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.

I think this is an interesting study, and certainly suggests that we should be more cautious before recommending IF. But the devil is in the detail with these retrospective studies. If the IF pool were at significantly higher risk than the non-IF group then that could bias the results. I would like to see more digging into the data and more studies before reaching a definitive conclusion, particularly as there are several controlled studies suggesting improvements in cardiovascular markers with IF.

I read this article today: https://newsroom.heart.org/news/8-hour-time-restricted-eating-linked-to-a-91-higher-risk-of-cardiovascular-death

I believe it because those I follow online who do it, eat absolutely terrible foods during their eating window.

I started reading up on it and following SM influencers who promoted it online to learn more about it because my son & his friends were talking about it last year. One influencer he follows (and I followed to check out) takes it to an extreme and does OMAD (one meal a day) where he only eats for 1 hour each day. He goes live on TikTok, Instagram, and Twitch to livestream his meal. Here's a typical meal for him during that 1-hour: 9 Wendy's cheeseburgers that he puts together into 1 massive burger called the t-rex burger, 2 large fries, head of broccoli raw, 12 scrambled eggs, spicy noodles, and ice cream.

It doesn't matter if you spend 12 hours a day working out. There's only so much saturated fat that your body can eliminate per day.

This influencer heavily promotes for his followers to do OMAD or at least intermittent fasting, and poses himself as some kind of expert because he used to be obese and lost 100 lbs doing it.

I eventually got through to my son that all he did was trade one eating disorder (food addiction) for another (food restriction with binging).

And his meals are not unique in the OMAD/IM community, either. I have only found a handful who eat sensible meals during their eating window, but those are the ones doing short windows of IM instead of 12+ windows of fasting.

^This is the real answer “ In terms of IF, I think if the majority of people could simply stop snacking mindless between meals and after dinner that would be a huge health improvement. and relatedly, stop all the processed crap. What you eat is definitely more impactful than when.”

Most of the people I know that use IF can’t control their intake of low value nutrition. For that reason, I don’t find the study all that surprising. Let’s see what it actually says.

I tend to follow (or try) Dr Walter Longo's advice (he's a renowned longevity researcher). A very modest form of IF (12-14 hours tops); a mixed diet with lots of fiber, veggies, olive oil, nuts, fish, not too much animal protein. Exercise but not obsessive. The biggest change for me is trying to eat soemthing in the morning (he eats breakfast, with carbs, a very light lunch, like salad, and a moderate dinner, also because he feels the social aspect is very important for health).

In terms of IF, I think if the majority of people could simply stop snacking mindless between meals and after dinner that would be a huge health improvement. and relatedly, stop all the processed crap. What you eat is definitely more impactful than when.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well sure it would be great if I could eat in moderation. But I can’t. I’m guessing using IF to keep my weight from spiraling into the obese category also has positive effects.

91% increase sounds bad, but if 20 women my age died of heart attacks out of some big number and now it’s 40 out of some big number, its still pretty low prevalence. Sounds worse than it is.

IF is used as a way to increase insulin sensitivity, which it does. A brief period of IF is effective for that, it doesn't need to be a long term way of eating.

IF is also used as a way to reduce calories but it doesn't work for that. If that's your goal, then there are other more effective ways to do that. Without any potential cardiovascular risks.

I’d be happy to hear about an effective diet.

And yes I’ve tried a WLD. I couldn’t tolerate over the tiniest dose.

Eating morning to early afternoon and then fasting prevents restraint collapse where I eat all night until bed.

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.

Well sure it would be great if I could eat in moderation. But I can’t. I’m guessing using IF to keep my weight from spiraling into the obese category also has positive effects.

91% increase sounds bad, but if 20 women my age died of heart attacks out of some big number and now it’s 40 out of some big number, its still pretty low prevalence. Sounds worse than it is.

IF is used as a way to increase insulin sensitivity, which it does. A brief period of IF is effective for that, it doesn't need to be a long term way of eating.

IF is also used as a way to reduce calories but it doesn't work for that. If that's your goal, then there are other more effective ways to do that. Without any potential cardiovascular risks.

Anonymous wrote:As someone with an eating disorder, I do wonder what the percentage is of people who do IF correctly vs those who use it to mask an ED. The ED portion can certainly be mess up the data.

NP long recovered from an ED and I was told by my therapist NOT to do IF as it could be triggering and cause a relapse.

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.

Well sure it would be great if I could eat in moderation. But I can’t. I’m guessing using IF to keep my weight from spiraling into the obese category also has positive effects.

91% increase sounds bad, but if 20 women my age died of heart attacks out of some big number and now it’s 40 out of some big number, its still pretty low prevalence. Sounds worse than it is.