Rhonda Patrick· PhD
So that's why I say that anyone from 5-year-old to 100-year-old year old can do 12 hours' time-restricted eating without much concern about adverse side effects unless the person has type 1 diabetes
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 that's why I say that anyone from 5-year-old to 100-year-old year old can do 12 hours' time-restricted eating without much concern about adverse side effects unless the person has type 1 diabetes
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.
No, time-restricted eating is a very loose and broad term. So that means even if somebody...as I said, only 10% of adults eat for 12 hours or less. So that means if somebody was eating for 16, 17 hours, and even if they're pregnant or breastfeeding, they can come down to, say, 14 hours or 12 hours of eating, 13 hours of eating. And if they continue with that routine, they may still see some benefit.
And 12 hours' time-restricted eating, as I said, maybe safe for most of us, except a type 1 diabetic, unless they have a continuous glucose monitor and they have some calories handy if they become hypoglycemic.