Intermittent fasting is linked to cardiovascular death

[Anonymous]

Lots of problems with this study explained: https://www.statnews.com/2024/03/19/intermittent-fasting-study-heart-risk/#:~:text=Specifically,%20a%20study%20found%20that,brain%20glucose%20thinking%20about%20it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of problems with this study explained: https://www.statnews.com/2024/03/19/intermittent-fasting-study-heart-risk/#:~:text=Specifically,%20a%20study%20found%20that,brain%20glucose%20thinking%20about%20it.

Maybe he could wait until the study is published before attacking it? Seems a bit kneejerk (superficial) when we only have the abstract right now.

[Anonymous]

So they studied people who were obese or overweight, and found that they had more cardiovascular problems than people who aren’t overweight.

Oh lord!

[Anonymous]

If people don't eat, they drop dead. Kind of obvious.

[Anonymous]

You can find the poster that was presented at the bottom of this page: https://newsroom.heart.org/news/8-hour-time-restricted-eating-linked-to-a-91-higher-risk-of-cardiovascular-death

I thought it was interesting that the group rating in an 8 hour window was actually only 414 people, who had higher BMIs and more smokers than the rest of the groups.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't put much stock in this study, given all the many variables that the researchers admit they didn't control for and also because the information was self-provided by participants based on their memories.

Recent research in a controlled study established healthful benefits of OMAD in canine companion dogs:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9213604/

As noted in that article, there is abundant evidence over years of controlled studies in lab animals that calorie restriction is correlated with longer life.

In most cases, people who engage in IF are restricting calories compared to if they didn't limit their eating window.

I wouldn't put much stock in the notion that IF is causative in any way of heart disease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't put much stock in this study, given all the many variables that the researchers admit they didn't control for and also because the information was self-provided by participants based on their memories.

Recent research in a controlled study established healthful benefits of OMAD in canine companion dogs:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9213604/

As noted in that article, there is abundant evidence over years of controlled studies in lab animals that calorie restriction is correlated with longer life.

In most cases, people who engage in IF are restricting calories compared to if they didn't limit their eating window.

I wouldn't put much stock in the notion that IF is causative in any way of heart disease.

Canines are very different than humans. As for as calorie restriction = longevity, restricting calories doubles the lifespan of mice. But we already know that mice are so different from humans that nothing is generalizable.

This study, btw, is making headlines because it is unexpected (it even goes against the purpose of the study which was to look at the cardiovascular benefit of IF - oops!) and goes against common wisdom. Or at least, goes against current modern wisdom (it doesn't go against old wisdom though).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In our household IF is associated with fast food and binge eating. My DH would often not have breakfast or lunch but might grab fast food in the afternoon and then eat a ton of food at dinner time. One thing that would be interested is comparing the actual diets of people on IF to other people. I think being hungry all day is not conducive to eating healthy when you do eat.

This sounds exactly like my DH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can find the poster that was presented at the bottom of this page: https://newsroom.heart.org/news/8-hour-time-restricted-eating-linked-to-a-91-higher-risk-of-cardiovascular-death

I thought it was interesting that the group rating in an 8 hour window was actually only 414 people, who had higher BMIs and more smokers than the rest of the groups.

So if IF were beneficial, then they would have had the most benefit, since they had the most room to benefit. But they didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of problems with this study explained: https://www.statnews.com/2024/03/19/intermittent-fasting-study-heart-risk/#:~:text=Specifically,%20a%20study%20found%20that,brain%20glucose%20thinking%20about%20it.

People need to read this and understand that massive limitations of this study claiming IF dieters are dropping like flies.

[Anonymous]

This site never ceases to amaze me. This is a legitimate study with a surprising finding. The “confirmation bias” for so many of you is so frustrating. You believe only what you want, then go around screaming “but science.” You care about science when it fits your lifestyle or agenda, but rail against it when it doesn’t. This finding really shouldn’t be that surprising. When one’s body is fooled into thinking it’s starving, bad things will happen. I have always found IF to be non-sensical, and studies definitely find this true for OMAD. Once again, an argument for moderation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This site never ceases to amaze me. This is a legitimate study with a surprising finding. The “confirmation bias” for so many of you is so frustrating. You believe only what you want, then go around screaming “but science.” You care about science when it fits your lifestyle or agenda, but rail against it when it doesn’t. This finding really shouldn’t be that surprising. When one’s body is fooled into thinking it’s starving, bad things will happen. I have always found IF to be non-sensical, and studies definitely find this true for OMAD. Once again, an argument for moderation.

See 13:58 for all the reasons this isn't a "legitimate study."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This site never ceases to amaze me. This is a legitimate study with a surprising finding. The “confirmation bias” for so many of you is so frustrating. You believe only what you want, then go around screaming “but science.” You care about science when it fits your lifestyle or agenda, but rail against it when it doesn’t. This finding really shouldn’t be that surprising. When one’s body is fooled into thinking it’s starving, bad things will happen. I have always found IF to be non-sensical, and studies definitely find this true for OMAD. Once again, an argument for moderation.

Actually, it has been discussed in the medical community. There are many limitations to this study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This site never ceases to amaze me. This is a legitimate study with a surprising finding. The “confirmation bias” for so many of you is so frustrating. You believe only what you want, then go around screaming “but science.” You care about science when it fits your lifestyle or agenda, but rail against it when it doesn’t. This finding really shouldn’t be that surprising. When one’s body is fooled into thinking it’s starving, bad things will happen. I have always found IF to be non-sensical, and studies definitely find this true for OMAD. Once again, an argument for moderation.

Actually, it has been discussed in the medical community. There are many limitations to this study.

The study hasn't even been released yet, O impatient one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of problems with this study explained: https://www.statnews.com/2024/03/19/intermittent-fasting-study-heart-risk/#:~:text=Specifically,%20a%20study%20found%20that,brain%20glucose%20thinking%20about%20it.

Oh c'mon. If this study had found a reduction in heart disease deaths for people doing IF, you'd be all over the study, saying how great IF is. How heart healthy it is.