You must log in or register to comment.
19,000 adults says it’s an observational study, which means there’s a good chance that people go on these diets as an attempt to fix an existing problem.
That’s my takeaway as well:
They found the elevated cardiovascular risk was consistent across socioeconomic groups, and strongest among smokers and people with diabetes or existing heart disease - suggesting they should be especially cautious about long-term, narrow eating windows.
I’ve been following 16:8 fasting for 2 years, mainly to lose a couple of pounds, not because of pre-existing conditions. I’ve been able to get down to my ideal weight because of it, and so far don’t really feel any bad effects.
Has this been replicated, or is the report detailed enough to attempt replication?
Summary Results and Conclusion:
Results
During a median follow-up of 8.1 years, compared with eating duration of 12–14 h, eating duration <8 h was robustly associated with higher cardiovascular mortality (HR, 2.35 [95 % CI, 1.39–3.98]), but not with all-cause and cancer mortality. The positive association with cardiovascular mortality remained consistent across 8 subgroups stratified by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic factors, and smoking status, and survived 14 sensitivity analyses. However, the association with all-cause mortality did not survive many sensitivity analyses.
Conclusions
Although a positive association was observed between eating duration <8 h and cardiovascular mortality, further research is required to understand whether this risk is attributed to the short eating duration itself or residual confounding resulting from its contributing factors.
If all cause mortality is better shouldn’t that be the takeaway?
The comments on HN indicate the significant brain rot of the techno-fascist user base. So many commenters who don’t know anything about statistics, acting as though their anecdotal evidence has value, and casting doubt on medical science…