no you moron, correlation =/= causation
of course people who do IF are gonna have higher rates of cardiovascular issues, most likely they are fat and trying to lose weight or DID lose weight and are now healthy but with some damage from when they were big. I fricking hate s*yence
you can see the BMI, race, CVS and cancer status off study participants
https://i.imgur.com/ZvDXyac.png
20k participants is pretty good
BMI for normal eating (>16h category) was about the same as BMI for the other categories
There's a pretty obvious relationship for cardiovascular mortality the more you restrict eating windows 8 vs 8-10 vs 10-12 vs 12+
The cancer stats are pretty interesting. Starting off the more restrictive eating windows show a lower % cancer when the study started, and about the same rate of cancer mortality. For people who already have cancer mortality is 50% lower in the 8h eating window but the same is true for the 16+h window
all groups had about the same mean BMI, and they were all fat
By what metrics are we measuring cardiovascular disease risk? Their cholesterol rises slightly as their body metabolizes stored fat? Oh noes! That's gonna give you a heckin heart attack! There is no world in which fasting causes disease.
measured by cardiovascular mortality in each group
https://i.imgur.com/ZvDXyac.png
20k participants is pretty good
BMI for normal eating (>16h category) was about the same as BMI for the other categories
There's a pretty obvious relationship for cardiovascular mortality the more you restrict eating windows 8 vs 8-10 vs 10-12 vs 12+
The cancer stats are pretty interesting. Starting off the more restrictive eating windows show a lower % cancer when the study started, and about the same rate of cancer mortality. For people who already have cancer mortality is 50% lower in the 8h eating window but the same is true for the 16+h window
you could argue that the 8 hour group is sketchy as it only includes 414 people of which 50 died by the end of the study but the other groups are pretty sizeable and still exhibit the same relationship
Yeah, you should. No joke if you don't stop you will die.
But after about 16 hours you can start again. But you have to stop 8 hours later at the latest.
It's fricking maddening but people have been doing it for thousands of years apparently.
I miss when I had chlorophyll and could spend my time leisurely.
>linked
Controlling factors? Like the fact that most people doing IF are fatties?
Post a link to the actual study, you lazy, brain-dead, b***h Black person homosexual
>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.
20k participants is pretty good
BMI for normal eating (>16h category) was about the same as BMI for the other categories
There's a pretty obvious relationship for cardiovascular mortality the more you restrict eating windows 8 vs 8-10 vs 10-12 vs 12+
The cancer stats are pretty interesting. Starting off the more restrictive eating windows show a lower % cancer when the study started, and about the same rate of cancer mortality. For people who already have cancer mortality is 50% lower in the 8h eating window but the same is true for the 16+h window
true <8 had 2x to 3x more black people compared to other groups but smokers were about the same % as the >16 group >combined occurence of CVD and cancer in this group is the lowest of all groups.
lmao, no it was 2x higher
combined occurrence of CVD and cancer was (31+19)/414 = 12%
same stat for >16 was (52+41)/1509 = 6%
anyway, the <8 group was the smallest with just over 400 participants so we can't be sure if it's really a 80% increase but there's an obvious increase of 15% in the 10-12hour group and 25% in the 8-10h eating group
[...]
probably, these are just avg overweight people eating avg diets while drinking and smoking
[...]
true, this was just presented at a cardiologist conference, hasn't been reviewed
......
People have been fasting since before Jesus, what the frick is all this? >hey, fasting is very popular these days. >we as doctors need to find a flaw and tell everybody! >let's go get random people in the streets (in Murricah) and test them
https://i.imgur.com/9AmRDUs.jpg
>science now says you're going to die because it just does bro >yes, as long as you give me the same team again and let all information flow through me, yes, of course I can replicate my findings most of the time
If you don't believe me you are a racist planet destroyer
Bro, why you fighting Jupiter? It's a cool planet that protects the inner system
20k participants is pretty good
BMI for normal eating (>16h category) was about the same as BMI for the other categories
There's a pretty obvious relationship for cardiovascular mortality the more you restrict eating windows 8 vs 8-10 vs 10-12 vs 12+
The cancer stats are pretty interesting. Starting off the more restrictive eating windows show a lower % cancer when the study started, and about the same rate of cancer mortality. For people who already have cancer mortality is 50% lower in the 8h eating window but the same is true for the 16+h window
The <8h group has the highest % of men, blacks and smokers, all of which are risk factors for disease and cancer. Despite all of this the combined occurence of CVD and cancer in this group is the lowest of all groups.
true <8 had 2x to 3x more black people compared to other groups but smokers were about the same % as the >16 group >combined occurence of CVD and cancer in this group is the lowest of all groups.
lmao, no it was 2x higher
combined occurrence of CVD and cancer was (31+19)/414 = 12%
same stat for >16 was (52+41)/1509 = 6%
anyway, the <8 group was the smallest with just over 400 participants so we can't be sure if it's really a 80% increase but there's an obvious increase of 15% in the 10-12hour group and 25% in the 8-10h eating group
don't tell me they restricted and then binged goyslop lol
probably, these are just avg overweight people eating avg diets while drinking and smoking
>not peer reviewed
okay
true, this was just presented at a cardiologist conference, hasn't been reviewed
What a moronic study, <8 hours is the smallest group of all by a large margin with the highest percentage of smokers and blacks, how disingenious can headlines get?
No, the study doesn't control nearly enough to say that. Plus it's all self-reported. Another bullshit survey clickbait that doesn't really have any practical value.
Not only is it self reported, subjects were split into eating habit groups based on two days of self reported eating habits
Two days
It's not worth the paper it's printed on
Literally every animal trial showed a 20% lifespan increase through intermittent fasting and every crazy old population center in the world is full of people who do it. The fact that the AHA backed it up when they still maintain that Canola oil is healthy for you says it all for me.
it could still be better for healthy people just not obese bloatlords on the avg American diet. It's not even peer-reviewed yet, I'm sure there'll be more talk about this
Timeline >wait I have to only eat at certain times? OK ill give it a shot >it's been weeks, I'm sick of this >haha its after 6pm so I can eat all the mcdonalds I want >frick it, if I just treat myself it's not going to show up in their gay observational study, I'll just lie
>50% participants were men >54.8% had eating window less than 8h >59% had eating window more than 16h
Someone pls explain to braincell how these numbers make any sense, they add up to well over 100% and you cant fall into more than 1 category
It means
"Of the participants with an eating window less than 8h, 54.8% were men"
not
"54.8% of the male participants had an eating window less than 8h"
"
>Study participants were followed for a median length of 8 years and maximum length of 17 years.
the conclusions were driven by CVD & cancer deaths in each time-restricted eating group
https://newsroom.heart.org/news/8-hour-time-restricted-eating-linked-to-a-91-higher-risk-of-cardiovascular-death
Yeah, for smokers and probably already overweight African Americans. They don't exactly eat the healthiest.
yep, average BMI in the study is halfway between overweight and obese, but this is pretty much the western average now kek
am I that old? has fasting been that mainstream for that many years? wonder how all the fasting advocates are going to cope with this.
regardless, I have terrible experience with fasting and I guarantee I've done more extreme types than anybody else in this thread. it wasn't until after that I learned why it messed me up.
>wonder how all the fasting advocates are going to cope with this
It's easy because it's a nonsense study.
> and I guarantee I've done more extreme types than anybody else in this thread. it wasn't until after that I learned why it messed me up.
You lyin homie
> wonder how all the fasting advocates are going to cope with this.
By ignoring it because it’s bullshit. There are lots of problems with the study already detailed above. Logically it doesn’t make sense either. How did ancient humans survive while not eating 3-4 meals a day
1 month ago
Anonymous
it's not that crazy
it's 3% chance of CVD death for a normal diet vs 4% to 6% chance for time-restricted diets over a 8 to 16 year timespan
1 month ago
Anonymous
Study doesn't actually show that, though.
1 month ago
Anonymous
how so?
So is it not a serious difference and therefore who cares, or does it btfo fastinggays? You can’t have both.
it's still 10% to 25% higher chance of CVD, but those people should be more concerned about their weight, drinking and smoking
1 month ago
Anonymous
>how so
They fail to demonstrate the time-restricted diet actually was what it's claimed to be, and that they controlled for confounding factors. I don't believe they found a statistically significant number of people to perform disciplined intermittent fasting for the duration of the study, much less verified.
1 month ago
Anonymous
So what is there for fasting advocates to even cope about? You say it’s minor yourself, and they have bigger things to worry about.
Also that assumes the study isn’t bullshit. Which it is.
1 month ago
Anonymous
So is it not a serious difference and therefore who cares, or does it btfo fastinggays? You can’t have both.
1 month ago
Anonymous
It's the complete opposite result of pretty much every other study in the field, seems pretty crazy
>how so
They fail to demonstrate the time-restricted diet actually was what it's claimed to be, and that they controlled for confounding factors. I don't believe they found a statistically significant number of people to perform disciplined intermittent fasting for the duration of the study, much less verified.
>I don't believe they found a statistically significant number of people to perform disciplined intermittent fasting for the duration of the study, much less verified.
They didn't even try, they took just two days worth of self reported survey data and pretended that it reflects the daily habits of the survey respondents ten years later
Absolutely disgraceful chinkscience
The conclusions were driven by the crack pipe
Study participants were divided into time restricted eating groups based on two days worth of survey data, then followed up on 8 years later
Dangerously stupid, but you can't expect much more from a pack of changs
How the FRICK, could not eating for 16 hours damage your heart? Is it because imsince it's going all the time it needs a constant supply of readily available energy or bits end up starving and dying off or some such?
Fasting seems like peak midwit. It SOUNDS good based on a rudimentary understanding of history and biology but it’s not necessarily backed up by real world experience beyond the idea that if you don’t eat you’ll obviously lose weight
I don’t care about fasting one way or the other but I find it kind of funny so many fasting anons refuse to even consider that the study is right and there are drawbacks to fasting simply because they don’t want to believe it
Maybe because some of us are actually health professionals who understand the effects of eating on a schedule, as opposed to saying it’s better for you to have a midnight snack. Come in dude, it’s just common sense.
>refuse to even consider that the study is right and there are drawbacks to fasting
It doesn't make any sense that there would be drawbacks so the sensible assumption is that there are other factors affecting this one study's results.
I don’t fast (unless you count skipping breakfast some days) but logically it doesn’t make sense why it would negatively affect you. Why would your heart need food throughout the day? You aren’t starving, your body has plenty of fuel. Humans through the majority of history didn’t eat 3 meals a day at fixed intervals. Most predators don’t eat consistently. Why on earth would hearts evolve to fail more frequently if you don’t eat every couple hours?
>People actually thought starving yourself was healthy
compared to constant digestion and raised insulin? are bodies were never designed to constantly ruminate,snack and digest like some obese cow
You would have to present much more evidence that IF is somehow damaging, to offset the millenia if not geological ages (warrior diet) that IF has been used with success all over the world
What's happening with people doing IF and having thyroid problems is that their diet is catastrophic, and lacking the right nutrients. Many such cases in Murica.
The study presented by OP is utterly manipulative, as proved many times ITT, and burgers enjoy terrible diets, which create problems, IF or not
>salt is unhealthy >eating red meat is bad >eating dairy is bad >eggs are bad for your heart >saturated fat will kill you >not eating every 3 hours like some fat woman is bad >seed oils are perfectly okay
yeah, i think your science is fake and gay
Is the world getting raided by "studies" today? There have been so many studies that say eggs are bad again, vitamin D is bad, fasting is bad, working out bad, sleeping bad
>Is the world getting raided by "studies" today? There have been so many studies that say eggs are bad again, vitamin D is bad, fasting is bad, working out bad, sleeping bad
do not heed any of these bullshit studies
this whole study is awful lol >no peer review >73% of the people involved drink (which afaik they didn't quantify what "drinking" is, could be one drink a week or a fifth a day) >28.7 BMI average >combination of normal people, people with cvd, and people with cancer
in conclusion: more diet fearmongering
STOP LOSING WEIGHT GOY
also would have been really funny if they presented vax status among the participants though that would have shown something they don't want you to see
>awful study >73% of the people involved drink (which afaik they didn't quantify what "drinking" is, could be one drink a week or a fifth a day) >28.7 BMI average
pretty representative of the average American kek
Why is the 12-16 hour eating window sample size 10x bigger than most other sample sizes? What a dumb study. People were paid to crunch these numbers and run the whole thing.
>science now says you're going to die because it just does bro >yes, as long as you give me the same team again and let all information flow through me, yes, of course I can replicate my findings most of the time
If you don't believe me you are a racist planet destroyer
Anon does your car suffer damage if your gas tank is below half full? Does it run better when over half full? Does it get damaged at all unless it runs dry?
I can even argue a vehicle would run better with a less full tank because it weighs less, but the difference is inconsequential.
>The study’s limitations included its reliance on self-reported dietary information >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 >no peer review
They are unironically hacks
1400 years of billions of muslims doing 12h dry fasting for a month every years will beg to differ, fasting is le bad, unlike meme diets, scamsuppliments and fat acceptance
Starving >1.(of a person or animal) suffer severely or die from hunger. >2. cause (a person or animal) to suffer severely or die from hunger.
Not eating for day doesn’t even constitute starving. Anyone saying otherwise is fat or moronic, probably both.
This is why 500% of my diet consists of weekly covid booster injections. Apparently a new study came out and the miracle drug cures heart disease, ahhh the wonders of science.
>can't just skip dinner, wake up thinner, it'll shut down your heart >have to eat exactly 2 calories of food every waking minute to lose weight or your heart will explode
Maybe it's better I'm naturally slightly heavy set? Have we gotten the general dedicated to making anons' hearts stop taken down yet?
I do cardio almost daily and I am fasting and OMAD for almost a week already, are you that moronic and your motivation is so high you go full moron mode and force yourself to lose weight as fast as possible? Also it takes some time for the body to adapt from a high caloric diet to suddenly fasting and dropping a high amount of calories can make you feel like shit for some time. I was dropping for a month from 2k to 1.5k and then from 1.5k for another month, then to 1k and now about 500 calories but ONLY for a week or 10 days(because 7 is not a nice number)and because I'm close to my ideal weight and then I'll start bulking so 3 months in total will finish my cutting, start slow and then while your body adapts you can go further but stop being moronic and go all in to fail and then stop doing it "because it's bad"
Makes no evolutionary sense. The body did not evolve with constant sources of food to allow for eating all day, at least for men. It’s different for women but men would have been out hunting for food, not eating for 99.9% of human history.
once you dont have preditors or in species competition, evolution starts working opposing cancer and age, it's why elephants and whales live a long time.
That’s also bullshit. If you made it through childhood you were very likely to live into your 50s and 60s. People didn’t die at 20-30 from natural causes
>The Association receives funding primarily from individuals; foundations and corporations (including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers and other companies) also make donations and fund specific Association programs and events
That's all I needed to read.
it's also a low resolution telephoto vs high resolution wide angle, different lighting and he's thinner on the right. That image is either bait or made by a moron
This is a Chinese study funded by the Chinese government and looked at bug subjects. I have a feeling it might be different for lardass Americans, where overeating is the biggest contributor of mortality,
Why do you dipshits seethe so much?
It's worth studying what effects restricted eating windows might have. They ran a really big study. They found some interesting correlations. Obviously, you'd need to a different study design to show restricted eating windows cause any of these bad outcomes. I'd think, if you're interested in IF, you'd be interested in how healthy people who practice it for a long time are, just like if you're interested in lifting, you'd want to know whether people who train a lot or a little tend to be bigger.
Since IF isn't a very good way to restrict calories (basic experience and common sense could tell you that), I thought the main sell these days was the longevity stuff. But the evidence for that was weak. Maybe there are health risks of IF, too. Seems worth studying.
>I'd think, if you're interested in IF, you'd be interested in how healthy people who practice it for a long time are
yeah, only thing is this ~~*study*~~ only looks at two days worth of dietary habits and then draws wild conclusions about health outcomes ten years later >Since IF isn't a very good way to restrict calories (basic experience and common sense could tell you that)
if is literally the easiest calorie restriction regime to stick to
tl;dr your an moron
Lots of the other guys are being morons. >it’s not true because…. I don’t want it to be reeeeeeee!!!!!1!!!
But criticism like this is fair. I don’t have a dog in this fight one way or another but it’s weird how emotionally invested people are in an easily changeable dietary choice that you presumably would want to change if it’s actually a net negative. But if anon is right maybe they did make some mistakes in conducting the study
>reddit
Holy shit... I just started this week. Should I stop?
it's too late for you, anon... you're already 91% dead
Its just skipping breakfast not eating for a full day is better
no you moron, correlation =/= causation
of course people who do IF are gonna have higher rates of cardiovascular issues, most likely they are fat and trying to lose weight or DID lose weight and are now healthy but with some damage from when they were big. I fricking hate s*yence
you can see the BMI, race, CVS and cancer status off study participants
all groups had about the same mean BMI, and they were all fat
By what metrics are we measuring cardiovascular disease risk? Their cholesterol rises slightly as their body metabolizes stored fat? Oh noes! That's gonna give you a heckin heart attack! There is no world in which fasting causes disease.
measured by cardiovascular mortality in each group
you could argue that the 8 hour group is sketchy as it only includes 414 people of which 50 died by the end of the study but the other groups are pretty sizeable and still exhibit the same relationship
>fat person temporarily fast trying to lose weight
>increases cholesterol
>doesn't keep off weight and gets fat again
many such cases
now frick off kid
>they were all fat
Great so this entire gay ass study has nothing to do with me
Post saged, thread hidden, if digits you kys today
Yeah, you should. No joke if you don't stop you will die.
But after about 16 hours you can start again. But you have to stop 8 hours later at the latest.
It's fricking maddening but people have been doing it for thousands of years apparently.
I miss when I had chlorophyll and could spend my time leisurely.
>if you don’t stuff your face 24/7 you will literally die
>linked
Controlling factors? Like the fact that most people doing IF are fatties?
Post a link to the actual study, you lazy, brain-dead, b***h Black person homosexual
https://newsroom.heart.org/news/8-hour-time-restricted-eating-linked-to-a-91-higher-risk-of-cardiovascular-death
>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.
>An eating duration of more than 16 hours per day was associated with a lower risk of cancer mortality among people with cancer
Lmfao, no shit you live longer when you eat enough to keep yourself healthier as cancer steals from you internally.
Where there's smoke there's fire, but IF ain't it.
What's the correlation for vaxxed vs to unvaxxed? Oh there is no actual study.
>Factors that may also play a role in health, outside of daily duration of eating and cause of death, were not included in the analysis.
lol
lmao
......
People have been fasting since before Jesus, what the frick is all this?
>hey, fasting is very popular these days.
>we as doctors need to find a flaw and tell everybody!
>let's go get random people in the streets (in Murricah) and test them
Bro, why you fighting Jupiter? It's a cool planet that protects the inner system
20k participants is pretty good
BMI for normal eating (>16h category) was about the same as BMI for the other categories
There's a pretty obvious relationship for cardiovascular mortality the more you restrict eating windows 8 vs 8-10 vs 10-12 vs 12+
The cancer stats are pretty interesting. Starting off the more restrictive eating windows show a lower % cancer when the study started, and about the same rate of cancer mortality. For people who already have cancer mortality is 50% lower in the 8h eating window but the same is true for the 16+h window
The <8h group has the highest % of men, blacks and smokers, all of which are risk factors for disease and cancer. Despite all of this the combined occurence of CVD and cancer in this group is the lowest of all groups.
true <8 had 2x to 3x more black people compared to other groups but smokers were about the same % as the >16 group
>combined occurence of CVD and cancer in this group is the lowest of all groups.
lmao, no it was 2x higher
combined occurrence of CVD and cancer was (31+19)/414 = 12%
same stat for >16 was (52+41)/1509 = 6%
anyway, the <8 group was the smallest with just over 400 participants so we can't be sure if it's really a 80% increase but there's an obvious increase of 15% in the 10-12hour group and 25% in the 8-10h eating group
probably, these are just avg overweight people eating avg diets while drinking and smoking
true, this was just presented at a cardiologist conference, hasn't been reviewed
Not reading that essay
What a moronic study, <8 hours is the smallest group of all by a large margin with the highest percentage of smokers and blacks, how disingenious can headlines get?
that's just reddit clickbait, the point is there's a relationship
No, the study doesn't control nearly enough to say that. Plus it's all self-reported. Another bullshit survey clickbait that doesn't really have any practical value.
Not only is it self reported, subjects were split into eating habit groups based on two days of self reported eating habits
Two days
It's not worth the paper it's printed on
Yeah, for smokers and probably already overweight African Americans. They don't exactly eat the healthiest.
Literally every animal trial showed a 20% lifespan increase through intermittent fasting and every crazy old population center in the world is full of people who do it. The fact that the AHA backed it up when they still maintain that Canola oil is healthy for you says it all for me.
it could still be better for healthy people just not obese bloatlords on the avg American diet. It's not even peer-reviewed yet, I'm sure there'll be more talk about this
We’re not mice that have been inbred and raised in labs for 500 generations, are we?
Insert antisemitic analogy here LOL.
~~*Those people*~~ have so many genetic issues it might actually be the case for them...
I wonder if this is guys who work long hours who don't eat all day and when they do it's fast food.
Timeline
>wait I have to only eat at certain times? OK ill give it a shot
>it's been weeks, I'm sick of this
>haha its after 6pm so I can eat all the mcdonalds I want
>frick it, if I just treat myself it's not going to show up in their gay observational study, I'll just lie
>50% participants were men
>54.8% had eating window less than 8h
>59% had eating window more than 16h
Someone pls explain to braincell how these numbers make any sense, they add up to well over 100% and you cant fall into more than 1 category
It means
"Of the participants with an eating window less than 8h, 54.8% were men"
not
"54.8% of the male participants had an eating window less than 8h"
"
duration of study? seems like all associations through what they think are relevant lab values?
>Study participants were followed for a median length of 8 years and maximum length of 17 years.
the conclusions were driven by CVD & cancer deaths in each time-restricted eating group
https://newsroom.heart.org/news/8-hour-time-restricted-eating-linked-to-a-91-higher-risk-of-cardiovascular-death
yep, average BMI in the study is halfway between overweight and obese, but this is pretty much the western average now kek
am I that old? has fasting been that mainstream for that many years? wonder how all the fasting advocates are going to cope with this.
regardless, I have terrible experience with fasting and I guarantee I've done more extreme types than anybody else in this thread. it wasn't until after that I learned why it messed me up.
>wonder how all the fasting advocates are going to cope with this
It's easy because it's a nonsense study.
> and I guarantee I've done more extreme types than anybody else in this thread. it wasn't until after that I learned why it messed me up.
You lyin homie
> wonder how all the fasting advocates are going to cope with this.
By ignoring it because it’s bullshit. There are lots of problems with the study already detailed above. Logically it doesn’t make sense either. How did ancient humans survive while not eating 3-4 meals a day
it's not that crazy
it's 3% chance of CVD death for a normal diet vs 4% to 6% chance for time-restricted diets over a 8 to 16 year timespan
Study doesn't actually show that, though.
how so?
it's still 10% to 25% higher chance of CVD, but those people should be more concerned about their weight, drinking and smoking
>how so
They fail to demonstrate the time-restricted diet actually was what it's claimed to be, and that they controlled for confounding factors. I don't believe they found a statistically significant number of people to perform disciplined intermittent fasting for the duration of the study, much less verified.
So what is there for fasting advocates to even cope about? You say it’s minor yourself, and they have bigger things to worry about.
Also that assumes the study isn’t bullshit. Which it is.
So is it not a serious difference and therefore who cares, or does it btfo fastinggays? You can’t have both.
It's the complete opposite result of pretty much every other study in the field, seems pretty crazy
>I don't believe they found a statistically significant number of people to perform disciplined intermittent fasting for the duration of the study, much less verified.
They didn't even try, they took just two days worth of self reported survey data and pretended that it reflects the daily habits of the survey respondents ten years later
Absolutely disgraceful chinkscience
The conclusions were driven by the crack pipe
Study participants were divided into time restricted eating groups based on two days worth of survey data, then followed up on 8 years later
Dangerously stupid, but you can't expect much more from a pack of changs
10-12 group has 15% higher cardiovascular hazard ratio by end of study. Baseline shows 18% higher pre-existing CVD rates than control (9.1/7.7)
8-10 group shows 25% cardio hazard ratio. Baseline shows 30% higher pre-existing CVD rates than control (10.1/7.7)
<8 group shows 90% cardio hazard ratio. 60% more smokers than control, 10% higher pre-existing CVD and only 400 participants.
This is the power of science
>~~*Studies*~~ Show anything remotely healthy leads to death.
Modern soience in a nutshell
Whoever claimed fasting was healthy? Not even the ancients claimed that.
>your heart requires you to eat all day
Yeah no thanks
You don't know your history, anon. Not surprising as I I think the average IQ on this board has to be no more than 80.
don't tell me they restricted and then binged goyslop lol
>not peer reviewed
okay
~~*reddit science*~~
kys OP
Always do the opposite of what israelites say
this
"Jews" said DON'T eat rat poison because you might die, so you better do it, anons!
Don't capitalize the j.
>what is DNP
>capitalized the "jews"
found ya !
i read the paper, 70% of participants were smokers LMAO
Does the same experts also recommend eating butter over canola oil?
Oh my gooodness I sleep for 8 hours every day !!!! OH NO
You eat spiders while you sleep.
fake and gay
In your case it's wieners.
Midnight snack bros, we eatin' good.
How the FRICK, could not eating for 16 hours damage your heart? Is it because imsince it's going all the time it needs a constant supply of readily available energy or bits end up starving and dying off or some such?
The only redditor I know irl
Is a fricking moron that can’t even fricking wire a pc
Meanwhile mice that only eat every other day live 30% longer.
8 hour fast is what every single person on the planet does when sleeping anyways. What a dogshit study
morons it's a 8 hour eating window meaning a 16 hour fast every day
Fasting seems like peak midwit. It SOUNDS good based on a rudimentary understanding of history and biology but it’s not necessarily backed up by real world experience beyond the idea that if you don’t eat you’ll obviously lose weight
hmm sounds like ((they)) are trying to keep you fat and weak
I don’t care about fasting one way or the other but I find it kind of funny so many fasting anons refuse to even consider that the study is right and there are drawbacks to fasting simply because they don’t want to believe it
Maybe because some of us are actually health professionals who understand the effects of eating on a schedule, as opposed to saying it’s better for you to have a midnight snack. Come in dude, it’s just common sense.
Parroting memes doesn't make you a health professional.
imagine this is your healthcare professional, no better than the other morons
who didn't bother to check the study and still thinks that 8 hour time restricted eating means an 8 hour fasting a day
Wait, are you fricking serious. Is this why I haven't been losing weight?
Welcome to IST. Memes reign supreme here, evidence doesn't matter at all.
>refuse to even consider that the study is right and there are drawbacks to fasting
It doesn't make any sense that there would be drawbacks so the sensible assumption is that there are other factors affecting this one study's results.
we have studies that say everything is good or bad, fats were unhealthy a few decades ago
I don’t fast (unless you count skipping breakfast some days) but logically it doesn’t make sense why it would negatively affect you. Why would your heart need food throughout the day? You aren’t starving, your body has plenty of fuel. Humans through the majority of history didn’t eat 3 meals a day at fixed intervals. Most predators don’t eat consistently. Why on earth would hearts evolve to fail more frequently if you don’t eat every couple hours?
How?
>keto schizo thread
i swear you fricking kids deserve to be killed.
We've known this shit for decades.
have a nice day, Moxyte.
>People actually thought starving yourself was healthy
Meme dieters always make me laugh, what next silly bandwagon will they hop next?
>People actually thought starving yourself was healthy
compared to constant digestion and raised insulin? are bodies were never designed to constantly ruminate,snack and digest like some obese cow
Better than shutting down your thyroid.
I am hypothyroid due to IF only. I have to take t3+t4 daily.
Assuming you really have thyroid problems, it's 100% not due to IF
look up ray peat
You would have to present much more evidence that IF is somehow damaging, to offset the millenia if not geological ages (warrior diet) that IF has been used with success all over the world
What's happening with people doing IF and having thyroid problems is that their diet is catastrophic, and lacking the right nutrients. Many such cases in Murica.
The study presented by OP is utterly manipulative, as proved many times ITT, and burgers enjoy terrible diets, which create problems, IF or not
foragers can eat all day, like a cow, and seem to live forever.
the rest of us can get by eating once a day or less.
>salt is unhealthy
>eating red meat is bad
>eating dairy is bad
>eggs are bad for your heart
>saturated fat will kill you
>not eating every 3 hours like some fat woman is bad
>seed oils are perfectly okay
yeah, i think your science is fake and gay
How are seed oils bad?
Is the world getting raided by "studies" today? There have been so many studies that say eggs are bad again, vitamin D is bad, fasting is bad, working out bad, sleeping bad
>Is the world getting raided by "studies" today? There have been so many studies that say eggs are bad again, vitamin D is bad, fasting is bad, working out bad, sleeping bad
do not heed any of these bullshit studies
rip people who sleep 8 hours a day
time to switch to a biphasic sleep pattern
even better
>FASTING GOOD
>FASTING BAD
>EGGS GOOD
>EGGS BAD
>RED MEAT GOOD
>RED MEAT BAD
if you're still unironically believing mainstream science and nutrition advice then you need to have a good word with yourself
>all scientists are one homogenous group
ok incel
this whole study is awful lol
>no peer review
>73% of the people involved drink (which afaik they didn't quantify what "drinking" is, could be one drink a week or a fifth a day)
>28.7 BMI average
>combination of normal people, people with cvd, and people with cancer
in conclusion: more diet fearmongering
STOP LOSING WEIGHT GOY
>no peer review
>believe le studies, sisters!!! science is heckin awesome!
also would have been really funny if they presented vax status among the participants though that would have shown something they don't want you to see
>shitting an a flu vaccine
Are still people talking about "muh vax le bad"?
>awful study
>73% of the people involved drink (which afaik they didn't quantify what "drinking" is, could be one drink a week or a fifth a day)
>28.7 BMI average
pretty representative of the average American kek
Why is the 12-16 hour eating window sample size 10x bigger than most other sample sizes? What a dumb study. People were paid to crunch these numbers and run the whole thing.
because that's the normal time window most people eat kek
Okay, so it is fake and gay. Thank you, anon.
God will have no mercy for the journalists on Judgment Day, he will spare no expense to make them pay accordingly
>science now says you're going to die because it just does bro
>yes, as long as you give me the same team again and let all information flow through me, yes, of course I can replicate my findings most of the time
If you don't believe me you are a racist planet destroyer
where's the star of david?
anyone who calls not eating breakfast "time restricted eating" or "intermittent fasting" is a moron
>91%
>This would make it on par, if not worse than smoking is for your heart
I'm not even going to look it up or click it. Common sense tells me that its bullshit and everyone on that site needs to die.
>have a motor running 24/7
>common sense is that it shouldn't care if you're constantly keeping it fueled or not
Anon does your car suffer damage if your gas tank is below half full? Does it run better when over half full? Does it get damaged at all unless it runs dry?
I can even argue a vehicle would run better with a less full tank because it weighs less, but the difference is inconsequential.
>The study’s limitations included its reliance on self-reported dietary information
>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
>no peer review
They are unironically hacks
I've been eating like that my entire life, I'm not gonna make it to my 40s
he was right again
eventually the world will learn. it's too bad Kyle M isn't actually pursuing science and his thesis of the dangers of fat metabolism.
>lose weight AND die early
b***h you just talked me INTO it
>Skipping breakfast is le death!
Don't be silly. this is ridiculous.
Bugs, pods and owning nothing is good for you.
1400 years of billions of muslims doing 12h dry fasting for a month every years will beg to differ, fasting is le bad, unlike meme diets, scamsuppliments and fat acceptance
why do Black folk call it fasting? its starving
no shit its bad for you lmao
Starving
>1.(of a person or animal) suffer severely or die from hunger.
>2. cause (a person or animal) to suffer severely or die from hunger.
Not eating for day doesn’t even constitute starving. Anyone saying otherwise is fat or moronic, probably both.
>t doesn’t fast but isn’t fat or moronic
studies show that replying to op, 80 posts into a thread is mindless Black person homosexual behaviour
Anything that says heart disease or immune system stuff is just a vaccine cover up
>reddit NPR science article
Right. What were we talking about again?
This is why 500% of my diet consists of weekly covid booster injections. Apparently a new study came out and the miracle drug cures heart disease, ahhh the wonders of science.
>can't just skip dinner, wake up thinner, it'll shut down your heart
>have to eat exactly 2 calories of food every waking minute to lose weight or your heart will explode
Maybe it's better I'm naturally slightly heavy set? Have we gotten the general dedicated to making anons' hearts stop taken down yet?
I did cardio on a fast and I turned all pale and felt like I was gonna die
Fasting. Not even once
I do cardio almost daily and I am fasting and OMAD for almost a week already, are you that moronic and your motivation is so high you go full moron mode and force yourself to lose weight as fast as possible? Also it takes some time for the body to adapt from a high caloric diet to suddenly fasting and dropping a high amount of calories can make you feel like shit for some time. I was dropping for a month from 2k to 1.5k and then from 1.5k for another month, then to 1k and now about 500 calories but ONLY for a week or 10 days(because 7 is not a nice number)and because I'm close to my ideal weight and then I'll start bulking so 3 months in total will finish my cutting, start slow and then while your body adapts you can go further but stop being moronic and go all in to fail and then stop doing it "because it's bad"
>cardio + omad
My brother
I've been pleased with the fat loss
I don't care what israelites have to say
I did healthy omad for two years and gained 50 pounds
>starving yourself is le bad
ask Ronnie Coleman what lifting heavy weights did for his joints
Makes no evolutionary sense. The body did not evolve with constant sources of food to allow for eating all day, at least for men. It’s different for women but men would have been out hunting for food, not eating for 99.9% of human history.
we didn't evolve to live to 100, just long enough to procreate
once you dont have preditors or in species competition, evolution starts working opposing cancer and age, it's why elephants and whales live a long time.
That’s also bullshit. If you made it through childhood you were very likely to live into your 50s and 60s. People didn’t die at 20-30 from natural causes
welp im dead
>science
Well uh, steroids?
>bed at 22:00
>wake up at 06:01
Oh shit, gotta eat breakfast-ACK
>EGG BAD
>VITAMIN D BAD
>SUPPELMENTS BAD
>WHEY BAD
>ITF BAD
WHY WONT I FRICKING DIE THEN FRICK
>many fat people try IF
>they die by heart disease because they're fat
>IF linked to heart disease!!!
>has been intermittent fasting the past 10 years for supposed anti aging benefits
What's going through his mind right now?
>EverythingScience
>The Association receives funding primarily from individuals; foundations and corporations (including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers and other companies) also make donations and fund specific Association programs and events
That's all I needed to read.
OP is right, you morons are gonna die soon
Adults are not supposed to have fatty cheeks. That's for babies. So he doesn't look like a baby anymore.
>why does this picture of someone when they’re younger look younger
it's also a low resolution telephoto vs high resolution wide angle, different lighting and he's thinner on the right. That image is either bait or made by a moron
>Black never cr-ACK
kek fasting homosexuals BTFO yet again. the hits keep coming for those fat losers
>doesnt read it
>Been fasting a lot recently
>Blood pressure was literally text book perfect yesterday
Works for me
This is a Chinese study funded by the Chinese government and looked at bug subjects. I have a feeling it might be different for lardass Americans, where overeating is the biggest contributor of mortality,
Why do you dipshits seethe so much?
It's worth studying what effects restricted eating windows might have. They ran a really big study. They found some interesting correlations. Obviously, you'd need to a different study design to show restricted eating windows cause any of these bad outcomes. I'd think, if you're interested in IF, you'd be interested in how healthy people who practice it for a long time are, just like if you're interested in lifting, you'd want to know whether people who train a lot or a little tend to be bigger.
Since IF isn't a very good way to restrict calories (basic experience and common sense could tell you that), I thought the main sell these days was the longevity stuff. But the evidence for that was weak. Maybe there are health risks of IF, too. Seems worth studying.
>I'd think, if you're interested in IF, you'd be interested in how healthy people who practice it for a long time are
yeah, only thing is this ~~*study*~~ only looks at two days worth of dietary habits and then draws wild conclusions about health outcomes ten years later
>Since IF isn't a very good way to restrict calories (basic experience and common sense could tell you that)
if is literally the easiest calorie restriction regime to stick to
tl;dr your an moron
Lots of the other guys are being morons.
>it’s not true because…. I don’t want it to be reeeeeeee!!!!!1!!!
But criticism like this is fair. I don’t have a dog in this fight one way or another but it’s weird how emotionally invested people are in an easily changeable dietary choice that you presumably would want to change if it’s actually a net negative. But if anon is right maybe they did make some mistakes in conducting the study