Fasting
Does Intermittent Fasting Help You Live Longer?
No human study shows intermittent fasting extends lifespan. It helps some adults lose weight, usually about as well as ordinary calorie cutting.
For most of history, skipping breakfast was just skipping breakfast. Now it has a ratio (16:8), a stack of apps and a reputation for adding years to your life. Humanic Blue is asking whether intermittent fasting helps you live longer; the research gives two different answers depending on what you measure.
On lifespan itself, no human study has shown it. The National Institute on Aging says human fasting trials have been too short to tell us anything about lifespan. On weight and blood sugar, randomized trials do show modest benefits. But a 2025 review of 99 trials in The BMJ found most fasting schedules worked about as well as ordinary calorie cutting. So the practical question for living longer and better is whether a schedule helps you eat well, keep your muscle and stay safe.
In This Article
- “Intermittent fasting” is really three or four different schedules
- It helps with weight, about as well as eating less any other way
- Blood sugar and body fat move a little, in short trials
- The lifespan evidence comes from worms, flies, mice and monkeys
- Why the research does not set an “autophagy” timer
- What happens to muscle, and who shouldn’t fast on their own
- The studies behind all of this
Key Takeaways
- No human study has shown that intermittent fasting extends lifespan. The lifespan evidence comes from animals, and it’s mixed.
- In weight-loss trials, fasting schedules generally reduced weight compared with eating without limits and mostly matched ordinary calorie cutting.
- Small improvements in blood sugar and body fat show up in short trials, mostly in people with overweight or metabolic problems. Long-term health effects remain uncertain.
- The research discussed here does not establish a fasting hour at which cellular “autophagy” begins throughout the human body.
- A shorter eating window can make protein, muscle and medication timing harder, and Johns Hopkins lists groups who shouldn’t try it.
Which schedules count as intermittent fasting?
“Intermittent fasting” is about when you eat, not what. But the National Institute on Aging (NIA), the federal agency for aging research, describes several quite different versions:
- Time-restricted eating: eating inside a daily window, such as 6 to 8 hours (trials often use 8 to 10).
- Alternate-day fasting: eating freely one day, very little or nothing the next.
- 5:2: eating normally five days a week and cutting way back on two.
- Periodic fasting: several days of restricted eating in a row, such as five days once a month.
An eight-hour daily window isn’t the same thing as eating almost nothing every other day. Longer fasts aren’t a stronger dose, either. Johns Hopkins Medicine, in a page featuring its neuroscientist Mark Mattson, warns that fasts of 24 to 72 hours “are not necessarily better for you, and may be dangerous.”
Does fasting lead to more weight loss?
A 2025 review in The BMJ took the wide view. It was led by Zhila Semnani-Azad, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, with University of Toronto professor John Sievenpiper as senior author. The team pooled 99 randomized trials covering about 6,600 adults, most of whom had an existing health condition.
Every fasting schedule helped people lose weight compared with eating without limits. Compared with ordinary daily calorie cutting, only alternate-day fasting did a bit better: about 1.3 kilograms, or under 3 pounds. In the longer trials, lasting about six months or more, even that edge disappeared. The typical trial lasted just 12 weeks. See the numbers
A year-long trial from Southern Medical University in Guangzhou, China, and Tulane University asked the sharper question. Researchers put adults with obesity on the same calorie target, and half of them also ate only between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. After 12 months, the eating-window group had lost about 8 kilograms (roughly 18 pounds) and the other group about 6 kilograms (roughly 14 pounds). The difference was small enough to be chance, and body fat and metabolic measures didn’t differ either, the researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.
That points to the clock working mainly through eating less. The NIA puts it plainly: “A practical effect of a fasting diet may be fewer calories because there is less time for regular eating.” If “the kitchen closes at 7” is easier for someone than counting calories, that’s a real advantage. It just isn’t evidence that the clock itself adds years.
What distinguishes an effect of the eating schedule from an effect of eating fewer calories?
Blood sugar and body fat move a little
The BMJ review found only trivial dips in fasting blood sugar versus eating without limits, and no differences between any of the diets in HbA1c, a measure of average blood sugar over the preceding months, or HDL cholesterol, often called “good” cholesterol. The authors concluded that fasting and ordinary calorie cutting have broadly similar benefits for weight and heart-related risk factors.
A 2024 trial called TIMET found a bit more in a specific group. Researchers at the Salk Institute and UC San Diego, led by Emily Manoogian with senior authors Satchidananda Panda and Pam Taub, studied adults averaging 59 years old with metabolic syndrome, a cluster of problems including high blood sugar and belly fat. All got standard nutrition counseling for three months, and half also ate within an 8-to-10-hour window. Those who finished showed a small additional drop in HbA1c and greater reductions in weight and trunk-fat percentage with the eating window, according to their report in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The eating-window group’s weight and trunk-fat percentage fell by roughly 3% to 4% from their own starting values. Those figures are not the extra losses compared with counseling alone. Panda has reported royalties from his popular books on circadian rhythms and eating (Note 3).
The trial was short, and people reported their own diets. And lower blood sugar or weight isn’t the same as living longer. Their relevance to living longer and better remains uncertain: no fasting trial discussed here measured years of life. How the trials worked
Can fasting extend human lifespan?
No human study has shown that intermittent fasting extends lifespan. Almost all of the lifespan evidence comes from animals, and the animals disagree. The NIA’s 2018 overview reports that a fasting diet extended lifespan by 40% in tiny C. elegans worms. In fruit flies, calorie restriction but not intermittent fasting was linked to living longer. Lifelong alternate-day fasting helped male mice live longer, mostly by delaying cancer.
In two long NIA-supported studies of rhesus monkeys on calorie restriction, which is eating less every day rather than fasting, one found a longer lifespan and the other didn’t. The agency’s 2020 summary adds that animal results depend on sex, genetics, age and what the food is made of.
For people, the NIA is direct: “Human trials have mainly involved relatively short-term interventions and so have not provided evidence of long-term health effects, including effects on lifespan.” The animal studies
Why the research does not set an “autophagy” timer
Autophagy is the cell’s recycling system: it breaks down worn-out parts and reuses them. Fasting is often sold as a way to switch it on, sometimes at a specific hour.
Lab and animal studies do show that fasting triggers autophagy in many tissues. The 2017 methods review discussed here describes substantial obstacles to measuring that process inside a living person. University of Tokyo autophagy researcher Noboru Mizushima and a colleague wrote in a 2017 methods review that “it remains practically impossible to monitor autophagy properly in humans.” Human tissue is hard to sample fresh and repeatedly. That review does not establish a verified hour when “autophagy starts” throughout the body, and the trials discussed here do not supply one. Its description of measurement limits dates to 2017. How autophagy is measured
What would a claim about the hour autophagy begins need to demonstrate in humans?
Muscle, and who shouldn’t go it alone
Weight loss can include muscle as well as fat, and muscle supports strength, balance and independence as people age. In the 12-week TREAT trial, University of California, San Francisco cardiology researchers led by Dylan Lowe, with Ethan Weiss as senior author, assigned adults with overweight or obesity to eat only between noon and 8 p.m. or to eat three set meals. The eating window didn’t lead to more weight loss than the comparison group. In the smaller group measured in person, the window group lost more lean mass, meaning measured nonfat tissue, in their arms and legs (JAMA Internal Medicine). In 2020, Weiss disclosed co-founding and holding equity in a company called Keyto (Note 4).
That’s one small trial, and TIMET didn’t find extra loss of lean mass. These measurements concern nonfat tissue rather than directly measuring muscle strength. The NIA notes that other studies found combining physical activity with calorie restriction “protects against losses of bone, muscle mass, and aerobic capacity.” The muscle findings
Johns Hopkins Medicine lists four groups who shouldn’t try intermittent fasting: children and teens under 18, people who are pregnant or breastfeeding, people with type 1 diabetes who take insulin, and people with a history of eating disorders. On diabetes, Mattson explains: “Because those with type 1 diabetes take insulin, there is a concern that an intermittent fasting eating pattern may result in unsafe levels of hypoglycemia during the fasting period.”
Older adults are a gap. The NIA notes most trials recruited people 60 or younger, and says a lot more needs to be learned about fasting’s safety “especially in older adults.” In the short trials that exist, a 2024 review of 15 trials with about 1,400 adults did not find a statistically clear difference in fatigue, headache or dropout between fasting and comparison groups. That does not establish equivalent safety, especially over the long term. The safety data
What’s Interesting
Intermittent fasting’s reputation grew fastest in the animal lab, where a researcher decides exactly what and when a mouse eats. People are harder to study. They go to birthday dinners, work night shifts and take medications with breakfast.
That may be why the most careful human trials look so undramatic. When researchers set the same calorie targets, as the year-long Chinese trial did, the eating window added little on its own. The most exciting part of the fasting story is still happening in worms and mice. The human part is quieter and more practical: whether a schedule helps someone eat well without losing muscle or joy.
What This Means in Practice
For anyone thinking about living longer and better, the trials describe eating schedules rather than a demonstrated lifespan treatment. They leave several questions for a discussion of suitability:
- Name your goal first. Weight, blood sugar and convenience are different goals, and each has its own way to check whether a plan is helping.
- The NIA reports researchers’ suggested clinical approach. Its summary described clinicians discussing a gradual, phased-in schedule with a dietitian, rather than a universal fasting plan. Johns Hopkins says Mattson’s research shows the adjustment can take “two to four weeks.”
- Muscle outcomes need separate attention. NIA links physical activity during calorie restriction to protection against muscle loss; this does not establish that any shorter eating window preserves muscle.
- Check your medicines. Ask whether any of them need to be taken with food or can cause low blood sugar if you skip meals.
A registered dietitian can discuss nutritional adequacy, and a doctor can review medication and health risks. Johns Hopkins’ advice against fasting for the groups listed above still applies; a general invitation to discuss diet does not establish suitability for them. Older adults losing weight without trying also need a clinical assessment before restricting intake.
For the cellular mechanism most often attached to fasting claims, AMPK and Aging and Autophagy and Aging separate the biology from what human trials have actually shown.
Bottom Line
Intermittent fasting hasn’t been shown to help people live longer. The lifespan evidence comes from animals, and it’s mixed. In people, fasting schedules help with weight about as well as ordinary calorie cutting, with small changes in blood sugar and body fat in short trials. Open questions remain about muscle, older adults and long-term use. For most people, the useful question is whether a schedule is sustainable and safe for them, and a dietitian or doctor can help answer it.
A NOTE FROM LONGEVITY365
We read research, consult expert perspectives and work to make complicated health information easier to understand. What you’re reading here reflects how we’ve interpreted and organized that information. It is educational content—not personal medical advice, diagnosis or treatment guidance.
We’re not perfect, and neither is the available research. Evidence changes, new studies emerge and what’s appropriate for one person may not be appropriate for another.
Use this article as a starting point for your own research and conversations with qualified professionals. Always talk with your doctor or another trusted healthcare professional before making decisions that could affect your health, particularly if you take medications, are receiving treatment, have existing health conditions, are pregnant or have other circumstances that could affect what’s appropriate for you.
Reader Questions
A few questions to carry into the comments or your next conversation. Please leave out identifying or personal medical details.
- 01Which part of this food question feels most practical in real life: what to eat, how much, timing, cost, or consistency?
- 02Where do you still see a gap between population evidence and the way one person actually eats?
- 03What would make "Does Intermittent Fasting Help You Live Longer" easier to discuss without turning food into another thing to optimize perfectly?
Extra Insights & Sources
For readers who want the details behind each claim above.
What We Know
- Intermittent fasting reduces weight compared with unrestricted eating. Supported. (2025 BMJ network meta-analysis)
- Most fasting formats are not meaningfully better than continuous calorie restriction for weight or cardiometabolic markers. Supported. (BMJ)
- Time-restricted eating can modestly improve selected metabolic markers in some populations, including adults with metabolic syndrome. Promising and population-specific. (TIMET trial)
- Fasting and calorie restriction extend lifespan in some animal studies but not others. Contested (animals).
- Human evidence does not establish lifespan extension. Unknown in humans; NIA says trials “have not provided evidence of long-term health effects, including effects on lifespan.” (NIA)
What We Don’t Know
- Whether intermittent fasting lowers all-cause mortality or extends healthy human lifespan. Unknown. Trials are too short and aren’t designed for those outcomes.
- Whether meal timing has a lasting metabolic effect independent of calorie intake and weight loss. Contested. The 12-month calorie-matched trial found no significant added benefit from an early eating window.
- Which schedule best preserves muscle in adults over 60. Unknown. NIA notes that trials have typically recruited adults 60 or younger.
- When, or whether, a particular fasting schedule meaningfully raises autophagy in human tissues. Unknown in the research discussed here. The cited measurement review describes the field in 2017; it should not be read as a current survey of every human measurement method.
The 99-trial review in detail
A 95% confidence interval (CI) describes statistical uncertainty around an estimate. HbA1c reflects average blood sugar over recent months; HOMA-IR estimates insulin resistance from fasting glucose and insulin. BMI, or body mass index, is weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared; it describes weight relative to height, not muscle strength. LDL, HDL and non-HDL refer to different cholesterol measures. These markers are distinct from lifespan and clinical events. A P value measures how unusual results at least this extreme would be under a specified no-difference model; it is not the probability that a treatment works or that a result happened by chance.
Semnani-Azad and colleagues searched Medline, Embase and Central through November 14, 2024, and ran a network meta-analysis of 99 randomized trials involving 6,582 adults (720 healthy, 5,862 with existing health conditions). They compared alternate-day fasting, time-restricted eating, whole-day fasting (including 5:2), continuous energy restriction and ad-libitum (unrestricted) diets. Median follow-up was 12 weeks (range 3 to 52), median sample size was 46, and only five trials ran 52 weeks or more. Most trials (81%) were designed for weight loss. (Note 1)
- All intermittent fasting and continuous energy restriction strategies reduced body weight compared with ad-libitum diets.
- Compared with continuous energy restriction, alternate-day fasting was the only strategy with an added benefit: mean difference −1.29 kg (95% CI −1.99 to −0.59), moderate certainty.
- Alternate-day fasting also showed a trivial reduction compared with time-restricted eating (−1.69 kg) and whole-day fasting (−1.05 kg), both moderate certainty.
- Estimates were similar in trials under 24 weeks (n=76). In trials of 24 weeks or more (n=17), only the comparisons against ad-libitum diets showed weight benefits.
- All strategies showed a trivial decline in fasting glucose and HOMA-IR versus ad-libitum diets (moderate certainty). No differences were seen for HbA1c or HDL cholesterol. Certainty for body and cardiometabolic outcomes averaged moderate but ranged from very low to high by comparison.
- Alternate-day fasting lowered total cholesterol, triglycerides and non-HDL cholesterol compared with time-restricted eating; time-restricted eating produced a small increase in total, LDL and non-HDL cholesterol compared with whole-day fasting.
- The authors concluded that “intermittent fasting diets have similar benefits to continuous energy restriction for weight loss and cardiometabolic risk factors,” and that “Longer duration trials are needed.”
The review did not analyze fat-free (lean) mass. A correction published in August 2025 fixed one co-author’s affiliation only. Several authors disclosed ties to food-industry groups and to drug makers including Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly; the full list is in the paper’s competing-interests statement.
| What the evidence can add | What it cannot establish |
|---|---|
| Fasting schedules can help some adults reduce energy intake and weight | That the fasting interval itself extends human lifespan |
| Some trials show trivial-to-small improvements in fasting glucose, waist size or body fat | That short-term marker changes prevent future heart attacks, dementia or death |
| Alternate-day fasting may reduce weight slightly more than continuous restriction in short trials | That it is easier, safer or more sustainable for every person |
| A daily window can be combined with calorie targets | One universally optimal eating window |
The calorie-matched and TIMET trials
Calorie restriction with or without time-restricted eating (2022). Deying Liu and colleagues at Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, with Tulane University’s School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, randomly assigned 139 patients with obesity to time-restricted eating (8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) plus calorie restriction or calorie restriction alone. Everyone was told to eat 1,500 to 1,800 kcal a day (men) or 1,200 to 1,500 kcal (women) for 12 months. Of the 139, 118 (84.9%) completed follow-up. Mean weight loss was −8.0 kg with time restriction and −6.3 kg with calorie restriction alone; the net difference, −1.8 kg (95% CI −4.0 to 0.4; P = 0.11), was not statistically significant. Waist circumference, BMI, body fat, lean mass, blood pressure and metabolic risk factors were consistent with that result, and adverse events didn’t differ substantially. The authors concluded that time-restricted eating was no more beneficial than daily calorie restriction for reducing body weight, body fat or metabolic risk factors. (Note 2)
TIMET (2024). Manoogian and colleagues randomly assigned adults with metabolic syndrome and elevated fasting glucose or HbA1c (medications allowed) to standard-of-care nutrition counseling alone or combined with a personalized 8-to-10-hour eating window (at least a 4-hour reduction) for 3 months, tracked with the myCircadianClock app. The 108 completers (89% of those randomized; 56 women; mean age 59; mean BMI 31.22; baseline eating window 14.19 hours) had a between-group HbA1c difference of −0.10 percentage points (95% CI −0.19 to −0.003 percentage points) favoring time-restricted eating. HbA1c is already reported as a percentage, so this is a difference between percentage values, not a 0.10% relative reduction. In Table 3, changes from the eating-window group’s own starting values were −3.3% for weight, −3.5% for BMI and −3.9% for trunk-fat percentage, the proportion of torso tissue measured as fat. The table’s between-group percentage-change comparisons were smaller: −1.8% for weight and −3.5% for trunk-fat percentage. There was no greater decrease in lean mass with the eating window. The authors list short duration and self-reported diet as limitations, and there were no major adverse events. They concluded that the approach “modestly improves glycemic regulation.” (Note 3)
The animal and lifespan evidence
From the NIA’s 2018 overview (dated August 14, 2018; still posted as of September 25, 2026):
- Rodents given 10% to 40% fewer calories often lived longer with fewer diseases, “But, some studies did not show this benefit, and in some mouse strains, calorie restriction shortened lifespan rather than extending it.”
- A fasting diet increased lifespan by 40% in C. elegans; in fruit flies, calorie restriction but not intermittent fasting was associated with living longer; lifelong alternate-day fasting increased longevity in male mice “mainly by delaying cancer occurrence.”
- In two NIA-supported rhesus monkey studies of 30% calorie restriction for more than 20 years, “One study found an extension of lifespan, while the other did not.”
- “There are no data in humans on the relationship between calorie restriction and longevity.”
- Most human trials “have been short (a few weeks or months), conducted in overweight subjects, and focused on weight loss rather than aging processes,” and have typically recruited adults 60 or younger.
- “There’s insufficient evidence to recommend any type of calorie-restriction or fasting diet. A lot more needs to be learned about their effectiveness and safety, especially in older adults.”
NIA’s 2020 research highlight summarized a New England Journal of Medicine review by NIA’s Rafael de Cabo and Mark Mattson, formerly of NIA and now at Johns Hopkins. It reported wide-ranging benefits of fasting in animal and human studies, and also said: “The evidence is less clear for lifespan effects. Animal studies have shown mixed results, with sex, food composition, age and genetics among the factors that influence longevity.” The authors suggested clinicians encourage “a gradual, phased-in schedule in consultation with a dietitian or nutritionist.”
Measuring autophagy
A 2018 review in Ageing Research Reviews (Mohammad Bagherniya and colleagues, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences) concluded that both fasting and calorie restriction help switch autophagy on, and that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests food deprivation induces autophagy in a wide variety of tissues and organs. Most of that evidence comes from cells and animals.
Saori Yoshii and Noboru Mizushima’s 2017 methods review in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences states that monitoring autophagic flux, the rate at which material passes through the cell’s recycling process, “remains complicated even in cultured cells and model organisms, and is currently unfeasible in humans.” It adds that human samples “are often limited in quality due to difficulty in obtaining fresh tissues,” and: “Presently, there is no established method to measure autophagic flux in humans; therefore, it remains practically impossible to monitor autophagy properly in humans.” (Note 5)
The muscle findings
TREAT (2020). Lowe, Weiss and colleagues ran a 12-week randomized trial of 116 adults aged 18 to 64 with a BMI of 27 to 43 (mean age 46.5; 60.3% men), conducted through a mobile study app. The time-restricted group ate freely from 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.; the comparison group ate three structured meals. The between-group weight difference was −0.26 kg (95% CI −1.30 to 0.78; P = .63). In the 50-person in-person cohort (25 per group), appendicular lean mass index—the nonfat tissue in the arms and legs divided by height in meters squared—differed between groups by −0.16 kg/m² (95% CI −0.27 to −0.05; P = .005), with more lean-mass loss in the time-restricted group. The unit kg/m² expresses kilograms of that tissue per height squared; it is not a measure of strength. No other secondary outcomes changed significantly. The authors concluded that time-restricted eating, “in the absence of other interventions, is not more effective in weight loss than eating throughout the day.” Two later corrections fixed a figure and clarified the messages sent to participants. Disclosures: Weiss is a cofounder and equity stakeholder of Keyto, Inc., owns stock in and was formerly on the board of Virta, Inc., and reported NIH and James Peter Read Foundation grants; first author Dylan Lowe reported personal fees from Keyto outside the submitted work; co-author Steven Heymsfield reported fees from the Medifast and Tanita medical advisory boards. (Note 4)
CALERIE. In NIA’s CALERIE trial, 218 normal-weight or moderately overweight adults assigned to two years of calorie restriction cut intake by 12% and kept off about 10% of body weight. They had slight declines in bone density, lean mass and aerobic capacity, “generally no more than expected based on participants’ weight loss,” according to the NIA’s 2018 overview.
The safety data
Adverse events review (2024). Fan Zhong, Ting Zhu and colleagues, with senior author Shaokang Wang of Southeast University in Nanjing, pooled 15 randomized trials involving 1,365 adults with overweight or obesity (Nutrition Journal). They found no significant difference between intermittent fasting and control in fatigue, headache or dropout, and a numerically higher, non-significant risk of dizziness in one subgroup (intermittent fasting alone with non-early time-restricted eating). They noted “little evidence to comprehensively summarize the adverse events” of fasting and called for larger, longer trials. (Note 6)
The BMJ review’s adverse-event data. Of the 56 trials that assessed adverse events, 27 reported none in fasting groups. Most reported effects were mild, including constipation, nausea, hunger, diarrhoea and dizziness. One participant with hypoglycaemia had a fall.
Johns Hopkins Medicine (page updated April 7, 2026) says: “People with a history of eating disorders are advised to avoid intermittent fasting because the strict fasting windows can trigger or worsen restrictive or obsessive food behaviors.” It also notes that “there have been no studies among people with type 1 diabetes.”
Sources
- Semnani-Azad Z, et al. Intermittent fasting strategies and cardiometabolic risk factors (network meta-analysis), The BMJ, 2025: PubMed 40533200; full text
- Liu D, et al. Calorie restriction with or without time-restricted eating in weight loss, New England Journal of Medicine, 2022: PubMed 35443107
- Manoogian ENC, et al. Time-restricted eating in adults with metabolic syndrome (TIMET), Annals of Internal Medicine, 2024: PubMed 39348690
- Lowe DA, et al. Effects of time-restricted eating on weight loss (TREAT), JAMA Internal Medicine, 2020: PubMed 32986097
- Zhong F, et al. Adverse events profile associated with intermittent fasting, Nutrition Journal, 2024: PubMed 38987755
- Bagherniya M, et al. The effect of fasting or calorie restriction on autophagy induction, Ageing Research Reviews, 2018: PubMed 30172870
- Yoshii SR, Mizushima N. Monitoring and measuring autophagy, International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2017: PubMed 28846632
- National Institute on Aging: Calorie restriction and fasting diets: What do we know? (August 14, 2018)
- National Institute on Aging: Research on intermittent fasting shows health benefits (February 27, 2020)
- Johns Hopkins Medicine: Intermittent Fasting: What Is It, And How Does It Work? (updated April 7, 2026)
Notes
Note 1: Commissioned and funded by the Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, as part of developing its nutrition therapy guidelines, with additional support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Note 2: Funded by China’s National Key Research and Development Project (No. 2018YFA0800404) and others.
Note 3: Funded by the National Institutes of Health (R01 DK118278), with additional NIH, Larry L. Hillblom Foundation and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation support. In his journal disclosure form, Satchidananda Panda reported author royalties for “The Circadian Code” and “The Circadian Diabetes Code,” consulting fees and speaker honoraria, and co-founding Circadian Biosystems Inc.
Note 4: Funded by the University of California, San Francisco Cardiology Division’s Cardiology Innovations Award Program and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01 DK109008), with support from the James Peter Read Foundation. Scales, blood pressure cuffs and health-tracking rings were donated by iHealth Labs, MOCACARE and Oura.
Note 5: Supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science grants and the TOYOBO Biotechnology Foundation.
Note 6: The review received no external funding, according to the paper.
Photo credits
Images from Pexels.
- featured: Photo by Yaroslav Shuraev — original Pexels photo.
- inline-1: Photo by Alesia Kozik — original Pexels photo.
- inline-2: Photo by Alexy Almond — original Pexels photo.
Leave a Reply