David Sinclair· PhD
Uh you want to have at least 16 hours of not eating or not eating very much and then you can have 8 hours.
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.
Uh you want to have at least 16 hours of not eating or not eating very much and then you can have 8 hours.
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.
One, is called daily time-restricted eating, where the time window that one eats is compressed into, say, a six to eight-hour time period. So, that means the person would be fasting for 16 to 18 hours, which is sufficient time for this metabolic switch to have occurred. And scientists think, based on a lot of data, that this metabolic switching is important for health benefits of intermittent fasting, but also maybe even of exercise in some instances.
But eating within a predetermined time window is pretty easy for...that's like a good introduction. Once you start doing that, then you start realizing how good you feel in this mild state of ketosis. And then you start maybe...that becomes the entry point to where you start manipulating your food and your macros and things like that.
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.