Andrew Huberman· PhD
It’s the overall feeding window, interestingly.
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
It’s the overall feeding window, interestingly.
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.
So I think this eight hour window or six hour window is a good thing to shoot for most people
an eight hour feeding window as a target seems to be the best target feeding, at least by my read of the literature. And in discussing it with shuts such in shorter feeding windows of four to six hours, tend to lead to overeating and potentially increases in weight.
I would bet I bet a million dollars you'll get a null answer if you compare eight hours but four to six is interesting and I'd be very curious
Why not hold calories constant and compare 8-hour to 15-hour window?
I would predict it would. And this is in comparison to three meals a day plus snacks.
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.