It seems the benefits of condensing your food to the morning are circadian in nature, but it’s harder to resist eating in the evening, there’s an obvious social restriction to avoiding dinner, and some find it hard to sleep when hungry. It seems the benefits of condensing your food to the evening are better hunger management, social acceptance, and perhaps sleep (if not eating too late), but this seems to work against our circadian biology to some extent. The benefits of splitting into breakfast and dinner seem to be a trade off of the above, while avoiding afternoon drowsiness, and not taking too much time between food for those who comfortably go 16+ hours.All seem to have some benefit from autophagy and “time away from food.” Of course this assumes a two meal pattern, though there’s a lot of overlap with the one large extended “meal” over a similar number of hours. I think three meals with 5-6 hours between them (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) could be quite a bit more beneficial than snacking, but I’m then wondering if any additional benefits would be gained from removing one of the meals that are worth the downsides? Perhaps the weekly fasting is a bargain along this spectrum?My thoughts are generally split into 1) What would be the most appropriate method to follow given research findings and our biology, and 2) which is more practical given our actual hunger and social restrictions?

Link – 

Which method of intermittent fasting do you prefer? – Nutrition …

Be Nice and Share!