# Exploring the Controversy Around Intermittent Fasting and Heart Health
In recent years, intermittent fasting has gained popularity as a wellness trend, with many claiming significant health benefits from this dietary approach. However, a recent study presented at an American Heart Association conference has sparked controversy by suggesting a potential link between intermittent fasting and an increased risk of cardiovascular death. Let’s delve deeper into this topic and explore the various perspectives surrounding this issue.
## The Initial Study Findings
The study presented at the conference indicated that individuals practicing intermittent fasting, specifically eating within an 8-hour time restriction, had a 91% increased risk of cardiovascular death. This alarming statistic caught the attention of the media, leading to sensational headlines and widespread concern among the public. The researchers themselves, however, expressed caution in interpreting these results, highlighting the need for further research and scrutiny.
### Critique of the Study
Experts like Dr. Christopher Gardner from Stanford University raised several important points regarding the study’s methodology and conclusions. One key concern was the lack of consideration for confounding factors such as demographic characteristics, smoking habits, and BMI in the study population. Additionally, the reliance on self-reported data over a brief period to estimate long-term eating habits was seen as a significant limitation by researchers like Dr. Krista Varady from the University of Illinois, Chicago.
## Voices of Skepticism and Reason
Dr. Jason Fung, a renowned nephrologist and advocate of intermittent fasting, criticized the media and the American Heart Association for equating correlation with causation in their interpretation of the study findings. He emphasized the need for a more nuanced understanding of the data and cautioned against jumping to conclusions based on a single observational study. Dr. Joann Manson from Harvard University echoed this sentiment, underlining the importance of randomized clinical trials to establish causal relationships between meal timing and health outcomes.
### The Call for Further Research
While the initial study raised concerns about the potential risks of intermittent fasting, researchers like Dr. Victor Wenze Zhong emphasized the need for caution in interpreting the findings. They called for more extensive, long-term studies to explore the mechanisms underlying any observed associations between fasting duration and cardiovascular health. Despite the limitations of the current research, the consensus among experts was that intermittent fasting should not be dismissed outright but rather approached with a critical and informed perspective.
## Moving Forward With Intermittent Fasting
As the debate around intermittent fasting and heart health continues, it is essential for individuals to consult with healthcare professionals before making any drastic changes to their dietary habits. While intermittent fasting has shown promise in improving various health markers, including insulin sensitivity and inflammation, the current evidence does not conclusively support its long-term benefits for cardiovascular health. As we await further research and clinical trials, it is crucial to approach intermittent fasting with a balanced and evidence-based mindset.
# Summary
In summary, the recent study linking intermittent fasting to an increased risk of cardiovascular death has sparked debates and skepticism within the scientific community. While the initial findings raised concerns, experts emphasize the need for more comprehensive research and randomized clinical trials to establish clearer causal relationships. It is crucial for individuals to weigh the potential benefits and risks of intermittent fasting carefully and seek professional guidance before adopting this dietary approach.
By delving deeper into the nuances of this controversial topic, we can better understand the complexities of intermittent fasting and its impact on heart health. As science continues to evolve, it is essential to stay informed and critically evaluate the evidence to make informed decisions about our health and well-being.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
Does intermittent fasting increase the risk of death from heart disease? That’s what you might think from the headlines about early research presented in a recent American Heart Association Conference – prompting skepticism from experts and warnings from the researchers themselves.
This is what you should know.
The American Heart Association issued a Press release titled: “Eating with an 8-hour time restriction is linked to a 91% increased risk of cardiovascular death.”
The media was filled with headlines saying that some forms of intermittent fasting (a diet plan in which food intake is limited on certain days or at certain times of day) “may pose risks to the heart” or “ could lead to a much higher risk” of death, contradicting research showing that time-restricted eating can improve heart health factors such as insulin sensitivity, inflammation, obesity and cholesterol levels.
Among other findings from the study, according to the AHA news release:
- Those with heart disease or cancer also saw an increased risk of cardiovascular death.
- Among people with heart disease, eating for a period of no less than 8 but less than 10 hours a day was associated with a 66% increased risk of death from heart disease or stroke.
- Fasting did not reduce the risk of death from any cause.
Those conclusions are premature and misleading, says Christopher Gardner, PhD, a professor of medicine at Stanford University and director of nutrition studies at the school’s Prevention Research Center, who commented on a summary of the study for the news release. the AHA before the study results were presented. In Chicago.
Gardner tells WebMD that people in the study group who ate all their food in a daily period of 8 hours or less had a higher percentage of men, African Americans, and smokers, and had a higher BMI than those who ate for longer periods of time. – any of which could have increased the group’s risk of heart disease. Additionally, the researchers lacked data on shift work, stress and other variables, including the important element of nutrient quality in their diets, which alone could have provided another explanation, she says.
As with all experts on this story, including the study’s co-authors, Gardner noted that this research provides no reason to discontinue intermittent fasting if you currently see benefits.
Gardner, who is not a fan of intermittent fasting, summarized his thoughts on what he considers an exaggeration of the research in an email:
“This particular finding is PRELIMINARY and should be treated with HEALTHY SKEPTICISM, and should await PEER REVIEW before receiving additional media coverage.”
In response to questions about the study and the presentation of the findings, the AHA said its intention is always to “promote ideas and support research – in context – that stimulate and provoke discoveries.”
The summary, press release and news article were reviewed by scientific experts, the AHA says, and the release included context and background indicating a link, not causation, and said readers should always consult their doctors before changing your diet.
“We understand and regret that some news stories did not adequately include this important context and did not report this study for what it is: a single study that contributes to a broader body of evidence. “We will continue our efforts to educate and advise journalists in this regard,” the statement said.
Questions remain, he says Jason HongMD, a nephrologist who has written articles and books on intermittent fasting, including The obesity code.
With their headlines, Fung feels that the AHA and the media made correlation equal to causation, a mistake that would cause any first-year medical student to fail, he says.
“This whole thing is just outrageous.”
Just because there is a link between shorter feeding periods and poor health outcomes in a particular population does not mean that the feeding period caused the outcome, Fung says.
For example, he says, research shows that you’re more likely to choke if you’ve recently eaten ice cream. It would be easy to conclude that eating ice cream causes drowning. However, a closer look shows that people eat more ice cream in warmer climates, when they are more likely to swim and drown. So, the ice cream correlates with drowning but not cause He drowned.
Another problem, Fung says, is that the study’s data was taken from a health and nutrition survey conducted by the CDC between 2003 and 2018, when intermittent fasting was largely unknown as a way to manage health. Most people who skipped meals before 2018 were not trying to improve their health. They were ignoring what was then a standard dietary guide, she says. It could be that the people in this group were further You likely have poor eating habits and a poor diet.
Additionally, the study authors used just 2 days of self-reported eating activity to estimate 16 years of eating habits, says Krista VaradyPhD, professor of kinesiology and nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and co-author of several studies on fasting.
“I think the conclusions are extremely exaggerated,” he says. “Two days of diet recording data do NOT reflect an individual’s usual eating pattern at all; this is a major limitation of the study.”
“Science is very, very sloppy. You hope for better,” says Fung.
Co-author of the study joann mansonMD, MPH, DrPH, professor of medicine at Harvard University, said in a statement: “Correlation does not prove causation and we will need more research to understand whether the observed associations are cause and effect.”
Randomized clinical trials are needed to test whether meal timing or fasting duration changes health outcomes. Until trials are done, she says, the links “should not cause alarm or changes in preferred, long-term eating habits.”
Another co-author, Victor Wenze Zhong, PhD, professor and chair of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine in China, acknowledged that despite controlling for many demographic and health factors, “This is just an observational study that is subject to many limitations.”
The findings do not mean that a shorter feeding period causes cardiovascular death, he says, but given the lack of long-term data on time-restricted feeding, patients should be “extremely cautious” before following the diet for years. Zhong insists in the press release: “Our research clearly shows…that eating less is not associated with living longer.”
It’s not clear why, Zhong tells WebMD, but those who restricted eating to 8 hours or less per day had less lean muscle mass than those with longer eating periods, which “has been linked to an increased risk of mortality.” cardiovascular”.
He also calls for randomized clinical trials, but notes that a study that requires people to stick to their eating schedules while researchers track their progress for years “is difficult to do, if not impossible.”
“Unfortunately, this study cannot answer well the underlying mechanisms driving the observed association between 8 hours (time-restricted eating) and cardiovascular death.”
—————————————————-