Rhonda Patrick· PhD
I have not seen that. I think what I've seen from Steve's work and others is that you can slow the rate of the clock, but I haven't seen reversal yet.
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.
I have not seen that. I think what I've seen from Steve's work and others is that you can slow the rate of the clock, but I haven't seen reversal yet.
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.
Fasting, I still do that as much as I can for one main reason, and that is that it's going to activate these defenses that, at least, slow down and somewhat stabilize the epigenome decay that we call. But we're probably going to need something more potent to really go back 20 years.
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.