> "Busy, busy, busy." There may be confounding factors in the linked heart disease study, but I think it's probably enough evidence to put a simplistic "8/16 d

> "Busy, busy, busy." There may be confounding factors in the linked heart disease study, but I think it's probably enough evidence to put a simplistic "8/16 diet" narrative seriously in question. Considering the authoritative and confident way it's frequently proposed, the article really shook me up. It's a reminder to the fact that the body is an incomprehensibly complex system and literally no one has knowledge of conquering this complexity mechanistically, today. In the grander scheme, modern medicine still relies almost exclusively on empirical evidence considering the details. Genetics, epigenetics, metabolism, immunology, ... it's all guesses and the illusion of control. Any "influencer" claiming mechanistic understanding confidently should raise eyebrows. I do admit, their tales are tempting and soothing for me too. Anyway, in terms of conflating factors, I wonder how much the feeding window relative to activity window plays into these findings, and if a beneficial/less detrimental outcome is prevented by work related factual constraints. Eg. you likely can't space out food intake during typical working hours. That is, many people following the 8/16 feeding schedule eg. skip breakfast, or eat too much at once with large meals fitted into a small break time window. Maybe it's bad to not feed the body in times of increased demand.