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.
I think a rule of thumb is when babies or toddlers begin to sleep eight to nine hours continuously through a night anyway, now their physiology or their sleep pattern is already getting used to being without food for seven to eight and maybe nine hours. And that maybe a time when at least one can begin the first term phase of time-restricted eating.
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.
And then the next thing would be giving them breakfast at the same time every day, or having the last meal or the dinner time fixed.
So they're already into 10 hours of fasting just through their sleep.