Dokaz Industries / Doxa

Contested facts · veracity-3pt · fact-fasting-benefit-01

Claim: Intermittent fasting produces health benefits beyond those of equivalent total calorie restriction.

0.00
Divergence
0.80
Avg stability
0%
Refusal rate
3
Models

Where each model stands

CCG
refutedcontestedsupported
ChatGPT modal contested [contested, contested, contested, refuted, contested] · stability 0.80
  • 1 contested 0.90 The answer states: "No convincing, general answer yet...the balance of high‑quality human evidence does not yet prove that IF delivers reliable, clinically important health benefits beyond those of equivalent total calorie restriction," and notes most human trials show effects explained by reduced energy intake.
  • 2 contested 0.90 The answer states: “Evidence is mixed... animal data and mechanistic rationale are strong; human data are promising in specific, controlled circumstances (especially early TRF), but overall the best available human RCT evidence does not consistently show that IF is superior to an equivalent calorie‑restricted diet.”
  • 3 contested 0.85 The answer says the claim is "plausible but not proven," noting "most benefits in people appear to track with total energy restriction and weight loss," while acknowledging limited, mixed human evidence (some early TRE studies) for effects beyond calories.
  • 4 refuted 0.90 The answer states: 'when total energy intake is matched, IF usually produces similar weight loss and metabolic outcomes as continuous/consistent calorie restriction,' concluding 'Not convincingly' that IF gives benefits beyond isocaloric restriction.
  • 5 contested 0.90 The answer states: "Mostly no strong, consistent evidence that intermittent fasting (IF) produces reliably greater health benefits than an equivalent total calorie-restricted diet...However, some specific IF patterns (especially early time‑restricted feeding) have shown modest, potentially weight‑loss‑independent improvements..."
Claude modal contested [contested, refuted, refuted, contested, contested] · stability 0.60
  • 1 contested 0.92 The answer explicitly states 'The honest answer: Mixed and inconclusive' and concludes 'IF may offer some advantages beyond calorie restriction, but evidence doesn't strongly support this yet.' This represents a contested stance—acknowledging some potential merit while emphasizing insufficient evidence and mixed findings.
  • 2 refuted 0.85 The answer states 'The honest answer: Not clearly demonstrated' and concludes that IF works 'as well as' rather than 'beyond' standard calorie restriction, with claimed advantages being 'overstated by current evidence.' This directly contradicts the claim that IF produces benefits beyond equivalent calorie restriction.
  • 3 refuted 0.92 The answer states that 'multiple controlled studies find that intermittent fasting and continuous calorie restriction produce similar weight loss when total calories match' and concludes 'the claim is not well-supported as stated' because 'evidence for unique metabolic or health advantages beyond calorie reduction remains weak.' This directly refutes the claim that IF produces benefits beyond thos
  • 4 contested 0.85 The answer presents both supporting and undermining evidence, concluding that the claim is 'genuinely uncertain' and 'somewhat overstated as commonly presented.' It acknowledges potential modest advantages while emphasizing that 'most rigorous head-to-head trials find...similar weight loss and metabolic improvements' when calories are equated, indicating the evidence is mixed rather than clearly s
  • 5 contested 0.95 This remains 'genuinely contested' in nutritional science. The answer presents both supporting arguments (insulin sensitivity improvements, metabolic signaling effects) and major limitations (small studies, difficulty isolating IF from calorie restriction, publication bias). Major systematic reviews conclude IF is 'not clearly superior' to regular calorie restriction, and claimed benefits remain '
Gemini modal contested [contested, contested, contested, contested, contested] · stability 1.00
  • 1 contested 0.95 The answer frames the claim as 'a subject of significant ongoing debate in metabolic science' and presents evidence both supporting and refuting the claim across different health endpoints.
  • 2 contested 0.95 The answer notes that the claim is a 'subject of significant scientific debate' and presents both evidence supporting and refuting benefits beyond calorie restriction.
  • 3 contested 0.95 The answer states that the claim is 'a subject of significant ongoing debate in nutritional science' and provides detailed arguments both supporting and challenging the assertion.
  • 4 contested 0.95 The answer states the claim is 'a subject of active debate in nutritional science' with evidence that is 'nuanced and mixed,' ultimately concluding that the claim is 'partially true, but frequently overstated.'
  • 5 contested 0.95 The answer describes the claim as 'a subject of significant ongoing debate in nutritional science' and provides detailed evidence both supporting and challenging whether intermittent fasting provides benefits independent of caloric deficit.

Change over time

No change from the prior run — every model's modal stance held.

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.