6 ms·

Intermittent fasting correlated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease

brahman88 1y ago
[flagged]
YZF 1y ago
"Eating duration <8 h was linked to 135 % higher cardiovascular mortality, but was not associated with all-cause and cancer mortality." ... "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." I think I've seen a preprint of this study discussed a little while back. What some experts(?) were suggesting is to widen the window to something like 10 or 12 hours.
- OrderlyTiamat 1y ago
  Was the preprint the full text? I can't find a full text version, and I'm really interested to see whether they calculated the moderator of being overweight/obese, as that seems to me to be the most likely explanation for a correlation between IF and higher cardiovascular disease mortality. It's not listed in their list of confounders they've corrected for, so maybe I should assume they haven't done that? If they have, maybe I'll stop with IF, otherwise I'm not sure what the results really show.
hannob 1y ago
It seems like there's a very plausible mechanism for reverse causation here. If you're already having health problems, you are more likely to follow a dietary pattern that is said to promote health. That this translates to a correlation to heightened cardiovascular risk seems unsurprising.
- ipnon 1y ago
  Yes, and it could be that intermittent fasting with metabolic syndrome is cardiotoxic but intermittent fasting without is cardioprotective.
cncjchsue7 1y ago
> 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. The link held even after adjusting for diet quality, meal and snack frequency, and other lifestyle factors, researchers found. Did they account for who was overweight? Cause it doesn't sound like it.
gglanzani 1y ago
I have not read the paper, but how did they differentiate between people eating non-breakfast food in the morning and people skipping breakfast? From the quote below, it seems their method all but precise > To understand their eating habits, participants were asked on two separate days - about two weeks apart - to recall everything they ate and drank. From these "dietary recalls", scientists estimated each person's average eating window and treated it as representative of their long-term routine.
- christoph 1y ago
  Same! I’m firmly starting to believe these studies are being conducted to confuse the public even further with regard to eating. The media have been focussed on eating/public health for a couple of decades now and during that period all I’ve witnessed is a rapid and sharp decline in general health and eating habits and increasing pointless discussion about it all. All the time, energy and confusion just starts to enrage me now. Does the time of day you eat really matter? Maybe… but is there really any major difference in poisoning yourself before noon or after? If there is, is it worth discussing? Is it worth studying? It’s really super simple - you are what you eat. If you aren’t, what are you? If you put stuff into you that’s one step away from poison or toxic waste, don’t be surprised when the body reacts the way it does and eventually dies early. I’m talking about anything processed/manufactured (99+%) that comes from a factory. If you want to live a long and healthy life, it’s no more difficult than just eating as much fresh and varied, un-poisoned fruits & vegetables as you like. That’s it. This advice can’t prop up billion dollar food, advertising, media & pharma industries though. People think this is hard to follow as well because they are addicted to everything in processed food, lack time and their body is already in a constant high state of stress. As soon as the diet changes to one of health & life, stress rapidly reduces, health improves, taste buds alter and suddenly within a short time, all that stuff you used to eat, tastes like the actual crap it really is.
  - rixed 1y ago
    Most of what you just said makes sense to me, and I believe you are right to draw the attention toward the elephant in the room: quality and variety of ingredients. The reason why I'm writting this reply is this bit: > I’m talking about anything processed/manufactured (99+%) that comes from a factory. No. If we want a chance of survival we have to stop assosiating "factory" and "industry" to "bad". First, despite some of the bad press the food industry regularly receive is probably well deserved, overall food safety out of a factory is very good; much better than anything we ever had in history, and especially safer (if not tastier) than the equivalent homegrown product. Highly processed food is a problem, be it out of a factory or fried by grandma. I've worked a bit in this industry, and I can attest that even the less regulated industry will self-regulate periodic biological tests and put in place germ control policies that are much stricter than anything your local farmer will ever be able to do; just because of economy of scale. And the same goes for the environment: If we don't want to exhaust natural resources we have to resort to industry economy of scales. The quantity of energy and water that would be required to grow tomatoes in our gardens is stupidly wasteful compared to industrial norms. The quantity of detergeant and water needed to clean cooking pots for family-scale cooking is enormous compared to the quantity needed to clean tanks used in the industry. I feel stupid to have to state the obvious but I'm starting to get really afraid of this trend that associates small scale with better safety, better variety and better economy of resources while the complete oposite is true.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
pillefitz 1y ago
For what it's worth, it always felt unhealthy when I tried due to increased stress levels
cma 1y ago
> 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. The link held even after adjusting for diet quality, meal and snack frequency, and other lifestyle factors, researchers found. Smoking makes it easier to skip meals, which is part of why people gain weight when they quit. Smokers who more likely only ate in 8 hour windows may just be heavier smokers than those who ate across 14 hour windows if there is a dose response relationship to the meal skipping. Diabetes also can make meals at certain times of day make you feel sick and more likely to be skipped (more examples beyond this, but look up dawn phenomenon with diabetes). They say all cause mortality is not much different blbut those two subgroups had the higher mortality compare with same subgroup that ate over a longer period. But it could just be heavier smokers skipping meals and more advanced diabetes case sufferers skipping breakfast unless controlled for separately (smoking amount and dawn phenomenon)
sixtyj 1y ago
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871402125000955 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S18714... Survey took 15 years, and 19,831 participants. Median follow-up was 8.1 years. Further research is required. Methods Adult participants who reported usual intake from two valid 24-h dietary recalls were included from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2003–2018 (n = 19,831). Mortality status as of December 2019 was obtained through linkage to the National Death Index. Average eating duration was categorized as <8, 8–<10, 10–<12, 12–14 h (mean duration), >14–16, and >16 h. Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were derived. 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.
- munch117 1y ago
  15 years ago, was intermittent fasting even a thing back then? I wonder how many of the people eating within an 8 hour window didn't do it because of a diet, but instead because of an eating disorder or some other disease.
  - woleium 1y ago
    Anecdotally, yes, i was doing it and there was a bunch of stuff online
- port11 1y ago
  Yours should be the top-most comment. This is another reminder that, in the short term, a lot of research about health amounts to very little signal because the confounding factors are so varied. We can, of course, learn a lot about health very quickly, but much of the reporting is sensationalised nonsense.
throwawaylaptop 1y ago
The quality of studies seems so poor it almost seems like the people conducting them don't even care about their quality, but wherever gets funding and keeps the bosses happy. Basically the car salespeople of academia.
bjornsing 1y ago
Not saying they are wrong, but my feeling is that selection effects probably dwarf any causal effects here. You don’t need much skew in the health distribution of people who are drawn to an intervention like this to get this kind of correlation and effect size.
lokrian 1y ago
Some people seem to not just survive, but actually thrive on terrible, junk food diets, like the current president, or Warren Buffett (who eats ice cream and mcdonald's for breakfast and 2 liters of cherry coke every day, and is still alive at 95) https://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-diet-2017-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-diet-2017-10 Diet really does seem to be one of those highly individualistic things, and I'm guessing humanity is in an evolutionary transition from paleolithic type diets to mcdonalds 3 times day, with different people having the genes to thrive on different things. You just have to see what works for you.
- N_Lens 1y ago
  Picking anecdotal exceptions doesn't indicate broad genetic differences that allow people to "thrive on junk". Everyone has heard of someone who smoked and drank and lived to a hundred. That doesn't mean smoking and drinking aren't harmful for health; Infact overwhelming evidence clearly shows their harm. Same goes for unhealthy food, and we broadly see the impact statistically as well as viscerally.
  - andrewinardeer 1y ago
    My anecdotal experience is there are no long term full time cigarette smokers over the age of 70 because they all died.
    - esseph 1y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45081132 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45081132
    - rsynnott 1y ago
      ... Are you giving anecdotal evidence against the anecdotal evidence the other person gave?
    - latexr 1y ago
      Fran Lebowitz, avid cigarette smoker, 74 and counting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran_Lebowitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran_Lebowitz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGcG7e03Nts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGcG7e03Nts
01100011 1y ago
I thought we gave up on IF a couple years ago when we determined it didn't help with weight and caused loss of muscle? For me, the only effect of IF was insulin sensitivity so high I would fight passing out after a moderately carb rich dinner. I hated it and found no benefit.
glp1guide 1y ago
Do yourself a favor, and just take GLP1s instead (after talking to your health care professional). The research on the effects is plentiful, they're incredibly effective, and next year by next year you'll have very effective FDA approved (for weight loss) oral GLP1s to take. Losing weight is almost solved at this point, I'd post links but at this point the substack I run is heavily paywalled -- the research is out there and not hard to find with a quick search.
- esseph 1y ago
  My wife started taking GLP1 2 1/2 years ago. She had to stop because it made her throw up every morning. She hasn't been on it for 2 years. She still throws up every morning. (Yes, they've gone into her digestive tract multiple times with cameras. It still won't stop. Changes in diet, sleep, etc have had no impact. Etc.) Maybe it's not for everyone.
  - glp1guide 1y ago
    That sounds like a terrible experience, sorry you and the wife went through that and somehow the negative side effects STILL persist. This is honestly the first case I’ve ever heard of such an adverse effect. GLP1s are certainly not for everyone, and if she had that reaction on a starting dosage then it certainly is obvious stopping was the way to go. That said, for the vast majority of people though, GLP1s are likely going to the key to living longer and carrying less weight (including into old age). At this point, the research is behind the drugs being useful for the vast majority of the population, and the literal millions of people taking these drugs do not seem to be running into such horrific side effects, especially ones that continue after stopping the drugs. Would you mind sharing which GLP1 she was on? This actually sounds like something that should be more widely known. Throwing up forever is quite a crippling side effect, and since GLP1s are more recently considered primarily brain drugs, I wonder if it triggered a persistent chemical imbalance.
    - esseph 1y ago
      There are multiple class actions consolidating. https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/ozempic-gastroparesis-lawsuit.html?hl=en-US https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/ozempic-gastropar...
morgengold 1y ago
Correlation vs Causation.
yoyohello13 1y ago
<8h feeding window, but “normal” eating habits are usually around 12hr feeding window. I find it very hard to believe that simply waiting an extra 4 hours to eat has any appreciable impact on health. Our bodies aren’t that fragile.
bigbacaloa 1y ago
[dead]
InMice 1y ago
So just a simple question - if I eat dinner at 6, then dont eat breakfast til 9 or 10 the next morning after waking up.. 6pm to 10am is 16 hours. What is so extreme about that? I do that most days without even thinking about it. I feel no hunger after dinner, overnight or in the morning when I wake up. What exactly am I doing wrong according to this study? Im NOT hungry, therefor I dont eat. Later in the morning I feel hunger so I eat. 16-18 hours passes and I feel totally normal before my first food of the day. Do people really think this is actually an abnormally long time to not eat anything?
- esseph 1y ago
  Part of it depends on your basal metabolic rate and your activity level, but you're also sleeping during that period. Now if you were awake for 16 hours and hadn't eaten, that's closer to my original understanding of intermittent fasting.
TerraHertz 1y ago
I'd suggest that only people who are already overweight will be trying intermittent fasting. Needs a study with randomly selected people who are put into two groups - overweight and lean, then half of each group start intermittent fasting. Also, since when is just restricting eating to certain hours of the day 'fasting'? My experience: I was overweight, 95 Kg. Two years of not getting anywhere with attempting to reduce intake, due to living alone, which makes cooking small meals difficult. Heard of "36 hour fasting", and decided to try it. Except I felt '36 hours' is half-arsed. So to simplify I just do 48 hour fasts. Turns out it's very easy, and I can reliably drop a couple more kilos anytime I choose to do another fast or two. Currently down to 84 Kg. Will be 83 after the current one probably. Once I'm at 80kg, I'll decide whether to continue down to 75 or so.
- InMice 1y ago
  I also asked that question in another comment. If i eat dinner at 6pm, Im not hungry the rest of the day, overnight nor in the morning when I wake up. Around 10 or 11 I start to feel hunger that doesnt go away - So i eat. 16-18 hours has passed but I was never counting or thinking about it... Is that really fasting or denying myself food? Is it considered fasting to not constantly snack and crave processed foods?
  - dns_snek 1y ago
    To a certain extent I think it depends your level of activity. If I'm sedentary and I eat a big dinner I usually won't feel hungry at least until 3pm the next day and sometimes it can be full 24h before I really feel hunger kick in again. It's been that way as long as I can remember but I try to make sure I eat something in the morning anyway because I noticed that I function better that way (duh!) I think avoiding sugar makes a significant difference. I love sweet treats but I've eliminated the vast majority of sugar in foods and drinks that I consume on a daily basis. Occasionally I'll start eating cereal for breakfast and I notice that it makes me hungry more often and it completely messes with my energy levels, so I stop.
- YeGoblynQueenne 1y ago
  >> I'd suggest that only people who are already overweight will be trying intermittent fasting. Needs a study with randomly selected people who are put into two groups - overweight and lean, then half of each group start intermittent fasting. Came here to comment on this. There is no mention in the article (and I can't access the paywalled study) that the researchers controlled for BMI so there is no way to tell whether the participants of the study who were more likely to have cardiovascular problems were also the ones who were expected to have them because of overweight conditions. I'm not advocating for intermittent fasting, to be clear. I tried it a while ago and it didn't do anything (I lost a couple of kg then got them back again when the seasons turned) but the study seems shoddy and uninformative. Or I'm just in reviewer number two mode.
Rodmine 1y ago
The food and drugs industry wants you fat.
grigio 1y ago
luckly junk food will keep us healthy /s
OtomotO 1y ago
I find it interesting that there is this sentiment that humans have forgotten to listen to their bodies and at the same time there is this other sentiment that you shouldn't trust your body. What I mean: I have Morbus Meulengracht and my metabolism definitely works differently than that of other people. I follow my body. If I have hunger at 10pm, I eat something... All my blood values, apart from Bilirubin (of course) and Cholesterin are absolutely superb
maxglute 1y ago
What isn't IF correlated to at this point?

[flagged]

YZF 1y ago

"Eating duration <8 h was linked to 135 % higher cardiovascular mortality, but was not associated with all-cause and cancer mortality." ... "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." I think I've seen a preprint of this study discussed a little while back. What some experts(?) were suggesting is to widen the window to something like 10 or 12 hours.

OrderlyTiamat 1y ago
Was the preprint the full text? I can't find a full text version, and I'm really interested to see whether they calculated the moderator of being overweight/obese, as that seems to me to be the most likely explanation for a correlation between IF and higher cardiovascular disease mortality. It's not listed in their list of confounders they've corrected for, so maybe I should assume they haven't done that? If they have, maybe I'll stop with IF, otherwise I'm not sure what the results really show.

hannob 1y ago

It seems like there's a very plausible mechanism for reverse causation here. If you're already having health problems, you are more likely to follow a dietary pattern that is said to promote health. That this translates to a correlation to heightened cardiovascular risk seems unsurprising.

ipnon 1y ago
Yes, and it could be that intermittent fasting with metabolic syndrome is cardiotoxic but intermittent fasting without is cardioprotective.

cncjchsue7 1y ago

gglanzani 1y ago

I have not read the paper, but how did they differentiate between people eating non-breakfast food in the morning and people skipping breakfast? From the quote below, it seems their method all but precise > To understand their eating habits, participants were asked on two separate days - about two weeks apart - to recall everything they ate and drank. From these "dietary recalls", scientists estimated each person's average eating window and treated it as representative of their long-term routine.

christoph 1y ago
Same! I’m firmly starting to believe these studies are being conducted to confuse the public even further with regard to eating. The media have been focussed on eating/public health for a couple of decades now and during that period all I’ve witnessed is a rapid and sharp decline in general health and eating habits and increasing pointless discussion about it all. All the time, energy and confusion just starts to enrage me now. Does the time of day you eat really matter? Maybe… but is there really any major difference in poisoning yourself before noon or after? If there is, is it worth discussing? Is it worth studying? It’s really super simple - you are what you eat. If you aren’t, what are you? If you put stuff into you that’s one step away from poison or toxic waste, don’t be surprised when the body reacts the way it does and eventually dies early. I’m talking about anything processed/manufactured (99+%) that comes from a factory. If you want to live a long and healthy life, it’s no more difficult than just eating as much fresh and varied, un-poisoned fruits & vegetables as you like. That’s it. This advice can’t prop up billion dollar food, advertising, media & pharma industries though. People think this is hard to follow as well because they are addicted to everything in processed food, lack time and their body is already in a constant high state of stress. As soon as the diet changes to one of health & life, stress rapidly reduces, health improves, taste buds alter and suddenly within a short time, all that stuff you used to eat, tastes like the actual crap it really is.
- rixed 1y ago
  Most of what you just said makes sense to me, and I believe you are right to draw the attention toward the elephant in the room: quality and variety of ingredients. The reason why I'm writting this reply is this bit: > I’m talking about anything processed/manufactured (99+%) that comes from a factory. No. If we want a chance of survival we have to stop assosiating "factory" and "industry" to "bad". First, despite some of the bad press the food industry regularly receive is probably well deserved, overall food safety out of a factory is very good; much better than anything we ever had in history, and especially safer (if not tastier) than the equivalent homegrown product. Highly processed food is a problem, be it out of a factory or fried by grandma. I've worked a bit in this industry, and I can attest that even the less regulated industry will self-regulate periodic biological tests and put in place germ control policies that are much stricter than anything your local farmer will ever be able to do; just because of economy of scale. And the same goes for the environment: If we don't want to exhaust natural resources we have to resort to industry economy of scales. The quantity of energy and water that would be required to grow tomatoes in our gardens is stupidly wasteful compared to industrial norms. The quantity of detergeant and water needed to clean cooking pots for family-scale cooking is enormous compared to the quantity needed to clean tanks used in the industry. I feel stupid to have to state the obvious but I'm starting to get really afraid of this trend that associates small scale with better safety, better variety and better economy of resources while the complete oposite is true.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

pillefitz 1y ago

For what it's worth, it always felt unhealthy when I tried due to increased stress levels

cma 1y ago

> 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. The link held even after adjusting for diet quality, meal and snack frequency, and other lifestyle factors, researchers found. Smoking makes it easier to skip meals, which is part of why people gain weight when they quit. Smokers who more likely only ate in 8 hour windows may just be heavier smokers than those who ate across 14 hour windows if there is a dose response relationship to the meal skipping. Diabetes also can make meals at certain times of day make you feel sick and more likely to be skipped (more examples beyond this, but look up dawn phenomenon with diabetes). They say all cause mortality is not much different blbut those two subgroups had the higher mortality compare with same subgroup that ate over a longer period. But it could just be heavier smokers skipping meals and more advanced diabetes case sufferers skipping breakfast unless controlled for separately (smoking amount and dawn phenomenon)

sixtyj 1y ago

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871402125000955 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S18714... Survey took 15 years, and 19,831 participants. Median follow-up was 8.1 years. Further research is required. Methods Adult participants who reported usual intake from two valid 24-h dietary recalls were included from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2003–2018 (n = 19,831). Mortality status as of December 2019 was obtained through linkage to the National Death Index. Average eating duration was categorized as <8, 8–<10, 10–<12, 12–14 h (mean duration), >14–16, and >16 h. Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were derived. 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.

munch117 1y ago
15 years ago, was intermittent fasting even a thing back then? I wonder how many of the people eating within an 8 hour window didn't do it because of a diet, but instead because of an eating disorder or some other disease.
- woleium 1y ago
  Anecdotally, yes, i was doing it and there was a bunch of stuff online
port11 1y ago
Yours should be the top-most comment. This is another reminder that, in the short term, a lot of research about health amounts to very little signal because the confounding factors are so varied. We can, of course, learn a lot about health very quickly, but much of the reporting is sensationalised nonsense.

throwawaylaptop 1y ago

The quality of studies seems so poor it almost seems like the people conducting them don't even care about their quality, but wherever gets funding and keeps the bosses happy. Basically the car salespeople of academia.

bjornsing 1y ago

Not saying they are wrong, but my feeling is that selection effects probably dwarf any causal effects here. You don’t need much skew in the health distribution of people who are drawn to an intervention like this to get this kind of correlation and effect size.

lokrian 1y ago

Some people seem to not just survive, but actually thrive on terrible, junk food diets, like the current president, or Warren Buffett (who eats ice cream and mcdonald's for breakfast and 2 liters of cherry coke every day, and is still alive at 95) https://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-diet-2017-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-diet-2017-10 Diet really does seem to be one of those highly individualistic things, and I'm guessing humanity is in an evolutionary transition from paleolithic type diets to mcdonalds 3 times day, with different people having the genes to thrive on different things. You just have to see what works for you.

N_Lens 1y ago
Picking anecdotal exceptions doesn't indicate broad genetic differences that allow people to "thrive on junk". Everyone has heard of someone who smoked and drank and lived to a hundred. That doesn't mean smoking and drinking aren't harmful for health; Infact overwhelming evidence clearly shows their harm. Same goes for unhealthy food, and we broadly see the impact statistically as well as viscerally.
- andrewinardeer 1y ago
  My anecdotal experience is there are no long term full time cigarette smokers over the age of 70 because they all died.
  - esseph 1y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45081132 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45081132
  - rsynnott 1y ago
    ... Are you giving anecdotal evidence against the anecdotal evidence the other person gave?
  - latexr 1y ago
    Fran Lebowitz, avid cigarette smoker, 74 and counting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran_Lebowitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran_Lebowitz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGcG7e03Nts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGcG7e03Nts

01100011 1y ago

I thought we gave up on IF a couple years ago when we determined it didn't help with weight and caused loss of muscle? For me, the only effect of IF was insulin sensitivity so high I would fight passing out after a moderately carb rich dinner. I hated it and found no benefit.

glp1guide 1y ago

Do yourself a favor, and just take GLP1s instead (after talking to your health care professional). The research on the effects is plentiful, they're incredibly effective, and next year by next year you'll have very effective FDA approved (for weight loss) oral GLP1s to take. Losing weight is almost solved at this point, I'd post links but at this point the substack I run is heavily paywalled -- the research is out there and not hard to find with a quick search.

esseph 1y ago
My wife started taking GLP1 2 1/2 years ago. She had to stop because it made her throw up every morning. She hasn't been on it for 2 years. She still throws up every morning. (Yes, they've gone into her digestive tract multiple times with cameras. It still won't stop. Changes in diet, sleep, etc have had no impact. Etc.) Maybe it's not for everyone.
- glp1guide 1y ago
  That sounds like a terrible experience, sorry you and the wife went through that and somehow the negative side effects STILL persist. This is honestly the first case I’ve ever heard of such an adverse effect. GLP1s are certainly not for everyone, and if she had that reaction on a starting dosage then it certainly is obvious stopping was the way to go. That said, for the vast majority of people though, GLP1s are likely going to the key to living longer and carrying less weight (including into old age). At this point, the research is behind the drugs being useful for the vast majority of the population, and the literal millions of people taking these drugs do not seem to be running into such horrific side effects, especially ones that continue after stopping the drugs. Would you mind sharing which GLP1 she was on? This actually sounds like something that should be more widely known. Throwing up forever is quite a crippling side effect, and since GLP1s are more recently considered primarily brain drugs, I wonder if it triggered a persistent chemical imbalance.
  - esseph 1y ago
    There are multiple class actions consolidating. https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/ozempic-gastroparesis-lawsuit.html?hl=en-US https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/ozempic-gastropar...

morgengold 1y ago

Correlation vs Causation.

yoyohello13 1y ago

<8h feeding window, but “normal” eating habits are usually around 12hr feeding window. I find it very hard to believe that simply waiting an extra 4 hours to eat has any appreciable impact on health. Our bodies aren’t that fragile.

bigbacaloa 1y ago

[dead]

InMice 1y ago

So just a simple question - if I eat dinner at 6, then dont eat breakfast til 9 or 10 the next morning after waking up.. 6pm to 10am is 16 hours. What is so extreme about that? I do that most days without even thinking about it. I feel no hunger after dinner, overnight or in the morning when I wake up. What exactly am I doing wrong according to this study? Im NOT hungry, therefor I dont eat. Later in the morning I feel hunger so I eat. 16-18 hours passes and I feel totally normal before my first food of the day. Do people really think this is actually an abnormally long time to not eat anything?

esseph 1y ago
Part of it depends on your basal metabolic rate and your activity level, but you're also sleeping during that period. Now if you were awake for 16 hours and hadn't eaten, that's closer to my original understanding of intermittent fasting.

TerraHertz 1y ago

I'd suggest that only people who are already overweight will be trying intermittent fasting. Needs a study with randomly selected people who are put into two groups - overweight and lean, then half of each group start intermittent fasting. Also, since when is just restricting eating to certain hours of the day 'fasting'? My experience: I was overweight, 95 Kg. Two years of not getting anywhere with attempting to reduce intake, due to living alone, which makes cooking small meals difficult. Heard of "36 hour fasting", and decided to try it. Except I felt '36 hours' is half-arsed. So to simplify I just do 48 hour fasts. Turns out it's very easy, and I can reliably drop a couple more kilos anytime I choose to do another fast or two. Currently down to 84 Kg. Will be 83 after the current one probably. Once I'm at 80kg, I'll decide whether to continue down to 75 or so.

InMice 1y ago
I also asked that question in another comment. If i eat dinner at 6pm, Im not hungry the rest of the day, overnight nor in the morning when I wake up. Around 10 or 11 I start to feel hunger that doesnt go away - So i eat. 16-18 hours has passed but I was never counting or thinking about it... Is that really fasting or denying myself food? Is it considered fasting to not constantly snack and crave processed foods?
- dns_snek 1y ago
  To a certain extent I think it depends your level of activity. If I'm sedentary and I eat a big dinner I usually won't feel hungry at least until 3pm the next day and sometimes it can be full 24h before I really feel hunger kick in again. It's been that way as long as I can remember but I try to make sure I eat something in the morning anyway because I noticed that I function better that way (duh!) I think avoiding sugar makes a significant difference. I love sweet treats but I've eliminated the vast majority of sugar in foods and drinks that I consume on a daily basis. Occasionally I'll start eating cereal for breakfast and I notice that it makes me hungry more often and it completely messes with my energy levels, so I stop.
YeGoblynQueenne 1y ago
>> I'd suggest that only people who are already overweight will be trying intermittent fasting. Needs a study with randomly selected people who are put into two groups - overweight and lean, then half of each group start intermittent fasting. Came here to comment on this. There is no mention in the article (and I can't access the paywalled study) that the researchers controlled for BMI so there is no way to tell whether the participants of the study who were more likely to have cardiovascular problems were also the ones who were expected to have them because of overweight conditions. I'm not advocating for intermittent fasting, to be clear. I tried it a while ago and it didn't do anything (I lost a couple of kg then got them back again when the seasons turned) but the study seems shoddy and uninformative. Or I'm just in reviewer number two mode.

Rodmine 1y ago

The food and drugs industry wants you fat.

grigio 1y ago

luckly junk food will keep us healthy /s

OtomotO 1y ago

I find it interesting that there is this sentiment that humans have forgotten to listen to their bodies and at the same time there is this other sentiment that you shouldn't trust your body. What I mean: I have Morbus Meulengracht and my metabolism definitely works differently than that of other people. I follow my body. If I have hunger at 10pm, I eat something... All my blood values, apart from Bilirubin (of course) and Cholesterin are absolutely superb

maxglute 1y ago

What isn't IF correlated to at this point?