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.
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.