Claim that intermittent fasting increases mortality risk by 91% is premature

It's not that fast. You may have seen the headlines or social media posts that scientific studies link intermittent fasting to a 91% higher risk of death from cardiovascular disease. However, a closer look at this study published in American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Science Session 2024 will be held on March 18 in Chicago, ILreveals various limitations that make such claims premature.

Intermittent fasting is when you restrict your daily eating to only certain times (e.g., 8 hours). It is believed that fasting (meaning not consuming anything with calories) for the rest of the day gives your body more time to burn fat. Proponents of this type of intermittent fasting argue that it is more natural to follow such a time-restricted eating pattern. After all, when humans were cave people, they couldn't just look and reach. sexy beast Netflix will always shove food into your mouth. Whenever I wanted to eat, I had to actually get up from my chair and take the time to hunt or gather things while burning calories in the process.

Scientific research certainly was suggested Emphasis on the word “recommended” as intermittent fasting may have health benefits, including improved weight management and reduced risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other diseases. I am stating this. These are certainly not foreseen conclusions. Additionally, a particular diet may not work the same way for everyone.As Buffy St. Marie once sang to Big Bird on the TV show Sesame street, different people, different ways. Further research is needed to more accurately determine the benefits and risks of intermittent fasting and who may benefit from such a diet.

This study, presented at the recent AHA conference in Chicago, certainly raised the possibility that intermittent fasting may have some negative cardiovascular effects. But, and I won't lie, this is a big deal, this study has some major limitations at this point.

< position="inread" progressive="" ad-id="article-0-inread" aria-hidden="true" role="presentation"/>

First of all, this study has not yet been published in a scientific journal, so it has not undergone rigorous scientific peer review. Press release from AHA The study was described as a “preliminary study.” The bar to present research at a scientific conference, even one with a high reputation like an AHA conference, is much lower than the bar to publish research in a reputable scientific journal. It's like the difference between attending a preseason scrimmage and a regular season football game. Just because he gets on the field during a preseason scrimmage doesn't mean he'll end up on the regular season roster.

That's because we don't yet know how well this research was done. Presentations at academic conferences typically fail to provide sufficient specific and verifiable details to assess the quality of the research and its strengths and limitations. Therefore, take everything heard at scientific conferences with a grain of salt. This is because, figuratively speaking, too much salt is bad for your cardiovascular system.

Second, this study is an observational study, and while it can at best show a “hmm, that might be interesting” association, it cannot prove causation. For the study, a team from Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Northwestern University, Harvard University, University of Massachusetts Lowell, and Wuhan University analyzed responses to the Annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2003 to 2018 and Measured. We use data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Death Index database of deaths that occurred between 2003 and December 2019. In their analysis, people who reported consuming all of their food within eight hours each day had a 91% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease compared to those who did not restrict their diet within such a time frame. It turned out to be high. And people who reported eating everything within a time frame of more than 8 hours and less than 10 hours were 66% more likely to die from heart disease or stroke than those who didn't enforce such restrictions.

The problem is, we don't know whether the 20,078 people who made up the sample actually had higher cardiovascular mortality rates because of intermittent fasting, or whether something else was going on. This may have been a chicken-and-egg phenomenon. That is, it is not clear whether everyone eats the chicken or the egg, and it is not clear which comes first.For example, what if people were practicing intermittent fasting? because Were they already at increased risk of cardiovascular death? Data from NHANES provided limited information about respondents' lives.For example, it didn't go into

Third, dietary data from NHANES is limited. Unless you disguise yourself as a bush and track each person daily, you won't know how well they are adhering to intermittent fasting, specifically what they are eating each day, and how they are eating. . People can be notoriously inaccurate when reporting what they do every day. There's a big difference between something like a relatively healthy diet and intermittent fasting, and between a donut-only diet and intermittent fasting.

Finally, one study alone is not enough to prove anything. Relying on a single study to draw a strong conclusion is like hearing the song “Tub Thumping” and proclaiming that one-hit wonder Chumbawamba will be the next Beatle. Instead, you need to actually see that the phenomenon holds true across multiple studies before making a big deal about it.

This is another example of how disproportionate the results of observational studies have been. Certainly, there are reasons to take a closer look at whether intermittent fasting has negative effects. Certainly, just because some celebrities and social media influencers recommend intermittent fasting doesn't mean you should automatically fast too. It's true that when it comes to dieting, a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work. Admittedly, the science behind intermittent fasting is still inconclusive. Certainly, further scientific research is needed. However, additional studies should not be purely observational studies. Again, there are limits to what such research can provide. Before we get too excited about intermittent fasting, more research using labs, clinical trials, computer modeling, and other artificial intelligence (AI) approaches to provide evidence on intermittent fasting. A wider range of research is needed.