Time-box eating vs intermittent fasting

[ras]

Two recent posts (one by Al Pater, the other by me) suggest that time-boxing (eating within a limited time window) may be a superior health and longevity strategy. Both studies aren't strictly applicable to CR Society Society members, who are likely neither obese nor mice, but certainly suggestive.

The Al Pater post (an obesity study, posted and emailed today, September 13th) found that daily fasting did a better job of preserving lean muscle mass than intermittent fasting.

My post (on September 6th) reported that, for mice, "increasing time between meals improved the overall health of male mice and lengthened their lives compared to mice that ate more frequently" and "showed that mice who ate one meal per day, and thus had the longest fasting period, seemed to have a longer lifespan and better outcomes for common age-related liver disease and metabolic disorders.”

Some of our younger members may be able to stomach one big meal a day. Older members may find that if they try this, they will become GERD cases. For these members, a time-box method may be more appropriate (e.g., confining the day's eating within a time box of two to eight hours maximum).

-Richard Schulman

[Clinton]

Thanks Richard.

Time-box is simple and not difficult to adhere to.  I include this as part of my regimen to improve body composition and overall health.

 

[Genny]

Actually, it's completely applicable, since all CR mice were also time-box fed and when CR was tried outside of a time-box environment, the benefits of CR were lost.

I try to hold to a MINIMUM of 12 hr overnight fasts and prefer 14-16 H.  I doubt smaller intervals will be healthier and might even be less healthy--I suspect both the glucose/anabolic and triglyceride/catabolic dominant modes which were supposed to be a daily cycle are necessary for the most benefits.