I see where you're coming from, but just because mice don't live as long as humans doesn't mean all biological processes happen 16x as fast. They don't defecate 16x as often as humans or sleep 16x per day.
Do you think there is 0 signal about potential impacts on humans from testing on mice? How would you prefer research be done with a similar cost, ability to control variables, & level of ethics?
I think the extrapolations you’ve made from my comments are fighting an argument I’ve not made and am not interested in having because I’m not a scientist working on these things. What I’ve tried to explain in my comment is that we do not know how the metabolism of a mouse doing 16:8 relates to a human being. No more and no less, we simply do not know how to do that mapping and trying to draw conclusions about humans from this specific study is fairly futile because of this (unless they are using some methodology I’m not aware of)!
Your theory is that we don't know anything about the biological similarities and differences between humans and the animal most studied, one picked because it has a lot of biological similarities? That seems like quite a stretch.
I mean yes, people should not just assume that it will be the same. But as with a lot of studies in mice, it can inform what we study further in humans.
No, that is not my theory. How similar is 16:8 for mice and humans? That’s all we are discussing here and all I’ve talked about! I’ve reread my comments and I really can’t see where I start talking about all biological similarities or not. I’m talking specifically about 16:8 fasting. Can you tell me how similar humans and mice are in this regard?
Ok, so your theory is that even though we study mice because the are in many ways good proxies for humans, there's some special exception when it comes to fasting?
Yes, we don't yet know precisely how similar humans and mice are in this regard, because studies in mice generally precede doing the matching study in humans. But that doesn't mean we should assume that there's absolutely no correlation.
And yes, the more general biological similarities are relevant here because you claim "we simply do not know how to do that mapping", and that's not the case. We can't do a perfect mapping because mice aren't humans, but we can make a good start. We broadly know quite a bit about the relationship between mice and men and what sorts of correlations are more and less likely. E.g., if the study were about fitting through small holes, we'd know that the study wouldn't tell us much about humans. But we use mice because of "their anatomical, physiological, and genetic similarity to humans". [1]
Does that mean people should take this as gospel about what happens in humans? No. But it gives us a lot of good questions and things to explore in humans.
Not 16x, but a 15 hour mouse fast definitely doesn't translate to diel IF type pattern in humans. There's a signal here sure but it probably corresponds to fasts of more than a day.
Do you think there is 0 signal about potential impacts on humans from testing on mice? How would you prefer research be done with a similar cost, ability to control variables, & level of ethics?