All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Introduction {#sec001}
============

Developed countries are experiencing an epidemic of obesity that leads to many serious health problems, foremost among which are increasing rates of type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. While weight gain and obesity are primarily determined by diet and exercise, there is tremendous interest in the possibility that the daily timing of eating might have a significant impact upon weight management \[[@pbio.3000622.ref001]--[@pbio.3000622.ref003]\]. Many physiological processes display day/night rhythms, including feeding behavior, lipid and carbohydrate metabolism, body temperature, and sleep. These daily oscillations are controlled by the circadian clock, which is composed of an autoregulatory biochemical mechanism that is expressed in tissues throughout the body and is coordinated by a master pacemaker located in the suprachiasmatic nuclei of the brain (aka the SCN \[[@pbio.3000622.ref001],[@pbio.3000622.ref004]\]). The circadian system globally controls gene expression patterns so that metabolic pathways are differentially regulated over the day, including switching between carbohydrate and lipid catabolism \[[@pbio.3000622.ref001],[@pbio.3000622.ref003],[@pbio.3000622.ref005]--[@pbio.3000622.ref009]\]. Therefore, ingestion of the same food at different times of day could lead to differential metabolic outcomes, e.g., lipid oxidation (LO) versus accumulation; however, whether this is true or not is unclear.

Nonoptimal phasing of the endogenous circadian system with the environmental day/night cycle has adverse health consequences. Shiftworkers are a particularly cogent example because their work schedule disrupts the optimal relationship between the internal biological clock and the environmental daily cycle, and this disruption leads to well-documented health decrements \[[@pbio.3000622.ref006],[@pbio.3000622.ref009]--[@pbio.3000622.ref013]\]. A contributing culprit that is often implicated in shiftwork\'s temporal disruption is the disturbance of eating patterns and preferences. In nonhuman mammals, a persuasive literature demonstrates that manipulating the timing of feeding relative to biological clock phase effectively controls obesity \[[@pbio.3000622.ref001],[@pbio.3000622.ref014],[@pbio.3000622.ref015]\]. In particular, mice fed a high-fat diet on a restricted schedule maintain a healthy weight when fed only during their active phase but become obese if the high-fat diet is present during the inactive phase, even though the long-term caloric intake and locomotor activity levels are comparable between day- versus night-fed mice \[[@pbio.3000622.ref014],[@pbio.3000622.ref015]\].

Can the timing of eating relative to our circadian cycle of metabolism and sleep also help to regulate lipid metabolism and body weight in humans? Eating late in the day is correlated with weight gain \[[@pbio.3000622.ref016]\], and there is an oft-discussed debate whether skipping breakfast versus dinner reaps weight-control benefits \[[@pbio.3000622.ref003],[@pbio.3000622.ref017], [@pbio.3000622.ref018],[@pbio.3000622.ref019]\]. While many factors can influence the timing of eating in everyday life \[[@pbio.3000622.ref002],[@pbio.3000622.ref003],[@pbio.3000622.ref020],[@pbio.3000622.ref021]\], we decided to take an experimental approach to test the metabolic consequences of a straightforward exchange of equivalent nutritional intake between early morning (8 AM) and bedtime (10 PM). While it is not feasible to do the 12-h reversal of feeding time that was tested with mice \[[@pbio.3000622.ref014]\] because it would disrupt the consolidated sleep episode of humans, we focused upon a 4.5 h shift of feeding in which human subjects ate either an approximately 700 kcal breakfast or an equivalent approximately 700 kcal late-evening snack meal. Not only are these two feeding schedules experimentally tractable for a human study, they are also commonly practiced by humans in everyday life (i.e., \"skipping breakfast\" and/or \"late-evening snacking\"). For each feeding schedule, we monitored the metabolism of our subjects for a 56-h stint in a whole-room calorimetry chamber to continuously measure their metabolic rate (MR), respiratory exchange ratio (RER), carbohydrate oxidation (CO), and LO.

Previous studies of human metabolism for shorter monitoring periods (approximately 24 h) suggested that overall 24-h energy expenditure was not significantly affected by either breakfast skipping or a late dinner \[[@pbio.3000622.ref022],[@pbio.3000622.ref023]\]); however, those prior studies were performed on healthy Asian young adults of optimal Body Mass Index (BMI) (18.5--25 kg/m^2^) for only approximately 24 h, which is inadequate to study a phenomenon based on circadian rhythmicity. Moreover, while differences in blood glucose levels were reported in those studies between breakfast-skipping or late-dinner sessions, LO was either not affected (breakfast skipping \[[@pbio.3000622.ref023]\]) or counterintuitively enhanced (late dinner \[[@pbio.3000622.ref022]\]). In this investigation, we monitored older Caucasian adults (aged 50 or above) of varying BMI because we reasoned they are more representative of populations at risk for metabolic disorders in many developed countries than are young and healthy adults. Each subject underwent two 56-h (2.5-d) sessions in a whole-room respiratory chamber, and with a randomized crossover design, we compared the energy expenditure (MR) and RER of each subject when given a scheduled breakfast, lunch, and dinner (Breakfast Session) versus when they were given a lunch, dinner, and a late-evening snack (Snack Session).

While overall 24-h energy expenditure was similar in this group of older subjects, RER was significantly different between the two sessions. We anticipated that daily differences in physical activity, sleep disruption, or core body temperature (CBT) might lead to differential metabolism as reflected in the RER. Unexpectedly, however, our data demonstrated that even though the total daily energy and nutrient intake was equivalent between the sessions, switching the daily timing of a nutritionally equivalent 700-kcal meal from a \"breakfast\" to a \"late-evening snack\" had a significant impact upon carbohydrate and lipid metabolism such that nocturnal CO was favored at the expense of LO when subjects ate the 700-kcal meal as a late-evening snack. Therefore, the daily cycle of metabolism and nutrient availability switches substrate preference so that the cumulative net LO is altered by the timing of meals.

Results {#sec002}
=======

We studied the metabolism of human subjects by indirect calorimetry under continuous monitoring in Vanderbilt University\'s Human Metabolic Chamber. During each visit, the minute-by minute oxygen consumption (VO~2~), carbon dioxide production (VCO~2~), actigraphy, and CBT of the subjects were continuously measured, with subsequent calculation of RER (VCO~2~/VO~2~), MR, CO, and LO. The subjects slept and ate in the metabolic chamber and were allowed only two brief (20-min) episodes per day outside the chamber: once about 10:00 AM to take a quick shower and once about 3:00 PM to take a brief nonstrenuous walk. Each subject was monitored for two full-duration 56-h experiments that compared differences in the timing of their meals. We use the terms "breakfast" to mean a meal at 08:00--09:00, "lunch" at 12:30--13:30, "dinner" at 17:45--18:15, and a late-evening "snack" meal at 22:00--23:00. Consequently, in the "Breakfast Session" ([Fig 1A](#pbio.3000622.g001){ref-type="fig"}), the subjects had breakfast, lunch, and dinner, with an approximately 13.75-h fast from 6:15 PM (end of dinner) to 8:00 AM (breakfast). In the "Snack Session," subjects only had a cup of tea or coffee (without sugar or creamer) at breakfast time, and their first meal was lunch ([Fig 1A](#pbio.3000622.g001){ref-type="fig"}). Then, the "snack meal" was served at 10:00 PM just before sleep (lights off), and the subjects fasted approximately 14 h until lunch (10:30 PM--12:30 PM the next day). The breakfasts and the snacks had equivalent nutritional and caloric values of approximately 700 kcal; the breakfast on day 2 was identical to the snack on day 2, and the breakfast on day 3 was identical to the snack on day 3 ([S1A Table](#pbio.3000622.s008){ref-type="supplementary-material"}). Therefore, the meals served to subjects during the Breakfast Session had equivalent energy and nutrient content as in the Snack Session over the 24-h day (see [S1 Table](#pbio.3000622.s008){ref-type="supplementary-material"} for detailed nutritional information). All subjects completed both sessions in this crossover experiment, which allowed pairwise comparison of their data. Our study is distinguished from the earlier metabolic chamber studies of meal timing in humans \[[@pbio.3000622.ref022],[@pbio.3000622.ref023]\] by the crossover design of our protocol and the fact that we studied older subjects of various BMIs (51--63 years old, BMI 22.2--33.4; see [Table 1](#pbio.3000622.t001){ref-type="table"}), who may be less resilient to metabolic perturbations for energy expenditure than are younger subjects with BMIs of 20--25 \[[@pbio.3000622.ref024],[@pbio.3000622.ref025]\]. Moreover, our Breakfast versus Snack Sessions had essentially the same duration of daily fasting (13.75--14 h) to avoid the confounding factor of differential fasting durations found in other studies \[[@pbio.3000622.ref021]\].

![Chamber schedule and the impact of meal timing on subjects' RERs.\
See [S3 Fig](#pbio.3000622.s003){ref-type="supplementary-material"} and [S2A Table](#pbio.3000622.s009){ref-type="supplementary-material"} and [S1 Data](#pbio.3000622.s011){ref-type="supplementary-material"} for underlying data and analyses. (A) Protocol for \"Breakfast\" Session versus \"Snack\" Session. Subjects experienced two separate 56-h continuous sessions with constant metabolic monitoring by indirect calorimetry, each session lasting 56 h. The Breakfast Session included a breakfast (B), lunch (L), and dinner (D), while the Snack Session contained a lunch, dinner, and late-evening snack meal (S). The late-evening snacks were of equivalent caloric and nutritional value to the breakfast meals (approximately 700 kcal; see [S1 Table](#pbio.3000622.s008){ref-type="supplementary-material"} for details). Note from [S2 Fig](#pbio.3000622.s002){ref-type="supplementary-material"} that the daily phasing of sleep for the subjects prior to entry into the metabolic chamber was the same as the \"lights-off\" interval during the 56-h time course, so the subjects did not experience a phase shift of their daily cycle when they entered the experimental conditions. (B) Breakfast Session: blue line indicates the average hourly RER over the entire 56-h time course among all 6 subjects when a breakfast, lunch, and dinner were presented. Error bars are the standard deviation. Letters indicate time and type of meals, and gray shaded areas indicate the lights-off periods. Green shaded areas indicate meals that were given at the same time in both Breakfast and Snack Sessions (lunch and dinner). Blue shaded areas indicate when breakfast was given, and gray shading indicates the lights-off period. See [S3 Fig](#pbio.3000622.s003){ref-type="supplementary-material"} for data of all subjects individually. (C) Snack Session: the red line indicates the average hourly RER over the entire 56-h time course among all subjects when a lunch, dinner, and late-evening snack were presented. Red shaded areas indicate when late-evening snacks were given. Breakfasts and late-evening snacks contained the same number of calories and the same lipid, carbohydrate, and protein content ([S1A and S1B Table](#pbio.3000622.s008){ref-type="supplementary-material"}). Error bars are the standard deviation (*n* = 6). (D) Average difference in RER over the entire 56-h time course for the Breakfast Session subtracted from the Snack Session. Deviation from zero (horizontal black line) indicates where differences in RER occurred between subjects. Error bars indicate standard deviation in the differences. In Panels B, C, and D, times of meals are indicated by letters (B = breakfast, L = lunch, D = dinner, S = late-evening snack), and gray areas are lights-off (sleep) intervals. Mealtimes are shaded as in panels A--C; breakfasts and snacks occurred only in their respective sessions. All RER data were collected minute by minute, and in this figure, the minute-by-minute data were binned and averaged for all 60 values within an hour. Abscissa are clock time. RER, respiratory exchange ratio.](pbio.3000622.g001){#pbio.3000622.g001}

10.1371/journal.pbio.3000622.t001

###### Subjects involved in this study.

![](pbio.3000622.t001){#pbio.3000622.t001g}

  ID   Sex   Age (Years)   Weight (kg)   Height (cm)   BMI    Self-Reported Bedtime   Self-Reported Wake Time   First Session Meal Plan
  ---- ----- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------ ----------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
  1    M     61            106.8         187.96        30.2   23:00                   7:00                      Breakfast
  2    M     58            101.36        177.8         32.1   22:30                   6:00                      Snack
  3    M     51            73.9          184           21.8   23:15                   5:30                      Snack
  4    F     57            68.2          173           22.8   22:30                   6:30                      Breakfast
  5    F     63            62.7          168           22.2   22:00                   7:00                      Breakfast
  6    M     54            85            180           26.2   22:30                   6:15                      Snack

**Abbreviations:** BMI, Body Mass Index.

As illustrated in [Fig 1B](#pbio.3000622.g001){ref-type="fig"}, subjects in the Breakfast Session that included breakfast and a fast throughout the time interval from dinner to the following breakfast (6:30 PM to 8:00 AM) exhibited a strong daily rhythm of RER (aka respiratory quotient, calculated as VCO~2~/VO~2~ \[[@pbio.3000622.ref026],[@pbio.3000622.ref027]\]). RER values close to 0.7 indicate LO, while values of approximately 1.0 indicate almost exclusive CO. The average RER of this diet is similar to that of typical diets in the United States of America (approximately 0.85); it includes a mixture of lipids, protein, and carbohydrates \[[@pbio.3000622.ref026],[@pbio.3000622.ref027]\]. The RER of subjects in the Breakfast Session was low throughout the lights-off interval (indicating primarily lipid catabolism during sleep) and high during the active daytime (indicating primarily carbohydrate and protein catabolism). Therefore, humans share with other mammals a daily rhythm of substrate metabolism as assessed by indirect calorimetry \[[@pbio.3000622.ref028],[@pbio.3000622.ref029]\]. However, in the Snack Session, the metabolism of the same subjects was not as strongly rhythmic and displayed a lower amplitude rhythm of RER that did not drop into a largely lipid-catabolic mode ([Fig 1C](#pbio.3000622.g001){ref-type="fig"}). When the difference between the RER on the Breakfast versus the Snack Sessions is calculated as a function of daily time, the most significant difference was noted during the inactive sleep phase, during which LO predominates in the Breakfast Session, while the RER remains high in the Snack Session ([Fig 1D](#pbio.3000622.g001){ref-type="fig"}).

We initially predicted that the session-dependent RER patterns were due to differences between the sessions in physical activity, sleep disruption, CBT, or the phasing/amplitude of the circadian clock. However, none of these parameters were different between the sessions. Actigraphy confirmed that the subjects' overall activity levels did not differ significantly between the two sessions ([S1A and S1B Fig](#pbio.3000622.s001){ref-type="supplementary-material"}, *p* = 0.538). Moreover, actigraphy can provide an assessment of restlessness during sleep \[[@pbio.3000622.ref030]\] and by this criterion, the sleep quality was equivalent between the Breakfast versus Snack Sessions ([S1A and S1B Fig](#pbio.3000622.s001){ref-type="supplementary-material"}). The daily rhythm of the CBT, which is frequently used as a marker of the central circadian clock in humans \[[@pbio.3000622.ref009],[@pbio.3000622.ref031]\], did not show significant differences in the phasing or amplitude of their CBT rhythms between the two sessions ([S1C and S1D Fig](#pbio.3000622.s001){ref-type="supplementary-material"}, *p* = 0.218). Moreover, the circadian rhythm of overall MR \[[@pbio.3000622.ref008]\] was not different in phase or amplitude between the two sessions ([Fig 2B](#pbio.3000622.g002){ref-type="fig"}, *p* = 0.11). Therefore, neither differences in CBT ([S1 Fig](#pbio.3000622.s001){ref-type="supplementary-material"}) nor the thermic effect of food (TEF; see below) were responsible for the session-dependent RER differences. The phasing or amplitude of the daily rhythms of master clock markers (plasma melatonin and cortisol) is also not responsible, as reported by Wehrens and colleagues, who found no differences in those rhythms in a meal timing study using a similar protocol to ours \[[@pbio.3000622.ref032]\]. Finally, our subjects kept a regularly timed sleep/wake cycle prior to the metabolic chamber experiments so that their internal rhythm was in phase with the light/dark cycle during the 56-h experiment ([S2 Fig](#pbio.3000622.s002){ref-type="supplementary-material"} and [Table 1](#pbio.3000622.t001){ref-type="table"}). These results suggest that the change in meal timing altered the RER rhythm (i.e., its amplitude) without changing overall activity, sleep quality, body temperature, or the phase relationship between circadian rhythms and the daily light/dark schedule.

![MRs and RER values.\
See [S3](#pbio.3000622.s003){ref-type="supplementary-material"} and [S4](#pbio.3000622.s004){ref-type="supplementary-material"} Figs and [S2A and S2D Table](#pbio.3000622.s009){ref-type="supplementary-material"} for underlying data and analyses. (A) MR by indirect calorimetry for a representative participant (Subject \#3). The data for Subject \#3 are plotted as a moving average using 180 data points (= 3 h) after aligning all time points to clock time and integrated on a 24-h scale. (B) Average MR for all subjects plotted modulo-24 h. Data were averaged into 1-h bins with error bars indicating standard deviation. See [S4 Fig](#pbio.3000622.s004){ref-type="supplementary-material"} for data of all subjects\' MRs individually plotted. (C) Average hourly pairwise comparison of (breakfast − snack) MR values for all subjects. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals and values are based on a mixed-model analysis. Asterisks indicate significant differences (*p*-value \< 0.05) between breakfast and snack values for the indicated 1-h bins. See [S2D Table](#pbio.3000622.s009){ref-type="supplementary-material"} for the hour-by-hour statistical comparison of the Breakfast versus the Snack Sessions. (D) RER (VCO~2~/VO~2~) by indirect calorimetry of a representative individual (subject \#3). The data for Subject \#3 are plotted as a moving average using 180 data points (= 3 h) after aligning all time points to clock time and integrated on a 24-h scale. (E) Average RER for all subjects plotted modulo-24 h. Data were averaged into 1-h bins with error bars indicating standard deviation. See [S3 Fig](#pbio.3000622.s003){ref-type="supplementary-material"} for data of all subjects\' RER individually plotted. (F) Average hourly pairwise comparison of (breakfast − snack) RER values for all subjects. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals, and values are based on a mixed-model analysis. Asterisks indicate significant differences (*p*-value \< 0.05) between breakfast and snack values for the indicated 1-h bins. See [S2A Table](#pbio.3000622.s009){ref-type="supplementary-material"} for the hour-by-hour statistical comparison of the Breakfast versus the Snack Sessions and [S3 Table](#pbio.3000622.s010){ref-type="supplementary-material"} for a statistical comparison of peak/trough amplitude. All panels: the blue line indicates values during the subjects' Breakfast Sessions and the red line for the subjects' Snack Sessions. Shading indicates meals and lights off as in [Fig 1B and 1C](#pbio.3000622.g001){ref-type="fig"}. Error bars indicate ± standard deviation. MR, metabolic rate; RER, respiratory exchange ratio.](pbio.3000622.g002){#pbio.3000622.g002}

The differences in the RER patterns between the two sessions manifest primarily during the time of late-evening snacking and for at least several hours into the sleep episode (hours 22--03 ([Fig 2E](#pbio.3000622.g002){ref-type="fig"} and [S2A Table](#pbio.3000622.s009){ref-type="supplementary-material"}). Apparently the late-evening snacking delays the temporal switching between primarily carbohydrate-catabolic mode (higher RER values) and primarily lipid-catabolic mode (lower RER values). Despite this change in the daily pattern of RER, the values integrated over the entire 56-h time courses indicate differences slightly above the *p* = 0.05 level between the two sessions in terms of overall RER or total energy expenditure ([Fig 2C and 2F](#pbio.3000622.g002){ref-type="fig"}; *p* = 0.068 for RER and *p* = 0.11 for MR). Moreover, while there was a significant TEF for MR and RER at each meal, our calculations based on the method of McHill and colleagues \[[@pbio.3000622.ref011]\] indicated no differences in the TEF between the sessions for lunch and dinner---the two meals that were the same in both sessions (*p* = 0.432 for lunch and *p* = 0.855 for dinner). Moreover, the TEF for the breakfast as compared with the snack was also not different (*p* = 0.284). Therefore, differences in MRs as assessed by TEF were not responsible for the substrate-switching preferences that are described below for breakfast skipping versus late-evening snacking.

The conclusion that altered meal timing delays the sleep-onset switching between carbohydrate- and lipid-catabolic modes can be more easily visualized by converting the RER values into CO versus LO rates \[[@pbio.3000622.ref026],[@pbio.3000622.ref027]\]. CO during the Breakfast Session was high during the active day-phase with peaks just after each mealtime, but it dropped precipitously as the subjects entered their sleep episode after lights-out at 11:00 PM ([Fig 3A](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"}). The CO rate of subjects in the Breakfast Session who had not eaten since dinnertime began to fall before sleep onset and continued to be low through the first half of the nocturnal sleep episode ([S2E Table](#pbio.3000622.s009){ref-type="supplementary-material"}). On the other hand, in the Snack Session, the late-evening snack meal caused a peak carbohydrate catabolism just before going to bed, and while CO dropped thereafter, it remained higher throughout the sleep episode than when the same subjects were in the Breakfast Session ([Fig 3A and 3B](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"}). Overall, 24-h CO did not differ between sessions because the increased oxidation after breakfast in the Breakfast Session was offset by less CO in the early night of the Breakfast Session ([Fig 3C](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"} and [S2E Table](#pbio.3000622.s009){ref-type="supplementary-material"}). Therefore, CO was not significantly different between the sessions over the entire 56-h time course (*p* = 0.130).

![Meal timing alters substrate oxidation; see [S5](#pbio.3000622.s005){ref-type="supplementary-material"} and [S6](#pbio.3000622.s006){ref-type="supplementary-material"} Figs and [S2E and S2F Table](#pbio.3000622.s009){ref-type="supplementary-material"} for underlying data and analyses.\
(A) CO data of a representative subject (\#3) calculated from indirect calorimetry measurements as described \[[@pbio.3000622.ref026],[@pbio.3000622.ref027]\]. Data are plotted as a 3-h moving average (180-min data points). (B) Average of all subjects for daily CO calculated from indirect calorimetry measurements as described \[[@pbio.3000622.ref026],[@pbio.3000622.ref027]\], and the 56-h time course data are plotted on a modulo-24 h scale. Averaged data for all subjects are organized in 1-h bins. The *p*-value of 0.130 refers to a pairwise comparison of the average (breakfast − snack) difference values over the full 56-h time course for CO. See [S5 Fig](#pbio.3000622.s005){ref-type="supplementary-material"} for data of all subjects\' CO rates plotted individually. (C) Average hourly pairwise comparison of (breakfast − snack) difference CO values for all subjects. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals, and values are based on a mixed-model analysis. Asterisks indicate significant differences (*p*-value \< 0.05) between breakfast and snack values for the indicated 1-h bins. See [S2E Table](#pbio.3000622.s009){ref-type="supplementary-material"} for the hour-by-hour statistical comparison of the breakfast versus the snack sessions. (D) LO data of a representative subject (\#3) calculated from indirect calorimetry measurements as described \[[@pbio.3000622.ref026],[@pbio.3000622.ref027]\]. Data are plotted as a 3-h moving average (180-min data points). (E) Average of all subjects for daily LO calculated from indirect calorimetry measurements as described \[[@pbio.3000622.ref026],[@pbio.3000622.ref027]\] and the 56-h time course data are plotted on a modulo-24 h scale. Averaged data for all subjects are organized in 1-h bins. The *p*-value of 0.028 refers to a pairwise comparison of the average (breakfast − snack) difference values over the full 56-h time course for LO. See [S6 Fig](#pbio.3000622.s006){ref-type="supplementary-material"} for data of all subjects\' LO rates plotted individually. (F) Average hourly pairwise comparison of (breakfast − snack) difference LO values for all subjects. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals, and values are based on a mixed-model analysis. Asterisks indicate significant differences (*p*-value \< 0.05) between breakfast and snack values for the indicated 1-h bins. See [S2F Table](#pbio.3000622.s009){ref-type="supplementary-material"} for the hour-by-hour statistical comparison of the breakfast versus the snack sessions. All panels: the blue line indicates values during the subjects' Breakfast Sessions and the red line for the subjects' Snack Sessions. Shading indicates meals and lights off as in [Fig 1B and 1C](#pbio.3000622.g001){ref-type="fig"}. Error bars indicate ± standard deviation. CO, carbohydrate oxidation; LO, lipid oxidation.](pbio.3000622.g003){#pbio.3000622.g003}

On the other hand, LO was different between the sessions (*p* = 0.028). Subjects in the Breakfast Session experienced a relatively constant rate of LO throughout the 24-h cycle ([Fig 3D and 3E](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"}). Because the overall MR declined during the night ([Fig 2A](#pbio.3000622.g002){ref-type="fig"}), this means that carbohydrate catabolism was \"switched off,\" and LO was sustained during the nightly fast. However, in the Snack Session, the availability of carbohydrates that was enabled by the late-evening snack supported metabolism during the night by CO; since the nocturnal MR is lower than the diurnal MR and carbohydrate catabolism is maintaining nocturnal metabolism, the meal timing of the Snack Session inhibited LO at night ([Fig 3C and 3F](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"}). On average, 15 more grams of lipid were burned over the 24-h cycle by subjects on the Breakfast Session as compared with the Snack Session ([Fig 3F](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"}; *p* = 0.028).

Using a mixed-model pairwise hour-by-hour analysis, we found significant differences in both CO and LO in hours 22:00--02:00 of the snack/night interval ([S2E and S2F Table](#pbio.3000622.s009){ref-type="supplementary-material"}), with carbohydrates being utilized at higher rates for a longer time over this temporal window in the Snack Session than in the Breakfast Session ([Fig 3B and 3C](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"}). Conversely, the Breakfast Session showed significantly more lipids burned in the snack/night interval than did the Snack Session ([Fig 3E and 3F](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"}). During the breakfast interval, we also found a significant difference in CO, with more carbohydrates burned during the Breakfast Session than during the Snack Session at hours 08:00--09:00 ([S2E Table](#pbio.3000622.s009){ref-type="supplementary-material"}). Nevertheless, over the entire 24-h span, there is not a net difference in CO between sessions because the oxidation difference in the breakfast window is offset by opposite oxidation rates in the snack/night window ([Fig 3C](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"}). However, the enhanced LO in the snack/night window of subjects in the Breakfast Session is not offset by an opposite effect in another temporal window ([Fig 3F](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"}). These results indicate that the time of meal placement can cause variation in the amount of lipids oxidized regardless of the nutritional or caloric content of the meal; changing the daily timing of a nutritionally equivalent meal of 700 kcal has a significant impact upon carbohydrate and lipid metabolism.

Discussion {#sec003}
==========

The major finding of this study is that the timing of feeding over the day leads to significant differences in the metabolism of an equivalent 24-h nutritional intake. Daily timing of nutrient availability coupled with daily/circadian control of metabolism drives a switch in substrate preference such that the late-evening Snack Session resulted in significantly lower LO compared to the Breakfast Session. When the subjects started bedrest after having just eaten the late-evening snack meal (Snack Session), they catabolized less lipid during their sleep episode than they did when they fasted from dinner to breakfast (Breakfast Session). This significant (*p* = 0.028, [Fig 3E](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"}) effect was measurable over only 3 sleep episodes in our experiments so that an average of 15 fewer grams of lipid were burned over the 24-h cycle by subjects on the Snack Session. The impact of a regular late-evening snack persisting over a longer time would progressively lead to substantially lower LO (and therefore, more lipid accumulation) as compared with fasting during this interval of the day. As schematized in [Fig 4](#pbio.3000622.g004){ref-type="fig"}, the daily patterns of substrate oxidation ([Fig 4A and 4B](#pbio.3000622.g004){ref-type="fig"}) are roughly following the daily eating patterns ([Fig 4C](#pbio.3000622.g004){ref-type="fig"}). However, a late-evening snack likely sustains liver glycogen stores (CO; [Fig 4A](#pbio.3000622.g004){ref-type="fig"}) so that metabolism does not transition as rapidly or as fully into LO during the nocturnal fast ([Fig 4B](#pbio.3000622.g004){ref-type="fig"}).

![Schematic: Late-evening snacking interacts with the circadian rhythm of metabolism to inhibit LO.\
(A and B) Hour-by-hour oxidation rates for carbohydrates (panel A) and lipids (panel B) in the two sessions. These curves are smoothed versions of the experimental data in [Fig 3](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"}. (C) Cumulative food intake on the Breakfast versus Snack Sessions. (D and E) Cumulative oxidation rates over the 24-h cycle derived from the curves in panels A and B and the experimental data of [Fig 3](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"}. Panel D shows cumulative CO, while panel E shows cumulative LO. The horizontal dashed lines indicate the daily total intake of carbohydrates (D) and lipids (E) for comparison with the cumulative respective oxidations. (F) Approximate net relative daily storage of carbohydrates and lipids inferred from the data of [Fig 3](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"} and the analyses depicted in the other panels of this figure (arbitrary units). Positive values indicate the extent of substrate accumulation/storage, and negative values indicate the extent of substrate oxidation (\"burning\"). CO, carbohydrate oxidation; LO, lipid oxidation.](pbio.3000622.g004){#pbio.3000622.g004}

Our interpretation of these data is based on the circadian clock orchestrating a switch between primarily CO to primarily LO between the last meal of the day and the onset of circadian-timed sleep \[[@pbio.3000622.ref001],[@pbio.3000622.ref003],[@pbio.3000622.ref006],[@pbio.3000622.ref007]\]. Instead of fasting between dinnertime and breakfast, if a person eats during the late evening, carbohydrates will be preferentially metabolized as sleep initiates, delaying the timing of the switch into primarily LO. Over the 24-h cycle, cumulative CO as compared with total carbohydrate intake was not dramatically different between the two sessions ([Fig 4D](#pbio.3000622.g004){ref-type="fig"}), so the net 24-h carbohydrate storage is similar ([Fig 4F](#pbio.3000622.g004){ref-type="fig"}). On the other hand, the cumulative 24-h LO rate as compared with total lipid intake is substantially less when late-evening snacking detains the transition to lipid catabolism ([Fig 4E](#pbio.3000622.g004){ref-type="fig"}), thereby lessening the mobilization of lipid stores (i.e., the extent of lipids being oxidized; [Fig 4F](#pbio.3000622.g004){ref-type="fig"}). There is a clear tradeoff between lipid and CO during the night; the Breakfast Session clearly favors LO at the expense of CO (Figs [3](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"} and [4](#pbio.3000622.g004){ref-type="fig"}).

There was a small but significant increase in CO in the morning after eating breakfast (Figs [1D](#pbio.3000622.g001){ref-type="fig"} and [3C](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"}, hours 08:00--09:00 in [S2E Table](#pbio.3000622.s009){ref-type="supplementary-material"}), but not on LO ([Fig 3F](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"}, hours 08:00--09:00 in [S2F Table](#pbio.3000622.s009){ref-type="supplementary-material"}). However, the effect of eating versus skipping breakfast is not as significant as the impact of eating after dinner on both carbohydrate and lipid catabolism during the sleep episode ([Fig 3](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"}). In this study, there were no obvious differences among subjects based on BMI or gender ([Table 1](#pbio.3000622.t001){ref-type="table"} and [S3](#pbio.3000622.s003){ref-type="supplementary-material"}--[S6](#pbio.3000622.s006){ref-type="supplementary-material"} Figs). Unlike the conclusions of a previous investigation comparing morning versus evening carbohydrate-rich meals \[[@pbio.3000622.ref033]\], in our investigation, the different phasing of the meals between the two sessions did not change the phasing of the daily metabolic pattern. The phasing of sleep during the 56-h time courses matched that of the subjects\' sleep patterns for the prior week (compare [Table 1](#pbio.3000622.t001){ref-type="table"} and [S2 Fig](#pbio.3000622.s002){ref-type="supplementary-material"}), and the phasing of the daily rhythms of activity, MR, and CBT were in phase between the two sessions ([Fig 2B](#pbio.3000622.g002){ref-type="fig"} and [S1 Fig](#pbio.3000622.s001){ref-type="supplementary-material"}). Therefore, in our protocol, the wake/sleep cycle appears to be locked in the same phase relationship to the lights-on/lights-off cycle in both sessions, and the altered meal timing of the Snack Session has delayed the metabolic switching between primarily carbohydrate-catabolism mode and primarily lipid-catabolism modes in relationship to either the circadian system and/or the timing of sleep ([Fig 4](#pbio.3000622.g004){ref-type="fig"}).

Consistent with the findings of other investigations of altered meal timing, breakfast skipping, time-restricted feeding, etc. \[[@pbio.3000622.ref021],[@pbio.3000622.ref022],[@pbio.3000622.ref023]\], we found no significant differences in total energy expenditure between sessions ([Fig 2C](#pbio.3000622.g002){ref-type="fig"}). Nevertheless, metabolism was significantly affected. In particular, the average daily RER maintained a higher value in the Snack Session ([Fig 2E and 2F](#pbio.3000622.g002){ref-type="fig"}), which can be attributed to a delayed entry into primarily LO mode (Figs [2E](#pbio.3000622.g002){ref-type="fig"} and [3](#pbio.3000622.g003){ref-type="fig"} and [4](#pbio.3000622.g004){ref-type="fig"}). The end result of the reduced LO will be enhanced lipid storage, which over time will lead to increased adiposity. Therefore, in older adults who are potentially at risk for metabolic disorders, avoiding snacking after the evening meal can sustain LO and potentially improve metabolic outcomes.

Materials and methods {#sec004}
=====================

Ethics statement {#sec005}
----------------

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Vanderbilt University\'s Human Research Protections Program (approval number: 140536) and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT04144426). Prior to the study, each subject signed an informed and written consent.

Subjects {#sec006}
--------

Six subjects (4 male and 2 female) were first recruited through flyers and the Vanderbilt Kennedy Center. Subjects were between 51 and 63 (average age was 57) with BMIs between 22.2 and 33.4 ([Table 1](#pbio.3000622.t001){ref-type="table"}). Applicants had to be 50 years of age or older and have no serious health complications or medications that could impact metabolism (see inclusion/exclusion criteria in [S1 Text](#pbio.3000622.s012){ref-type="supplementary-material"}). Female subjects were not required to be postmenopausal for inclusion in this study, but because of the age requirement, all females recruited to the study were postmenopausal. Subjects had no prior shiftwork experience. When interviewed, a questionnaire was administered by the researchers to assess eligibility and sleep/eating habits (see [S2 Text](#pbio.3000622.s013){ref-type="supplementary-material"}). Subjects were recruited October 2015 to February 2017.

Subjects were requested to monitor and record their sleeping habits for the one week prior to each metabolic chamber visit with a log that was provided. Subjects were asked to maintain their regular sleep and feeding schedule for one week prior to the chamber visits. Serendipitously, all of the subjects maintained a typical sleeping and eating schedule that was approximately in phase with the meal and sleep (lights-off) schedule of the chamber visit ([Table 1](#pbio.3000622.t001){ref-type="table"}). Representative examples of the subjects\' sleep schedule prior to chamber visits appear in [S2 Fig](#pbio.3000622.s002){ref-type="supplementary-material"}. After the 1-week period, subjects were admitted to the Center for Clinical Research at Vanderbilt University after a health assessment by a physician. Metabolism of the subjects was monitored in the Human Metabolic Chamber at Vanderbilt University, which is a whole-room calorimeter with CO~2~ and O~2~ detectors to monitor the rate of VO~2~ and VCO~2~ (see [S7 Fig](#pbio.3000622.s007){ref-type="supplementary-material"}). The room had a set flow rate of O~2~ and CO~2~ that allowed the energy expenditure of each subject to be measured through indirect calorimetry. Subjects were maintained on an enforced daily light/dark schedule where lights on occurred at 7:00 AM and lights off at 11:00 PM. The subjects ate and slept in the metabolic chamber and were allowed only two brief 20-min episodes per day outside the chamber: once about 10:00 AM to take a quick shower and once about 3:00 PM to take a brief nonstrenuous walk. While in the chamber, the subjects were instructed to do sedentary activities such as reading, internet, watching TV, etc.

During both visits, the Vitalsense Integrated Monitoring Physiological System was used to monitor CBT over the course of the study. Subjects were given a Vitalsense telemetric CBT capsule that recorded the subject's CBT and relayed information to a monitor attached to the subject's waistband (or under the pillow during lights off). Telemetric capsules were given every 24 h to maintain consistent temperature readings independent of bowel movements when the sensor might be excreted. Meals and lights-off times were scheduled regularly as shown in [Fig 1A](#pbio.3000622.g001){ref-type="fig"}. Subjects were admitted into the metabolic chamber for 2.5 days, starting at 5:30 PM and ending 7:00 AM after the third night in the facility. Subjects were admitted for two separate crossover sessions at the facility with a shifted meal schedule. For one session (the Breakfast Session), subjects were given a breakfast at 8:00 AM, lunch at 12:30 PM, and dinner at 5:45 PM every day. For the other session (the Snack Session), subjects were given decaf coffee (without cream or sugar but including an artificial sweetener if desired) at 8:00 AM, lunch at 12:30 PM, dinner at 5:45 PM, and a late-evening snack meal at 10:00 PM. The breakfast on day 2 was identical to the snack on day 2, and the breakfast on day 3 was identical to the snack on day 3 ([S1A Table](#pbio.3000622.s008){ref-type="supplementary-material"}), and each was approximately 700 kcal. The menus of the meals are shown in [S1A Table](#pbio.3000622.s008){ref-type="supplementary-material"}. The order of the sessions (i.e., Breakfast Session first versus Snack Session first) was determined in a randomized design for each subject ([Table 1](#pbio.3000622.t001){ref-type="table"}), and 4--12 days elapsed between sessions, depending upon the subject. Subjects were asked to eat all the meal provided, but any leftover food was weighed back, and actual intake for each meal is shown in [S1B and S1C Table](#pbio.3000622.s008){ref-type="supplementary-material"}. The size of the meals was determined by nutritionist to account for calories burned for each individual (on average, a daily 2,300 kcal diet). Calories were divided as follows: approximately 700 kcals for Breakfast/Snack, approximately 600 kcals for Lunch, and approximately 1,000 kcals for Dinner.

Whole-room respiratory chamber {#sec007}
------------------------------

The room calorimeter at Vanderbilt University is an airtight room (17.9 m^3^) providing an environment for daily living whose accuracy has been documented ([S7 Fig](#pbio.3000622.s007){ref-type="supplementary-material"} \[[@pbio.3000622.ref034]\]). The room has an entrance door, an airlock for passing food and other items, and an outside window. The room is equipped with a TV/media system, toilet, sink, desk, chair, and rollaway bed allowing overnight stays. The calorimeter is located in the Clinical Research Center at Vanderbilt University, and an intercom connects the chamber to a nearby station where nurses are on duty 24 h/7 days per week. Temperature, barometric pressure, and humidity of the room are controlled and monitored. Minute-by-minute energy expenditure (kcal/min) are calculated from measured rates of O~2~ consumption and CO~2~ production using Weir's equation \[[@pbio.3000622.ref035]\]. For raw VO~2~/VCO~2~ respiratory data, see [S1 Data](#pbio.3000622.s011){ref-type="supplementary-material"}.

Quantification and statistical analyses {#sec008}
---------------------------------------

To quantify the differences between the Breakfast and Snack Sessions, we applied both a paired *t* test and a linear mixed model to the full 56-h time course for each of the following measurements: MR, activity, CO, LO, RER, and CBT. Each measurement was averaged using hourly bins for each subject in each session. By using a mixed model, we were able to adjust for dependency of within-subject observations. The model included random intercept and fixed effects for session (Breakfast versus Snack), day (treated as a factor variable and defined as 3:00 PM on one day to 2:59 PM on the next day), hour (treated as a factor variable), an interaction between session and day, and an interaction between session and hour. If the *p*-value of an interaction was greater than 0.2, we removed that interaction from the model.

For an hourly paired *t* test, a sample size of 6 has 80% power to detect an effect size of 1.435 (defined as mean difference/standard deviation) with a 0.050 two-sided significance level. We applied a mixed model to perform an integrated analysis combining all hourly measurements together. The mixed model is more powerful than a traditional *t* test comparison, such that the effective sample size of our study calculated from the mixed model is approximately 21 \[[@pbio.3000622.ref036]\].

Calculations {#sec009}
------------

Daily CO and daily LO were calculated from indirect calorimetry measurements as described \[[@pbio.3000622.ref026],[@pbio.3000622.ref027]\]. Nitrogen excretion rate was based on the amount of protein provided to subjects as well as previous research that monitored 24-h nitrogen using similar parameters \[[@pbio.3000622.ref037]\]. Because protein content was not altered between sessions, we assumed that 24-h nitrogen excretion rate was equivalent for Breakfast versus Snack Sessions.

Supporting information {#sec010}
======================

###### Activity and CBT patterns.

See [S2B and S2C Table](#pbio.3000622.s009){ref-type="supplementary-material"} for underlying data. (A) Average wrist locomotor activity (measured in arbitrary units based on vector of magnitude) of all subjects for the 56-h time course. The blue line indicates values during the subjects' Breakfast Sessions and the red line for the subjects' Snack Sessions. Black arrows indicate the afternoon break during which subjects were allowed to exit the chamber for a 30-min break, during which the subjects were allowed a nonstrenuous walk. (This 30-min interval was excluded in other measurements because calorimetric readings were not being taken during this break.) (B) Average wrist activity of all subjects plotted modulo-24 h. Minute-by-minute activity data were averaged for all subjects into 1-h bins and aligned by clock time. The arrow denotes the 30-min break referred as noted in panel A. The *p*-value of 0.538 refers to a pairwise comparison of the average (\[breakfast\] − \[snack\]) difference values over the full 56-h time course for wrist activity. See [S2B Table](#pbio.3000622.s009){ref-type="supplementary-material"} for the hour-by-hour statistical comparison of the breakfast versus the snack sessions. (C) Average CBT for all subjects over the 56-h time course. (D) Average CBT of all subjects plotted modulo-24 h. Minute-by-minute activity data were averaged for all subjects into 1-h bins and aligned by clock time. The *p*-value of 0.218 refers to a pairwise comparison of the average (\[breakfast\] − \[snack\]) difference values over the full 56-h time course for CBT. See [S2C Table](#pbio.3000622.s009){ref-type="supplementary-material"} for the hour-by-hour statistical comparison of the breakfast versus the snack sessions. All panels: the blue line indicates values during the subjects' Breakfast Sessions, and the red line the values for the subjects' Snack Sessions. Shading indicates meals and lights off as in [Fig 1B and 1C](#pbio.3000622.g001){ref-type="fig"}. Error bars indicate ± standard deviation (*n* = 6). CBT, core body temperature.

(TIF)

###### 

Click here for additional data file.

###### Subject\'s self-reported schedules prior to entry into experiment.

The subjects\' self-reported bedtime and wake-up time for the week prior to entry into the metabolic chamber shows that the daily phasing of sleep was similar before and during the 56-h experimental time course. Black squares specify the time of bedtime and wake-up, with the horizontal lines indicating sleep episodes prior to entry into the metabolic chamber (blue horizontal lines) or during the 56-h experimental time course (red horizontal lines). Therefore, the subjects did not experience a phase shift of their daily cycle when they entered the experimental conditions in the metabolic chamber (compare with [Table 1](#pbio.3000622.t001){ref-type="table"}).

(TIF)

###### 

Click here for additional data file.

###### Individual daily RER data.

Average RER (VCO~2~/VO~2~) values for subjects 1--6 from their Breakfast Session (blue) and Snack Session (red) averaged into 1-h intervals. Error bars indicate standard deviation. RER, respiratory exchange ratio.

(TIF)

###### 

Click here for additional data file.

###### Individual daily MR data.

Hourly kcals burned for subjects 1--6 from their Breakfast Session (blue) and Snack Session (red) averaged into 1-h intervals. Error bars indicate standard deviation. MR, metabolic rate.

(TIF)

###### 

Click here for additional data file.

###### Individual daily CO.

Hourly grams of carbohydrates burned for subjects 1--6 from their Breakfast Session (blue) and Snack Session (red) averaged into 1-h intervals. Daily CO values calculated from indirect calorimetry measurements as described \[[@pbio.3000622.ref026],[@pbio.3000622.ref027]\]. Error bars indicate standard deviation. CO, carbohydrate oxidation.

(TIF)

###### 

Click here for additional data file.

###### Individual daily LO.

Hourly grams of lipids burned for subjects 1--6 from their Breakfast Session (blue) and Snack Session (red) averaged into 1-h intervals. Daily LO values calculated from indirect calorimetry measurements as described \[[@pbio.3000622.ref026],[@pbio.3000622.ref027]\]. Error bars indicate standard deviation. LO, lipid oxidation.

(TIF)

###### 

Click here for additional data file.

###### Configuration and photographs of the human whole-room calorimetry chamber at Vanderbilt University.

(TIF)

###### 

Click here for additional data file.

###### 

\(A\) Representative meals, (B) nutritional information, (C) nutritional information for each subject.

(XLSX)

###### 

Click here for additional data file.

###### 

Hour-by-hour mixed-model analyses for (A) RER, (B) activity, (C) CBT, (D) MR, (E) CO, and (F) LO. CBT, core body temperature; CO, carbohydrate oxidation; LO, lipid oxidation; MR, metabolic rate; RER, respiratory exchange ratio.

(XLSX)

###### 

Click here for additional data file.

###### Mixed-model analysis of peak/trough amplitude.

The mixed-model analysis was applied to the difference between the fitted maximum and the fitted minimum across the 24-h day for each physiological parameter. The table lists the *p*-value from the mixed model to determine that there were no statistically significant changes in peak/trough amplitude between Breakfast and Snack Sessions in any of the measured parameters.

(XLSX)

###### 

Click here for additional data file.

###### Raw VO~2~ and VCO~2~ data from the whole-room respiratory chamber.

(XLSX)

###### 

Click here for additional data file.

###### Inclusion/exclusion criteria and CONSORT flow diagram for randomized trials.

(DOCX)

###### 

Click here for additional data file.

###### Questionnaire for subject recruitment.

(DOCX)

###### 

Click here for additional data file.

###### CONSORT checklist.

(DOC)

###### 

Click here for additional data file.

We dedicate this study to the memory of Dr. Martin Katahn, a pioneer of the Rotation Diet and the benefactor whose donation enabled the metabolic chamber at Vanderbilt University. The authors would like to thank Briana Wyzinski, Ian Dew, and Regina Tyree for their contributions to subject recruitment and respiratory chamber operation. We thank Cynthia Dossett, Holly Mason, and Dr. Heidi Silver for their help with nutrition information and meal development. We also thank the subjects who participated in this study.

BMI

:   Body Mass Index

CBT

:   core body temperature

CO

:   carbohydrate oxidation

LO

:   lipid oxidation

MR

:   metabolic rate

RER

:   respiratory exchange ratio

SCN

:   suprachiasmatic nuclei

TEF

:   thermic effect of food

10.1371/journal.pbio.3000622.r001

Decision Letter 0

Wijayatilake

Hashi

Senior Editor

© 2020 Hashi Wijayatilake

2020

Hashi Wijayatilake

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution License

, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

18 Nov 2019

Dear Dr Johnson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled \"Eating breakfast and avoiding the evening snack sustains lipid oxidation\" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff as well as by an Academic Editor with relevant expertise and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review. Please note, however, that the outcome of our discussion of your manuscript is that we have some reservations as to the strength of analysis given the low sample size. We would need to be persuaded by the reviewers that the paper has the potential to offer the significant strength of advance and strong support for the conclusions in order to pursue it further for PLOS Biology after review, and will likely require a larger sample size. In addition, given the nature of the manuscript, we would like to review your paper as a Short Report, and not as a Research Article. Therefore, I ask that you please select the Short Report article type when completing the full submission and providing the information outlined below.

Before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the \'Submissions Needing Revisions\' folder on your homepage. Please click \'Revise Submission\' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by Nov 20 2019 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: <https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology>

During resubmission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit <http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints> for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF when you re-submit.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Feel free to email us at <plosbiology@plos.org> if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Hashi Wijayatilake, PhD,

Managing Editor

PLOS Biology

10.1371/journal.pbio.3000622.r002

Decision Letter 1

Wijayatilake

Hashi

Senior Editor

© 2020 Hashi Wijayatilake

2020

Hashi Wijayatilake

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution License

, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

20 Dec 2019

Dear Carl,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript \"Eating breakfast and avoiding the evening snack sustains lipid oxidation\" for consideration as a Short Reports by PLOS Biology. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, yours was evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors as well as by an Academic Editor with relevant expertise and by independent reviewers. As you can see from the reviews appended below, the reviewers are all very positive about the manuscript. They have relatively minor requests for revision including changing terminology, adding references, adding more methodological details, and better discussing and caveating confounds and alternate explanations. Reviewer 2 does also ask for some additional analysis of the data. Regarding sample size and statistics - I have discussed your explanation regarding study design and the larger effective sample size in detail with the journal\'s statistics expert. The expert agreed with the methodological arguments and noted that the design and corresponding analyses do what they promise. Given the reviewer comments on the crossover design and the statistic expert\'s detailed comments to us, the Academic Editor and I are reassured on this point. Please do however address Reviewer 3\'s points about clarifying the statistics and power calculation. Overall, based on the reviews, we will probably accept this manuscript for publication, assuming that you will modify the manuscript to address the points raised by the reviewers.

Important: Please also make sure to address the data and other policy-related requests noted at the end of this email.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two weeks. Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. In addition to the remaining revisions and before we will be able to formally accept your manuscript and consider it \"in press\", we also need to ensure that your article conforms to our guidelines. A member of our team will be in touch shortly with a set of requests. As we can\'t proceed until these requirements are met, your swift response will help prevent delays to publication.

\*Copyediting\*

Upon acceptance of your article, your final files will be copyedited and typeset into the final PDF. While you will have an opportunity to review these files as proofs, PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling or significant scientific errors. Therefore, please take this final revision time to assess and make any remaining major changes to your manuscript.

NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines:

<https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information>

\*Published Peer Review History\*

Please note that you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

<https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/>

\*Early Version\*

Please note that an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you opted out when submitting your manuscript. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online, uncheck the box. Should you, your institution\'s press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

\*Protocols deposition\*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: <https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods>

\*Submitting Your Revision\*

To submit your revision, please go to <https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/> and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled \'Submissions Needing Revision\' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include a cover letter, a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers\' comments (if applicable), and a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Hashi Wijayatilake, PhD,

Acting Chief Editor

PLOS Biology

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

ETHICS STATEMENT:

The Ethics Statements in the submission form and Methods section of your manuscript should match verbatim. Please ensure that any changes are made to both versions.

\-- Please include the full name of the IACUC/ethics committee that reviewed and approved the animal care and use protocol/permit/project license. Please also include an approval number.

\-- Please include the specific national or international regulations/guidelines to which your animal care and use protocol adhered. Please note that institutional or accreditation organization guidelines (such as AAALAC) do not meet this requirement.

\-- Please include information about the form of consent (written/oral) given for research involving human participants. All research involving human participants must have been approved by the authors\' Institutional Review Board (IRB) or an equivalent committee, and all clinical investigation must have been conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki.

SPECIAL NOTES:

\> Please read through this page in detail for our policy and documentation requirements related to human subject research:

<https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/human-subjects-research>

\> Please report details on how informed written consent for the research was obtained and confirm that the individuals have provided written consent for the use of that information. Please add this to the Ethics Statement.

\> Please also provide CONSORT checklists (or TREND) and other documentation as supplemental files, as relevant.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

DATA POLICY:

You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: <http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability>. For more information, please also see this editorial: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797>

Note that we do not require all raw data. Rather, we ask that all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper be made available in one of the following forms:

1\) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as \'Supporting Information\' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

2\) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication.

\*\*Thank you for providing the excel files with the Dexa results, nutritional data and VO2/VCO2 values. Please confirm that these datasets contain all the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it:

Figs. 1BCD, 2A-D, 3A-F, 4A-C, 5A-C and similarly all supplemental figures.

Please also ensure that figure legends in your manuscript include information on where the underlying data can be found, and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend.

Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

BLOT AND GEL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

For manuscripts submitted on or after 1st July 2019, we require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article\'s figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare and upload them now. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: <https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements>

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

REVIEWS:

Reviewer \#1:

Congratulations on a very interesting study! Overall, I think this paper by Kelly et al., provides a novel understanding of how the phase of eating alters metabolism, specifically lipid oxidation. The use of the metabolic chamber for 56 hours provides very robust data and as far as I am aware, has not yet been used to understand changes in eating phase in older, overweight adults. As the timing of eating is becoming an increasingly exciting field of study, many researchers and medical professionals will be interested in these findings as it provides novel insights into the importance of the phase of eating. I recommend that this paper is published with the minor revisions suggested below.

1\. My largest concern is about the terminology used to describe the meals. First, breakfast is a very vague term and does not have a strong definition. For instance, NHANES surveys define breakfast as anything consumed before breakfast, during breakfast, or before lunch. Because of the subjective nature of the term breakfast, some readers (especially the media and general public) may take breakfast to mean very different things, including very early morning meals right as they wake up, which is not what was tested.

Secondly, the term 'snack' implies that it is a smaller meal. The authors do make it clear in the manuscript that they are the same number of calories, but for many that will not read the whole paper, this will likely be misleading, and should instead be referred to as a late-night meal.

Due to these likely misconceptions, I feel that changing the title and terminology throughout the text to refer to the different eating patterns as daytime and late-night eating, or early and late/delayed eating (as other papers have done -- Hutchison et al., 2019) will more clearly explain the research. Additionally, the title is misleading as this paper does not fully determine if it is the presence of the breakfast, or the lack of night meal that leads to better lipid oxidation, but rather the phase of eating that made the difference. I agree the way that it is written is technically correct, but I believe it will be misinterpreted as it can be avoided by changing the wording.

2\. There are multiple papers that are relevant to this work that have not been cited and I would encourage adding to the introduction and/or discussion as the authors see fit.

• Early vs Delayed TRE:

o Hutchison, A.T., Regmi, P., Manoogian, E.N., Fleischer, J.G., Wittert, G.A., Panda, S. and Heilbronn, L.K., 2019. Time‐Restricted Feeding Improves Glucose Tolerance in Men at Risk for Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Trial. Obesity, 27(5), pp.724-732.

• Timing of meals on metabolic health

o Jakubowicz, D., Wainstein, J., Landau, Z., Ahren, B., Barnea, M., Bar-Dayan, Y. and Froy, O., 2017. High-energy breakfast based on whey protein reduces body weight, postprandial glycemia and hba1c in type 2 diabetes. The Journal of nutritional biochemistry, 49, pp.1-7.

o Many other papers by Oren Froy's group

• Breakfast skipping and late-night eating are both associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease (good example of how late-night eating had a larger effect, but breakfast skipping was overemphasized as the cause of increased risk -- need to make sure this does not happen here).

o Cahill, L.E., Chiuve, S.E., Mekary, R.A., Jensen, M.K., Flint, A.J., Hu, F.B. and Rimm, E.B., 2013. Prospective study of breakfast eating and incident coronary heart disease in a cohort of male US health professionals. Circulation, 128(4), pp.337-343.

3\. Please clarify in the methods if artificial sweeteners were allowed in the black decaf coffee.

4\. In the text and figure 1 it shows that the snack was given at 10pm and lights off at 11pm, but in Supplementary Table 1 says snack is given at 11pm. Please correct or clarify.

5\. Unlike the sleep data in the week leading up the metabolic chamber, the data on food intake leading up the metabolic chamber sessions is not provided in the supplement and is never mentioned except for the fact that they had them record it. Please provide a few sentences commenting on the eating pattern of the participants leading up to the trail. What was their eating window/when did they eat? How did the calories compare to the calories consumed while in the metabolic chamber? Etc.

6\. Add units Fig 2A and B Activity -- is it just A.U.? Also, for the comparison, was it total activity counts that was compared?

7\. States that sleep quality equivalent in both groups, but there are no stats of sleep efficiency provided. Please add and/or clarify how this was determined.

8\. Be consistent about how figures are referenced in the text. Sometime figures are referred to by number and letter, sometimes only by number even when specifically referring to letters.

9\. Some statements in the results seems more like discussion and makes assumptions about mechanism that were not directly tested, such as: "Apparently the late-evening snacking delays the clock induced switching between primarily carbohydrate-catabolic mode (higher RER values) and primarily lipid-catabolic mode (lower RER values." Because clock control was not directly tested, this should not be stated as a result. Please reword.

\-\-\--

Reviewer \#2:

This is an excellent short report from Parsons Kelly and colleagues. Although preliminary, it fits well with the ethos of the short report article type. The data are presented well and completely, along with helpful supplementary data to allow further assessment of the raw data if necessary.

The principal conclusion of the report is that having an evening snack inhibits lipid oxidation (compared to having those calories at breakfast time), and in the long term, in metabolically \"at risk\" individuals, this could result in cumulative adipose tissue mass over time and the attendant effects on whole-body metabolism and notably obesity and diabetes.

The authors comment that RER is different between the two groups in the sleep phase, but not at other times. Other parameters (e.g. activity) are not different. However, i think that it would be interesting to analyze the data in a bit more depth than using a mixed model to detect differences between the groups. There doesn\'t appear to be any analysis of diurnal variation in the two groups. For example, comparing Fig. 1B and 1C, they look quite different over time, with the snack group (Fig. 1C) demonstrating a lower amplitude diurnal rhythm that the breakfast group (Fig. 1B). It would be instructive to estimate amplitude of these cycles (e.g. by using Circwave, JTK_Cycle, RAIN, or even PLS fitting). The authors should incorporate any arising points in their discussion. Other than this point, the analysis is very good, and the cross-over design is welcomed.

\--

Reviewer \#3:

This is an excellent and timely piece of research and clearly merits publication in a broad interest journal such as PLoS Biology.

Over the last ten years there has been enormous interest in the idea that, in addition to energy expenditure and what you eat, when you eat can have important effects on how food is metabolized and stored. There are a number of compelling mouse studies in this area, with correlative evidence from humans, but a clear interventional test of this phenomenon in humans under a well-controlled but pseudo real-world setting has been lacking. The authors have performed this study, using metabolic chambers and an elegant crossover design, in healthy middle-aged individuals; this being particularly pertinent as it reflects the demographic group most at risk from obesity in their country.

The data presented boils down to the analysis of a single experiment where oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production, physical activity and core body temperature was measured with high temporal resolution over two sets of 3 days. Food intake was isocaloric between sessions, and the only difference was breakfast vs. bedtime snack, with the key finding being that bedtime snacks attenuated the nighttime dip in respiratory exchange ratio compared with the breakfast session, indicative of reduced lipid oxidation at night when feeding occurs later in the diurnal cycle. This data are convincing, with important implications for making achievable lifestyle interventions in obese individuals, and so important finding needs to be communicated to a wide audience.

Because this paper is likely to find a wide readership, there are some points of interpretation and presentation that I believe warrant some further consideration, as follows:

1\) \"The phasing or amplitude of the daily rhythms of master clock markers (plasma melatonin and cortisol), insulin, or plasma triglycerides is also not responsible, as reported by Wehrens and coworkers who found no differences in those rhythms in a meal timing study using a very similar protocol to ours \[30\].\"

...I think this sentence is problematic for three reasons.

Firstly, the design of study by Wehrens is very different to this study i.e. their data were collected from healthy young individuals under constant routine with frequent isocaloric snacks i.e. no feeding, sleep or environmental rhythms, which occurred after and not during the scheduled feeding protocol and is therefore highly dissimilar from this protocol. Indeed the absence of a feeding rhythm in Wehrens et al is evident from the Fig2B of that paper, where insulin levels are continuously elevated and show far less temporal variation than normally occurs under physiological, diurnal conditions.

Secondly, Wehrens do in fact report a different acrophase of insulin (p=0.029), but appear to determine that this is not significant for reasons which are opaque to me.

Thirdly, signalling through the insulin and related receptors is the primary established mechanism that determines whether tissues store or mobilise stored carbohydrates and lipids. Serum insulin is more sensitive to dietary carbohydrates, free insulin-like growth factor concentration is more sensitive to dietary protein and fat, with both increasing after a balanced meal and much overlap at the peptide and receptor level (Livingstone et al, 2013; Slaaby et al., 2006). It would therefore be very much at odds with my understanding of physiology if there was no difference in the 24h profile of plasma insulin and other feeding-related endocrine cues between the breakfast and bedtime snack sessions. If the authors wish to discount changes in insulin signalling from contributing the differences in RER observed between the two regimes, then they need to show some data to support this or they need to cite a more compelling and appropriate set of references. Alternatively, they may wish to simply wish to remove mention of insulin at this point in the manuscript and instead speculate about its potential relevance in the discussion. If I have misunderstood their argument, in which case please could they frame it more clearly.

2\) Statistics - the description of the linear mixed model, its parameters and implementation needs to be described in more detail. I assume that this more sophisticated analysis provides greater power, but it would be reassuring to the less-statistically literate to know whether a simple repeated-measures two-way ANOVA (regime vs time interaction) agrees with the linear mixed model. Moreover, it is good practice to report the power calculation that was performed before the experiment, which suggested that 6 individuals would be sufficient to detect a difference.

3\) Analysis - by reporting the mean RER (e.g. Fig1B), the authors do not take into account any intra-individual variation in average RER. This is not a problem, but it seems plausible to me that one person might not have exactly the same basal RER are as somebody else due to genetic/epigenetic factors. Thus, if any variation exists, it does not seem unreasonable to me to correct for small differences in average RER (over the six days) between individuals as this would potentially remove a source of systematic error which is not relevant to their hypothesis, and thereby improve their sensitivity to detect differences that are specific to the two different feeding regimes.

4\) Interpretation - dietary carbohydrates and lipids are used for many purposes besides respiration which are not explicitly considered. My understanding is that the major destinations of dietary carbohydrate are glycolysis+respiration (consumes O2, produces CO2) , glycolysis only (no O2/CO2 change), biosynthesis by pentose phosphate pathway (generates CO2, no O2 consumption), protein/lipid glycosylation (no O2/CO2 change), glycogen synthesis (no O2/CO2 change); whereas most dietary lipids are used for respiration via beta-oxidation (consumes O2, produces CO2), stored in lipid droplets (no O2/CO2 change), or used for membrane biosynthesis (no O2/CO2 change). RER would also be affected by any diurnal or feeding related changes in blood pH I imagine.

Thus, whilst it is entirely plausible that the changes in RER ratio over 24h, and between feeding regimes, mean exactly what the authors suggest they mean, there are several potential confounds to this interpretation which cannot be explicitly discounted without further experiments. Whilst this could be achieved by metabolic flux labelling with 13C-glucose, in no way would I expect the authors to perform any additional experiments since this would not affect the primary observation, that the night-time dip in RER is attenuated by a bedtime snack, only its interpretation. I would therefore suggest that some additional caveats to their preferred interpretation would be appropriate in the discussion section.

Indeed, their model (Fig6) does not really distinguish between the relative proportions of dietary vs stored carbohydrates/lipids that are being utilized as a function of time vs. feeding time - I would personally prefer that they propose a more detailed model that makes some explicit and testable predictions, which could be followed up in further rodent/human experiments, but the authors are free to disagree with my personal taste of course.

###### 

Submitted filename: Kelly et al, PloSBiol Review.docx

###### 

Click here for additional data file.

10.1371/journal.pbio.3000622.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 1

23 Jan 2020

###### 

Submitted filename: Response.pdf

###### 

Click here for additional data file.

10.1371/journal.pbio.3000622.r004

Decision Letter 2

Wijayatilake

Hashi

Senior Editor

© 2020 Hashi Wijayatilake

2020

Hashi Wijayatilake

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution License

, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

24 Jan 2020

Dear Dr. Johnson,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Dr. Achim Kramer, I am pleased to inform you that we will be delighted to publish your Short Reports in PLOS Biology.

The files will now enter our production system. You will receive a copyedited version of the manuscript, along with your figures for a final review. You will be given two business days to review and approve the copyedit. Then, within a week, you will receive a PDF proof of your typeset article. You will have two days to review the PDF and make any final corrections. If there is a chance that you\'ll be unavailable during the copy editing/proof review period, please provide us with contact details of one of the other authors whom you nominate to handle these stages on your behalf. This will ensure that any requested corrections reach the production department in time for publication.

Early Version

The version of your manuscript submitted at the copyedit stage will be posted online ahead of the final proof version, unless you have already opted out of the process. The date of the early version will be your article\'s publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with <biologypress@plos.org>. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit <http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/>.

Thank you again for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Biology and for your support of Open Access publishing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any assistance during the production process.

Kind regards,

Krystal Farmer,

Development Editor

PLOS Biology

on behalf of

Hashi Wijayatilake,

Managing Editor

PLOS Biology

[^1]: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
