Paul Saladino· MD
sure enough at 12 hours fasted it had moved from 240 to under 100
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.
sure enough at 12 hours fasted it had moved from 240 to under 100
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.
but invariably after 12 hours almost like magic it would drop to below 100 sometimes even into the 60s or 70s but I've had a number of different times where for example even at eleven hours fasted it was still highly elevated but 100% of the time at 12 hours fast it dropped below
if you fasted if your fasted 12 hours I would expect your triglycerides to be low why because for the same reason I would expect your glucose to be low they're both an energy substrate and if your body is working properly there shouldn't really be a lot of energy part in your bloodstream usually
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.