Andrew Huberman· PhD
No caloric intake for 12+ hours per 24 hour cycle
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.
No caloric intake for 12+ hours per 24 hour cycle
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.
We know that allowing periods of 12 hours or more each 24-hour cycle where you're not ingesting anything is beneficial for your brain and body health.
Um and and it is like you know 12 hours maybe where you have no food and I think that that probably triggers some metabolic activity that
And in that way you can see that if we carefully monitor and then ask specifically what are the benefits, you can come up with ways where we can say even this 12 hours of fasting, or not having the food in your system, will create some amount of benefit for heart on a daily basis or some amount of benefit for muscle on a daily basis.
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.