8 ms·

This article doesn't really explain _why_ eating earlier is supposedly better. The only explanation it gives is related to weight-loss. Conflating health and we

This article doesn't really explain _why_ eating earlier is supposedly better. The only explanation it gives is related to weight-loss. Conflating health and weight-loss is an unhealthy (pun intended) obsession of the media and society writ large. Lots of people do in fact need to gain weight to become healthier. And if eating late at night helps with that goal, then eating later can be considered healthy.

qsort 4y ago
> Lots of people do in fact need to gain weight This is obviously technically true, but it's like reading "domestic violence" and thinking "ah, this must be about women beating their husbands". Yes, both directions of the problem actually exist, but one is orders of magnitude more likely.
- leephillips 4y ago
  Incorrect (by orders of magnitude). Both directions have about equal rates of occurrence. Female-initiated domestic violence is somewhat more frequent than male-initiated domestic violence. https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/domestic-violence-facts-and-statistics-at-a-glance/ https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/domestic-violence-facts...
  - qsort 4y ago
    Look, I don't want to get into a fight over that because it's completely out of topic, but to claim that "25.3% of individuals have perpetrated [violence]" and "80% (sic) of individuals have perpetrated emotional abuse" means using definitions of "violence" and "abuse" very different from ordinary English.
    - viridian 4y ago
      Perhaps you live in a bubble (high income, high education) if you find it completely unbelievable that a quarter of the populace will engage in domestic violence at some point in their lives. I grew up in rural Appalachia, and I can tell you that the most common response to someone, say, being called a stupid bitch, is not to channel the eternal words of Marcus Aurelius or to center ones self like the Buddha, as might be the case for your average HN poster.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      Men are continually trying to paint sexism as symmetric. Doesn't matter that 99% of the corpses that result from domestic violence are women, that 1% means that it's actually a back and forth tennis match. Meanwhile, one of the most common types of mass killings is when men just decide to kill every woman they see.
      - TheHappyOddish 4y ago
        You seem to be conflating violence and murder. Yes, mens result in death more often, but data shows women and men are both comitters of domestic violence.
      - annyeonghada 4y ago
        >Men are continually trying to paint sexism as symmetric Exactly, considering that in almost every societal metric that matters men do worse than women sexism against men is much worse, nothing symmetric.
      - mrtweetyhack 4y ago
        [dead]
    - annyeonghada 4y ago
      >means using definitions of "violence" and "abuse" very different from ordinary English Incredible how the same critic is never moved against women when engage in the same kind of Newspeak. Let's remember that "speech as violence" was not invented by men.
- mrtweetyhack 4y ago
  [dead]
mrpopo 4y ago
Given the Washington Post is based in the US and has a majoritarily U.S.-based readership, and that almost 3 out of 4 adults in the U.S. are overweight, the general advice to lose weight is sound... Comparatively, less than 2% of the U.S. population is underweight. And even for these people, simply gaining weight by tricking your biological clock would not be a good advice either.
steveBK123 4y ago
The older I get the more I am pretty convinced that at the margin, every bodys digestive system and metabolism responds a little differently the time/frequency of meals, precise content of meals, amount of exercise, amount of sleep, etc. Therefore there is no "one size fits all" solution outside of the general "eat a bit less, move a bit more" guidance. It's kind of like when they interview 100+ year olds for "the tricks to a long life" and it's just inane random stuff.
- notyourday 4y ago
  One does not become 100lb overweight because of "margins". One becomes 100lb overweight because they are doing 100mph in a 35mph zone so "slow the hell down" is a great advice.
  - imustbeevil 4y ago
    You also don't become 100lb overweight because you eat your first meal at 12pm instead of 8am. That's what that comment was saying; the only obvious advice is eat less and exercise more, and it works 100% of the time for all bodies.
    - steveBK123 4y ago
      Yes, thank you, lol.
    - kosievdmerwe 4y ago
      And of the two eating less is more important. The human body is remarkably efficient when it comes to exercise. Also important is eating your food in a manner (e.g., smaller portions more frequently) that you don't ever get really hungry. Extreme hunger leads to binge eating which can easily undo any calory deficit you managed that day.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Of course you do. That's like saying that you don't end up $100 in debt by having a deficit of $1 a day.
TurkishPoptart 4y ago
In the US, most people are overweight, not underweight. I'm not a medical student, but I can imagine that if the average American lost 10% of their excess body weight, the improvement to their health (and subsequently public health) would be enormous. But public officials don't address this like they did when I was growing up. Now we just have this weird culture of "fat acceptance", I guess to presumably spare peoples' feelings.
- andrepd 4y ago
  >Now we just have this weird culture of "fat acceptance", I guess to presumably spare peoples' feelings. The USA obesity epidemic has been undergoing for decades. I highly doubt "anti-fatphobia" tiktoks are to blame here.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  You’re not a medical student, so you wouldn’t know, but it’s well studied that making people feel bad for being fat actually makes them fatter. So sparing their feelings about their fatness is actually the correct behavior if we want to encourage the average American to lose weight. A fat person isn’t ignorant about their fatness, but not treating them any different for being fat is actually the path to get them thin.
  - TurkishPoptart 4y ago
    >It's well studied that making people feel bad for being fat actually makes them fatter. Thanks for the downvote. That doesn't mean that doctors shouldn't tell their patients to lose some freaking weight if they're obese. Fat sympathy is a cultural problem. But also all the seed oils, sugars, and fakeness in our foods is another problem.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
      I didn’t downvote you. Im just telling you that displays of fat shaming actually make fat people fatter, statistically, while there’s no evidence that fat sympathy does the same (and in fact might do the opposite).
kome 4y ago
"This article doesn't really explain _why_ eating earlier is supposedly better." It does: "Because of the way our internal clocks operate, our bodies are primed to digest and metabolize food early in the day. As the day progresses, our metabolisms become less efficient."
- jeltz 4y ago
  Which should mean the opposite, that eating later in the day is better for weightloss.
  - kome 4y ago
    why? that's not how metabolism works
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - mmh0000 4y ago
      They’re confused by the word efficiency. They’re assuming that if metabolism is inefficient then it must take more energy to process food. Thus, more calories burned, thus weightloss.
  - thomascgalvin 4y ago
    Digest and metabolize. This would mean that early in the day, you digest food and put it to work. Your body temperature is higher, you fidget more, your body repairs some of the damage you did when you worked out last night. Later in the day, the food you digest sits around. Your body temperature is lower, you fidget less, your body performs less maintenance and repair. But the body isn't wasteful; it's still built to survive periodic famine. So, those extra calories that are just sitting around get stored away for later.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  It also mentions ghrelin and leptin
simonsarris 4y ago
> Conflating health and weight-loss is an unhealthy (pun intended) obsession of the media and society writ large. Being overweight and diabetes are comorbidities of nearly everything, and are comorbidities of each-other for that matter. People are more overweight than ever. If anything there is not nearly enough alarm, and far too much normalization of the increasing status quo. > Lots of people do in fact need to gain weight to become healthier. Approximately 1.5% of US adults are underweight. Approximately 73.6% are overweight or obese.
- mumblemumble 4y ago
  There's so much to unpack beyond these surface-level statistics, though. Like how there's some evidence that the health risks associated with increased BMI are partially an artifact of weight loss diets being really bad for your health, plus selection bias. People with lower BMIs are significantly less likely to attempt these health-destroying weight loss diets in the first place. Which would then imply that an approach to the issue that focuses primarily on how to get people who are already fat to lose weight, rather than as a prevention-focused public health initiative, may be doing more harm than good. Or how lumping the overweight and obese groups together is a great example of lying with statistics by gerrymandering the BMI quantiles that seem to be healthiest together with those that have the poorest health outcomes, and away from a group that was arbitrarily defined the better part of two centuries ago based on one person's aesthetic standards rather than any health indicators, most of which weren't even known at the time. In other words, it's the crux of a pervasive piece of statistical circular reasoning. And the moralizing statements like "normalization of the increasing status quo" that politicize the issue, thereby making it harder to have a nuanced, thoughtful discussion about the topic, and instead push it toward always being yet another pea shooting contest between the "personal responsibility" and "fat positivitiy" caucuses. Which only serves to drown out any attempt to really contend with the full magnitude of the nuances and unknowns that surround this issue.
  - jagraff 4y ago
    This is nonsense. Obesity doesn’t cause health issues because of crash diets - the link between obesity and several bad health outcomes (insulin resistance/diabetes, hypertension, joint damage, to name a few) is extremely well established, and has nothing to do with diet and everything to do with the accumulation of superhuman levels of fat relative to the conditions in which humans evolved. You’re right that there is some controversy about where exactly the line for “overweight” should be, but there’s no question that when you get into the obese category (41% of Americans) it is extremely bad for your health, irrespective of what diet you’re on - humans simply aren’t designed to handle the amount of fat we now routinely accumulate.
michaelcampbell 4y ago
> Lots of people do in fact need to gain weight to become healthier. I'm sure given 7-8 billion people in the world this might be "true" for some value of "lots", but I'm curious where data backs this assertion for the audience for which this article is intended; where food is overabundant and mostly overprocessed.
fsloth 4y ago
“Conflating health and weight-loss is an unhealthy“ Reference needed. Being overweight most definitely is a health risk. What kind of risk exactly is then probably related to personal biology of each individual but I guess the list to pick from is quite long - diabetes, blood pressure, cholesterol, joint problems etc. Ofc weight is not the only relevant metric but it is relevant still.
- throw_pm23 4y ago
  I understood the post differently. For example, I am not overweight, never have been. I am interested in reading about healthy eating. I'm not interested in losing weight, as that would be unhealthy for me. Yet, all I can ever find is how to eat in order to lose weight. Thus the two issues (health and weight loss) are conflated.
  - _yb2s 4y ago
    Look up the book perfect health diet
  - fsloth 4y ago
    Generally people conflate health and weight because globally, for a very large number of people, this is the main problem. As societies move to western diets, the average person becomes overweight and is diagnosed with one or more health problems directly related to obesity (pick one or more from my list above). This is the easy problem to diagnose. The connection between nutrition and health, if obesity is not your concern, seems indeed to be far more nuanced and complex. I'm not sure if anyone has come up with anything better that every expert could agree on except "eat little bit of everything". I suppose fasting seems to improve biological markers even for non-obese people so it's not only about weight loss as such, though.
  - thomascgalvin 4y ago
    > I am interested in reading about healthy eating.... Yet, all I can ever find is how to eat in order to lose weight. I suspect that this is largely due to the fact that industrial food owns the food science in this country, and in most of the developed world. For decades, we were fed (no pun intended) a Food Pyramid that is a blatant lie, because it correlated to how monied interests wanted to feed the nation. I had my annual physical last week, and my doctor told me that the consensus is now "eat whole, natural, unprocessed foods as much as possible, and probably cut back on meat." That seems reasonable, on its face. It also seems prohibitively expensive for many people. I'm afraid that there isn't a great solution to this problem in this country, almost by design.
lo_zamoyski 4y ago
> Lots of people do in fact need to gain weight to become healthier. Maybe in places of famine, but the target audience is western, specifically American. Emaciation is hardly a problem in the US. Obesity is. Two thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. Sure, it may not be enough to simply aim at weight reduction (most probably have bad diets to begin with), but weight loss is definitely important and healthy.
- stinkytaco 4y ago
  The great irony is that while emaciation is hardly a problem, malnutrition is. It's a country that is both malnourished and obese and there just doesn't seem to be much of a public policy push to change that.
  - thomascgalvin 4y ago
    I would suspect that malnourishment leads to obesity, at least in part. When you stuff yourself with empty calories, your body is left unsatisfied, because it's missing important nutrients. This leads to hunger signals, which leads to eating more empty calories, which leads to ...
VLM 4y ago
This is the main problem with social media in its declining era. "I encourage my competitors to take some really bad advice" simply becomes tiresome when the rest of the traffic has been pushed away and that's all that remains in the social media sphere.
icare_1er 4y ago
" Lots of people do in fact need to gain weight to become healthier" >> No. A few people. Very few. Lots need to lose weight to be healthier.
- master-lincoln 4y ago
  According to a BBC article from 2016 [0] there were an estimated 641 million overweight people on earth and 462 million underweight people. I wouldn't call that "very few". [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-35933691 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-35933691
  - readthenotes1 4y ago
    I bet most of those half a billion underweight people are not going to be reading the Washington Post, or even worrying about dietary advice it's from a us-based news outlet. I thoroughly approve of the quibble though.
hericium 4y ago
> This article doesn't really explain _why_ eating earlier is supposedly better. I feel like it's a personal preference and I only eat later in a day, but here[1] you may find some explanations on why eating in the morning may be better. [1] https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-01-intermittent-fasting-boost-health-restrict.html https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-01-intermittent-fasting-...

qsort 4y ago

> Lots of people do in fact need to gain weight This is obviously technically true, but it's like reading "domestic violence" and thinking "ah, this must be about women beating their husbands". Yes, both directions of the problem actually exist, but one is orders of magnitude more likely.

leephillips 4y ago
Incorrect (by orders of magnitude). Both directions have about equal rates of occurrence. Female-initiated domestic violence is somewhat more frequent than male-initiated domestic violence. https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/domestic-violence-facts-and-statistics-at-a-glance/ https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/domestic-violence-facts...
- qsort 4y ago
  Look, I don't want to get into a fight over that because it's completely out of topic, but to claim that "25.3% of individuals have perpetrated [violence]" and "80% (sic) of individuals have perpetrated emotional abuse" means using definitions of "violence" and "abuse" very different from ordinary English.
  - viridian 4y ago
    Perhaps you live in a bubble (high income, high education) if you find it completely unbelievable that a quarter of the populace will engage in domestic violence at some point in their lives. I grew up in rural Appalachia, and I can tell you that the most common response to someone, say, being called a stupid bitch, is not to channel the eternal words of Marcus Aurelius or to center ones self like the Buddha, as might be the case for your average HN poster.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Men are continually trying to paint sexism as symmetric. Doesn't matter that 99% of the corpses that result from domestic violence are women, that 1% means that it's actually a back and forth tennis match. Meanwhile, one of the most common types of mass killings is when men just decide to kill every woman they see.
    - TheHappyOddish 4y ago
      You seem to be conflating violence and murder. Yes, mens result in death more often, but data shows women and men are both comitters of domestic violence.
    - annyeonghada 4y ago
      >Men are continually trying to paint sexism as symmetric Exactly, considering that in almost every societal metric that matters men do worse than women sexism against men is much worse, nothing symmetric.
    - mrtweetyhack 4y ago
      [dead]
  - annyeonghada 4y ago
    >means using definitions of "violence" and "abuse" very different from ordinary English Incredible how the same critic is never moved against women when engage in the same kind of Newspeak. Let's remember that "speech as violence" was not invented by men.
mrtweetyhack 4y ago
[dead]

mrpopo 4y ago

Given the Washington Post is based in the US and has a majoritarily U.S.-based readership, and that almost 3 out of 4 adults in the U.S. are overweight, the general advice to lose weight is sound... Comparatively, less than 2% of the U.S. population is underweight. And even for these people, simply gaining weight by tricking your biological clock would not be a good advice either.

steveBK123 4y ago

The older I get the more I am pretty convinced that at the margin, every bodys digestive system and metabolism responds a little differently the time/frequency of meals, precise content of meals, amount of exercise, amount of sleep, etc. Therefore there is no "one size fits all" solution outside of the general "eat a bit less, move a bit more" guidance. It's kind of like when they interview 100+ year olds for "the tricks to a long life" and it's just inane random stuff.

notyourday 4y ago
One does not become 100lb overweight because of "margins". One becomes 100lb overweight because they are doing 100mph in a 35mph zone so "slow the hell down" is a great advice.
- imustbeevil 4y ago
  You also don't become 100lb overweight because you eat your first meal at 12pm instead of 8am. That's what that comment was saying; the only obvious advice is eat less and exercise more, and it works 100% of the time for all bodies.
  - steveBK123 4y ago
    Yes, thank you, lol.
  - kosievdmerwe 4y ago
    And of the two eating less is more important. The human body is remarkably efficient when it comes to exercise. Also important is eating your food in a manner (e.g., smaller portions more frequently) that you don't ever get really hungry. Extreme hunger leads to binge eating which can easily undo any calory deficit you managed that day.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Of course you do. That's like saying that you don't end up $100 in debt by having a deficit of $1 a day.

TurkishPoptart 4y ago

In the US, most people are overweight, not underweight. I'm not a medical student, but I can imagine that if the average American lost 10% of their excess body weight, the improvement to their health (and subsequently public health) would be enormous. But public officials don't address this like they did when I was growing up. Now we just have this weird culture of "fat acceptance", I guess to presumably spare peoples' feelings.

andrepd 4y ago
>Now we just have this weird culture of "fat acceptance", I guess to presumably spare peoples' feelings. The USA obesity epidemic has been undergoing for decades. I highly doubt "anti-fatphobia" tiktoks are to blame here.
SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
You’re not a medical student, so you wouldn’t know, but it’s well studied that making people feel bad for being fat actually makes them fatter. So sparing their feelings about their fatness is actually the correct behavior if we want to encourage the average American to lose weight. A fat person isn’t ignorant about their fatness, but not treating them any different for being fat is actually the path to get them thin.
- TurkishPoptart 4y ago
  >It's well studied that making people feel bad for being fat actually makes them fatter. Thanks for the downvote. That doesn't mean that doctors shouldn't tell their patients to lose some freaking weight if they're obese. Fat sympathy is a cultural problem. But also all the seed oils, sugars, and fakeness in our foods is another problem.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
    I didn’t downvote you. Im just telling you that displays of fat shaming actually make fat people fatter, statistically, while there’s no evidence that fat sympathy does the same (and in fact might do the opposite).

kome 4y ago

"This article doesn't really explain _why_ eating earlier is supposedly better." It does: "Because of the way our internal clocks operate, our bodies are primed to digest and metabolize food early in the day. As the day progresses, our metabolisms become less efficient."

jeltz 4y ago
Which should mean the opposite, that eating later in the day is better for weightloss.
- kome 4y ago
  why? that's not how metabolism works
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mmh0000 4y ago
    They’re confused by the word efficiency. They’re assuming that if metabolism is inefficient then it must take more energy to process food. Thus, more calories burned, thus weightloss.
- thomascgalvin 4y ago
  Digest and metabolize. This would mean that early in the day, you digest food and put it to work. Your body temperature is higher, you fidget more, your body repairs some of the damage you did when you worked out last night. Later in the day, the food you digest sits around. Your body temperature is lower, you fidget less, your body performs less maintenance and repair. But the body isn't wasteful; it's still built to survive periodic famine. So, those extra calories that are just sitting around get stored away for later.
readthenotes1 4y ago
It also mentions ghrelin and leptin

simonsarris 4y ago

> Conflating health and weight-loss is an unhealthy (pun intended) obsession of the media and society writ large. Being overweight and diabetes are comorbidities of nearly everything, and are comorbidities of each-other for that matter. People are more overweight than ever. If anything there is not nearly enough alarm, and far too much normalization of the increasing status quo. > Lots of people do in fact need to gain weight to become healthier. Approximately 1.5% of US adults are underweight. Approximately 73.6% are overweight or obese.

mumblemumble 4y ago
There's so much to unpack beyond these surface-level statistics, though. Like how there's some evidence that the health risks associated with increased BMI are partially an artifact of weight loss diets being really bad for your health, plus selection bias. People with lower BMIs are significantly less likely to attempt these health-destroying weight loss diets in the first place. Which would then imply that an approach to the issue that focuses primarily on how to get people who are already fat to lose weight, rather than as a prevention-focused public health initiative, may be doing more harm than good. Or how lumping the overweight and obese groups together is a great example of lying with statistics by gerrymandering the BMI quantiles that seem to be healthiest together with those that have the poorest health outcomes, and away from a group that was arbitrarily defined the better part of two centuries ago based on one person's aesthetic standards rather than any health indicators, most of which weren't even known at the time. In other words, it's the crux of a pervasive piece of statistical circular reasoning. And the moralizing statements like "normalization of the increasing status quo" that politicize the issue, thereby making it harder to have a nuanced, thoughtful discussion about the topic, and instead push it toward always being yet another pea shooting contest between the "personal responsibility" and "fat positivitiy" caucuses. Which only serves to drown out any attempt to really contend with the full magnitude of the nuances and unknowns that surround this issue.
- jagraff 4y ago
  This is nonsense. Obesity doesn’t cause health issues because of crash diets - the link between obesity and several bad health outcomes (insulin resistance/diabetes, hypertension, joint damage, to name a few) is extremely well established, and has nothing to do with diet and everything to do with the accumulation of superhuman levels of fat relative to the conditions in which humans evolved. You’re right that there is some controversy about where exactly the line for “overweight” should be, but there’s no question that when you get into the obese category (41% of Americans) it is extremely bad for your health, irrespective of what diet you’re on - humans simply aren’t designed to handle the amount of fat we now routinely accumulate.

michaelcampbell 4y ago

> Lots of people do in fact need to gain weight to become healthier. I'm sure given 7-8 billion people in the world this might be "true" for some value of "lots", but I'm curious where data backs this assertion for the audience for which this article is intended; where food is overabundant and mostly overprocessed.

fsloth 4y ago

“Conflating health and weight-loss is an unhealthy“ Reference needed. Being overweight most definitely is a health risk. What kind of risk exactly is then probably related to personal biology of each individual but I guess the list to pick from is quite long - diabetes, blood pressure, cholesterol, joint problems etc. Ofc weight is not the only relevant metric but it is relevant still.

throw_pm23 4y ago
I understood the post differently. For example, I am not overweight, never have been. I am interested in reading about healthy eating. I'm not interested in losing weight, as that would be unhealthy for me. Yet, all I can ever find is how to eat in order to lose weight. Thus the two issues (health and weight loss) are conflated.
- _yb2s 4y ago
  Look up the book perfect health diet
- fsloth 4y ago
  Generally people conflate health and weight because globally, for a very large number of people, this is the main problem. As societies move to western diets, the average person becomes overweight and is diagnosed with one or more health problems directly related to obesity (pick one or more from my list above). This is the easy problem to diagnose. The connection between nutrition and health, if obesity is not your concern, seems indeed to be far more nuanced and complex. I'm not sure if anyone has come up with anything better that every expert could agree on except "eat little bit of everything". I suppose fasting seems to improve biological markers even for non-obese people so it's not only about weight loss as such, though.
- thomascgalvin 4y ago
  > I am interested in reading about healthy eating.... Yet, all I can ever find is how to eat in order to lose weight. I suspect that this is largely due to the fact that industrial food owns the food science in this country, and in most of the developed world. For decades, we were fed (no pun intended) a Food Pyramid that is a blatant lie, because it correlated to how monied interests wanted to feed the nation. I had my annual physical last week, and my doctor told me that the consensus is now "eat whole, natural, unprocessed foods as much as possible, and probably cut back on meat." That seems reasonable, on its face. It also seems prohibitively expensive for many people. I'm afraid that there isn't a great solution to this problem in this country, almost by design.

lo_zamoyski 4y ago

> Lots of people do in fact need to gain weight to become healthier. Maybe in places of famine, but the target audience is western, specifically American. Emaciation is hardly a problem in the US. Obesity is. Two thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. Sure, it may not be enough to simply aim at weight reduction (most probably have bad diets to begin with), but weight loss is definitely important and healthy.

stinkytaco 4y ago
The great irony is that while emaciation is hardly a problem, malnutrition is. It's a country that is both malnourished and obese and there just doesn't seem to be much of a public policy push to change that.
- thomascgalvin 4y ago
  I would suspect that malnourishment leads to obesity, at least in part. When you stuff yourself with empty calories, your body is left unsatisfied, because it's missing important nutrients. This leads to hunger signals, which leads to eating more empty calories, which leads to ...

VLM 4y ago

This is the main problem with social media in its declining era. "I encourage my competitors to take some really bad advice" simply becomes tiresome when the rest of the traffic has been pushed away and that's all that remains in the social media sphere.

icare_1er 4y ago

" Lots of people do in fact need to gain weight to become healthier" >> No. A few people. Very few. Lots need to lose weight to be healthier.

master-lincoln 4y ago
According to a BBC article from 2016 [0] there were an estimated 641 million overweight people on earth and 462 million underweight people. I wouldn't call that "very few". [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-35933691 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-35933691
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  I bet most of those half a billion underweight people are not going to be reading the Washington Post, or even worrying about dietary advice it's from a us-based news outlet. I thoroughly approve of the quibble though.

hericium 4y ago

> This article doesn't really explain _why_ eating earlier is supposedly better. I feel like it's a personal preference and I only eat later in a day, but here[1] you may find some explanations on why eating in the morning may be better. [1] https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-01-intermittent-fasting-boost-health-restrict.html https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-01-intermittent-fasting-...