My wife and I have done intermittent fasting for a long time. I never found it helped much with my weight, although she lost quite a few kilos. I think it's useful if you have a problem with snacking - having a hard cut-off of "I don't eat outside of these hours" is useful, and I think it's useful for tuning you into how your body actually works. I was convinced almost all my life that I simply couldn't do without breakfast, but after a week or so of intermittent fasting I discovered how quickly my body adapted. It also gets your body more used to being hungry which makes other forms of dieting/weight loss easier. What it doesn't do, on its own, is produce sustained weight loss, IME.
The big claims made by intermittent fasting enthusiasts don't seem to be backed up by the research, but I think it still has a bunch of worthwhile benefits. That said, I've started going back to having breakfast just because, well, I like having breakfast.
The method I've got into is a fast every other weekend when I'm trying to loose weight. I stop eating after supper on Friday, and don't eat again until the Monday when I have a number of small meals with an overall calorie deficit to ease back in. During the fast I only have coffee, water, and then some electrolytes and multi-vitamins to make sure I avoid any issues from the fast. Overall that gives a deficit of around 6000 calories. So over the two weeks that works out as equivalent to a deficit of a bit over 400 calories a day. IMO, sticking to a diet with a calorie deficit of 400/day is much harder than cramming it all into two days out of two weeks. Ultimately, you only lose weight by giving your body less food than it needs so that it chews through its fat reserves instead. Also, I would expect that it has less of an issue with plateauing since your body isn't getting a sustained deficit it won't adapt in the same way.
I see really good results, about a kg/week at the moment. YMMV.
