karppaus.info

Ketogenic diet combined with intermittent fasting: an option for type 2 diabetes remission?
Xiao-Ying Zhou, Kai-Heng Guo, Shao-Feng Huang, Rui-Ke Liu, Chun-Ping Zeng
Nutrition Reviews, nuae014, https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuae014
Published: 12 March 2024

Abstract
With increasing attention to diabetes remission, various special dietary patterns have been found to be effective in achieving diabetes remission. The effect of a single dietary pattern on lowering blood glucose is clear, but studies on the synergistic effects of different dietary patterns are limited. This article describes the types of intermittent fasting and ketogenic diets, potential mechanisms, contraindications of combination diets, recommendations for combination diets, and their health outcomes. This paper aims to illustrate the evidence for intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet on outcomes of diabetes remission and effect on blood glucose control. Knowledge of these findings can help doctors and patients determine dietary patterns for achieving diabetes remission and understanding their application.

Tätä tutkimusta, HS.fi mainostamaa, varmaan rakastavat AHA (Amerikan sydänliitto) ja epäilemättä ravitsemus”tutkijat” saavat fiboja.

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1037544

Pätkäpaastolla saattaa olla kaikkein vaikeinta päästä hengestään kuin millään tutkitulla tavalla. Se auttaa huonoakin aineenvaihduntaa antamalla ”peliaikaa” elimistölle selvitä syömisistä ja käynnistyyhän siinä Nobelilla vahvistettu metabolian ilmiö AUTOFAGIA.

Weak epidemiological data. Based on a press release only, no way to check this data.
The American Heart Association should not be press-releasing a mere abstract.

This makes little sense.
Eating 12-16 hours a day better than eating within an 8 hr window?
Reverse causation? Shift work? Sponsored by fake food?
Average age of 48.5, followed for an average of 8 years and 14% of the 20k died! Were they in a labour camp or something?!

8 hour time-restricted eating linked to 91% higher risk of cardiovascular death?

Really?! Not so "fast" ...

Upon popular request, I'm covering this news release.

1) This is not in reference to a published paper.

Rather, these were "preliminary" results presented at an AHA epidemiology conference. The paper that these data may yield is not published, so informed commentary is necessarily limited.

2) The article notes, "Previous research has found that time-restricted eating improves several cardiometabolic health measures, such as blood pressure, blood glucose and cholesterol levels." They also provide no biologically plausible rationale for the results.

3A) The results themselves were based on self-report...

This doesn't invalidate the data itself (I'm not against questionnaires); however, in the context of findings that are at odds with other data (as noted above) and absence of presented biological plausibility, and high probability of reporter bias (e.g. perhaps people with higher risk factors and more clinical clinical 'concern' are more likely to report trying 16-8), I would take this with a grain of salt (but not too many grains... because that will raise your blood pressure... with TRF helps, btw).

3B) "Time-restricted eating was determined on the basis of just two days of dietary intake”

3C) Also "the nutrient quality" was not assessed

4) Not all elements of the news coverage were clear/consistent. E.g. "Among people with existing cardiovascular disease, an eating duration of no less than 8 but less than 10 hours per day was also associated with a 66% higher risk of death from heart disease or stroke." Is this saying in those with CVD <8 was okay, but <10 was bad? That's odd and a little "sus" (as the kids say)

And, in closing, it's worth noting the news article itself says "The Association makes no representation or guarantee as to their [the data's] accuracy or reliability."

I'll continue to skip breakfast as it suits me.

By now, you've likely seen the headlines about the study detailing a 91% increased in heart disease from fasting. To be specific, they found that people who reported eating less than 8 hours in a day, compared to this who reported eating 12-16 hours in a day, had an almost twofold increased risk of dying from heart disease.

The fact that this has received so much attention is more evidence of the dangers of trusting media, even (perhaps especially) with science. And even putting too much trust in "science". A few points:

1. This is correlational evidence. This is another way of saying it's results based on questionnaires conducted over years. It can only establish coincidence, not causality.
2. These results are unpublished. This report hasn't undergone any peer review and we have no idea about confounding variables (likely many) or the study population. Again, these results were presented at a scientific meeting, not in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, what if people who eat in a narrower time window are people who work 16-hour days?
3. On a similar note, it's amusing that 8 hours is somehow considered restrictive. And who eats in a 16-hour window?

Once the final report is published, we can tease it apart and criticize the methods. Until then, we can laugh (and cry) at how silly biomedical science has become.

Onhan se mielenkiintoista (ja hyvin kuvaavaa tälle ajalle) että media julkaisee vertaisarvioimatonta tietoa.
Kiitos komiteanmiehelle asiallisten kritiikkien julkistuksesta myös karppilassa.