Used as just one aspect, along with: going cold turkey on snacking at work, switching to black coffee, and doing some daily simple fitness basics (pushups and the like), and ongoing bike commuting [prior to calorie consumption] the consequences over the last 18 months have been dramatic.
The main reason 16:8 IM helped with significant weight loss for me is certainly the "side effect" of significantly reduced caloric intake (thank you CICO). Normalizing to two meals and much reduced snacking has made a ton of difference.
So much so that when I hit my semi-formal "target" (midpoint of the "normal" BMI weight range for my height) I think I am going to have to get conscious about getting enough healthy calories to maintain muscle etc.
I try to make slightly more sensible choices, and exercise some mediocre "portion" control... but haven't switched diet to speak of.
I am a convert. I can see that it's not magic, but, for me at least IM as part of a broader modest trajectory change is turning out to be honestly life-changing.
I did 5:2 for 3-4 years as well, and lost 20kg (~44 freedom units). I did 36 hour fasts, and after a while it just felt naturally, but i'd be lying if i said the fasting days were easy. It gets "easier" but never easy.
I usually took a break from fasting during holidays, and a few years back i never really got back into it, and reverted to my old 16:8 ways. I'd love to see more research on it, but from my own experience, it's nowhere as effective as a regular 5:2 diet.
as well as
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155041311...
Still, more work needs to be done.
The latest weight fad was intermittent fasting. Turns out it isn't any better than any other weight loss regime.
So the track record of people who study diets is abysmal in my experience.