It says nothing about drinking sugar contain drinks, it’s not intermittent fasting. It’s just eating over 8 hour window. It’s logic if you start and end your day with sugar containing drinks that you become more unhealthy. It’s even logical that eating small bites over a longer time period is more healthy since this doesn’t spike your sugar so much.
It’s scientific fact that fasting activates AMPK and inhibits mTOR as well as dozens of other longevity genes and pathways. But drinking sugar containing drinks does the exact opposite.
Furthermore they are speaking about American people, you can not take the average American diet seriously in any investigation related to time restricted eating.
This information was also in the Dutch news, I hate it when they use news like this to justify there own lack off discipline.
1 Like
ng0rge
#42
This is such a blatantly stupid case of a respected organization doing something that even the stupidest person in the room might say “I wouldn’t endorse and release that to the mainstream media and general public.” It undermines science in the worst way and although in a different category is right in there with David Sinclair in making the general public say “you just can’t trust those people” (about science and scientists). The science community in general needs to be more careful about policing themselves and building trust with the general public. They can’t keep releasing statements that bounce around like a yoyo on topics important to public health.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist but it does make you wonder if there isn’t a plot to undermine trust in all of our institutions.
3 Likes
I agree. Trust in science, which is behind most of the benefits we enjoy including most likely the fact that we are alive to enjoy them, has suffered under the anti-authority, anti-logic populist movement. However some of that destruction occurred much earlier at the hands of the university grant management offices which, as early as the 1980’s, became sources of shady PR to promote the university’s image and secure more grants the overhead for which fattened their coffers. I am out of touch now but several decades ago, they became involved as influencers (read: controllers if you wanted to get along) in writing article titles. I can’t imagine any such office would have written this title, however. The AHA takes the prize on that. The AHA is perhaps lower on my list than it is on yours. While acknowledging its many contributions, I have also witnessed it clinging to disproven explanatory models and criticising newer, better supported ones, while quietly backing away from the old views and hoping no one would notice. The association’s open distaste for leading edge thinking has at times been unscientific.
2 Likes
ng0rge
#44
Trust is a critical element of a functional society. We can’t just stand by and watch it be trampled into the dirt. This won’t end well. Some ethical system of public funding has to be found.
2 Likes
AnUser
#45
- It is an association study.
- This is based on 63 women getting CHD before age of >55, meaning premature CHD, mean 年龄48 .
- They are not adjusting for confounding factors, so the people with high LPIR score having higher RR but they probably are obese, have high apoB, and so on. The average apoB was 120 mg/dl which is in the 80th percentile.
The model that doesn’t adjust have 6.40 HR for LPIR and 1.89 for apoB.
Once you adjust for “physical activity, smoking, BMI, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, parental MI<60 years, and baseline treatment for hypertension or for high cholesterol”
HR for LPIR decreases to 3.85 and 1.56 for apoB.
LPIR is just a fancy way of measuring apoB and TG:
3 Likes
We could resolve this question of which explains which and what proportion of variance each accounts for in short order if we had the raw dataset. Does anyone know what, where, etc.?
When I look at the above visuals, I see a multi-factor issue with some components accounting for more variance in benefit but less in harm and the reverse.
In a small colloquium at Oxford (around 1972) a prize winning biologist observed that the then US funding system was in many areas perverse to scientific exploration.
This said, I think the public issue takes priority. We need to do a better job of educating the public, especially the populist types, to the fact that almost everything they value owes to the work of scientists and their findings. From this it follows that we need to police better. We have our share of charletains. Some benign but charlatans nonetheless.
1 Like
I was talking to my Dad last night - he is a top notch researcher with 300+ articles in the peer reviewed literature - in the area of Cardiology and Longevity (was the principle investigator on the Adventist Health Study until last year - since 1977).
He is similarly surprised that ACC allowed this to get a press release and pretend to be science, when it is rubbish. Really a serious disservice. Also not good for my patients - to have them undermine what is generally part of a healthy lifestyle.
The claims made are completely unsupported by the evidence.
3 Likes
Thank you for the article. While Dr. Fung is correct in decrying the validity of the AHA paper, his focus on the publically obvious problem with implying causation from association misses the most fundamental logical flaw which is expecting an independent variable based on self-reported eating behavior in 2003 to remain valid across the years to be used in a retrospective analysis in 2015 and beyond. There are other design and methodological weaknesses that limit the validity of claims such as this but they are mostly meaningful only to design experts.
1 Like
I agree with your father. It is quite surprising that this was published given its obvious unreliablity.
3 Likes
AnUser
#54
Has it even been published?
I’m almost more annoyed of the thousands articles / discussions / youtube videos when we don’t even have the paper. 
https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/20343/presentation/379
1 Like
Peter Attia’s free article and take on the subject. I don’t think he adds much beyond what is discussed on this thread.
3 Likes
KarlT
#57
Attia’s conclusion:
It’s unfortunate that results such as these, which aren’t even in their finished form, are being used to scare people away from time-restricted eating, which is a proven weight loss strategy. This is yet another nutritional study that affirms my disappointment in the field – not because the topic is unworthy of research, but because of the willingness to draw sensational conclusions from flawed data.
3 Likes
I agree with the comment that nothing the guru’s are saying add anything to what has been said here. Dr. Attia’s take is generally correct but misunderstands the facts of dietary recall. While the medical measurement experts understand the limitations of 24 hour dietary recall, the response that was used as a dependent variable in this report was not foodstuff recall. It was time-of-day recall, which is reasonably accurate. I’m repeating, but the underlying weaknesses lie in expecting time-of-day consumption to be constant over decades and in failing to control for why, in 2003, some people would have chosen what was at the time a very unusual eating pattern. TRD was not a fad or even discussed in the popular press at that time. There are other flaws, some obvious such as inferring too much from weak associations but the above two should have led scientists away from thinking as they did when writing this draft until more was known.
KarlT
#59
I just simply fail to see why everyone is spending so much time time analyzing a worthless study.
4 Likes
Good point @KarlT. Your comment made me ask myself that question. No great response other than I am getting so many questions from friends who now believe they have been misled and as a result are at risk for heart disease.
1 Like
KarlT
#61
Yes, I understand. Being prepared for questions is a common reason for us all to be up to date on even bad studies.
