#355: Is Time-restricted Eating Dead?: A Closer Look

In Podcasts by Danny Lennon2 Comments

Today's Topic in Focus: Time-Restricted Eating [05:14]
"I Have a Question!" [57:27]

Today's questions from our Patreon supporters:

  1. Lawrence - Is there evidence for avoidance of any of the macronutrients being more important during an overnight and morning fast? For context: I stop eating at 6 pm and don’t eat again until 9 or 10 in the morning. But I do have some cream or half & half in my coffee at 6 am. Is that ‘cranking up’ any metabolic machinery that it would be better not to? Would sugar be worse?
  2. James - Is there an imagined evolutionary argument for why it is that TRF is beneficial for health? How much of this appears to rest mechanistically on autophagy?
  3. Kyla - Are there any considerations on how much or how long to engage in a fast or TRE window based on gender?
Quack Asylum [73:35]
  • Fasting is the solution to everything, including cancer...
    Random Recommendations [86:05]

    Alan's Recommendation: Norse Mythology - Neil Gaiman

    Danny's Recommendation: The Worm at the Core - Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg & Tom Pyszczynski

    Fan of the Podcast?

    If you regularly enjoy listening to Sigma Nutrition Radio and you’d like to take your support even further, then you can officially support the podcast on Patreon. You can pledge $1 per episode, and cancel at any time. If you’d prefer not to pledge a recurring payment, but instead send a one-time tip/donation, you can do so here.
    Thank you for considering!

    Comments

    1. Dear Danny,

      I love your EP with Alan because of the patience you have to break down science. Unfortunately I found that the tone the episodes turned cynical lately. Quack asylum is almost unbearable to listen to. How you answer your listeners questions this round also sounded like you undermined thier understanding of the topic, even though you might refer to the bad science in general. But I would feel hurt if I were that listener.

      I love the content and the ideas of those episodes. I do understand that some scientific claims are infuriating. But I think we should encounter bad science with solid science, not cynicism.

      Thanks for making great content.

      1. Author

        Hi JC,

        I’m sorry you feel that. I’m not sure where exactly the cynicism was in this episode, I thought we discussed the topic based on just discussing the science, and I made a point of outlining that it wasn’t the views of the reseachers themselves we disagree with, but rather the simplistic misinterpretations.

        In relation to the quack asylum segment, it is supposed to be a fun segment for a few mintues, rather than a deep breakdown. Any of those who have been mentioned, peddle dangerous information which really does harm people. It’s simply making people aware of who is untrustworthy. Of course, if that segment isn’t something you enjoy, that’s totally fine. Hopefully you continue to listen to the main topics, even if you choose to skip the later segments.

        And finally, I really don’t understand how the listener questions could be construed as undermining anyone. I stated these questions were selected as they were the most interesting to consider. And I know we didn’t say anything negative about the questions. Was there something specific that made you feel that way? I suspect it may have just picked up wrong, as I thought they were great questions to ask!

        Thanks for listening and for taking the time to comment. Much appreciated!

    Leave a Comment