8-hour time-restricted eating linked to a 91% higher risk of cardiovascular death
8-hour time-restricted eating linked to a 91% higher risk of cardiovascular death
03/19/24 Editor’s note: The research authors have shared their full poster presentation for updated details about their research abstract. Please see the digital file attached, in the right hand column for these details. The most current statistics, ...
FTA:
"A study of over 20,000 adults found that those who followed an 8-hour time-restricted eating schedule, a type of intermittent fasting, had a 91% higher risk of death from cardiovascular disease.
People with heart disease or cancer also had an increased risk of cardiovascular death.
Compared with a standard schedule of eating across 12-16 hours per day, limiting food intake to less than 8 hours per day was not associated with living longer."
This came across a few days ago and the consensus was that it's likely showing that people who look for a diet might be at higher risk of cardiovascular death.
Exactly ... I know a guy who eats intermittently over 24 sometimes 48 hours. He works in a factory as a manager but gets involved in everything because he's been there for 30 years. He'll go to work and run around continuously to the point where he just won't take time to eat.
Thing is, when he gets home to actually eat, he eats terribly, drinks endless beers, guzzles coffee like water and is still overweight. He has a heart condition, sleep apnea and chronic acid reflux.
It's not how or when you eat ... it's what you eat and the amount of what you eat.
also stress is not helping - being constantly challenged to the point where you cannot take brakes isn't good for your health
Idk if your one anecdote is enough to say "its not how or when you eat".
Its entirely possible intermittent fasting is useful, even though your guy you know eats like shit so much to undo the potential good.
The actual data is pretty lousy... The 8 hr group has almost 30% smokers and mean 1 pt higher in BMI than the 12-16 hr group, and the forest plots cross one for all cause mortality because they only had 414 subjects in the fasting group. The fact they chose to report on this using the relative risk is also super shady
Came across this a couple of days ago in a German Newspaper (paywall bypass), I found this a bit strange:
»Good data basis - but not for this question
Prof. Dr. Tilman Kühn, Professor of Public Health Nutrition at the University of Vienna, comments: "The NHANES study, which the authors used, is very good in principle - but unfortunately it does not record interval fasting." The pure time data for food intake on individual days, as recorded there, is only suitable for assessing the effects of intermittent fasting to a very limited extent.
The study could therefore not show that intermittent fasting increases the risk of death. "The results of the study only show that people who ate their meals within less than eight hours on two randomly selected days had a higher risk of dying from a cardiovascular cause. However, intentional intermittent fasting was not investigated in the study."
Why people only ate within eight hours on these selected days remains completely unclear. It could, for example, be because they were so unwell that they could no longer eat. In this case, the disease itself could also increase the risk of death.«
Translated with DeepL
For me intermittent fasting always worked great, but diets are all very subjective I guess and without a bit of excercise... ¯\(ツ)/¯
Edit: Arm surgery
Why people only ate within eight hours on these selected days remains completely unclear.
If you don't eat breakfast it's not that hard for the rest of the eating to fall within 8 hours
Or if you eat your breakfast fairly late and dine early
Intermittent fasting works really well for people like me who tend to binge eat at night. If I can’t eat at night, that eliminates the binging.
Hey Sir you dropped this \.
Thanks, I think the surgery was successful!
Lost 30lbs so far myself. I do gorge at night, though. Might not be good for bird eaters.
„The study’s limitations included its reliance on self-reported dietary information, which may be affected by participant’s memory or recall and may not accurately assess typical eating patterns.“
This seems like a very critical limitation for such a clickbait title. Shouldn’t the exact tracking of the amount and quality of the food be a crucial part of such a study?
The median length of observation was seven years, with participants filling follow up questionnaires in the first year. So for the remaining 6 years we just assume that people are still following the same diet regimin?
Yeah, I'm kinda hoping this is just an initial study to use to try and get funding for a more thorough one, and a journalist has just run with it as clickbait.
Junk study, lots of uncontrolled factors
Agreed. Methodology is garbage. In fact, according to it, the people who had the least risk were those who had Cancer. LOL.
Aggregate age was 48.5 and BMI was something around 28.5. 10%+ of those in the study already had Cancer or other serious COVs. Not peer reviewed, in fact it was just an abstract given in a presentation.
This is a perfect example of lying by statistical chicanery, too.
It is irresponsible to run those headlines since most will never read the study. Also study has the logo of the American Heart Stroke Society. The same agency that shills their logo to cereal brands. Who knew that they would want you to not skip American styled breakfast.The “study” was actually an abstract from a conference presentation.
https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/?#!/20343/presentation/379
Likely this also included people who just don't eat breakfast because they don't feel like it, which probably also includes people who have a honey bun and a cigarette for lunch and McDonald's for dinner. The results of the study also don't match up with other studies showing a positive result on health markers.
There's nothing magical about intermittent fasting. It won't make you live longer, does nothing cool with your hormones, or any of that nonsense. But it is also a convenient, legitimate way for some people to reduce their overall caloric intake. Reducing caloric intake (and in turn losing fat) results in the improved health markers mentioned above.
does nothing cool with your hormones, or any of that nonsense.
There's quite a bit of evidence that it helps with things like immune response and insulin resistance.
I can attest personally that my usual severe allergies get better (where I get my sense of smell back) when I skip lunches. Although it has to be consistent over a period of at least a few weeks for that to work.
The effect on insulin resistance is mostly due to a caloric deficit / lowering of circulating triglycerides, but I think there is a study showing a slight advantage with IF, so you're right on that one, but it's not really a huge difference.
Interesting about the lunches! Are you sure though that it isn't a food intolerance you're dealing with? Often when people cut out foods and say they feel better it's because they're not eating a food that bothers them.
I wonder if it's something to do with what those 8 hours are filled with, maybe a person is more likely to eat worse meals if they skip a meal unintentionally?
For example, they could be eating McDonald's every night because they didn't have the time to eat anything else.
I would assume if you plan your diet properly, it wouldn't be harmful. Only science can tell us though, not our ponderings.
Well... shit.
Guess I've got to start finding time to get a second meal in.
Or maybe don't change your way of thinking based on a headline... or based on a non-peer-reviewed study.
Well it's a good thing I was too lazy to ever start this up but always wanted to try so I could live longer.
Ah well.
How can you be too lazy to not eat?
Depression.
Oh look, another stupid thing my brother is into that's bullshit.