4 ms·
That...isn't what the study says, I think. In fact, it says that the level of hsCRP--a marker of inflammation--actually increased in the subjects who undertook
by jasonhansel 5y ago
That...isn't what the study says, I think. In fact, it says that the level of hsCRP--a marker of inflammation--actually increased in the subjects who undertook intermittent fasting, though the difference from the control group (1.02 ± 2.73 vs. −0.25 ± 5.66) was far from statistically significant (p = 0.23, see Table 3). That's the only part of the study that even mentions inflammation.
- jasonhansel 5y agoAlso worth noting that the sample (as a whole) was 96% white, 91% non-Hispanic, and 33% male. Granted, the study was performed in SLC, but these numbers suggest that this is not even a particularly representative sample of SLC, much less of the nation as a whole.
- nabla9 5y agoCan somebody comment the effects size of improvements HOMA-IR (−0.75 ± 0.79 vs. −0.10 ± 1.06; P = 0.004) and MSS (−0.34 ± 4.72 vs. 0.31 ± 1.98, P = 0.006). Without knowing the normal range it's impossible to say how big change 0.75 (HOMA-IR) or -0.34 (MSS) are. The article says significant, but how much that is.
- ByThyGrace 5y agoAlso, this isn't IF as popularly understood. IF usually means uninterrupted water-only fast for a certain part of the day, e.g. 18:00-10:00. The paper is about "low frequency" IF, which in this case means a 24h water only fast, twice a week for a full month, then only once a week for the rest of the trial.
- phonypc 5y agoFWIW, this isn't atypical. IF in a scientific study pretty much always means some form of 24h+ fast. The more common practice of eating in a time window is usually "time-restricted eating/feeding."
- Dah00n 5y ago5 days of normal eating, 2 fasting, every 7 days. That is the definition of IF in all places I have seen it mentioned. Skipping a meal now and again isn't really fasting at all.