8-hour time-restricted eating linked to a 91% higher risk of cardiovascular death

jordanlund@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 110 points – 8-hour time-restricted eating linked to a 91% higher risk of cardiovascular death
newsroom.heart.org

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."

33

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.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/cms.ipressroom.com/67/files/20242/8-h+TRE+and+mortality+AHA+poster_031924.pdf

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

„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.

4 more...

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.

Oh look, another stupid thing my brother is into that's bullshit.