Which peer-reviewed studies support the specific ketogenic or intermittent fasting protocols Thomas DeLauer promotes?
Executive summary
Thomas DeLauer publicly promotes combining intermittent fasting (IF) with ketogenic or low-carbohydrate cycling, occasional protein-sparing modified fasting (PSMF)-style days, and training strategies for “keto-adapted” athletes; his media and website point to peer‑reviewed literature as background, but the reporting provided does not identify randomized controlled trials that directly validate his specific, prescriptive protocols (e.g., exact fasting windows combined with keto cycling) [1] [2] [3]. The sources show DeLauer cites and links to peer‑reviewed studies on fasting’s biological effects—rheumatologic outcomes, hippocampal changes in rodents, and therapeutic fasting reviews—but they do not map those studies to the precise regimens he recommends for clients and followers [3] [4].
1. What DeLauer actually recommends and where he cites science
DeLauer’s public guidance emphasizes pairing intermittent fasting with periods of ketogenic eating, occasionally using less strict low‑carb days, and inserting periodic fasting or PSMF-style days rather than doing daily strict IF on top of continuous keto; he also warns that prolonged very low carbohydrate intake can reduce metabolic flexibility for athletes [2] [5] [1]. In his blog and other content he provides direct links to peer‑reviewed articles and reviews on fasting and caloric restriction—examples listed include a review of therapeutic fasting in women’s health, a study of fasting’s effects in rheumatoid arthritis patients, and animal studies of fasting effects on the hippocampus—indicating he draws on published literature as a foundation for general claims about inflammation, ketone biology, and longevity [3].
2. What the cited peer‑reviewed studies actually cover (per the reporting)
The specific peer‑reviewed items DeLauer links in his material include clinical and preclinical work on fasting’s impact on disease activity and inflammation (a rheumatoid arthritis study), narrative reviews of therapeutic fasting in women’s health, and rat studies on intermittent fasting and brain aging—these speak to mechanisms (e.g., ketone biology, inflammation modulation) and diverse outcomes rather than controlled tests of DeLauer’s branded protocols [3]. The reporting does not list clinical trials that randomized people to DeLauer’s exact combos (for example, “keto + 16:8 daily IF with two PSMF days weekly”); instead, DeLauer’s sources are used to support biological plausibility and strategy rather than to prove a particular timing-and-macronutrient prescription [3] [6].
3. Gaps between claims and peer‑reviewed evidence in the reporting
The material makes clear DeLauer is translating science for a large audience and cites peer‑reviewed work as supportive context, but the reporting repeatedly shows an interpretive step: he recommends practice patterns informed by studies of ketones, inflammation, and fasting physiology rather than demonstrating that a named protocol has been validated in an RCT or meta-analysis specific to his approach [4] [3]. Where he gives operational advice—like suggesting fewer fasting days when on strict keto to reduce oxidative stress, or cycling carbs to preserve metabolic flexibility—those are framed as experiential or pragmatic adaptations and are not backed in the provided sources by direct peer‑reviewed trials testing those exact prescriptions [2] [5].
4. Alternative viewpoints, implicit agendas, and what the reporting reveals
The reporting acknowledges alternative strategies and caveats—CrossFit coverage highlights metabolic flexibility concerns and recommends periodized carbohydrate use as an alternative to permanent ketosis [5]—while profile pieces and promotional pages emphasize DeLauer’s communication skills and client testimonials, which can blur the line between evidence synthesis and coaching marketing [4] [6]. The sources implicitly show an agenda of scaling science-based messaging to a mass audience: peer‑reviewed studies are cited as legitimacy, but there’s a promotional layer—books, coaching, and product recommendations—so readers should note that the peer‑reviewed literature cited is often supporting background rather than head‑to‑head proof of a single, prescriptive protocol [4] [6].
5. Bottom line from the available reporting
The reporting supports that Thomas DeLauer references peer‑reviewed studies on fasting, ketone biology, and metabolic health and that he tailors practical regimens consonant with those mechanisms, but it does not identify peer‑reviewed randomized trials that directly validate the exact IF + keto/PSMF combinations he promotes; readers seeking protocol‑level validation will need to consult primary clinical trial literature or systematic reviews that test comparable, explicitly defined regimens because the cited studies in his materials are largely mechanistic, disease‑specific, or preclinical [3] [2] [1].