Just a couple of things:
First, I like the fact that IF is natural. Our bodies are very similar to that of our ancestors, and they most definitely would have alternated eating a lot and eating nothing. Oh, and they would NOT have stuffed their face with carbs all day. To me, it is logical. I don't need to see studies to be convinced. I do what I think my body is designed to do as a result of millions of years of evolution.
Second, there is an evolutionary problem that works against most of us: as we used to alternate feast and fast, our bodies are great at stocking fat for the next fast, and our minds just want to eat as much as possible in order to stock up for the next fast. Our biggest problem is that we still work like that, but without the fasting bit. So we overeat, and we don't understand why we can't help but polish the food in front of us, but we do. IF restores that fasting part of the natural cycle. WHAT IS UNNATURAL IS TO HAVE FOOD ALL THE TIME, NOT TO FAST! This, again, doesn't need to be demonstrated: those mechanisms have been well researched, it is a logical conclusion to add fasting to the cycle instead of trying to control urges all the time.
Finally, someone said earlier that people with eating disorders should not do IF. I disagree. I suffer from disordered eating (a much milder version but one that can lead to eating disorders) and IF is definitely helping me, in an almost miraculous way: for the first time, I can eat normally without feeling guilty, I can see hunger as a normal process that doesn't need to be stopped immediately, I can relax around food and stop obsessing about it. This WOE is curing me.
These, to me, are good enough reasons to continue without having to wait for all the research to be published. Published research, by definition, is always a little late.
