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

quote:

---

It seems counterintuitive. Our caveman bodies were designed to adapt to having to fast. Why would it increase coronary risk?

---

Plus 8 hours…that’s nothing.
Skip breakfast - Dead.

Who paid for the study?

Would like to see the AHA official position on the vaccine. Woke AF???

I only follow studies that agree with what I wanta hear

Here is Layne’s take on the study

LINK

quote:

---

but what was the most likely cause of death back then?

---

A Cave woman. You know I'm right, guys.

From Attia:

LINK

Here is my $0.02 on this.

This study is worthless and is another example of people putting things into the research sphere that don't belong, don't add any value, and most likely just add confusion and erode trust in the research enterprise.

Damning, IMO - American Heart Association put this out in a press release in order to get clicks and views. I consider this to be a disgraceful act by the AHA, which claims to be a professional organization. They knew what they were doing here: stirring the pot.

There are zero mechanisms in the literature, that I'm aware of, to suggest IF increases risk for CVD. They do not report an association between IF and all cause mortality, but just CVD mortality. This suggests a lot of confounding to me. Only 2% of the sample restricted to less than 8hrs per day.

Here is something I found interesting:
- for CVD mortality in the IF grouping, it was roughly 7.5% (31/414), relatively small sample size of 414 out of over 20,000. This is the subgroup they claim has a 91% increased risk.
- for CVD mortality in the reference group (so you can compare among groups) which is eating 12-16hr per day, you had about 3.6%, sample size close to 12k. 3.6% v 7.5% is where the headline comes from.
- for CVD mortality among those with CVD, practicing IF, very small sample size, 45, and 38% (17/45) mortality in this group. Big number.
- When you remove the group with CVD and practicing IF from the overall IF group, you get a mortality about 3.8% (14/369). So the CVD mortality in the cohort of IF is dominated by those with CVD already. Red flag for the 91% claim.
- If you also remove the CVD deaths from the cohort with cancer doing IF, the CVD mortality for the IF cohort is 2.6%. If you do the same for the overall sample reference group and remove the two groups with cancer or CVD, the mortality is 1.5%, so the difference is about 1%, and I'm guessing that does not reach significance. In other groups with far more difference, it did not reach significance. It's similar for CVD mortality when you just remove the CVD group and compare the reference eating to IF.
- These numbers should have been reported and put into the Cox model to see the resulting hazard ratio. I suspect it would have been a non-significant result.
- Hazard ratios for CVD mortality are in a U shape which is interesting, as that does not show up in all cause mortality. There may be something to that, but it probably has nothing to do with mechanisms related to IF. Probably related to sicker people without a Dx for CVD or cancer that are doing IF because they know they need to make changes.

Huge red flag - this comes from Chinese researchers primarily, funded by the Chinese government. None of this is reliable. Everything from cooking the analysis to outright fabrication is on the table here.

Lot of problems here as it does not appear comorbidities were looked at with any real precision. Also the covariates in the model have some covariation which is a problem for the math. A lot of people come to IF after they are diagnosed with serious conditions and are already in a very poor state of health. So many potential biases here.

This assault on health will get worse. If anyone follows MMA and knows who Dana White is, you can find out about his health transformation. Look for that to be attacked as well.

This is not published research. It's a poster presentation at a meeting. No peer reviewed etc.
American Heart Association

Research Highlights:
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.



The analysis found:

People who followed a pattern of eating all of their food across less than 8 hours per day had a 91% higher risk of death due to cardiovascular disease.
The increased risk of cardiovascular death was also seen in people living with heart disease or cancer.
Among people with existing cardiovascular disease, an eating duration of no less than 8 but less than 10 hours per day was also associated with a 66% higher risk of death from heart disease or stroke.
Time-restricted eating did not reduce the overall risk of death from any cause.
An eating duration of more than 16 hours per day was associated with a lower risk of cancer mortality among people with cancer.

“Overall, this study suggests that time-restricted eating may have short-term benefits but long-term adverse effects. 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., FAHA, the Rehnborg Farquhar Professor of Medicine at Stanford University in Stanford, California, and chair of the writing committee for the Association’s 2023 scientific statement, Popular Dietary Patterns: Alignment with American Heart Association 2021 Dietary Guidance.

“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.


If IF improves markers short term but we are to believe there is long term risk, then the AHA and its models and standards to evaluate and advise people regarding CVD are in trouble.

And there are some math issues. When you sum the total in each eating group it matches the total sample. When you look at the % with CVD for IF, it says 8.6%, and 8.6% of 414 = 35.6, but they list 45 people as having CVD in the subgroup. CVD subgroup numbers are inflated across the board compared to what they report in baseline numbers. Are the event numbers (mortality) inflated as well? There's no way to know. This is a red flag - you might see a decrease sometimes because of an exclusion criteria, but you should not see an increase. So, there are issues here. Again, this does not belong in the research sphere. This just eats up time and is a waste of effort as people must attend to it because groups like the AHA make it a story.

From the abstract:
Funding: The National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFC2705203 and 2023YFC2506700); The National Natural Science Foundation of China (82373551).
Some authors from China, some from US like Harvard (another red flag)