They’re interrelated so, I am not sure how helpful the study would be.
People on the SAD diet can eat a big meal and become hungry in 2 hours - so they snack.
A study that forced people on the SAD diet to not snack (which could be done only at gunpoint in most cases) would not help because it wouldn’t model anything real-world (in my opinion).
My opinion 
The benefit of IF, even 16/8, is that it forces people to stop constantly grazing and eating/drinking whenever they see something. If you dont eat until 2pm, you probably won’t have that second frapuccino, those 3 cookies you didnt even realize you ate, breakfast followed by that danish from the bakery across the street, etc. An average person has no idea what and how much he/she eats and you have that lovely healthy dinner followed by a bag of chips. We remember, as well, how much pasta we could eat, I could eat an entire bag of chips alone, etc.
IF makes people aware of the self-control you need to make better choices and really ask yourself if that food should go into your mouth.
Don’t forget, doctors say we need to eat 5 times a day and they are smart and we need to follow them. What ends up happening-people dont have 3 meals and 2 snacks, they actually have 5 meals (an apple and a few nuts, yeah right ;)).
Well in that they are units of measurement then they are fine… however I eat food when hungry and until full.
I don’t eat calories or grams or ounces… I may record those values for my own amusement but I certainly don’t design meals around them.
I eat biology not mathematics.
Mark, I hear you - “real world” stuff versus abstractions, and for you there is no need for abstractions here.
I’ve never quite mastered this one.
Practically speaking, if I cook up a 12 ounce Ribeye steak and feel satiated at 10 ounces - the rest is going down. Reheating the remaining bit is not appealing and the flavor will never be as good as freshly made.
The same goes the other way - if I cook a 12 ounce Ribeye steak and finish it but feel I could use a few more bites, I don’t cook up another steak (leaving myself with a large, much less tasty, leftover piece).
I tend to keep a bit if a mental count, been over a few times, try to go under a few times. Helps with the daily calorie variation too.
I am astounded by how many people on this site can eat up to, but not past satiation (seems like a lot of leftovers).
Really ? I quite like cold cuts so often save a bit for later… steaks, liver, bacon anything…
I stay away from cold cuts as they have carbs (cultured dextrose, potato starch etc.).
I’m still trying to get myself to buy, cook and eat any sort of liver (unfortunately, liver is iron loaded and I am iron overloaded).
Bacon is nice as you can always cook another slice but - that can be the problem too 
I mean cold cuts from the meats I have cooked for dinner the day before…
Ah - that is where I have my problem. A seared steak just doesn’t save well in my opinion (reheated or cold). A grass fed Ribeye is up there cost wise so, I take the hit of over or under feeding for a meal based on them.
I thought this said “not mathematicians.” Instead of thinking “That doesn’t make sense,” I first went to “mathematicians would be kind of dry, wouldn’t they?” I need some more coffee.
Gawd I luv that statement I want to put this in picture frames and hang them everywhere!
I would replace “don’t necessarily affect” with “definitely affect,” but otherwise, that’s the point I’ve been trying to make. The idea I am arguing against is the notion that manipulating the caloric content and ignoring the macronutrient content of our food is a sufficient lever to modify the body’s response.
After all, I lost sixty pounds on a well-formulated ketogenic diet without any effort on my part, and without stinting noticeably on calories, and all by choosing what I ate, not how much I ate. The lesson for me is that if I want to lose weight, I need to signal my body to get into weight loss mode, not hamper it by restricting its energy intake.
This raises the question of what your reason is for continuing to eat past the point where you no longer want food because you’ve eaten enough.
Ah. Yes, it does mean a lot of leftovers. For me, that’s the whole point of the hormonal theory of weight maintenance. The way I eat determines whether I gain or lose, because the amount I eat is regulated by hormonal processes in the body.
That’s easy, grass fed Ribeye from Butcherbox is about $12 for a 10 ounce steak. After the work of a 4+ hour Sous Vide followed by a light sear and topping with blue cheese - it tastes great. Shovel off a few ounces into a container for later and reheat the next day - much closer to cheesy dog food (yes @anon2571578 pretty nasty and expensive nasty).
But, that is not always the case. On their larger cuts of meat (i.e. 24 ounce top sirloin cap) I do pretty well at eye-balling my appetite and carving off just what I need for a meal post-Sous Vide. Batching the rest - each seared just before eating - flavor is much better retained that way.
Yes, one way to handle this is the leftover route - eating to satiation each time.
I guess the way I am handling it is that if I go a little over - I expect my next meal to be farther off (or a bit smaller) - letting hunger (instead of satiation) sit in the hormonal control seat.
The difficulty with the leftover route is downing maybe-not-so-good leftovers.
The difficulty with letting hunger drive is that sometimes it is obvious I should be skipping a meal that mentally I was anticipating (going to bed after a later, larger lunch and no dinner is no fun sometimes).
I prefer most leftover meats straight out of the refrigerator, unheated and salted. If I fully reheat it, it tends to be dry and overcooked. I don’t mind it cold at all.
