Does Intermittent Fasting Increase Heart Attack Risk 91%?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 май 2024
- Sigh. Nutrition research is often bad, and how we talk about it is even worse. If you believe the hype from the past several years, intermittent fasting doesn’t only help you lose weight, it may go so far as to prolong your life. So what do we do with new data suggesting it significantly increases your risk for cardiovascular disease?
Related HCT episodes:
Understanding Risk: • What Kills Us? How We ...
Be sure to check out our podcast!
• Podcast
Other Healthcare Triage Links:
1. Support the channel on Patreon: vid.io/xqXr
2. Check out our Facebook page: goo.gl/LnOq5z
3. We still have merchandise available at www.hctmerch.com
4. Aaron's book "The Bad Food Bible: How and Why to Eat Sinfully" is available wherever books are sold, such as Amazon: amzn.to/2hGvhKw
Credits:
Aaron Carroll -- Writer
Tiffany Doherty -- Writer and Script Editor
John Green -- Executive Producer
Stan Muller -- Director, Producer
Mark Olsen - Art Director, Producer
We should start a new metric for how nonsensical a medical news item is by measuring Dr. Aaron's eye-rolling intensity lol
Dammit. I really wanted a pun when you said “taken with a grain of salt”.
I mean.. the salt intake data is pretty bad..
So many people would benefit from taking many more grains of salt, especially if they are avoiding processed foods.
I have been intermittent fasting my whole life. When you're poor you dont get the luxury to expand your meals beyond school lunch food and dinner (which resides in an 8hr window).
That is not intermittent fasting, but starving. Not the same.
You’ve probably just identified where the correlation here comes from. People intermittent fasting are probably doing so out of necessity and not choice. I.e. they’re dying earlier because they’re poor
Ah, I recall growing up with forced intermittent fasting. It can, and will, get better for you.
I've been doing intermittent fasting for ages, but not intentionally as some sort of fad. It's more "learn to realize when you're actually hungry, and then eat when you're hungry." Turns out since I'm pretty sedentary, I get by just fine eating a single time a day. Chances are if I were very active, I'd need to eat more frequently and would be healthier for it, but it's gonna be hard for compiled data to really capture the nuances of all that.
Feel the same!
Same here. All my life i rarely eat more often than every 8 hours, as i just dont feel hungry. A single big meal is enough most days and no breakfasts (except coffee)
I am overweight. I went to a doctor specializing in weight loss and bariatric surgery. I was looking for nonsurgical help. He instructed me on the 1410 intermittent fast. He did not tell me to change my diet or instruct me how to eat, only when to eat. He says by restricting eating to a 10 hour window that ends at least 2 hours before bed, you are less likely to snack and overeat and will consume fewer calories overall even with no change to diet. It's the first baby step toward making sustainable change in my life. And it's been very doable. Since then, he's put very small goals toward what my meals should consist of now that I've been doing the 1410 for several months. I've lost over 30 lbs in 5 months. Slow and steady.
Super glad to hear it works for you. My suspicion is that intermittent fasting works for some people because they are able to effectively reduce their total caloric intake, AND the side effects of long stretches without food are minimal or manageable. This diet fails many people who either do not restrict their total intake OR the side effects are unmanageable or unsafe. For myself, the side effects of fasting are significantly hampering for a profession which is both physically and mentally demanding, over time periods much longer than 10 hrs. So once again - the best diet is the safe one that works for YOU.
TIL I'm accidentally intermittent fasting. I just don't feel hungry in the morning.
I am the same, i never feel hungry in the morning.
Yah and I bet neither of you are overweight.
I have a feeling you are going to get a lot more mileage out of that “IN MICE” slide in future videos!
Has no one done a study on fasting during Ramadan. It seems unlikely I'm the only one who has thought of this.
There are. People on average gain weight. But that’s because the fast ends with a big family feast every evening, with lots of sweets. Plus people who are very hungry tend to gravitate towards foods that are high in carbohydrates.
There have been studies on metabolic markers and some were found to improve, others not. However, it's only a 30-day period at most and if you need to maintain a normal or higher calorie intake because of something like pregnancy (if given the 👍 to go), you probably can during the eating window. It's different than IF that way. The results are often conflicting because they will be affected by dietary variations.
After all these years of absurd nutrition studies I just can't take almost anything coming from research papers about diet seriously anymore. At this point I trust listening to how my body feels over studies. It saddens me as I love science, but god after listening to doctors and psychologists on diet and nutrition for years and up to a decade to only get worse results than listening to my gut for a few years I'd be lying if I said I trusted it.
You shouldn't be paying attention to medical or scientific studies anyway. They were not written for people like you and me, and we don't have the education, experience nor understanding of the field to properly understand most of it, nor be able to really tell if the study is even worth reading. We should be listening to the current consensus of the experts in the field, if there is one.
I did medical research for over a decade, though not nutrition.
Many of these papers barely pass for science to be honest... Being so biased and of poor methodology.
Even those that are done well are often misinterpreted or applied to the wrong context or populations.
@@SarthorSbut general consensus has been and can be wrong also... So looking at studies can be somewhat useful.
I have some rather unusual experience regarding mental health and hormones. When looking into adopting a dog, I ended up doing a deep dive into sterilization.... There's so many issues in those studies, particularly around socieocomic factors and size/age distributions (dogs mature at a different rate based off size. Quite a few studies will compare groups with inconsistent size/age, which uhh wtf). Both the physical and mental health studies have issues. The whole a subset of veterinary community is trying to approve the approach to this medical care, there's extreme stubborness and dismissal and refusal to change.
So now I don't know who to trust as like if there's so many issues with what's going into to informing the general consensus on this common practice... What else is going on.
@@hefoxed Oh, of course the consensus can be wrong. But say you were looking to invest your life savings and you checked 50 finance sites. 45 of them all say the same thing for the amount of money you have and risk you are willing take. 2 of them say something else which the other sites do mention but say isn't the best option. The last 3 each say something that isn't even listed on the other sites.
Where would you put your money? If you say something other than the option that is given by 45/50 sites, you have poor decision making skills.
It's the same with science. It could be that one of the outliers is on to something that is more accurate than the current consensus, but the chance is 99.9% that he is wrong. But how can you tell? If he is right, he will gather more evidence and conduct more experiments. Other scientists working in the same field will read his work along with the work that everyone else is doing. Gradually other scientists will start thinking he is on to something and will also start working in that direction. Eventually, if his idea is better than the current consensus, it will become the new consensus. And that is when people like us should accept it. Not before.
I make an effort to get my information about science from valid scientific sources, and I don't want individual scientists to tell me what their personal opinion is. I want them to tell me what the current consensus is, because they will know and if they are not a crackpot, will have no problem telling you what it is and why it's the consensus.
The scientists are the ONLY ones who understand the science, and dissenting from the consensus is the way that science improves. But almost all dissent is going to be wrong. Scientists know this. But when you get one who becomes too invested in their idea to accept when it has been shown to be wrong, that is when you slip from science to pseudo science. Other scientists know the difference between someone who is just working on a new idea and someone who has gone off the rails.
@@SarthorS That's a fair example, but like for the example I looked into, there's already enough research over enough years that the general conscience should have likely already changed and the industry using that research to modify practices (to one following medical ethics: provide informed consent to owners and give them as unbiased information as possible, be upfront of both advantages and disadvantages instead of just advantages, and offer options). However, likely biases (heavily contributed to by stress of dealing with heartbreaking overpopulation), livestock industry needs, and corporation takeover of the industry has created a situation where the change isn't happening fast enough. So, with the consensus slow to change, the veterinary industry literally promotes a practice as improving behavior that likely has more chance of causing issues via increasing risk of mental health issues/anxiety, and may do similar to health* tho that's more complicated on what's net best for a given species/breed/animal (like, female cats: reducing estrogen does increase lifespan due to hard to treat mammary cancer rates. But large breed dogs prone to blood/bone cancer, may be doing opposite).
The issues in a lot of the research used aren't hard to notice to lay people -- and that's a major issue for trusting the consensus. Like, with your example, I as a lay people shouldn't be able to notice the issues. It should be obscure issues, not blatant/obvious.
Example, the lifespan research: two of the major contributors to lower lifespan in intact dogs is trauma (car hits) and infection. The studies this is from are based off veterinary database, which meant the dogs had some veterinary care but otherwise income was not known and neither was other sociecomic factors accounted for. Intact dogs are more likely to be in struggling households, who may be able to have basic veterinary care, but less able to pay for emergency life saving medical care; are more likely to be rural (further from care); owner less likely to be home (due to work needs); have increased time outside; more likely to be working dog; and that all can effect trauma and infection in rather obvious ways -- and most people I would assume would known or at least guest some of those issues -- financial struggle effecting behaviour and health is well known, and it's not a stretch to realize that'd effect pets also. When I looked into this last year, this lifespan data were advertised on veterinary websites and pet wellness organizations, most without acknowledgement of these issues with using that data to imply hormone deprivation increases dog lifespan.
Anecdote: Intermittent fasting helped me lose a lot of weight! Then I gained most of it back. Now I'm working on creating a sustainable healthy diet and slowly dropping it off again.
In my mind, it helped me sort of...reset my idea of "hunger". Once it became my "normal", though, I started eating more food again, and it wasn't all healthy.
Still, I think it did help me, because it feels like it fixed one of my problems (negligent snacking) and replaced it with another one that's easier for me to solve (poor diet). Results can and will vary wildly.
That makes a lot of sense to me! I'm a chronic breakfast skipper, so whether I over eat or eat junk once I'm really hungry later in the day depends entirely on what food I choose to buy and what I decide to prepare. I'm not saying it's always an easy choice, but it is within my control to provide my self with healthier foods.
I get the impression that "intermittent fasting" is used to refer to a variety of eating practices, some of which are healthy and others of which are very unhealthy.
Personally, even if it's safe and effective, I could never do it because 9 times out of 10 missing a meal gives me a splitting headache, and it has since childhood.
Some people even have a rare mutation that means they'd die from longer fasting, MCAD mutation. Can't convert important triglycerides to energy.
I intermittent fast (10 hour window) and it's not about skipping meals. I just eat all my meals for the day within a 10 hour period. For me, that's 9:30 to 7:30. The important part is for eating to end at least 2 hours before bed.
@@kscott2655 That's not intermittent fasting; that's simply "not eating late night snacks." What you describe is something I've been doing basically my entire life since childhood.
@jliller - It is intermittent fasting. It's a 1410 fast. I have a 10 hour eating window. For 14 hours, I fast. I consume zero calories during those hours. It was prescribed by my doctor as an intermittent fast.
@@kscott2655 But of those 14 hours you're spending at least half of them asleep.
I almost never eat before 8AM and rarely after 8PM. I guess I can start going around telling people I've been on a 12-12 intermittent fasting diet since before IFDs were en vogue.
I'm at 00:24 and am going to predict that the title is the dumbest thing I've ever heard because our species would have gone extinct. Back after the video to see how I did. Edit: Called it!
Would it be bad to just open with how the study used self reporting to get the point across right away?
Very glad to see a HCT video on intermittent fasting. I’ve lost weight using IF (12+ moving to 14+ hour fasting periods ) (yes, anecdotal, I know, which is why I’ve been hoping for HCT to make a video)
Lol, imagine if it was absolute risk
I think the concept of relative vs. absolute risk was first drilled into my head in a supplemental class AFTER I went to professional school. With all things considered, I think it's something that should be taught in high school at the very least (I can't even imagine it being that hard to teach just using nothing but picture/diagrams).
If you're already overweight and suddenly do low calorie intermittent fasting to try to lose weight, that would be hard on the body and would increase relative risk.
But that would not be intermittent fasting causing the issue, it'd be a sudden dramatic change that caused it.
I'd be curious the details of the study participants.
Because they ate unhealthy?
I stuck to intermittent fasting for about... a year? Not to reduce how much I was eating but to regulate and improve what I was eating. Depression plus grief plus health issues messed with my hunger and eating habits for almost a decade to the point I stopped being able to recognize hunger signs. It got to a particularly low point where I would mostly not ea through the day, realize it late in the evening, realize I should eat something, throw something not all that great for me but easy together, then eat probably not long before going to bed. I decided to set a six hour period where I could eat starting with a late breakfast/brunch, a snack somewhere inbetween, and then another meal. For some reason telling myself I wouldnt get to eat later if I didnt eat then meant I actually would. Because I was making it earlier in the day (and again knew I wouldnt eat later) I made sure I was eatting better things. I started cooking for myself more regularly when my health allowed, I got into a bit of a habit of meal prep, and after awhile I recognized hunger signs at least a bit better than I had. When my health got particularly bad again I switched to just eatting when able and never went back to the fasting or felt I needed to. I think it was what I needed at the time but I wouldnt actually recommend it to others. The one friend who brought it up I encouraged to talk to her doctor and therapist. She was confused why her therapist and I laid out some of the issues Id heard about.
I don't have any kind of stance for or against IF, but something that I find confusing is some of the language used around meal timing. Isn't the ability to consistently intake food over a set period of time a relatively new thing from an evolution point of view? It seems like requiring that would be a big disadvantage.
I'm sure I'm missing something, but I just don't know what.
Exactly, evolutionarily speaking, we are perfectly capable of going for long periods without food. That's actually the reason why we get fat in the first place, to survive and have energy when food is scarce. The problem has arisen since the agricultural revolution, when we switched from fats for ever increasingly refined carbs. Carbs are much heavier on our metabolism due to the insulin spike they cause, and in the long run make weight management not intuitive anymore. When hungry, our body does not tap into fat reserves anymore (because of insuline resistance) and instead starts cravings for furher carbs.
An important point that wasn’t mentioned that is a flaw with this study as they classified people as intermittent faster based on simply two dietary recalls… I’ve been intermittent fasting for the better part of the last decade but if you took two random days of my eating and they happened to be cheat days then I guess I wouldn’t have been classified as faster.
It does make it easier to maintain weight. It's hard to over eat in an eight hour window without getting sick.
2003 to 2019? Those people were almost certainly not intermittent fasting as a choice. It didn't become a fad until maybe the last couple years of that time window.
Of the 20,078 participants, only 414 fit the
Please do an episode on VitD. My understanding is a deficiency of sunlight will lead to a deficiency of VitD...which has a cancer correlation...???
Would be interested in one or more videos diving into studies around intermittent fasting. I do it and was under the impression that the mechanisms in the body (such as ketosis) that kick off after certain periods of not eating were studied in humans as presumably they'd be different for animals with very different biology. Also curious since plenty of reputable sources (Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, non-quack seeming YT channels like Institute of Human Anatomy) seemingly support some positive impacts--not a magic bullet of course, but generally positive.
I will say anecdotally though, that I tried intermittent fasting and felt my cognition was much improved. I experienced zero weight loss.
However, my breakfast diet wasn’t all that healthy to begin with so maybe that was the real problem.
I would be curious how many people they captured in the study just have an eating disorder. My father started off with intermittent fasting "to improve his health", then also went keto, cut all fruit and most vegetables from his diet, and has become extremely obsessive about strictly limiting and controlling what he consumes. He's now very noticably underweight and no longer exercises because he has no energy and is frequently sick. I wouldn't be surprised if he's now at much greater risk of cardiovascular disease, and it's not really the fault of intermittent fasting (other than it seems to have triggered him to develop an eating disorder).
Just finished a half marathon, at the start I was fasting since 19 hours. No problem whatsoever. Actually, working out in fasted state eliminates the worry about nutrition during race. Of course it takes practice, if one is not fat adapted, this may be impossible to do.
Anyway, IF has solved my problems with weight, way better than any calorie counting diet.
Honestly, one time in my life I was 200lbs, at 5'8" that is pretty over weight. I was continuing to eat 3 american meals a day just like I had since I was a teen. Eventually I tried everything to lose weight, nothing worked, I went to the gym for 8 hours a day, cut my intake, removed fast foods, ate at home, tried all the pills and all the fad diets.
The only thing that worked for me was when I attempted to go a week without eating, and only drinking water. I did, after that food changed. (not recommending anyone do this) I didnt like the same things, sugar wasnt as important, I really enjoyed diet drinks not sugar drinks, and slowly eating again I realized I only needed and wanted barely a piece of bread a day.
I had so much energy, I was so happy and felt good! So I kept my intake down, barely eating anything and only today do I know I was intermittent fasting. After 5 months, barely eating 300-500 calories a day, I was at 145lbs and the best shape I had been in my life. I was eating about 700-1000 calories a day in a single meal and super good to go. So for me, this worked. IT took some time, and I lost muscle mass, but I also didnt work out at all during this time.
So to me, a person should reduce their intake as they age, smaller meals, equivalent to a single serving on packaging, maybe 3-4 times a day, which is what I am doing.
Can we talk aboit the vitamin D more?
Intermittent fasting has helped me
So....the people who died from intermittent fasting * checks notes * *self reported* their eating habits.
Buddhist monks generaly can not eat after 12 noon. But they don't have cardiovascular disease .
Doctor to Patient A: You're in good health. Keep doing what you're doing.
Doctor to Patient B: You're prediabetic, obese, and your blood tastes like gravy. Have you considered intermittent fasting?
This Study: INTEMITTENT FASTING KILLED PATIENT B!!!!!1!!
I never believe any headline that I read about any nutritional study unless my doctor tells me about it!
I have a very unusual system. I'm missing 2 proteins in my DNA that make up my autoimmune system; it's rare enough that it doesn't even have a name yet!
For those who don’t understand relative vs. absolute risk correlation, if one all-day eating participant died of cardiovascular disease, that’s one measurement. If TWO intermittent fasters died of cardiovascular disease, then that’s a 100% relative increase over the first measurement. That’s what we’re talking about here. In absolute terms, the difference is almost meaningless.
I don't know anything about intermittent fasting except that some people observe Ramadan.
EAT. LESS. LOOSE. WEIGH.
I did the intermittent fasting thing a few years ago when I tried the absurdity that is keto. IF was grafted onto keto as an essential component although there’s no real connection. I eventually began to feel that IM is probably a big myth, the ONLY advantage being that it might limit your daily intake of calories. But I doubt it. I gave it up because I’m on my feet all day and I bonk if I don’t eat. Simple as that.
Keto isn't suitable for everybody. The original diet was created to reduce epilepsy in children, which it did for those who managed to adhere to it (modern keto diets is different from it in part because most people aren't doing it to reduce epilepsy). People with the MCAD mutation can even die if they attempt keto since their bodies can't convert important triglycerides into energy.
If you did keto just to lose weight, there are many far better ways to do it like the many ways to do CICO like portion control, volume eating, and so on. The only relatively healthy overweight people who tend to benefit from keto are people with hunger signalling issues. Some people with autoimmune health issues benefit from keto, which was why I tried it and it was fantastic. I've had a lot of chronic pain since childhood that i just took for granted, and ketosis on a vegetable heavy diet helped me so much. I naturally gravitated towards eating only once or twice a day without intending IF. My Sjögren's felt felt better, my Raynaud's felt better, etc. It was so great.
I can't imagine doing keto if you're already healthy and just want to lose weight, you don't need to go on a radical diet to fix that.
I had to quit because I had to move (leading to a severe financial hit) and then too severe poverty where I lived on a very unhealthy diet of mostly cooked dried beans (and red lentils) and rice for months, only getting to mix in vegetables, eggs, and the like in a minority of the time. I probably didn't consume enough omega 3 during that time either, though I made sure to splurge on cheap olive oil to not die from rabbit starvation, though I probably didn't get enough protein either. I'm only recently starting to get back to a healthy normal diet instead of a poverty diet I felt like crap on. Don't take your health for granted, and take advantage of it. Dieting fads are never the answer if you just want to lose weight. Ketosis diets are for health issues that isn't just carrying extra fat.
its like all diet fads. When adkins came out it was the same. If you said anything to the contrary about the diet you were shunned like the devil. It really just boils down to talking to your doctor and discussing a diet that works best for you and your life style.
❤ plaque score a big fat zero by the way
Audio on this episode seems to include issues.
This is not be rude but this video is a little ridiculous. You didn't even read the research because it hasn't been published yet and you're already criticizing it. Half of your criticism of it is that that you think the conclusion sounds ridiculous. That's a horrible attitude when it comes to science. It's one that has suppressed countless contributions to science.
The rest of your criticisms aren't really all that fair. It's not like we don't already know the risk of heart attacks in the general population. Calculating an estimate of their absolute risk from their relative risk would be easy. The only way it would be massively different is if their sample was incredibly biased.
Moreover absolute risks can be just as misleading because if the incidence of something is low then the absolute increase will be low regardless of what kind of risk we're talking about. That's just how statistics works. Even a small increased risk is also meaningful if the behavior is totally optional and easy to avoid (like an extreme diet of some kind).
Also the whole "correlation isn't causation" stuff in this video is pointless. Everyone already knows that. It's common knowledge. Correlations are meaningful data though. They can, depending on how much data and the kind of data, be used to establish causation and make decisions. The only data we have on the negative effects of smoking is correlational. Yes, this is just one study, but it's silly to dismiss it for these reasons.
Also it's true that self-reports aren't reliable for most nutrition studies but that's because of inaccurate memories. I doubt people would forget if they ate for eight hours out of the day or not.
By the way, I'm not defending this because I like intermittent fasting. I don't do intermittent fasting and I'm largely neutral on it. I'm seriously just not a fan of how this video was done.
The problem is that it's a religion thing. A lot of people from certain religions want to try to push others to jump into their religious practices under false pretense. We've seen this before in science a TON, unfortunately.
I appreciate the debunk, however can you stop strawmaning when describing positions? I never believed that intermittent fasting is magical, cures amputees and stops wars. You are making positions look silly.
This is like asking if the Moon can be seen with the naked eye, but never going outside.
It is trivial to try this stuff. It isn't difficult. You suggest you don't value the studies, fine. Just try it. It takes almost no effort to do.
Then you'll have at least your experience with what actually happens. Does your mood improve? Find out, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.
But this is trivial to figure out. No one needs a study to tell them what happens by eating within a window instead of several times a day.