5 ms·
Intermittent fasting for the prevention of cardiovascular disease
- feo 6y agoSo it doesn't prevent it? It should say on the subject! Wasted time reading..
- richardanaya 6y agoIt said it was better than random eating.
- nostromo 6y ago> However, this was not clinically significant
- Godel_unicode 6y agoIt did not say that.
- richardanaya 6y ago“Intermittent fasting was seen to be superior to ad libitum feeding in reducing weight.”
- ztjio 6y agoInsignificantly better.
- m12k 6y ago"Intermittent fasting was seen to be superior to ad libitum feeding in reducing weight. However, this was not clinically significant. There was no significant clinical difference between IF and CER in improving cardiometabolic risk factors to reduce the risk of CVD." Edit: Removed own interpretation to let the authors speak for themselves
- richardanaya 6y agoThat doesn’t say it doesn’t.
- ajmadesc 6y agoIt doesn't say it doesn't not do it not somewhat
- Godel_unicode 6y agoNegative results are still results and are useful.
- richardanaya 6y agoNobody disproved anything. They have no clinical confidence to say anything, just an observance that IF people lost weight better.
- ztjio 6y agoYes but not significantly better. And there were quite a few studies to choose from and still quite a few left after filtering for the best. It's a fairly strong statement that despite a lot of studying, no evidence of any meaningful benefit for weight loss, and no benefit at all for CVD is found. There could be other benefits, of course. In fact, personally, I tried IF and what I found to be the greatest benefit was sleeping better. All I really have to do to maintain that same benefit is stop eating a couple hours earlier than I did before IF, and that's ... if we're being honest here ... that's long and well known good advice: don't eat near bedtime. For me it just didn't click that it meant don't eat several hours before bedtime as opposed to say, 30-40 minutes before bedtime. Anyway, it's not surprising to me that little benefit is discovered so far from IF. It is an interesting idea, but, not much of a mechanic associated with it to explain any benefits. Most aspects of our metabolic processes do not work timeframes below a few days. Actually, the parts that DO work on short time frames related most strongly to the health outcomes they stated could not be judged by the studies, including glucose impact. So I guess cross your fingers that in the future it can be shown that IF helps glucose management and reduces diabetes risk/impact.
- Godel_unicode 6y agoI'll try saying it a little more verbosely, perhaps. There is no evidence from this trial to refute the null hypothesis, which is to say there is no evidence from this trial that IF provides any protection from CVD.
- richardanaya 6y agoAs someone who’s lost 15 pounds since Christmas doing nothing but eating in a restricted 2 hour window rigidly most days. This doesn’t surprise me. Long low blood sugar periods and it’s much easier to get a single window of eating under control.
- nirushiv 6y agoBut.. but... they didn’t report significant effects
- toast0 6y agoThe problem I have with diet research is that the studies (and the internet commenters) are always looking for one thing that everyone can do and get good results. The body is a complex system, and different people's bodies work differently. Really, what I want to know from a diet study is were their negative effects, and did it work for a significant amount of the people. Ideally, for those who it seems to work, do a longer term study to look for negative effects and long term results for people who stick to to it. If you get enough of these studies, and I'd like to change my diet to control my weight, I can try things until I find one that seems to work for me, and have some confidence that it works long term for people who it works for. One diet to rule them all is the same thing as everyone should run the same HTTP server. I love apache, but different systems work better with different servers.
- Xunjin 6y agoOur heuristics tends to find a pattern in things. The problem with this behavior is that there is no "silver bullet" solution or pattern ... What I am trying to say is, you are totally right here. I suffer from IBS, and if I just try IF for one day my entire guts go really nuts (I have mixed type of IBS).
- antupis 6y agoI think is genetic because I have noticed that for me best way to lose weight is to pretty big calorie restriction(about 1600kcal daily) with lots of protein (120g<). I have tried intermittent fasting and personally I don't like it I am always very hungry or it does not affect my weight.
- jasonkester 6y agoSomebody needs to come up with a less pretentious way to say “skipping breakfast”. Personally I just say “I don’t eat breakfast.”
- richardanaya 6y agoIf that’s all you think IF is you are way off the Mark.
- Kiro 6y agoHow?
- ztjio 6y agoActually doing IF is more like, you have a 6 hour window a day in which you eat, and you eat nothing outside it. For most people that's much more restrictive than "skipping breakfast." That said, not everyone agrees on the method. Some will skip entire days intermittently, so, this whole discussion is shaky overall, but, definitely agree that "skipping breakfast" is not IF.
- davidbanham 6y ago“Skip breakfast and eat an early dinner. Don’t snack.”
- NeutronStar 6y agoBreakfast is just the first meal after a fast. Usually the fast is done while sleeping. You just want to prolong that fast, either more fasting before and/or after the sleeping fast.
- dtech 6y agoEating only 12:00 to 20:00 can be achieved for a lot of people by only skipping breakfast and not snacking in the evenings and still falls under the (broad) banner of IF. It's quite a popular variant.
- taneq 6y agoThere seems to be an inherent assumption built into all of these kinds of studies that all humans are identical interchangeable units. You don't see a lot of "this intervention is wildly successful in 20% of subjects and useless in the rest" type results advertised.
- heisenzombie 6y agoYeah, I get the impulse, and there are studies which try to partition subjects into “responders” and “non-responders”. The problem is if you don’t set out the partitions before you start the study then any ex post facto partitioning is fertile ground for p-hacking. The correct thing is to do the exploratory study, notice that some group seem to respond well, then run a new study “IF for the prevention of CVD in <specific subgroup>”. That’s a lot to ask, of course.
- taneq 6y agoThat makes sense. I guess the real trick is to figure out what the key distinguishing factor for that particular subgroup is...
- masonic 6y agoThis is just a jumbled survey of existing papers that doesn't even distinguish between IF and TRF!
- lostmsu 6y agoHow does long fasting affect brain function?