I find daily 16:8 far easier to adhere to than full 24h+ fasting. However, there are aspects of prolonged fasting that I most definitely prefer.
For example, some recent evidence has added weight to the idea that longer term fasting is more beneficial from a health perspective. As such, I'm willing to "suffer" a tad more in the short term for the long term rewards.
Also, the longer I fast, the better I feel both mentally and physically - well, technically anyways. I can't completely shake the emotional/mental attachment to food and that tends to annoy me during prolonged fasting. However when I can put it out of my mind, I feel great. (wrote a little something in my blog:
http://www.hungerfitness.com/difficulti ... s-choices/)
With prolonged fasting it's as if I can feel my body "resetting". Various hormonal levels are baselining, insulin, blood sugar etc. I literally feel like someone did a de-fragment on my hard-drive and a trash clean-up on my OS.
Short term fasting like 16:8 doesn't quite give me that feeling. Makes sense, as you'll probably be in a fed state a good deal of those 16 hours due to the last meal before the fast. Also you most likely have a roughly 12h supply of glycogen in your liver. So while you may go 16 hours without eating anything, your body will probably only be in a true fasted state for a few hours.
So, I'm a bit torn at the moment. 16:8 is far easier from the adherence standpoint as it is a less extreme form of fasting, but aside from the weight management aspect, it does seem to be an inferior choice for health benefits.
Let's face it - trying to partake in a prolonged fast in our modern world, when you are pretty much being force fed advertisements about food from every angle, is pretty hard.