Evidence Hub

Daytime eating during simulated night work mitigates changes in cardiovascular risk factors: secondary analyses of a randomized controlled trial

SL Chellappa, Lei Gao, J. Qian, N. Vujović, Peng Li, K. Hu, F. Scheer

Nature Communications, 2025

20 participants · 32 citations

Abstract

Effective countermeasures against the adverse cardiovascular effects of circadian misalignment, such as effects experienced due to night work or jet lag, remain to be established in humans. Here, we aim to test whether eating only during daytime can mitigate such adverse effects vs. eating during the night and day (typical for night shift workers) under simulated night work (secondary analysis of NCT02291952). This single-blind, parallel-arm trial randomized 20 healthy participants (non-shift workers) to simulated night work with meals consumed during night and day (Nighttime Meal Control Group) or only during daytime (Daytime Meal Intervention Group). The primary outcomes were pNN50 (percentage consecutive heartbeat intervals >50 ms), RMSSD (root mean square of successive heartbeat differences), and LF/HF (low/high cardiac frequency). The secondary outcome was blood concentrations of prothrombotic factor plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1). These measures were assessed under Constant Routine conditions, before (baseline) and after (postmisalignment) simulated night work. The meal timing intervention significantly modified the impact of simulated night work on cardiac vagal modulation and PAI-1 (pFDR = 0.001). In the Control Group, the postmisalignment Constant Routine showed a decrease in pNN50 by 25.7% (pFDR = 0.008) and RMMSD by 14.3% (pFDR = 0.02), and an increase in LF/HF by 5.5% (pFDR = 0.04) and PAI-1 by 23.9% (pFDR = 0.04), vs. the baseline Constant Routine. In…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 20 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free