OK, so first, the
research is a pilot study, that
hasn't shown that Long Covid is caused by damaged mitochondria. It's found data suggestive of metabolic reprogramming and mitochondrial dysfunction, which is not the same thing, because there are different mechanisms which can cause that. Additionally, it's based on a small cohort size, lacks contemporaneous control, may not be generalizable, and should be treated as a hypothesis.
Second, even if we put that aside, it would still be a wild jump to conclude that 'fasting would absolutely be beneficial'. I'm getting the impression you think that stavation-induced autophagy is like a magic wand that you just wave and it fixes any problem with mitochondrial dysfunction. That's not how that works. I'm by no means an expert in this area, but I know enough to know it's
a lot more complicated than that, and there are a whole bunch of scenarios where starvation-induced autophagy would be unhelpful.
The conclusion of the study is essentially, "Now we need to follow up on this, see if can identify mechanisms of mitochondrial dysfunction in people with Long Covid, and that should help accelerate the development of therapies." You're trying to skip past that all the way to what that therapy would "absolutely" be. That's not how that works.
No, snacks don't prevent autophagy! Autophagy occurs at a basal level. Eating would typically limit
starvation-induced autophagy - because of course it would - but that's neither the only form of autophagy nor the only way that it's induced. Mitochondrial dysfunction itself may be responsible for induction of autophagy. Viruses can also induce mitophagy. Including Sars-CoV-2, for a recent example: e.g.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41423-021-00807-4.
No. Taking a pilot study, misrepresenting its findings, and combining that with a very oversimplified understanding of autophagy in order to reach a wild conclusion is not science.
We know fasting may be harmful, and we know it may exacerbate some conditions and diseases. We also know, as I've said, that it may be effective for some things, for some individuals, depending on their circumstances. That's not a contentious position.
So I just don't understand the drive to argue with that and start being evangelical about it. In much the same way I didn't understand people (not necessarily you
@Dago) rushing to push hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for Covid-19 treatment.
I mean, it'd be great if there was a magic bullet, but we can't just will one into existence by insisting that it exists, regardless of evidence.