternate-day eating / intermittent fasting
- Comparison
- Regular meals; continuous energy restriction
- Geographic scope
- universal
- Outcomes
- Weight
- Cardiometabolic risk factors
- Mortality
- Adverse events
Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.
What speaks for the claim?
Different fasting methods compared
Semnani-Azad Z et al.. BMJ 2025 · PMID 40533200 · DOI 10.1136/bmj-2024-082007 Meta-analysisfull text checkednewly addedIntermittent fasting strategies reduce weight about as much as continuous energy restriction; ADF slightly more in short trials.
- Actual result
- ADF vs CER -1.29 kg (-1.99 to -0.59), moderate certainty; no difference in trials >=24 weeks.
- Methodological quality
- high (BMJ NMA of 99 RCTs)
- Relevance
- direct for IF as a valid option
- Limitations
- Short trials; OMAD rarely tested.
One meal a day versus three
Stote KS et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2007 · PMID 17413096 · DOI 10.1093/ajcn/85.4.981 Randomised controlled trialabstract checkednewly addedOne meal a day (same calories) reduced fat mass.
- Actual result
- Fat mass reduced; weight stable.
- Methodological quality
- moderate (small crossover RCT)
- Relevance
- direct for OMAD
- Limitations
- Pilot.
What speaks against the claim?
Cochrane review of intermittent fasting
Garegnani LI et al.. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2026 · PMID 41692034 · DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD015610.pub2 Systematic reviewabstract checkednewly addedCochrane 2026: intermittent fasting gives little to no difference in weight loss vs standard dietary advice.
- Actual result
- % weight loss MD -0.33 (-0.92 to 0.26), low certainty; 21 RCTs.
- Methodological quality
- high (Cochrane)
- Relevance
- direct against superiority
- Limitations
- <=12 months.
One meal a day versus three
Stote KS et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2007 · PMID 17413096 · DOI 10.1093/ajcn/85.4.981 Randomised controlled trialabstract checkednewly addedOne meal a day raised blood pressure, LDL cholesterol and hunger.
- Actual result
- Significant increases in BP, total/LDL/HDL cholesterol, hunger.
- Methodological quality
- moderate (small crossover RCT)
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Pilot, 8 weeks.
One meal a day and death risk
Sun Y et al.. J Acad Nutr Diet 2023 · PMID 35964910 · DOI 10.1016/j.jand.2022.08.119 Cohort studyabstract checkednewly addedEating one meal a day was associated with higher mortality.
- Actual result
- All-cause HR 1.30 (1.03-1.64); CVD HR 1.83 (1.26-2.65).
- Methodological quality
- low (observational)
- Relevance
- direct but confounded
- Limitations
- Single 24-h recall.
What does the overall evidence say?
Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.
Which position is better supported?
Intermittent fasting, including shortened eating windows, is an acceptable weight-loss option for healthy adults, roughly equal to ordinary calorie restriction or dietary advice. There is no evidence that one meal a day or eating every second day is 'the healthy way'; small trials show mixed effects (less fat but higher BP/LDL, more hunger) and an observational study links one meal a day to higher mortality.
Why some studies weigh more
Cochrane and BMJ NMA (high-quality syntheses) define the comparative effect; OMAD-specific evidence is small; mortality data are observational.
Is a causal relationship established? Not established No trial with hard outcomes; observational mortality signal may be confounded.
Remaining uncertainty
Long-term effects of one meal a day; true every-other-day eating as a lifelong pattern.
Justified conclusion
A reasonable option for some healthy adults, not a superior or universal rule; unsafe without medication adjustment in diabetes.
Why do studies seem to disagree?
BMJ NMA (slight ADF advantage) and Cochrane (no difference vs advice) differ in comparators and time frames: the ADF advantage appears only in short trials and against continuous energy restriction.
Does this depend on the country?
- General biological effects
- Universal.
- Eating habits
- Ramadan creates a culturally familiar model of daily fasting with two night meals; this differs from one meal a day or eating every second day.
- Origin of the food
- Not applicable.
- Contaminants
- Not applicable.
- National production conditions
- Not applicable.
- Legal rules
- Not applicable.
- Actual monitoring data
- No monitoring data relevant.
A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.
Statistical re-check
- CI symmetry; interpretation of 'little to no difference' – All CIs symmetric; vs no intervention -3.42% (CI excludes zero) is called 'little to no difference' by clinical threshold. recalculated
- HR CI log-symmetry; absolute risk – HRs centred; whole-cohort death rate 22.5/1,000 PY; group-specific absolute risks not reported, ARR not computable. recalculated
- CI symmetry – Symmetric; small effects. recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
- Main outcome
- Superiority of one-meal-a-day/IF patterns over regular eating for weight and cardiometabolic health
- Starting level
- high (randomised trials)
- Reasons for downgrading
- indirectness (OMAD and every-other-day eating rarely tested directly)
- imprecision for long-term outcomes
- Result
- low
Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.
Clinical guidelines and official statements checked
- IDF and DAR International Alliance: Diabetes and Ramadan: Practical Guidelines 2021 (2021) · Original publication
All individuals should break the fast if blood glucose <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) or >300 mg/dL (16.7 mmol/L) or with symptoms of hypoglycaemia or acute illness; people with T1DM are high/very high risk; during fasting glucose falls and insulin secretion is suppressed; when glycogen is depleted and insulin is low, fat is converted to ketones.
Search strategy
Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).
| Database | Date | Search | Looking for | Hits | Included |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | "intermittent fasting" AND (network meta-analysis) AND weight | supporting evidence | 770 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | TITLE:"intermittent fasting" AND TITLE:"network meta-analysis" AND (BMJ OR "body weight") | supporting evidence | 8 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | ("one meal a day" OR "one meal per day" OR "reduced meal frequency" OR "single daily meal") AND (randomized OR randomised OR crossover OR controlled) | both directions | 656 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | ("meal frequency" OR "meal skipping" OR "one meal") AND (mortality) AND (cohort OR NHANES) | contradicting evidence | 1297 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | ("intermittent fasting"[ti] OR "time-restricted eating"[ti]) AND (meta-analysis[pt] OR network meta-analysis[pt]) AND weight | supporting evidence | 83 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | ("one meal a day"[tiab] OR "one meal per day"[tiab] OR "single meal"[tiab]) AND (randomized OR crossover) | supporting evidence | 164 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | ("meal frequency"[ti] OR "meal skipping"[ti] OR "eating frequency"[ti]) AND (mortality OR cardiometabolic) AND (cohort OR meta-analysis[pt]) | contradicting evidence | 7 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | ("intermittent fasting"[ti]) AND (adverse OR harms OR "lean mass" OR LDL) AND randomized controlled trial[pt] | contradicting evidence | 21 |
Open questions
Trials of one meal a day with hard outcomes; effects in older adults and in people with diabetes.
How deeply was this checked?
10 linked studies: 3 checked in full text (2 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 7 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.
Last scientific review: 26 October 2026
History of the verdict
- 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: Unclear / insufficient evidence (low)
- 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Verdict changed: Unclear / insufficient evidence (low) → Potentially false (low)
The 2026 Cochrane review and the 2025 BMJ NMA now show no meaningful superiority of intermittent fasting over standard advice, and direct OMAD data show mixed or unfavourable effects. A claim that this is 'the healthy way' is therefore not supported; 'unclear' understated the consistency of the no-superiority finding. Certainty stays low because OMAD/every-other-day eating has hardly been studied directly.
New sources: I-FAST-113 I-FAST-114 I-FAST-115 I-FAST-116
In plain language
Eating within a shorter time window or only once a day can help some people eat less and lose weight. Large reviews show it works about as well as ordinary dieting, not better. In a small trial, one meal a day raised blood pressure and LDL cholesterol, and a large observational study linked it to a higher risk of death. Eating only every second day has not been studied properly. People who use insulin or certain diabetes tablets can get dangerously low blood sugar if they skip meals.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (2)
-
What intermittent fasting does to metabolism
Patterson RE et al.. Annu Rev Nutr 2017 · PMID 28715993 · DOI 10.1146/annurev-nutr-071816-064634Narrative reviewindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentFasting regimens seem to help weight loss and may improve metabolism; much is still hypothesis.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Metabolic effects of intermittent fasting
- How was the study done?
Narrative review
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
not applicable; Humans and animal models
- What was actually found?
Most small fasting trials showed some weight loss; fasting was not better than eating less every day; benefits for liver and metabolism come mainly from mouse studies.
- How large was the observed effect?
not reported
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
A possible tool, not a cure.
- What are the study's limitations?
Not a systematic review; small, short human studies; much evidence from male mice; no long-term disease outcomes.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partial support for C-FAST-02, C-FAST-05; kernel of C-FAST-01.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
General.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Superiority or detox effects.
-
Time-restricted eating plus calorie restriction
Liu D et al.. N Engl J Med 2022 · PMID 35443107 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa2114833Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyAdding an 8-hour eating window to calorie restriction did not significantly improve weight loss.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Time-restricted eating plus calorie restriction vs calorie restriction alone
- How was the study done?
RCT, 12 months
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
139; Adults with obesity
- What was actually found?
No significant added benefit.
- How large was the observed effect?
-1.8 kg (n.s.)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Calorie reduction is what matters.
- What are the study's limitations?
Single country
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Chinese population; physiology transferable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Effects without calorie restriction.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (5)
-
16:8 fasting without calorie targets
Lowe DA et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2020 · PMID 32986097 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.4153Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract checkedNo more weight loss than three meals a day, and slightly more muscle-related lean mass loss.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Effect of 16:8 TRE on weight and metabolic markers
- How was the study done?
RCT, 12 weeks, app-based (TREAT)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
116; Adults with BMI 27-43
- What was actually found?
Null on weight.
- How large was the observed effect?
-0.26 kg (n.s.)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Timing alone does little.
- What are the study's limitations?
Short; Self-reported adherence
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
US.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Long-term effects.
-
How much protein older people need
Bauer J et al.. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2013 · PMID 23867520 · DOI 10.1016/j.jamda.2013.05.021Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkabstract checkedPeople over 65 should eat at least 1.0-1.2 g protein per kg body weight every day.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Optimal protein intake in older people
- How was the study done?
Evidence-based position paper (PROT-AGE Study Group, EUGMS)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
not applicable; Adults >65
- What was actually found?
Daily protein targets.
- How large was the observed effect?
1.0-1.2 g/kg/day
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Protein every day matters for muscle.
- What are the study's limitations?
Expert consensus
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts C-FAST-08; limits C-FAST-04, C-FAST-05, C-FAST-07.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
European geriatric societies; directly applicable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Optimal meal timing.
-
Fasting in Ramadan with diabetes (EPIDIAR)
Salti I et al.. Diabetes Care 2004 · PMID 15451892 · DOI 10.2337/diacare.27.10.2306Cross-sectional studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studySevere low blood sugar was 4.7 times (type 1) and 7.5 times (type 2) more common during Ramadan.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Diabetes characteristics and effects of Ramadan fasting
- How was the study done?
Population-based retrospective cross-sectional survey (EPIDIAR)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
12,243; Muslims with type 1 or type 2 diabetes
- What was actually found?
Severe hypoglycaemia increased.
- How large was the observed effect?
0.14 vs 0.03/month (T1D)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
People with diabetes need a plan before fasting.
- What are the study's limitations?
Retrospective, recall
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts safety implications of C-FAST-03, C-FAST-05, C-FAST-07; relevant to C-ODD-11.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Relevant to Muslim communities in Europe.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Mortality effects.
-
Cochrane review of intermittent fasting
Garegnani LI et al.. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2026 · PMID 41692034 · DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD015610.pub2Systematic reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyIntermittent fasting led to about the same weight loss as standard diet advice over up to 12 months.
IF gives little to no difference in weight loss vs regular dietary advice (MD -0.33%).
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Assess IF for weight loss.
- How was the study done?
Cochrane review of 22 RCTs.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
1,995 adults with overweight/obesity.
- What was actually found?
No meaningful difference vs dietary advice.
- How large was the observed effect?
MD -0.33% (-0.92 to 0.26).
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Fasting is one way to eat less, not a better way.
- What are the study's limitations?
Short-term; risk of bias.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts 'the healthy way to eat'.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applies; same physiology.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Long-term effects; effects in people of normal weight.
-
One meal a day and death risk
Sun Y et al.. J Acad Nutr Diet 2023 · PMID 35964910 · DOI 10.1016/j.jand.2022.08.119Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyUS adults who ate only one meal a day had a higher death rate, but this type of study cannot prove the meal pattern caused it.
One meal/day associated with higher all-cause (HR 1.30) and CVD mortality (HR 1.83); observational.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Link meal patterns to mortality.
- How was the study done?
Cohort of 24,011 adults followed for deaths.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
US adults aged 40+.
- What was actually found?
HR 1.30 all-cause, 1.83 CVD for one meal/day.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 1.30 (1.03-1.64).
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
No evidence that one meal a day is healthier; possibly the opposite.
- What are the study's limitations?
Diet recorded once; confounding.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts 'the healthy way to eat', at low certainty.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applies; same physiology.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (3)
-
Alternate-day fasting vs eating less every day
Trepanowski JF et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2017 · PMID 28459931 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0936Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key studyBoth approaches gave similar weight loss after a year; fasting had more dropouts and higher LDL.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Alternate-day fasting vs daily calorie restriction on weight and CV risk
- How was the study done?
Single-centre RCT, 1 year
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
100; Metabolically healthy obese adults, mean BMI 34
- What was actually found?
No superiority.
- How large was the observed effect?
-6.0% vs -5.3% weight
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Choose what one can sustain.
- What are the study's limitations?
Small; 38% of fasting group dropped out; mostly healthy women; fast days still included ~500 kcal; lead author wrote a book on this diet.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
US; transferable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Long-term disease outcomes.
-
Different fasting methods compared
Semnani-Azad Z et al.. BMJ 2025 · PMID 40533200 · DOI 10.1136/bmj-2024-082007Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key studyAcross 99 trials, fasting diets led to weight loss similar to simply eating less every day; differences were small and short-term.
IF works for weight loss, similar to continuous energy restriction; no long-term superiority.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Compare IF strategies with calorie restriction.
- How was the study done?
Network meta-analysis of 99 RCTs.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
6,582 adults.
- What was actually found?
ADF -1.29 kg vs CER in short trials; no long-term differences.
- How large was the observed effect?
MD -1.29 kg (-1.99 to -0.59).
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Choose the eating pattern you can keep; fasting is not magic.
- What are the study's limitations?
Mostly short trials.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Does not support one meal a day as 'the healthy way'; supports IF as one option.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applies; same physiology.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Long-term disease outcomes.
-
One meal a day versus three
Stote KS et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2007 · PMID 17413096 · DOI 10.1093/ajcn/85.4.981Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyEating the same calories in one meal reduced body fat slightly but raised blood pressure, LDL cholesterol and hunger.
One meal/day reduced fat mass but raised blood pressure, LDL cholesterol and hunger.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Test reduced meal frequency without calorie cut.
- How was the study done?
Crossover trial, 8 weeks each pattern.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Healthy middle-aged adults (pilot).
- What was actually found?
Fat mass down; BP and LDL up; hunger up.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not given in abstract.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
One meal a day has mixed effects.
- What are the study's limitations?
Small, short.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Mixed; no evidence of superiority.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applies; same physiology.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Long-term effects.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Regional context
Germany / EU
DGE recommends regular, balanced meals but accepts different meal patterns; no recommendation for one meal a day (not fetched).
Egypt
Ramadan provides a cultural model of daily fasting; IDF-DAR guidelines describe risks for people with diabetes (I-FAST-11).
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
Potentially false Probably false as a general rule: fasting patterns are an option for some healthy adults, not a healthier default.
This statement concerns biological or medical relationships. The scientific assessment above applies regardless of the country; country-specific food data do not change it.
References
- Metabolic Effects of Intermittent Fasting.. Patterson RE et al.. Annu Rev Nutr 2017 · PMID 28715993 · DOI 10.1146/annurev-nutr-071816-064634
- Calorie Restriction with or without Time-Restricted Eating in Weight Loss.. Liu D et al.. N Engl J Med 2022 · PMID 35443107 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa2114833
- Effects of Time-Restricted Eating on Weight Loss and Other Metabolic Parameters in Women and Men With Overweight and Obesity: The TREAT Randomized Clinical Trial.. Lowe DA et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2020 · PMID 32986097 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.4153
- Evidence-based recommendations for optimal dietary protein intake in older people: a position paper from the PROT-AGE Study Group.. Bauer J et al.. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2013 · PMID 23867520 · DOI 10.1016/j.jamda.2013.05.021
- A population-based study of diabetes and its characteristics during the fasting month of Ramadan in 13 countries: results of the epidemiology of diabetes and Ramadan 1422/2001 (EPIDIAR) study.. Salti I et al.. Diabetes Care 2004 · PMID 15451892 · DOI 10.2337/diacare.27.10.2306
- Intermittent fasting for adults with overweight or obesity.. Garegnani LI et al.. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2026 · PMID 41692034 · DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD015610.pub2
- Meal Skipping and Shorter Meal Intervals Are Associated with Increased Risk of All-Cause and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality among US Adults.. Sun Y et al.. J Acad Nutr Diet 2023 · PMID 35964910 · DOI 10.1016/j.jand.2022.08.119
- Effect of Alternate-Day Fasting on Weight Loss, Weight Maintenance, and Cardioprotection Among Metabolically Healthy Obese Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.. Trepanowski JF et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2017 · PMID 28459931 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0936
- Intermittent fasting strategies and their effects on body weight and other cardiometabolic risk factors: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.. Semnani-Azad Z et al.. BMJ 2025 · PMID 40533200 · DOI 10.1136/bmj-2024-082007
- A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults.. Stote KS et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2007 · PMID 17413096 · DOI 10.1093/ajcn/85.4.981