You didn't provide evidence that fasting is unsustainable, only that [calorie counting] (https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/stop-counting-calories) is. The longest fast [documented] (https://pmj.bmj.com/content/postgradmedj/49/569/203.full.pdf) lasted 382 days, showing that fasting is an effective approach to weight-loss over a long span of time. I'm unable to find studies about long-term intermittent fasting, but that doesn't mean it's unsustainable as we see [religious practices of fasting] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting_during_Ramadan) which have lasted generations. My previous point was that fasting [is easier to implement] (https://jamesclear.com/good-bad-intermittent-fasting) than calorie counting, with similar weight-loss effects. However, I think the [study you showed] (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/intermittent-fasting-no-better-than-calorie-restriction-for-weight-loss) was quite poor as, by the admission of the authors, only overall weight loss was measured, not body fat. There are [several studies] (https://watermark.silverchair.com/z4w00605001347.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAskwggLFBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggK2MIICsgIBADCCAqsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQM8D12oHqLmWZEganCAgEQgIICfKAoVZ9G-3Sv5aShtCymn9KnhT8ufFE3TkEOrOjD4uLAT8vMMoJm-PHA6LSZHIVbTsy6KG7ye-EtpZxZDq0QCXrbyYvMvNg4_un_zPxtE-g-sLSyuGmohrj50jmesTNRUcdof51kqXRz-iFNGFNYu3FJpfdIgY_O4EsLRPrC2M1Fs5Km_qYSXd3ja_jRblRnZralk-k_uSKWalEJ7qpnjPTORYJNlWIlvUwgnViNRLdxCQHrGL-UHudVw1h35izTQw2dVpvIpJJaLA-TLN6CnjwKBiPGsHhrZ8pwK-pGb6r7I3G8ZHsXfqYfvxE_nKpheGuRuc1VQhV6YKR0pN_HZfX129WDfeYPHYwSB8mISNBmA6MKWNRzOj0DftfL0h3IFMoS1uAgtLeUukfkFmdujl2wVT1IAmXYQpXA9oQHm1FDDDzGiwdIGFatrovfWoy2ukRpTdGWni91ba8QJECxUhLTDozr_xRx8nHNJlnl5DXmEXwF083HH87BjpQBqyYZWy3uS9d2ug__KeWd8U4hFfY5rGWb2MOAk3jPB3MicYVSZakrnsY1wHPau4UlZXG1GgTHDi7hKu4TwyT4J411YnOt85e-EJ0lUzgaBVtMk_jk90Vm89i8REekQlGIYH61xVz44OpHFni2XbqWVem5Vc4GDxg5a87fSXnGKxbn1FyBVvv5xYHtlTfeKgD0ns6AOp-lQO4xCjCIEaNaU4o86IQdVpLu6Z72exqWgaGKp9xuz5ddh7hgNbk-x_MZfrr6NqheXKpK-uc5_NjCWaQ9GfF48PUTFd9Jm3mOF_wRhSGEclGG8uROKfXCAQTxeJ-SAj8Nco7cD6G6HFkZlg) showing that calorie restriction comes with muscle loss, whereas fasting [preserves] (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24215592/) muscle mass. On top of this, calorie restriction has many [drawbacks] (https://www.nutritionist-resource.org.uk/blog/2020/10/02/why-diets-dont-work) such as fatigue, loss of strength, and overall deterioration. Not only this, but calorie counting is just restricting the amount of food you eat, resulting in [more hunger] (https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/stop-counting-calories) and can lead to weight gain due to a rise in cortisol levels. Compare this with the hormonal effect of fasting, which shows that, not only will you lose fat during a fast, but you will get [less hungry] (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15522942/) as overall levels of ghrelin decrease during a long fast. This is ignoring the other [health benefits] (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1905136) of fasting. [Improved insulin sensitivity] (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413118302535) shows that fasting is an effective strategy to mitigate at least the risk of diabetes, if not the actual disease itself. On top of this, there's evidence suggesting that fasting [increases longevity] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4257368/), improves [cardiovascular risk] (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1474651413486496), and even [regenerate your immune system] (https://www.clevelandclinicabudhabi.ae/en/health-byte/pages/fasting-health-immunity-is-there-a-connection.aspx) showing there are multiple health benefits of fasting outside of weight loss. Your point that there are factors besides food that account for weight management, frankly, isn't very good. For most people, what you eat and when you eat is going to be the greatest factor in weight-gain, as you can't gain weight without eating. Calorie restriction will be difficult for many people, as it is a constant chore, especially for eating out, to count how many calories you're eating. In first world countries [obesity is linked to poverty] (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25292135/) which shows that obesogenic foods are cheaply made and the most easily affordable. Therefore eating a nutritional meal and losing weight is difficult to do for people with a low-income. However, fasting is a better option for these situations, as fasting can be done after a social meal, and will reduce hunger for those who can't afford healthy meals, as I previously mentioned. Your point to 'find what works for you and you alone', doesn't work for me. The diet that worked for an obese person made them obese. If you're talking about treatment for obesity, well, death is imminent for many obese people, and they simply may not have the time left to find what works for them. If you believe obesity is a disease, then it needs a radical treatment, if someone had measles would you suggest they find what works for them? Your sources mostly point to the evidence that fad diets don't work, which I agree with. But my point isn't about fad diets, it's about calorie restriction. The [reason](https://www.nutritionist-resource.org.uk/blog/2020/10/02/why-diets-dont-work) people fail fad diets is that diets deprive you of food, but fasting doesn't do this, it just delays the time when you eat it, therefore it's less restrictive. As to your original point about 'The key to healthy eating is through balance and listening to your body', I think this is a vague notion, but I kind of agree with it. I think the way humans are supposed to eat is a nutritional meal whenever you're hungry, if that's what you meant. But I think this isn't achieveable in the modern 3-meals a day/breakfast is important society and I think fasting is a better compromise than calorie restriction.

Nearly every religion and culture other than the Western culture of Fast-food instant gratification has some form of fasting built in. Muslims for example have incorporated fasting into their religion and cycle of life for centuries. Seems pretty sustainable to me.

I agree, but I'd argue this is why fasting is better as it overall holds more net benefits. Saying it depends on the individual seems a bit obvious to me.

What's the best way to fast, do you think?

I definitely do agree with you. I only just wonder if there might not be a mismatch between these cues, which sometimes causes problems for people---some think we evolved in a certain way that doesn't enable us to use these cues very effectively when combined with the modern life, etc. For instance, we get hungrier when we haven't eaten for a while, but our body might tell us to binge/overeat at that point. Which would have been fine if we were going to then go without food again for a long time, as perhaps happened frequently to our ancestors, but which potentially becomes less fine when we are able to eat again relatively soon after because of modern convenience? Not sure, I could be completely wrong. It's quite true that most of us could probably listen to the hunger and fullness cues and be just fine, but I wonder if sometimes it's harder for some people to do that than to try fasting or other methods.

With obesity on the rise, I’d say listening to your body simply doesn’t work

I would argue that the body informs you based on experiences it is familiar with, as opposed to necessarily objectively correct ones. Someone who is overweight and used to eating at a surplus will consider that a normal state of being, and attempting to enforce a lower calorie limit will induce feelings of hunger. Likewise, for a diabetic, for instance, if they have consistently lived with an elevated blood sugar level for a long time, reducing it to normal levels can create symptoms normally associated with abnormally low blood sugar, even if their present level is actually completely healthy (i.e. at the level of a non-diabetic). The body's responses are coloured by familiarity rather than objective truth, and the human ability to adapt to its environment can be a negative thing in this instance.