Assessment of the Metabolic Effects of Isocaloric 2:1 Intermittent Fasting in Mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intermittent fasting (IF), a dietary intervention involving periodic energy restriction, has been considered to provide numerous benefits and counteract metabolic abnormalities. So far, different types of IF models with varying durations of fasting and feeding periods have been documented. However, interpreting the outcomes is challenging, as many of these models involve multifactorial contributions from both time- and calorie-restriction strategies. For example, the alternate day fasting model, often used as a rodent IF regimen, can result in underfeeding, suggesting that health benefits from this intervention are likely mediated via both caloric restriction and fasting-refeeding cycles. Recently, it has been successfully demonstrated that 2:1 IF, comprising 1 day of fasting followed by 2 days of feeding, can provide protection against diet-induced obesity and metabolic improvements without a reduction in overall caloric intake. Presented here is a protocol of this isocaloric 2:1 IF intervention in mice. Also described is a pair-feeding (PF) protocol required to examine a mouse model with altered eating behaviors, such as hyperphagia. Using the 2:1 IF regimen, it is demonstrated that isocaloric IF leads to reduced body weight gain, improved glucose homeostasis, and elevated energy expenditure. Thus, this regimen may be useful to investigate the health impacts of IF on various disease conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".