Andrew Huberman· PhD
So if they're in a caloric maintenance, then it's not going to be, it's not going to be deleterious. It's not going to be bad for their hormone health.
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.
So if they're in a caloric maintenance, then it's not going to be, it's not going to be deleterious. It's not going to be bad for their hormone health.
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 if they're in a caloric maintenance, then it's not going to be uh it's not going to be delotterious. It's not going to be bad for their hormone health. There's a couple different hormones that we can talk about. We can talk about testosterone. We can talk about DHEA, which usually go hand in hand.
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.