Contested facts · veracity-3pt · fact-fasting-benefit-01
Claim: Intermittent fasting produces health benefits beyond those of equivalent total calorie restriction.
0.00
Divergence
0.89
Avg stability
0%
Refusal rate
3
Models
Where each model stands
CCG
refutedcontestedsupported
ChatGPT modal contested [refuted, contested, contested] · stability 0.67
- 1 refuted 0.92 The answer states 'Not reliably' and summarizes that 'large randomized trials and meta-analyses... generally find little or no extra benefit' and that 'most measured advantages appear to be driven by the same energy deficit (weight loss) rather than an independent effect.'
- 2 contested 0.87 The answer says: 'Not proven as a general rule in humans... evidence in humans is promising but inconclusive that IF yields systematic, clinically meaningful benefits beyond matched calorie restriction' and that 'most human benefits are explained by... weight loss,' while noting some small trials suggest possible weight‑independent effects.
- 3 contested 0.87 The answer says there are plausible mechanisms and some experimental evidence for calorie‑independent benefits but that human trial evidence is mixed and not definitive, concluding claims that IF reliably gives extra benefits are premature.
Claude modal contested [contested, contested, contested] · stability 1.00
- 1 contested 0.85 The answer states the claim is 'not yet well-established' with 'mixed results' and that 'claiming it offers metabolic advantages independent of calorie reduction currently outpaces the evidence.' It presents both suggestive evidence and substantial caveats, indicating the scientific community has not settled the question.
- 2 contested 0.92 The answer explicitly states 'The honest answer: unclear and contested' and presents evidence both for and against the claim, concluding that 'evidence for unique metabolic benefits beyond calorie restriction remains weak' while acknowledging some studies show potential advantages. This represents a genuinely contested scientific question rather than outright refutation or support.
- 3 contested 0.92 The answer explicitly states this is 'an active area of scientific debate where the evidence is mixed and evolving' and concludes that the claim is 'plausible but not yet definitively established by evidence.' It presents arguments both for and against unique benefits while noting that controlled studies often find 'similar weight loss and metabolic outcomes' when calories are matched.
Gemini modal contested [contested, contested, contested] · stability 1.00
- 1 contested 0.95 The answer notes that the claim 'is a subject of significant ongoing debate in nutritional science' with evidence that is 'mixed and nuanced' across animal vs. human studies.
- 2 contested 0.95 The answer notes that the claim 'is a subject of significant scientific debate' and explicitly presents both 'Evidence Supporting the Claim' and 'Evidence Against the Claim'.
- 3 contested 0.95 The answer directly states the claim is 'currently considered controversial, with weak evidence in humans despite strong evidence in animal models,' presenting balanced evidence where the claim holds weight versus where it fails.
Change over time
Moved since the prior run (canon-2026-W36). ChatGPT: refuted → contested.
Every stance label is a derived judgment over the model's free-text answer, kept auditable against the original transcript in the run's raw data. Method: /methodology.