4 ms·
“Among participant with three meals per day, a meal interval of ≤4.5 hours in two adjacent meals was associated with higher all-cause mortality.” So people who
by mtgentry 4y ago
“Among participant with three meals per day, a meal interval of ≤4.5 hours in two adjacent meals was associated with higher all-cause mortality.” So people who ate three meals a day ALSO fared poorly? Am I reading that right?
- pc86 4y agoEating three meals with a shorter meal interval has higher all-cause mortality than eating three meals with a longer meal interval. It's not saying anything about 3 meals vs. any other number of meals.
- troydavis 4y agoOnly those who had less than 4.5 hours between 2 of their 3 meals. The lowest hazard rate/lowest all-cause mortality was among those who ate 3 meals a day and had 4.5+ hours between them.
- VernorVintage 4y agoNone of us are reading it right yet. We're not interpreting the "Hazard Ratios" - whatever those are. Until someone comes along and explains it (or uses chatGPT/bing to explain it), there's no point to form opinions about these results. In addition, we need to know what percentage of the people were doing fasting, in order to determine if the HRs are statistically significant. That claim a 95% confidence ratio, but is that true? If we're not able to do this kind of simple checkup on the data, we will just confuse us even more when we find another paper that adds even more naunce and complexity to the issue. That's how people become anti-science. Because we don't understand /this/ work, this work causes us cognitive dissonance. And because we don't understand this work, our dissonance is even worse next time. I hope a kind statistician comes along and help our thread about by explaining the numbers and what they really mean in terms of death risk and life expectancy.