Originally Posted by
Polaris OBark
The flaw is what? It is at variance with your expectation biases?
I'll wait for the peer review process before concluding anything, but unless there actually is a real flaw in the statistical analysis, you'll have to come up with something slightly more compelling than a sales-pitch video from someone who isn't medically qualified.
The study is flawed for many reasons clearly explained in the video I posted which you hold bias against for some reason. No one in that study was medically qualified. It was performed as a survey, relying completely on anecdotal information with no specificity as to diet or any other possible contributing factors.
Would you still contribute the groups heart troubles to IM fasting if you knew most of them were obese smokers? What if the majority ate mostly fast food?
There are multiple scientific peer reviewed studies showing many health benefits of IM fasting, yet for some reason you prefer to give credit to an unreviewed anecdotal study with clear issues. I may be biased toward IM fasting but it's because I am following the clearest scientific evidence available. Why are you biased?