https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6599603/
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-guide
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323129
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/intermittent-fasting/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213453018301142
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405452620301935
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7023051/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6499197/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6381923/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6599603/
This study (really small sample size unfortunately, though imo methodologically sound) compared OMAD (~20:4) vs 3MAD (traditional breakfast/lunch/dinner scheme) in healthy adults at equivalent (theoretical maintenance) intake calories and macros.
Unlike 3MAD controls who indeed maintained, OMAD subjects actually lost a bit of weight (in fact almost purely fat), suggesting that the intervention either a) increased their expenditure (by some ~200 kcal/day at most) and/or b) negatively impacted their nutrient absorption. Assuming that (a) was at least partly responsible (unfortunately no BMR/RMR testing was done), I find the magnitude of the effect surprising, given that the participants were pretty much at an ideal BMI already and enjoying metabolic health.
The study goes on to look at various biomarkers and self-assessed hunger levels (interestingly on that front OMAD-ers failed to acclimatize) and concludes that OMAD may be a viable alternative to 3MAD.