ReviewCurrent nutrition reports2026
Time-Restricted Eating, Cardiometabolic Health in Obesity and The Optimal Length of the Eating Window.
Review in Current nutrition reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing Goal Difficulty in a Digital Weight Loss Intervention: The Ignite Pilot Randomized Trial.Obesity science & practice · 2026Article
- Time-restricted eating and metabolic health: implications for nutritional strategies and weight loss.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThis narrative review aims to evaluate how the duration of eating windows influences the cardiometabolic effects of Time-Restricted Eating (TRE) protocols among individuals with obesity. In the context of the global obesity epidemic, TRE has emerged as a promising dietary approach, alternative to conventional energy restriction, capable of improving cardiometabolic health by aligning food intake with circadian rhythms. However, due to the heterogeneity across TRE protocols, the impact of eating windows length on these outcomes remains uncertain. Therefore, this review comprehensively analyzes clinical trials assessing cardiometabolic responses across various durations of eating windows to identify which protocol may provide the greatest benefits. RECENT
findingsShort eating windows (4–6 h), although associated with promising metabolic outcomes, often exhibit poor adherence due to increased hunger, fatigue and social constraints, limiting their long-term viability. Moderate eating windows (8–10 h) appear to offer the optimal balance between metabolic benefits, minimal adverse effects and adherence. Long eating windows (12–14 h), despite higher adherence, provide limited metabolic outcomes and are frequently associated with circadian misalignment, potentially increasing the risk of obesity and related metabolic disorders. All the data mentioned were obtained from clinical trials. TRE has evolved as a promising strategy to enhance cardiometabolic health, especially in individuals with obesity. Eating windows of 8-10h appear to represent the most sustainable TRE protocol, balancing metabolic efficacy with adherence. Nevertheless, further well-designed, long-term randomized controlled trials incorporating chrononutritional assessments are required to establish the optimal eating window for maximizing health outcomes in obesity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.