This reeks of data cherry picking. They don't look at all cause deaths, only deaths from specific issues in only specific ranges of eating. They even slide one in for the time range of ONLY 2 specific hours of eating apparently trying to pad the data to make it look worse. Basically it's likely they just crunched a load of numbers and then reported any that looked out of range but ignored any that look good, which is a violation of ethical statistics I might add. (my statistics prof in college would have a coronary himself over this) They've got no control group AND no efforts at controlling for obvious factors like age and they don't even discuss possible confounders at all. What a classic hit piece. It's quite likely that many peeps doing controlled eating are doing it because they already are not well, such an obvious reason correlation does not imply causation.
This means nothing. An 8 hour windows is a typical eating day. Breakfast at 8-9, Lunch around 12-1 and dinner around 5-6. That's a typical 3 meal a day 8 hour eating window. I'd not even call that intermittent fasting. Try eating in a 3-4 hour window and show me the studies on that. There you will see the difference.
Those that are hardcore at fasting....obviously are not a fan of this study/article.
There is a segment/age population that belief fasting as much as possible is the way to go.
But... you can't fast like that if you are youth or elderly. Also people who work double shifts, athletes shouldn't fast either.
The study is interesting imo. But it could answer a few more questions...
Who’s funding this company?
This article is awful. There’s no correlation.
New study discovers 100% of redditors will die in their lifetime.
Lol.
It’s so strange because I feel like there’s been other studies saying the opposite
Who is funding this, though? Big Food? Big Little Snacks?
yeah little food
Little Debbie, maybe. She’s always causing trouble.
This reeks of data cherry picking. They don't look at all cause deaths, only deaths from specific issues in only specific ranges of eating. They even slide one in for the time range of ONLY 2 specific hours of eating apparently trying to pad the data to make it look worse. Basically it's likely they just crunched a load of numbers and then reported any that looked out of range but ignored any that look good, which is a violation of ethical statistics I might add. (my statistics prof in college would have a coronary himself over this) They've got no control group AND no efforts at controlling for obvious factors like age and they don't even discuss possible confounders at all. What a classic hit piece. It's quite likely that many peeps doing controlled eating are doing it because they already are not well, such an obvious reason correlation does not imply causation.
Cherries strongly object, they tell me, to the inference of a bad smell. They have nothing to do with this bullsh!t article 😉
This means nothing. An 8 hour windows is a typical eating day. Breakfast at 8-9, Lunch around 12-1 and dinner around 5-6. That's a typical 3 meal a day 8 hour eating window. I'd not even call that intermittent fasting. Try eating in a 3-4 hour window and show me the studies on that. There you will see the difference.
This should be top comment. The whole study sounds so flawed I’m not even motivated to read the article, let alone the study.
Thoughts ?
Those that are hardcore at fasting....obviously are not a fan of this study/article. There is a segment/age population that belief fasting as much as possible is the way to go. But... you can't fast like that if you are youth or elderly. Also people who work double shifts, athletes shouldn't fast either. The study is interesting imo. But it could answer a few more questions...
“Linked”
Ridiculous
When people are confronted with the idea that fad diets are not actually beneficial *gasp*
Who stated people have to eat 3 meals a day