16:8 Intermittent Fasting Doesn't Work to Lose Weight? (Part 2) (Episode #96, 23 May 2022)

In this second episode on a landmark 16:8 fasting study, we cover another significant deficiency of the New England Journal of Medicine 16:8 fasting article, "Calorie Restriction with or without Time Restricted Eating in Weight Loss" (April 22, 2022). It omits any discussion of the controversy surrounding "statistical significance", a topic that is hotly debated within the professional statistics community.     The study clearly showed a weight loss difference between the fasting group and the control group, but the difference was reported as "no difference" because the difference was not "statistically significant".   So, in this episode, we cover the seemingly boring, but actually very interesting topic of "statistical significance", a topic which has generated significant controversy in the professional statistics community.  From drugs to mask policy, this concept affects nearly public policy and consumer  science policy decision.     How do we determine whether variable x actually causes Y or is at least associated with Y to such a degree that we can actually make policy on that basis?     For a long time, the statistics community has identified "statistical significance" as a way to make such decisions, but more and more professionals are questioning not the underlying methodology, but the language statistical significant to determine what is important and not important.   We cover this issue more broadly and as it relates to this "study".     Fasting works!  This study sucks!!  Toss it!!  Reach out with comments and feedback at either [email protected] or [email protected].