译者有感而发：首先，我不是学医的。别拿我的博客当真（的科学研究）。

对于一个懂一点点统计学和喜欢医学科普的读者，看到“一项针对 20,000 多名成年人的研究发现，遵循 8 小时限时饮食计划（一种间歇性禁食）的人死于心血管疾病的风险增加 91%。” 会如何反应？

我认认真真地“遵循 8 小时限时饮食计划”五年了。如果我看到“19%”，我可能会有一点点“担心”。但是，这可是91%！！！（连Covid疫苗也不敢说有“91%”的保护性。当然，这是两码事。）

不少出家人，一天一顿。他们中，有多少是死于心血管疾病？？

我大学同学“过午不食”，估计少于“8 小时限时饮食”。他看上去非常精神。这种例子举不胜举！

下面是机器翻译的。我改了一丝丝错。

不得不说，机器翻译厉害。它连“钟文泽教授”都知道。

8 小时限时饮食会使心血管死亡风险增加 91%

美国心脏协会流行病学和预防|生活方式和心脏代谢健康科学会议 2024 年，摘要P192

24/03/19 编者注：

• 研究作者分享了完整的海报演示，以获取有关其研究摘要的最新详细信息。 有关这些详细信息，请参阅下面附加资源下所附的数字文件。

• 经研究作者审查和确认的最新统计数据位于海报（请参阅下面附加资源下所附的数字文件）和新闻稿中。

• 与任何新的科学发展一样，患者在改变其健康方案之前应始终咨询医生。

正如美国心脏协会所有科学会议新闻稿中所指出的，研究摘要在发表在同行评审的科学期刊上之前都被视为初步的。

研究亮点：

• 一项针对 20,000 多名成年人的研究发现，遵循 8 小时限时饮食计划（一种间歇性禁食）的人死于心血管疾病的风险增加 91%。

• 患有心脏病或癌症的人心血管死亡的风险也增加。

• 与每天 12-16 小时的标准饮食计划相比，每天将食物摄入量限制在 8 小时以下与寿命延长无关。

禁令至美国中部时间下午 3 点/美国东部时间下午4 点，2024 年 3 月 18 日，星期一

芝加哥，2024 年 3 月 18 日——对 20,000 多名美国成年人的分析发现，每天进食时间少于 8 小时（即一种限时饮食计划）的人比每天进食时间超过 8 小时的人更有可能死于心血管疾病。 这是 3 月 18 日至 21 日在芝加哥举行的 2024 年美国心脏协会流行病学与预防│生活方式和心脏代谢科学会议上公布的初步研究。该会议提供了有关人口健康和保健及其对生活方式影响的最新科学知识。

限时饮食是间歇性禁食的一种，涉及将每天的进食时间限制在特定的小时数内，其范围可能是 24 小时内 4 到 12 小时的时间窗口。 研究人员指出，许多遵循限时饮食的人遵循 16:8 的饮食计划，即他们在 8 小时内吃完所有食物，并在每天剩余的 16 小时内禁食。 先前的研究发现，限时饮食可以改善多种心脏代谢健康指标，例如血压、血糖和胆固醇水平。

“近年来，将每日进食时间限制在较短的时间内，例如每天 8 小时，作为一种减肥和改善心脏健康的方法越来越受欢迎，”该研究的资深作者、教授钟文泽博士说。 钟教授兼上海交通大学医学院流行病学和生物统计学系主任。 “然而，限时饮食对健康的长期影响，包括因任何原因死亡或心血管疾病的风险，尚不清楚。”

在这项研究中，研究人员调查了遵循 8 小时限时饮食计划对健康的潜在长期影响。他们审查了 2003 年至 2018 年年度（美国）国家健康和营养检查调查 (NHANES) 参与者的饮食模式信息，并与美国疾病控制与预防中心国家疾病控制中心的 2003 年至2019 年 12 月期间美国死亡人数数据进行了比较。 死亡指数数据库。

分析发现：

• 每天吃完所有食物的时间少于 8 小时的人因心血管疾病死亡的风险增加 91%。

• 患有心脏病或癌症的人也发现心血管死亡风险增加。

• 对于患有心血管疾病的人来说，每天进食时间不少于8 小时但少于10 小时也与心脏病或中风死亡风险增加66% 相关。

• 限时饮食并不能降低全因死亡的总体风险。

• 癌症患者每天进食时间超过16 小时与较低的癌症死亡率相关。

“我们惊讶地发现，遵循 8 小时限时饮食计划的人更有可能死于心血管疾病。 尽管这种饮食方式因其潜在的短期益处而广受欢迎，但我们的研究清楚地表明，与每天 12～16 小时的典型进食时间范围相比，较短的进食时间与寿命延长无关。 ”钟教授说。

“对于患者，尤其是那些患有心脏病或癌症的患者来说，了解 8 小时进食窗口与心血管死亡风险增加之间的关联至关重要。 我们的研究结果鼓励人们对饮食建议采取更加谨慎、个性化的方法，确保它们符合个人的健康状况和最新的科学证据，”他继续说道。 “虽然研究发现8小时饮食窗口与心血管死亡之间存在关联，但这并不意味着限时饮食会导致心血管死亡。”

研究详情和背景：

• 该研究包括大约 20,000 名美国成年人，平均年龄为 49 岁。

• 研究参与者的随访时间中位数为 8 年，最长为 17 年。

• 该研究纳入了 2003 年至 2018 年期间入组时年满 20 岁且在入组第一年内完成了两份 24 小时饮食回忆调查问卷的 NHANES 参与者的数据。

• 大约一半的参与者自认为是男性，一半的参与者自认为是女性。 73.3% 的参与者自认为是非西班牙裔白人成年人，11% 的参与者自认为是西班牙裔成年人，8% 的参与者自认为是非西班牙裔黑人成年人，6.9% 的成年人自认为是其他种族类别，包括混血儿 - 种族成年人和其他非西班牙裔种族的成年人。

该研究的局限性包括它依赖于自我报告的饮食信息，这可能会受到参与者记忆或回忆的影响，并且可能无法准确评估典型的饮食模式。 除了每日进食时间和死亡原因之外，其他可能对健康产生影响的因素也没有纳入分析中。

作者指出，未来的研究可能会研究限时饮食与不良心血管结局之间关联的生物机制，以及这些发现对于生活在世界其他地区的人是否相似。

“总的来说，这项研究表明，限时饮食可能会带来短期好处，但会产生长期不利影响。 斯坦福大学 Rehnborg Farquhar 医学教授、FAHA 博士 Christopher D. Gardner 表示：“当这项研究完整呈现时，了解更多分析细节将会很有趣，也很有帮助。” 加利福尼亚州，也是该协会 2023 年科学声明《流行饮食模式：与美国心脏协会 2021 年饮食指南》保持一致的写作委员会主席。

“其中一个细节涉及不同参与者亚群典型饮食的营养质量。 如果没有这些信息，就无法确定营养密度是否可以作为目前关注进食时间窗口的研究结果的替代解释。 其次，需要强调的是，不同限时饮食窗口的分类是根据两天的饮食摄入量来确定的，”他说。

“对被划分为不同时间限制饮食窗口的群体进行人口统计和基线特征的比较也很重要——例如，与紧随其后的人相比，具有最短时间限制饮食窗口的群体是否独特？ 其他饮食计划，如体重、压力、传统心脏代谢危险因素或与不良心血管结局相关的其他因素？ 这些额外的信息将有助于更好地理解这篇有趣且具有挑衅性的摘要中报告的短期限制饮食模式的潜在独立贡献。”

摘要中列出了共同作者、他们的信息和资金来源。

美国心脏协会科学会议上提出的研究声明和结论仅是研究作者的观点，并不一定反映该协会的政策或立场。 协会对其准确性或可靠性不作任何陈述或保证。 该协会科学会议上提出的摘要未经同行评审，而是由独立评审小组策划，并根据增加会议上讨论的科学问题和观点多样性的潜力进行考虑。 这些研究结果被认为是初步的，直到作为完整的手稿发表在同行评审的科学期刊上。

协会的资金主要来自个人； 基金会和企业（包括制药公司、设备制造商和其他公司）也捐款并资助特定的协会计划和活动。 该协会有严格的政策来防止这些关系影响科学内容。 来自制药和生物技术公司、设备制造商和健康保险提供商的收入以及协会的整体财务信息都在这里（需要链接的看英文版）。

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

https://newsroom.heart.org/news/8-hour-time-restricted-eating-linked-to-a-91-higher-risk-of-cardiovascular-death

American Heart Association Epidemiology and Prevention|Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health Scientific Sessions 2024, Abstract P192

03/19/24 Editor’s note:  

• The research authors have shared their full poster presentation for updated details about their research abstract. Please see the digital file attached, under additional resources below, for these details.

• The most current statistics, reviewed and confirmed by the research authors, are in the poster (please see the digital file attached, under additional resources below) and the news release. 

• As with any new science development, patients should always consult with their doctor prior to making changes to their health regimens.

As noted in all American Heart Association scientific meetings news releases, research abstracts are considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Research Highlights:

• A study of over 20,000 adults found that those who followed an 8-hour time-restricted eating schedule, a type of intermittent fasting, had a 91% higher risk of death from cardiovascular disease.

• People with heart disease or cancer also had an increased risk of cardiovascular death.

• Compared with a standard schedule of eating across 12-16 hours per day, limiting food intake to less than 8 hours per day was not associated with living longer.

Embargoed until 3 p.m. CT/4 p.m. ET, Monday, March 18, 2024

CHICAGO, March 18, 2024 — An analysis of over 20,000 U.S. adults found that people who limited their eating across less than 8 hours per day, a time-restricted eating plan, were more likely to die from cardiovascular disease compared to people who ate across 12-16 hours per day, according to preliminary research presented at the American Heart Association’s Epidemiology and Prevention│Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024, March 18- 21, in Chicago. The meeting offers the latest science on population-based health and wellness and implications for lifestyle.

Time-restricted eating, a type of intermittent fasting, involves limiting the hours for eating to a specific number of hours each day, which may range from a 4- to 12-hour time window in 24 hours. Many people who follow a time-restricted eating diet follow a 16:8 eating schedule, where they eat all their foods in an 8-hour window and fast for the remaining 16 hours each day, the researchers noted. Previous research has found that time-restricted eating improves several cardiometabolic health measures, such as blood pressure, blood glucose and cholesterol levels.

“Restricting daily eating time to a short period, such as 8 hours per day, has gained popularity in recent years as a way to lose weight and improve heart health,” said senior study author Victor Wenze Zhong, Ph.D., a professor and chair of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine in Shanghai, China. “However, the long-term health effects of time-restricted eating, including risk of death from any cause or cardiovascular disease, are unknown.”

In this study, researchers investigated the potential long-term health impact of following an 8-hour time-restricted eating plan. They reviewed information about dietary patterns for participants in the annual 2003-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) in comparison to data about people who died in the U.S., from 2003 through December 2019, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index database.

The analysis found:

• People who followed a pattern of eating all of their food across less than 8 hours per day had a 91% higher risk of death due to cardiovascular disease.

• The increased risk of cardiovascular death was also seen in people living with heart disease or cancer.

• 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.

• Time-restricted eating did not reduce the overall risk of death from any cause.

• An eating duration of more than 16 hours per day was associated with a lower risk of cancer mortality among people with cancer.

“We were surprised to find that people who followed an 8-hour, time-restricted eating schedule were more likely to die from cardiovascular disease. Even though this type of diet has been popular due to its potential short-term benefits, our research clearly shows that, compared with a typical eating time range of 12-16 hours per day, a shorter eating duration was not associated with living longer,” Zhong said.

“It’s crucial for patients, particularly those with existing heart conditions or cancer, to be aware of the association between an 8-hour eating window and increased risk of cardiovascular death. Our study’s findings encourage a more cautious, personalized approach to dietary recommendations, ensuring that they are aligned with an individual’s health status and the latest scientific evidence,” he continued. “Although the study identified an association between an 8-hour eating window and cardiovascular death, this does not mean that time-restricted eating caused cardiovascular death.”Study details and background:

• The study included approximately 20,000 adults in the U.S. with an average age of 49 years.

• Study participants were followed for a median length of 8 years and maximum length of 17 years.

• The study included data for NHANES participants who were at least 20 years old at enrollment, between 2003-2018, and had completed two 24-hour dietary recall questionnaires within the first year of enrollment.

• Approximately half of the participants self-identified as men, and half self-identified as women. 73.3% of the participants self-identified as non-Hispanic white adults, 11% self-identified as Hispanic adults, 8% self-identified as non-Hispanic Black adults and 6.9% of adults self-identified as another racial category, including mixed-race adults and adults of other non-Hispanic races.

The study’s limitations included its reliance on self-reported dietary information, which may be affected by participant’s memory or recall and may not accurately assess typical eating patterns. Factors that may also play a role in health, outside of daily duration of eating and cause of death, were not included in the analysis.

Future research may examine the biological mechanisms that underly the associations between a time-restricted eating schedule and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, and whether these findings are similar for people who live in other parts of the world, the authors noted.

“Overall, this study suggests that time-restricted eating may have short-term benefits but long-term adverse effects. When the study is presented in its entirety, it will be interesting and helpful to learn more of the details of the analysis,” said Christopher D. Gardner, Ph.D., FAHA, the Rehnborg Farquhar Professor of Medicine at Stanford University in Stanford, California, and chair of the writing committee for the Association’s 2023 scientific statement, Popular Dietary Patterns: Alignment with American Heart Association 2021 Dietary Guidance. 

“One of those details involves the nutrient quality of the diets typical of the different subsets of participants. Without this information, it cannot be determined if nutrient density might be an alternate explanation to the findings that currently focus on the window of time for eating. Second, it needs to be emphasized that categorization into the different windows of time-restricted eating was determined on the basis of just two days of dietary intake,” he said.

“It will also be critical to see a comparison of demographics and baseline characteristics across the groups that were classified into the different time-restricted eating windows – for example, was the group with the shortest time-restricted eating window unique compared to people who followed other eating schedules,  in terms of weight, stress, traditional cardiometabolic risk factors or other factors associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes? This additional information will help to better understand the potential independent contribution of the short time-restricted eating pattern reported in this interesting and provocative abstract.”

Co-authors, their disclosures and funding sources are listed in the abstract.

Statements and conclusions of studies that are presented at the American Heart Association’s scientific meetings are solely those of the study authors and do not necessarily reflect the Association’s policy or position. The Association makes no representation or guarantee as to their accuracy or reliability. Abstracts presented at the Association’s scientific meetings are not peer-reviewed, rather, they are curated by independent review panels and are considered based on the potential to add to the diversity of scientific issues and views discussed at the meeting. The findings are considered preliminary until published as a full manuscript in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

The Association receives funding primarily from individuals; foundations and corporations (including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers and other companies) also make donations and fund specific Association programs and events. The Association has strict policies to prevent these relationships from influencing the science content. Revenues from pharmaceutical and biotech companies, device manufacturers and health insurance providers and the Association’s overall financial information are here.