Andrew Huberman· PhD
People of course use 4, or 6 or 8, or 10hr feeding windows (or not follow intermittent fasting at all- as there are many different & healthy ways to eat)
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.
People of course use 4, or 6 or 8, or 10hr feeding windows (or not follow intermittent fasting at all- as there are many different & healthy ways to eat)
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, the duration of the feeding window has not been broken down into the kind of nuanced type of information that one would really want. At least not in human studies saying, well, a six hour feeding window or an eight hour feeding window is ideal. It really is going to vary based on lifestyle and circumstances, for instance, some families really want to eat dinner together every night.
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.