this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024

-1 points (45.5% liked)

News

22528 readers

2253 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-1

8-hour time-restricted eating linked to a 91% higher risk of cardiovascular death (newsroom.heart.org)

submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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."

top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Junk study, lots of uncontrolled factors

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

„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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Came across this a couple of days ago in a German Newspaper (paywall bypass), I found this a bit strange:

»Good data basis - but not for this question

Prof. Dr. Tilman Kühn, Professor of Public Health Nutrition at the University of Vienna, comments: "The NHANES study, which the authors used, is very good in principle - but unfortunately it does not record interval fasting." The pure time data for food intake on individual days, as recorded there, is only suitable for assessing the effects of intermittent fasting to a very limited extent.

The study could therefore not show that intermittent fasting increases the risk of death. "The results of the study only show that people who ate their meals within less than eight hours on two randomly selected days had a higher risk of dying from a cardiovascular cause. However, intentional intermittent fasting was not investigated in the study."

Why people only ate within eight hours on these selected days remains completely unclear. It could, for example, be because they were so unwell that they could no longer eat. In this case, the disease itself could also increase the risk of death.«

Translated with DeepL

For me intermittent fasting always worked great, but diets are all very subjective I guess and without a bit of excercise... ¯\(ツ)/¯

Edit: Arm surgery

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well it's a good thing I was too lazy to ever start this up but always wanted to try so I could live longer.

Ah well.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

How can you be too lazy to not eat?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Depression.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Stupid Diet fads are still stupid diet fads

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Cool ways of looking at the world are always absolute. No exceptions allowed 😎

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

Go shove your elitist clique up your own butt.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago

Well... shit.

Guess I've got to start finding time to get a second meal in.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago

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