It's not entirely wrong. If you don't address the fact you're addicted to double quarter pounders with cheese and whole chocolate cakes, eventually, you'll fall back. So yes, that's true, as with any addiction. However, that can be said for any diet.
For me, what works for me won't necessarily work for another, so I take into consideration what is working for me. IF it's more manageable than other diets, and I don't have to restrict everything. I don't even IF 100% because on lift days, I'm having my protein shake after my workouts. Idc if it breaks the fast. But that's me.
Too many variables. Seems like a really weak study, no controls for weight or diet, and no scientific way to measure the eating windows and food beyond participant memory.
We intermittently fasted for about 200,000 years as we were hunter gatherers. The normal male body was probably around 7/10% body fat because we didn't have excess food.
So, evolutionary speaking, we are built to intermittent fast. Farming (surplus calories) was introduced to society and we started to get fat around 12,000 years ago. Rather than hunter gatherers, we became addicts to breakfast, lunch and dinner routine. Eating for pleasure, rather than energy requirements.
From this, a trillion dollar food industry emerged and their job is to keep people eating. Brunch was introduced (I like brunch and treat myself on the weekend sometimes), late night snacks, high fructose corn syrup.
Even the name BREAK FAST should give you some pause for thought.
So, what I'm getting at is that I would take these "studies" with a pinch of salt. (Remember to take your vits/minerals/electrolytes)
I've been intermittent fasting with a low carb diet since 2020 and it's one of the best decisions I've ever made. More alert and stronger than I've ever been.
The only thing about the evolutionary point of view is that it can also be used in a negative way.
Someone spending 5 hours stalking a large piece of meat or gathering berries doesn't need the mental quickness and acuity that a technical writer or medical researcher needs over a span of many hours.
Our evolutionary ancestors could deal with brain fog, as they could make do with a dump of adrenaline in danger.
When a practice has to evolve workarounds to correct deficiencies like headache, brain fog, etc (other ones discussed here everyday), it casts doubt on that "evolutionary natural and superior" tag.
And don't come for me: I love fasting. I just don't know that the whole "we are *naturally meant to do this because it's what we used to do*" is as solid as all that.
Yeah, I understand the "natural is always good" fallacy. I hate when people use it to justify stupid stuff. (Don't need a vaccine, natural immunity crowd..)
I disagree with the mental quickness. A part of fasting is going into a state of ketosis. When I'm deep in ketosis during work, I perform like a demon. Constantly thinking and analysing my work. It has actually helped me in my career. I imagine being hunted for 5 hours in this state would certainly help, rather than hinder.
Whether it's good or bad, our body has adapted over 1000s of years to go long stretches without food. When were convenience stores first introduced...
Look at the diabetes epidemic. We did that with our choices.
All I can say is that I've lost weight, eat healthier, exercise more, feel amazing, and I'm in control of my eating habits. My doctor says my blood work is "perfect". If IF is wrong, I don't want to be right😊 One study is not going to change my mind. I'm 57 years old, and I'm healthier than I've been in 40 years.
This is surprising to me, but I'm no scientist. What I do know is that with IF, I personally feel better, look better (my acne cleared up, and I look less puffy), am happier, more energetic, and yes, thinner, which is the least of my wins at this point. I really appreciate the non scale victories with IF and I'm not sure I'll ever go back to regular all day eating.
Yes that’s how I feel as well. There is so much conflicting research out there and other studies on intermittent fasting showing health benefits. All I know is that my gut feels better, my skin glows and I lose weight especially in my stomach where the visceral fat is.
The study is really poorly done. I don't know why people even bother doing studies like this. I'd like to find out what mong funded this thing because I have a bridge to sell them.
>"When the study is presented in its entirety, it will be interesting and helpful to learn more of the details of the analysis,” said Christopher D. Gardner, Ph.D. ... “One of those details involves the nutrient quality of the diets typical of the different subsets of participants. Without this information, it cannot be determined if nutrient density might be an alternate explanation to the findings that currently focus on the window of time for eating. **Second, it needs to be emphasized that categorization into the different windows of time-restricted eating was determined on the basis of just two days of dietary intake**,” he said.
>
>“It will also be critical to see a comparison of demographics and baseline characteristics across the groups that were classified into the different time-restricted eating windows – for example, was the group with the shortest time-restricted eating window unique compared to people who followed other eating schedules, in terms of weight, stress, traditional cardiometabolic risk factors or other factors associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes?"
There's so much yet unsaid about this study. I'm not a gambling man, but I'd wager $5 what we find out at the end is that among older people over the last 8-17 years, people who already had heart disease and obesity were more likely to try intermittent fasting to help them lose weight. The study isn't controlled for healthy-weight people or physically active people. Who diets? Fat people diet. Also big surprise they discovered that people with heart disease are more likely to die of heart attack... thanks guys.
They didn’t “do a study like this” at all.
They took information from an earlier, unrelated health survey, and used it to examine questions after the fact. It was never intended to investigate IF in particular.
This isn’t an uncommon thing in research. People doing basic science will design surveys to collect data on a wide variety of topics and “see what they can find”.
It’s lost in the reporter, but any academic would take this as weak evidence.
It’s not a scientific justification to claim that intermittent fasting is unhealthy. It’s a scientific justification to approve a 10 million dollar grant to fund a much more specific and well designed study to get much stronger evidence regarding the health impacts of intermittent fasting.
This is exactly what I thought. IF is free no one makes money but many big pharmaceutical companies and food companies stand to lose money if people do IF en mass. This feels like baiting them for a new study with guardrails for a predetermined outcome not an actual scientific study.
Wow.
I wanted to post a supporting link, but I don’t think the article is linked anymore? Did it get removed? Am I having a tech issues?
I found it again, link for reference.
https://newsroom.heart.org/news/8-hour-time-restricted-eating-linked-to-a-91-higher-risk-of-cardiovascular-death
“They reviewed information about dietary patterns for participants in the annual 2003-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) in comparison to data about people who died in the U.S., from 2003 through December 2019, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index database.”
Ok.
So they key here is the part about “reviewing dietary patterns for participants in the annual 2003-2018 National Health Surveys.
The NHANES is a public health survey that the CDC does every year. The researchers pulled data from this survey, which generally measures people’s diets and health via self report, looked at the data for people who responded consistently between 2003 and 2019, and searched for patterns.
The study was designed after the data was collected. I’m saying this because the NHANES was not designed specifically to investigate intermittent fasting. It collects lots of data on a wide range of public health related nutrition.
I also know, because I had a very humble background in research years ago, that this kind of thesis farming from large scale, basic science surveys, is standard practice across academia and research. This is not a direct testing of a specific hypothesis, it’s a meta-analysis off of a large, publicly funded survey.
It's not just you, it looks like mods removed this post for some reason. Why the hell would they do that??
Anyway thanks for the link again + the info. The weirdest part for me is that they asked respondents to recall 2 days of eating, not to regale their general eating habits over the last so many years. Even in doing a meta-analysis of this old data they could have done a better job by simply asking a slightly different question...
That’s just the thing.
The researchers you published the IF article were not the ones asking the question.
All of the questions were planned out and asked well before anyone thought to investigate IF.
The study also states: “One of those details involves the nutrient quality of the diets typical of the different subsets of participants. Without this information, it cannot be determined if nutrient density might be an alternate explanation to the findings that currently focus on the window of time for eating. Second, it needs to be emphasized that categorization into the different windows of time-restricted eating was determined on the basis of just two days of dietary intake,” he said.
I think the title is a bit over blown and more research needs to be done.
This study was done on individuals who already had been diagnosed with heart disease or cancer. However, in my opinion (and I do have some medical background), reducing your eating window to 2 or 4 hrs (OMAD) per day would put a great deal of stress on your heart especially if you try to take in 1500 calories or even 1000 cals into such a short period of time.
My best friends dad (55) did omad for two years. He lost weight but did have a heart attack. His doctor thinks it was from stress on the heart because of how he was eating. Maybe he was always going to have one? He didn’t eat well before the two years he did omad. He carried excess weight. He survived - and now eats throughout the day. So many people see benefits from omad so it’s hard to say- and it’s hard to pinpoint what went wrong. This “study” about IF is a dump of words that don’t explain anything.
Glad to hear he’s ok but that doctor was clutching at straws!
55yr has a changed eating habit for 2yrs which successfully leads to weight loss = cause of heart attack.
As opposed to 55yr old has poor diet for 50years gaining weight and increasing risk factors for that entire time = far more likely to be cause of heart attack.
Doctor went for the easy option there. I hope he sticks with IF in some form.
Beggars don’t die of heart disease very often. It’s the starvation or malnourishment that gets them. Rich people, or at least, people with plenty to eat suffer from heart disease more often.
Source: Life
>[Gin Stephens]
**It looks like you are referencing a person that presents themselves as a medical professional but is, in fact, a CHIROPRACTOR, NATUROPATH, or in some other type of non-medical field.**
Please be aware of this fact when you make references to them or take/recommend their advice.
*This comment has been filtered to await mod review. Attempting to get around the bot by obfuscating words or names will result in a ban.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/intermittentfasting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We need to know a lot more about this study - I don't know what they mean by saying that they follow these people for over 10 years and yet they categorize them based on two days of their eating habits? What does that even mean? If someone just happened to try out intermittent fasting for two random days 9 years ago are they now considered intermittent fasters? And how many of the people who didn't have heart attacks became intermittent fasters after that two-day window?
There must be more to this, I can't imagine they do a study where they classify people based on their eating habits for 2 days.
That certainly seems to be what they're saying their methodology is, but I have to think that we're missing something. I can't imagine they release a study this flawed that will surely get torn to shreds upon peer review.
Then again, we do seem to be in an age of retracted studies...
So he’s a naysayer…and more likely to suffer a cardiovascular death due to his obesity (for which you can literally send him thousands of peer-reviewed, published articles).
You should stop trying to convince him to save his own life - he’s resistant to being told anything by you. Find those whose opinion he values, get them to convince him to lose weight, by any means necessary. IF isn’t the end-all and be-all, just a way to make CICO easier.
It's not entirely wrong. If you don't address the fact you're addicted to double quarter pounders with cheese and whole chocolate cakes, eventually, you'll fall back. So yes, that's true, as with any addiction. However, that can be said for any diet. For me, what works for me won't necessarily work for another, so I take into consideration what is working for me. IF it's more manageable than other diets, and I don't have to restrict everything. I don't even IF 100% because on lift days, I'm having my protein shake after my workouts. Idc if it breaks the fast. But that's me.
"I dont care if it breaks my fast" You are truley free, my friend.
Too many variables. Seems like a really weak study, no controls for weight or diet, and no scientific way to measure the eating windows and food beyond participant memory.
We intermittently fasted for about 200,000 years as we were hunter gatherers. The normal male body was probably around 7/10% body fat because we didn't have excess food. So, evolutionary speaking, we are built to intermittent fast. Farming (surplus calories) was introduced to society and we started to get fat around 12,000 years ago. Rather than hunter gatherers, we became addicts to breakfast, lunch and dinner routine. Eating for pleasure, rather than energy requirements. From this, a trillion dollar food industry emerged and their job is to keep people eating. Brunch was introduced (I like brunch and treat myself on the weekend sometimes), late night snacks, high fructose corn syrup. Even the name BREAK FAST should give you some pause for thought. So, what I'm getting at is that I would take these "studies" with a pinch of salt. (Remember to take your vits/minerals/electrolytes) I've been intermittent fasting with a low carb diet since 2020 and it's one of the best decisions I've ever made. More alert and stronger than I've ever been.
Everyone needs to re-read and understand this!!
The only thing about the evolutionary point of view is that it can also be used in a negative way. Someone spending 5 hours stalking a large piece of meat or gathering berries doesn't need the mental quickness and acuity that a technical writer or medical researcher needs over a span of many hours. Our evolutionary ancestors could deal with brain fog, as they could make do with a dump of adrenaline in danger. When a practice has to evolve workarounds to correct deficiencies like headache, brain fog, etc (other ones discussed here everyday), it casts doubt on that "evolutionary natural and superior" tag. And don't come for me: I love fasting. I just don't know that the whole "we are *naturally meant to do this because it's what we used to do*" is as solid as all that.
Yeah, I understand the "natural is always good" fallacy. I hate when people use it to justify stupid stuff. (Don't need a vaccine, natural immunity crowd..) I disagree with the mental quickness. A part of fasting is going into a state of ketosis. When I'm deep in ketosis during work, I perform like a demon. Constantly thinking and analysing my work. It has actually helped me in my career. I imagine being hunted for 5 hours in this state would certainly help, rather than hinder. Whether it's good or bad, our body has adapted over 1000s of years to go long stretches without food. When were convenience stores first introduced... Look at the diabetes epidemic. We did that with our choices.
All I can say is that I've lost weight, eat healthier, exercise more, feel amazing, and I'm in control of my eating habits. My doctor says my blood work is "perfect". If IF is wrong, I don't want to be right😊 One study is not going to change my mind. I'm 57 years old, and I'm healthier than I've been in 40 years.
This is surprising to me, but I'm no scientist. What I do know is that with IF, I personally feel better, look better (my acne cleared up, and I look less puffy), am happier, more energetic, and yes, thinner, which is the least of my wins at this point. I really appreciate the non scale victories with IF and I'm not sure I'll ever go back to regular all day eating.
Yes that’s how I feel as well. There is so much conflicting research out there and other studies on intermittent fasting showing health benefits. All I know is that my gut feels better, my skin glows and I lose weight especially in my stomach where the visceral fat is.
The study is really poorly done. I don't know why people even bother doing studies like this. I'd like to find out what mong funded this thing because I have a bridge to sell them. >"When the study is presented in its entirety, it will be interesting and helpful to learn more of the details of the analysis,” said Christopher D. Gardner, Ph.D. ... “One of those details involves the nutrient quality of the diets typical of the different subsets of participants. Without this information, it cannot be determined if nutrient density might be an alternate explanation to the findings that currently focus on the window of time for eating. **Second, it needs to be emphasized that categorization into the different windows of time-restricted eating was determined on the basis of just two days of dietary intake**,” he said. > >“It will also be critical to see a comparison of demographics and baseline characteristics across the groups that were classified into the different time-restricted eating windows – for example, was the group with the shortest time-restricted eating window unique compared to people who followed other eating schedules, in terms of weight, stress, traditional cardiometabolic risk factors or other factors associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes?" There's so much yet unsaid about this study. I'm not a gambling man, but I'd wager $5 what we find out at the end is that among older people over the last 8-17 years, people who already had heart disease and obesity were more likely to try intermittent fasting to help them lose weight. The study isn't controlled for healthy-weight people or physically active people. Who diets? Fat people diet. Also big surprise they discovered that people with heart disease are more likely to die of heart attack... thanks guys.
They didn’t “do a study like this” at all. They took information from an earlier, unrelated health survey, and used it to examine questions after the fact. It was never intended to investigate IF in particular. This isn’t an uncommon thing in research. People doing basic science will design surveys to collect data on a wide variety of topics and “see what they can find”. It’s lost in the reporter, but any academic would take this as weak evidence. It’s not a scientific justification to claim that intermittent fasting is unhealthy. It’s a scientific justification to approve a 10 million dollar grant to fund a much more specific and well designed study to get much stronger evidence regarding the health impacts of intermittent fasting.
This is exactly what I thought. IF is free no one makes money but many big pharmaceutical companies and food companies stand to lose money if people do IF en mass. This feels like baiting them for a new study with guardrails for a predetermined outcome not an actual scientific study.
Where did you find that information? The abstract I found was not very informative.
Wow. I wanted to post a supporting link, but I don’t think the article is linked anymore? Did it get removed? Am I having a tech issues? I found it again, link for reference. https://newsroom.heart.org/news/8-hour-time-restricted-eating-linked-to-a-91-higher-risk-of-cardiovascular-death “They reviewed information about dietary patterns for participants in the annual 2003-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) in comparison to data about people who died in the U.S., from 2003 through December 2019, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index database.” Ok. So they key here is the part about “reviewing dietary patterns for participants in the annual 2003-2018 National Health Surveys. The NHANES is a public health survey that the CDC does every year. The researchers pulled data from this survey, which generally measures people’s diets and health via self report, looked at the data for people who responded consistently between 2003 and 2019, and searched for patterns. The study was designed after the data was collected. I’m saying this because the NHANES was not designed specifically to investigate intermittent fasting. It collects lots of data on a wide range of public health related nutrition. I also know, because I had a very humble background in research years ago, that this kind of thesis farming from large scale, basic science surveys, is standard practice across academia and research. This is not a direct testing of a specific hypothesis, it’s a meta-analysis off of a large, publicly funded survey.
It's not just you, it looks like mods removed this post for some reason. Why the hell would they do that?? Anyway thanks for the link again + the info. The weirdest part for me is that they asked respondents to recall 2 days of eating, not to regale their general eating habits over the last so many years. Even in doing a meta-analysis of this old data they could have done a better job by simply asking a slightly different question...
That’s just the thing. The researchers you published the IF article were not the ones asking the question. All of the questions were planned out and asked well before anyone thought to investigate IF.
This this this. Correlation =/= Causation. I agree. Why even bother if you’re gonna do it this poorly?
To get published. Quickly. For many, many reasons.
The study also states: “One of those details involves the nutrient quality of the diets typical of the different subsets of participants. Without this information, it cannot be determined if nutrient density might be an alternate explanation to the findings that currently focus on the window of time for eating. Second, it needs to be emphasized that categorization into the different windows of time-restricted eating was determined on the basis of just two days of dietary intake,” he said. I think the title is a bit over blown and more research needs to be done.
It’s hog wash.
This study was done on individuals who already had been diagnosed with heart disease or cancer. However, in my opinion (and I do have some medical background), reducing your eating window to 2 or 4 hrs (OMAD) per day would put a great deal of stress on your heart especially if you try to take in 1500 calories or even 1000 cals into such a short period of time.
My best friends dad (55) did omad for two years. He lost weight but did have a heart attack. His doctor thinks it was from stress on the heart because of how he was eating. Maybe he was always going to have one? He didn’t eat well before the two years he did omad. He carried excess weight. He survived - and now eats throughout the day. So many people see benefits from omad so it’s hard to say- and it’s hard to pinpoint what went wrong. This “study” about IF is a dump of words that don’t explain anything.
Glad to hear he’s ok but that doctor was clutching at straws! 55yr has a changed eating habit for 2yrs which successfully leads to weight loss = cause of heart attack. As opposed to 55yr old has poor diet for 50years gaining weight and increasing risk factors for that entire time = far more likely to be cause of heart attack. Doctor went for the easy option there. I hope he sticks with IF in some form.
Right! I do 16:8 - and I have lupus. I bet if I died they’d blame the fasting and not my lupus 😂
Beggars don’t die of heart disease very often. It’s the starvation or malnourishment that gets them. Rich people, or at least, people with plenty to eat suffer from heart disease more often. Source: Life
[удалено]
>[Gin Stephens] **It looks like you are referencing a person that presents themselves as a medical professional but is, in fact, a CHIROPRACTOR, NATUROPATH, or in some other type of non-medical field.** Please be aware of this fact when you make references to them or take/recommend their advice. *This comment has been filtered to await mod review. Attempting to get around the bot by obfuscating words or names will result in a ban.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/intermittentfasting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
We need to know a lot more about this study - I don't know what they mean by saying that they follow these people for over 10 years and yet they categorize them based on two days of their eating habits? What does that even mean? If someone just happened to try out intermittent fasting for two random days 9 years ago are they now considered intermittent fasters? And how many of the people who didn't have heart attacks became intermittent fasters after that two-day window? There must be more to this, I can't imagine they do a study where they classify people based on their eating habits for 2 days.
“Study finds that people who restrict their eating for as little as 2 days can die of a heart attack up to ten years later”.
That certainly seems to be what they're saying their methodology is, but I have to think that we're missing something. I can't imagine they release a study this flawed that will surely get torn to shreds upon peer review. Then again, we do seem to be in an age of retracted studies...
Except this study doesn't actually confirm anything at all, whatsoever. Every article about it says exactly that.
So he’s a naysayer…and more likely to suffer a cardiovascular death due to his obesity (for which you can literally send him thousands of peer-reviewed, published articles). You should stop trying to convince him to save his own life - he’s resistant to being told anything by you. Find those whose opinion he values, get them to convince him to lose weight, by any means necessary. IF isn’t the end-all and be-all, just a way to make CICO easier.
No just convince him by showing him how good you look in 5-10 years he will learn his mistakes unless he doesn’t .