4 Fasting Lengths Tested: Only One Torched Real Fat

16-hour intermittent fasting torches real fat while 12 and 14-hour windows don’t, according to an 8-week study comparing four fasting lengths.

Annemarije de Boer Avatar
Annemarije de Boer Avatar

By

Our editorial process is built on human expertise, ensuring that every article is reliable and trustworthy. AI helps us shape our content to be as accurate and engaging as possible.
Learn more about our commitment to integrity in our Code of Ethics.

Image: Gadget Review

Key Takeaways

Recent trials comparing different intermittent fasting windows reveal that timing isn’t just everything, it’s the only thing that matters for real fat loss. Only the 16-hour fasting group (with an 8-hour eating window) saw significant body mass and fat loss over 8 weeks, even without cutting calories, according to a 2024 study published in a peer-reviewed journal. These fasting plans aren’t your typical kale-smoothie cleanses; they’re more like choosing when to hit the buffet. What makes certain protocols stand out? They bring real results backed by science, without turning your life into a joyless marathon of celery sticks.

4. 16-Hour Daily Fasting (16:8 TRE)

Image: Unsplash

This duration significantly reduces body mass and fat while preserving lean muscle over 8 weeks.

The 16:8 time-restricted eating plan isn’t about deprivation; it’s more like nutritional Tetris. A randomized trial comparing 12-hour, 14-hour, and 16-hour daily fasting durations found that this protocol significantly reduced body mass and body fat mass while preserving lean body mass over 8 weeks (Johnson et al., 2024, PMC11607941). Your daily routine becomes a buffet where the kitchen’s only open for 8 hours.

Participants spontaneously reduced their caloric intake without conscious restriction, making weight change far more likely than constantly staring longingly at your neighbor’s snacks. Systematic reviews confirmed daily fasting for around 16 hours is effective for weight changes, without serious adverse effects (PMC7021351). Anyone who’s tried restricting calories knows the drill—this approach sidesteps the willpower battle entirely.

3. Alternate-Day Fasting (24-36 Hour Fasts)

Image: Unsplash

Alternate-day protocols showed 1.3 kg more weight loss than simple calorie cutting in comprehensive reviews.

Alternate-day fasting isn’t for the faint of heart, but it delivered superior results in a review of 99 trials with over 6,500 participants. Think of it as rebooting your system every other day. Participants shed waist circumference and dialed down inflammation markers, which beats another boring salad any day of the week.

This approach landed in the same ballpark as regular calorie control for overall weight loss, but with bonus cardiometabolic benefits. Skip a day, then enjoy the next like you’re at a Roman banquet. Just remember, it’s about the long game, not a weekend crash diet. Done right, it’s a solid path to feeling like a million bucks.

2. Early Time-Restricted Eating (at least 14-Hour Fast)

Image: Unsplash

Early eating windows produce greater overall weight loss compared to extended daily grazing.

Early Time-Restricted Eating means adjusting your daily schedule to an earlier window, ensuring you fast for at least 14 hours each day. It’s like closing the kitchen early—telling your stomach “sorry, we’re closed” long before midnight snack cravings kick in. One trial showed obese adults on eTRE experienced greater overall weight loss: −6.3 kg compared to −4.0 kg with longer eating windows (JAMA Internal Medicine, 2022).

Compared to the “graze all day” approach, eTRE completers also saw superior fat loss (−4.7 kg vs. −3.4 kg), without sacrificing lean muscle. This suggests timing matters beyond just calorie counting—like getting a head start on the day’s work instead of burning the midnight oil. Your body becomes a well-scheduled band, not just playing hits at random.

1. 12-Hour and 14-Hour Daily Fasting

Image: Unsplash

Shorter fasting windows showed no significant changes in body composition or fat loss.

Wondering if those slightly shorter fasts will torch the same amount of fat? The same trial comparing 12-hour, 14-hour, and 16-hour daily fasting windows showed only the 16-hour group experienced significant reductions in body mass and body fat (PMC11607941). Those extra couple hours matter more than your patience waiting for the microwave.

Starting slow with a new approach makes sense—most folks ease into intermittent fasting with a 12-hour fast, then inch toward 16 hours. The kicker? The data suggests those baby steps might not be enough for noticeable fat loss. Anyone serious about real change should consider stretching those fasting windows—the research speaks louder than marketing hype, and your body might just surprise you with what 16 hours can accomplish.

Share this Article



About Gadget Review’s Editorial Process

At Gadget Review, our guides, reviews, and news are driven by thorough human expertise and use our Trust Rating system and the True Score. AI assists in refining our editorial process, ensuring that every article is engaging, clear and succinct. See how we write our content here →