Today's Topic in Focus: Time-Restricted Eating [05:14]
- Lowe et al., 2020 - TREAT RCT
- Sutton et al., 2018 - Early Time-Restricted Feeding Improves Insulin Sensitivity, Blood Pressure, and Oxidative Stress Even without Weight Loss in Men with Prediabetes
- Hutchinson et al., 2019 - Time‐Restricted Feeding Improves Glucose Tolerance in Men at Risk for Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Trial
- Gabel et al., 2018 - Effects of 8-hour time restricted feeding on body weight and metabolic disease risk factors in obese adults
- Antoni et al., 2018 - A pilot feasibility study exploring the effects of a moderate time-restricted feeding intervention on energy intake, adiposity and metabolic physiology in free-living human subjects
- Yet unpublished study by Stegler et al., - Effect of Time-Restricted Eating on Weight, Fat Loss and Cardiometabolic Risk in Adults With Obesity
- Chrononutrition article on Stronger By Science
"I Have a Question!" [57:27]
Today's questions from our Patreon supporters:
- 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?
- 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?
- 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
Comments
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.
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!