So many chronic diseases in first world countries these days are downstream consequences of metabolic disorders. That is why it's so commonly recommended.
That is a very shallow perspective. Fasting causes large, measurable phase changes in cellular function (eg autophagy). You can question whether it actually works or not, but there's a very plausible mechanism for why it would work that isn't simply related to calories-in-calories-out weight loss.
I think it's fair to say that we don't have to do something just because there's a plausible mechanism for a benefit. If there are clear and obvious health benefits that are far beyond what you see with a regular calorically restricted diet, I haven't heard them well explained.
The points listed there include heart health and the prevention of diabetes and obesity, which are very clearly things traditional caloric restriction also help with. For the other claims I don't see any comparison with traditional caloric restriction (I can't access the source paper).
I think we are talking past each other actually - I read your question "how did it make you healthier?" as in "how did it act to make you healthier?" and now I think you were saying "how did you determine it made you healthier?". Ambiguity of English strikes again...
If you want to sell me on the health effects you should be able to list them. If it made you feel better but not in an objectively measurable way that's great, but that's not a health effect.
If that's the mechanism by which the anti-aging effect takes place that would be promising for a lot of things, because many things, including Caffeine, exercise, and traditional caloric restriction inhibits mTOR, so there's lots of options, but as the person I originally responded to pointed out, for some reason Hacker News will always choose fasting.
