Intermittent fasting: 5:2 and alternate-day fasting
Human evidence mainly evaluates weight and metabolic markers; reviews do not show a general advantage over continuous energy restriction.
Scientific sources and reference guidelines
A selection of scientific references and guidelines on Intermittent fasting: 5:2 and alternate-day fasting. The list is not exhaustive and may be updated over time.
- de Cabo & Mattson, New England Journal of Medicine (2019) — PMID 31881139 — Review of intermittent fasting, health and aging; it synthesizes animal models and clinical studies while distinguishing mechanisms from human evidence.
- Varady et al., American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2009) — PMID 19793855 — 10-week pilot of modified alternate-day fasting in 16 adults with obesity; preliminary findings without a large comparator or long follow-up.
- Harvie et al., International Journal of Obesity (2011) — PMID 20921964 — Randomized comparison of 5:2 and daily restriction in 107 women; weight loss was similar at 6 months, with limited differences in some markers.
- Trepanowski et al., JAMA Internal Medicine (2017) — PMID 28459931 — One-year trial: alternate-day fasting was not superior to daily restriction for adherence, weight or cardiovascular markers; dropout was higher in the fasting group.
- Cioffi et al., Journal of Translational Medicine (2018) — PMID 30583725 — Meta-analysis of 11 randomized trials: intermittent and continuous restriction produced comparable weight loss; follow-up was short (8–24 weeks).
- Garegnani et al., Cochrane Database (2026) — DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD015610.pub2 — Review of 22 studies and 1,995 adults: versus regular dietary advice, intermittent fasting showed little or no weight difference; certainty was low or very low for several outcomes.
The listed sources represent the main references on which Cibus AI is trained and updated. The list is constantly evolving and is not exhaustive. Cibus AI is a support tool and does not replace clinical, professional or ethical judgment: every decision remains the full and exclusive responsibility of the professional.
Frequently asked questions
What does the evidence say about Intermittent fasting: 5:2 and alternate-day fasting?
This page summarizes selected studies and guidelines on Intermittent fasting: 5:2 and alternate-day fasting. Evidence types and certainty vary; no single source proves effectiveness for every population or clinical situation.
Which sources does Cibus AI rely on for Intermittent fasting: 5:2 and alternate-day fasting?
Cibus AI relies on clinical guidelines, international standards and reference scientific literature for Intermittent fasting: 5:2 and alternate-day fasting, listed on this page and continuously updated.
Does Cibus AI replace clinical judgment?
No. Cibus AI is a support tool: every decision remains the full and exclusive responsibility of the professional.
Spend more time with patients, less on paperwork
Discover how Cibus AI supports your nutrition practice. Try the free demo.
Try Cibus for free