Study: Time-Restricted Eating Improves Cardiovascular Health for Firefighters • Hacker News Board

Re: Study: Time-Restricted Eating Improves Cardiovascular Health for Firefighters

#41

Post by eru » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 5:03 AM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #4

nico wrote: post #2

> “It’s not a pill, but a healthy habit that can significantly reduce these three risks of disease without any adverse side effects.” This is probably the case for a lot of health issues. But we always want a pill that will fix the issues while allowing us not to change our habits.

Sauna seems pretty close, it’s just sitting somewhere hot on a regular basis and is quite pleasant. Saw a study recently that showed broad, dose dependent health effects. Personally it really seems to help when I’m overloaded with stress, in a direct immediate way.

Well, to get the full benefit you also want the ice bath afterwards.

Sauna is fun, but it's not a panacea. It can't replace exercise, for example.

Re: Study: Time-Restricted Eating Improves Cardiovascular Health for Firefighters

#42

Post by turkeygizzard » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 5:04 AM UTC

mrslave wrote: post #10

I am always unsure how this applies to someone with an irregular exercise schedule. If, when fasting (intermittent) my exercise is primarily cardio then I will continue fasting. However if it is resistance training, does getting some protein into my system as soon as possible take priority over fasting? Or is this less important than the immediate-protein-shake crowd suggests? Should I try to pull the window forward…

I can't comment on fasting in particular, but as another comment pointed out, I think the idea that you need to immediately get protein before/during/after a workout is a bit overblown.

My understanding is that protein can be rate-limiting for hypertrophy if you don't have enough in general, but timing is not as largely important. I believe there is a rough window for anabolic signaling / net-positive muscle protein synthesis that lasts up to 48 hours after exercise

Re: Study: Time-Restricted Eating Improves Cardiovascular Health for Firefighters

#43

Post by eru » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 5:05 AM UTC

spoonjim wrote: post #29

irrational wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other 50 years? What happened to the other 40 years?

I assume ~80 year lifespan and that you start going to the sauna as an adult.

Why would you only go to the sauna as an adult?

In any case, how long does sauna's supposed deleterious effect last? Probably not more than a few days?

Re: Study: Time-Restricted Eating Improves Cardiovascular Health for Firefighters

#44

Post by gnicholas » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 5:11 AM UTC

876978095789789 wrote: post #32

[flagged]

> the IF group saw no excess weight loss or cardiometabolic benefits vs. the continuously calorically restricted control

It may be the case that these two processes lead to similar outcomes. But for me, it is much easier to stay faithful to an IF lifestyle than a "continuously calorically restricted" lifestyle. I find the binary aspect of the IF system to be very helpful. If the other system is easier for other folks to maintain, that's great, and they should do that.

But the fact that IF doesn't lead to better results than a different system doesn't mean that people who practice IF are clinging to an idiotic practice, as you put it.

Re: Study: Time-Restricted Eating Improves Cardiovascular Health for Firefighters

#45

Post by tarsinge » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 5:17 AM UTC

876978095789789 wrote: post #32

[flagged]

You are missing key informations here (see below). The study you linked is on obese people primarily aiming for weight loss, it’s absolutely not of good quality for judging IF because calories and protein intake are not matched between the groups, it’s more a study of if IF gives better satiety. Not really comparable to the one randomized on firefighters discussed here, which is of better quality overall especially for IF health benefits (main vs secondary objective in your linked study, randomized not only on obese people, no difference in meal compositions between groups) and so directly contradicts the decision of the lead researcher you cited to quit IF.

From the study you linked:

> Participants were randomized such that the consistent meal timing (CMT) group was instructed to eat 3 structured meals per day, and the time-restricted eating (TRE) group was instructed to eat ad libitum from 12:00 pm until 8:00 pm

> A follow-up study showed that when calorie intake and protein intake were matched to prestudy consumption, no change in lean mass was observed.

> Ad libitum feeding during TRE leads to reduced calorie intake and might also reduce protein intake.9 Together, these data highlight the importance of adequate protein consumption while adhering to a TRE diet. Many studies have shown that adequate/excessive protein consumption during weight loss can mitigate losses in lean mass.

Re: Study: Time-Restricted Eating Improves Cardiovascular Health for Firefighters

#46

Post by plorkyeran » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 5:19 AM UTC

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #37

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> exercise early and also eat early in the day This is slightly contrary to what I’ve learned from Rhonda Patrick. Exercise in the morning, sure, but while still fasting from overnight (black coffee or plain tea ok… does not break the fast). Eat after exercise so that your fast lasts longer. Also, cardio exercise blunts the hunger feeling in many people.

Here’s a piece of COMPLETELY anecdotal data, so do with it what you will. A friend with metabolic syndrome was struggling with weight despite intermittent fasting. She began to wear a continuous glucose monitor. She found that black coffee had the same effect as eating a donut, but if she added a boiled egg, the effect on her glucose was neutral. Now, I don’t know what effect all that has on other metabolic processes…

James Hoffman did a video on the effect of caffeine on his personal blood sugar levels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8CJ_DCeADY

There's apparently some significant variation between people. Some don't see a glucose spike at all, some see it vanish if they consume protein first, and some see it regardless.

Re: Study: Time-Restricted Eating Improves Cardiovascular Health for Firefighters

#47

Post by nikkwong » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 5:28 AM UTC

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #35

nikkwong wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I'm not suggesting an order between the two. I think everything held constant, eating earlier is supposed to be better. I don't think there have been many studies where people stop eating at like, 10am, or something like that. That said, I think most studies that have shown benefit are those where people have like a 4-8 hour eating window from 6am-2pm, or are of that order. But is there a difference between havi…

> more data comes to light which suggests that earlier is better. I have not seen studies like that. All the ones I’ve seen have participants stop eating 3 hours (minimum) before sleep. For example, With an 8 hour eating window and 10:00 sleep, that means eating between 11:00-7:00 giving you a 16 hour fast.

Here is the study I am referring to [1]. As far as studies go, this one is fairly rigorous and of what I would consider to be high quality based on several factors related to the study design.

This study in particular looked at early TR (6am-2pm) vs mid afternoon (1pm-8pm) TR vs no TR; and early TR had the greatest metabolic benefits by a long shot:

> "Furthermore, eTRF (early TR), but not mTRF (mid-day TR), improved fasting glucose, reduced total body mass and adiposity, ameliorated inflammation, and increased gut microbial diversity. No serious adverse events were reported during the trial. In conclusion, eTRF showed greater benefits for insulin resistance and related metabolic parameters compared with mTRF"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8864028/

Re: Study: Time-Restricted Eating Improves Cardiovascular Health for Firefighters

#48

Post by 876978095789789 » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 5:29 AM UTC

gnicholas wrote: post #44

876978095789789 wrote: post #32

[flagged]

> the IF group saw no excess weight loss or cardiometabolic benefits vs. the continuously calorically restricted control It may be the case that these two processes lead to similar outcomes. But for me, it is much easier to stay faithful to an IF lifestyle than a "continuously calorically restricted" lifestyle. I find the binary aspect of the IF system to be very helpful. If the other system is easier for other folks…

> It may be the case that these two processes lead to similar outcomes. But for me, it is much easier to stay faithful to an IF lifestyle than a "continuously calorically restricted" lifestyle. I find the binary aspect of the IF system to be very helpful. If the other system is easier for other folks to maintain, that's great, and they should do that.

In the 8-16 IF study I linked to, the IF/TRE group actually had worse adherence:

> Self-reported adherence to the diets was 1002 of 1088 (92.1%) in the CMT group (did not miss any meals) and 1128 of 1351 (83.50%) in the TRE group

Re: Study: Time-Restricted Eating Improves Cardiovascular Health for Firefighters

#49

Post by jansan » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 6:10 AM UTC

neuroma wrote: post #20

georgeburdell wrote: post #6

Applies to late shift working, which is already well-known as a health risk

What is late shift working? Is it different to night shift work?

Late shift usually starts around noon or early afternoon, night shift starts in the evening.

Re: Study: Time-Restricted Eating Improves Cardiovascular Health for Firefighters

#50

Post by gnicholas » Wed, Oct 05, 2022, 6:24 AM UTC

876978095789789 wrote: post #48

gnicholas wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the IF group saw no excess weight loss or cardiometabolic benefits vs. the continuously calorically restricted control It may be the case that these two processes lead to similar outcomes. But for me, it is much easier to stay faithful to an IF lifestyle than a "continuously calorically restricted" lifestyle. I find the binary aspect of the IF system to be very helpful. If the other system is easier for other folks…

> It may be the case that these two processes lead to similar outcomes. But for me, it is much easier to stay faithful to an IF lifestyle than a "continuously calorically restricted" lifestyle. I find the binary aspect of the IF system to be very helpful. If the other system is easier for other folks to maintain, that's great, and they should do that. In the 8-16 IF study I linked to, the IF/TRE group actually had wo…

The fact that more people couldn't adhere to an IF plan than a the other plan isn't really relevant. It's easy for someone (like me) to be able to ascertain if it I am able to stick to IF, so it doesn't matter if other people find it harder. Like I said, if other people find the other plan easier to do, and also effective, then it makes sense for them to do it. I don't understand the name-calling, as if no rational person could choose IF.