Subscribe →
← All content Health & Medicine

Debunking the Myth of Intermittent Fasting

Jul 12, 2025 · 10K views · 444 likes · 9 comments · 7 shares

Video link

AI Search Summary

This video fact-checks Dave Asprey’s claim that one big meal burns 38% more calories than six small meals and therefore supercharges fat burning or explains intermittent fasting. The creator shows that the cited “new” study was from 1991, included only seven young women drinking a 750-calorie shake, and found a small absolute difference of about 16 calories in thermic effect of food.

  • Main question: Does one big meal burn more calories than multiple small meals?
  • Short answer / core takeaway: The video says the claim is exaggerated; the study found a small short-term thermic-effect difference under narrow conditions, while broader evidence does not show meal frequency meaningfully changes total daily energy expenditure.
  • Evidence type: Nutrition claim audit using an older small study, chamber studies, and intermittent-fasting/meta-analysis references.
  • Search topics: intermittent fasting thermic effect of food, one meal a day calories burned, Dave Asprey fasting claim, meal frequency energy expenditure, meal timing meta-analysis, biohacking nutrition fact check.

Common Search Questions

Did one big meal burn 38% more calories in the study?

Technically yes for the measured thermic effect in that small setup, but the absolute difference was only about 16 calories: 58 versus 42 calories.

Why is the claim misleading?

The study was from 1991, involved only seven healthy young women, used a 750-calorie shake, measured only five hours, and does not automatically generalize to all people or full one-meal-a-day diets.

What does broader evidence suggest about meal frequency?

The creator says more recent chamber studies and meta-analyses generally do not show that meal frequency meaningfully changes total calories burned; intermittent fasting may work mainly by affecting appetite and intake for some people.

Key Takeaways

  • “New study” was misleading because the referenced paper was from 1991.
  • The 38% figure sounds large but represented only about 16 calories in this study.
  • The study measured thermic effect of food, not full-day energy expenditure or long-term fat loss.
  • Evidence from chamber studies does not support one large meal as superior for total energy expenditure.
  • Intermittent fasting may help some people by affecting appetite, but responses vary.
  • DOI/PMID citations belong in References, not Additional Notes.

Transcript

The claim being checked

Let’s play science or sus.

Dave Asprey just posted: a new study shows that one big meal torches 38% more calories than six small meals, which will supercharge your fat burning. This may be a new reason why intermittent fasting works really well.

He calls himself the father of biohacking, which is supposed to be all about using science to take charge of and improve your health, which I’m theoretically all about.

Let’s rate his science skills using the claim framework.

Source and language

Dave has sold many products on the assumption that intermittent fasting is healthy for everyone. The study he twice calls new was published in 1991.

Language. He uses hype terms that imply a large practical effect. Also, saying this will supercharge fat burning implies that the study results are extensible to his audience.

What the study actually measured

The study had only seven healthy young women, eating either a single 750-calorie shake all at once or in six parts spread out over three hours.

They measured the thermic effect of food, i.e. how many calories your body burns to digest what it eats.

Assumptions. He assumes that these results will scale to all genders, ages, body types, and to full one-meal-a-day diets.

The absolute effect size

Impact. Technically, they did find that the big meal burned 38% more calories than the small meal. But that was just 58 versus 42 calories, for a grand total of 16 more calories burned.

That’s like five raisins.

They only measured five hours from the start of eating, but digestion normally takes five to six hours, so that wouldn’t even fully cover the small meals. And they didn’t measure physical activity.

Better evidence and practical takeaway

Evidence. Many more recent studies that kept people in chambers for full days and measured their energy expenditure found no impact of meal frequency on calories burned.

And other recent meta-analyses have found that the biggest impact of intermittent fasting or meal timing in general is not on how many calories you burn from a given number, but on how it impacts your appetite.

And that varies a lot with the individual, so choose what works best for you.

Final verdict?

Additional Notes

Caption context

The caption questions whether Dave looked at the study or reposted something that supported his existing beliefs. It lists the cited 1991 study, additional chamber studies, and meta-analyses on meal timing and intermittent fasting.

Keywords and topics

  • Intermittent fasting
  • One meal a day
  • Thermic effect of food
  • Meal frequency
  • Energy expenditure chamber studies
  • Dave Asprey claim audit
  • Biohacking nutrition misinformation

References