A muscle-centric view of time-restricted feeding for older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The practice of time-restricted feeding (TRF) has received fervent interest in recent years as a strategy to mitigate obesity and metabolic disease. We sought to review the implications of TRF for skeletal muscle health and function in aging. RECENT FINDINGS: TRF has high adherence and can promote body weight loss in older populations. Body weight reductions favor fat mass in the young, however, there is also the potential for undesirable losses in lean mass. There is currently no evidence to support TRF for skeletal muscle function and metabolism in older persons, and only tentative findings in the young. With a narrow eating window of 6-8 h and a prolonged fasting period to minimize daily insulin exposure, TRF may contradict recommended dietary practices for optimizing skeletal muscle anabolism in older people. SUMMARY: TRF might represent a promising intervention to address obesity and its associated metabolic diseases, however, at present there is insufficient evidence for optimizing skeletal muscle mass or health in older individuals. Further research is needed to: (1) ascertain the impact of TRF on body composition, skeletal muscle anabolism, and autophagy in aging, and; (2) delineate the potentially myoprotective roles of dietary protein and exercise within the framework of TRF in older persons.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".