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

Sarah L. Chellappa (), Lei Gao, Jingyi Qian, Nina Vujovic, Peng Li, Kun Hu and Frank A.J.L. Scheer ()
Additional contact information
Sarah L. Chellappa: Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Lei Gao: Harvard Medical School
Jingyi Qian: Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Nina Vujovic: Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Peng Li: Harvard Medical School
Kun Hu: Harvard Medical School
Frank A.J.L. Scheer: Brigham and Women’s Hospital

Nature Communications, 2025, vol. 16, issue 1, 1-11

Abstract: 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 the Intervention Group, there were no significant changes in these outcomes. For exploratory outcomes, the intervention significantly modified the impact of simulated night work on blood pressure (P

Date: 2025
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57846-y Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:natcom:v:16:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-025-57846-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/ncomms/

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-57846-y

Access Statistics for this article

Nature Communications is currently edited by Nathalie Le Bot, Enda Bergin and Fiona Gillespie

More articles in Nature Communications from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().