American Heart Association study flaws show we can be too quick to jump on new health claims
The study, presented at an American Heart Association (AHA) conference in late March, evaluated the health outcomes of 20,000 adults over 17 years. They made a shocking finding: the people who restricted their eating to an eight-hour window had a 91 per cent higher risk of cardiovascular death.
Unsurprisingly, it made international news with major publications including BBC, Washington Post and NBC picking up the story, as people tried to make sense of why the findings were in such stark contrast to the consensus, including research finding that TRE could improve cardiovascular health.
In response, a group of experts from around the world wrote a letter to the president of the AHA claiming it had caused false alarm and undue panic.
Not only was the paper not yet published or peer-reviewed, it contained serious design flaws, did not properly adjust for smoking, shift work or sleeping patterns and only asked about eating timing on two occasions. The alarming headlines were dangerous to public health, impacted trust in the AHA, and could compromise funding for ongoing clinical trials, wrote the 34 experts in time-restricted eating.
Trying to delineate between decent advice and advice resulting from cherry-picked data, vested interest or poorly designed research can be a minefield. Sometimes even those of us whose job it is to help navigate and present good, unbiased information get it wrong. And this dramatic flip-flopping of health advice does little for public faith in science or the mainstream media.
Loading
What this kerfuffle around TRE has reminded me is that often the public, as well as the media, can be too quick to jump on new health claims. I was as guilty of this early in my career as I was personally susceptible to the fads.
Blanket claims and frightening statements are compelling eye candy, but often not to be swallowed whole. At best, claims are baseless but benign and might only hurt your hip pocket. At worst, they can be fatal.
The best health advice contains nuance (and credible research). Intermittent fasting, for instance, may benefit certain people but not others and if you’re generally healthy, it may not give you any advantage. Good health advice is also generally the least interesting and the least profitable.
Loading
So, certainly buy the thing that takes your fancy, if you have the money, and it doesn’t cause you harm.
And no matter what Andrew Huberman tells or sells you, the jury is still mostly out on ice baths, saunas and greens supplements. I don’t need the evidence to know that cold showers and saunas make me feel good, but I’ll take the $3 cucumber over the $80-a-month greens powder, thanks.
As I’ve travelled further down the path of health over the years I’ve become less – not more – extreme. And this is because I’ve realised that while we’re being dazzled by the outrageous claims and sexy hacks, most of us are yet to get the basics right, no starvation or health panic needed.
Make the most of your health, relationships, fitness and nutrition with our Live Well newsletter. Get it in your inbox every Monday.
