Andrew Huberman· PhD
oftentimes they think they're eating in an eight hour window, but they are actually eating in a much broader window.
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
oftentimes they think they're eating in an eight hour window, but they are actually eating in a much broader window.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
Almost everybody underestimates their feeding window. Meaning people who think that they are on an eight hour feeding window or six hour feeding window, when their data are analyzed, it almost is always the case that they're actually on a feeding window that's one or even two hours longer than they think
So this 8 hour window seems to be a really good rule of thumb and a kind of anchor around which we can each think about incorporating timerestricted feeding.
Time-restricted eating produces fat loss independent of total calories.
A 72-hour fast measurably improves autophagy markers in healthy adults.
One-meal-a-day (OMAD) eating patterns increase all-cause mortality in long-running cohort data.
Eating the largest meal before 3pm improves 24-hour glucose vs. an evening-heavy schedule, calorie-matched.