Not So Fast: Debunking a Recent Study on Intermittent Fasting and Heart Disease
Evidence Based Research To fulfill our commitment to bringing our audience accurate and insightful content, our expert writers and medical reviewers rely on carefully curated research.
Read Our Editorial Policy
The American Heart Association recently put out a press release in March 2024 claiming that intermittent fastingβspecifically a 16:8 fast, or fasting for 16 hours and eating within an 8-hour windowβis linked to a 91% increased risk of dying from heart disease.
Yep, you read that right: 91%!
But the headlines arenβt quite what they seemβletβs dive into the details of this research and find out exactly what itβs telling us.
Intermittent fasting and heart disease: What the study found
The AHA posted a press release titled β8-hour time-restricted eating linked to a 91% higher risk of cardiovascular death,β and media outlets all over the world have picked it up with various extreme headlines.
This press release was based on an unpublished study by researchers out of Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China, where they looked at dietary surveys from over 20,000 adults with an average age of 49.
The research team found that people who restricted their eating windows to eight hours per day had a 91% increased risk of dying from cardiovascular disease compared to people who followed a more regular eating schedule of 12-16 hours per day.
They also reported that people with existing heart disease who ate in an 8-10 hour window had a 66% higher risk of death from heart disease or stroke.
While that all sounds pretty bad, letβs take a closer look at what this research actually means.

Letβs debunk this: 6 major problems with the study
First, this press release was based on a poster presentation at an American Heart Association conferenceβit has not been peer-reviewed or published yet. While this doesnβt necessarily mean itβs not of sound quality, it just means that other experts in the field have not had a chance to review, challenge, or approve it.
Second, the data came from NHANES surveys, which are based on dietary recalls or food-frequency questionnaires, from 2003 to 2018. Essentially, food-frequency questionnaires ask you to recall a certain food or amount of food that you ate during a specific time period.
As you can imagine, dietary recalls like this are pretty notorious for low accuracy. After all, most people have trouble remembering what they ate for breakfast two days ago, let alone months or years ago.

Third, the research only included data from two days’ worth of dietary recall samples for each participant, including people as βintermittent fastersβ if they ate during an 8-hour window just during those two days. As this is not necessarily the criteria for intermittent fastingβit probably means they just skipped breakfastβthese two days’ worth of data likely are not an accurate representation of people who fast.
Fourth, we donβt know if these people were intentionally intermittent fastingβwhich is unlikely, as intermittent fasting was not yet a βthingβ for the majority of the studyβs time period of 2003 to 2018. We also donβt know if they didnβt eat breakfast for another reason, like high stress, busy jobs, shift work, attempting to lose weight for a health condition, low food security, or medications or illness causing low appetite, for example.
Fifth, the study participants who ate in the 8-hour window were more likely to be male, current smokers, and had higher BMIs, all of which are considered risk factors for heart disease. While these factors were adjusted for in statistical analysis, other cardiovascular risk factors relevant to intermittent fastingβlike stress, sleeping patterns, shift work, and nutritional quality of their dietβwere not.
Lastly, as is the nature of all observational studies, correlation does not equal causation. This means that intermittent fasting does not cause heart diseaseβjust that, in this particular two-day time period, there was an association between people who didnβt eat breakfast and heart disease mortality risk.
The bottom line
Two days of dietary survey data is not at all reflective of someoneβs regular eating patternsβand it definitely cannot be said that skipping breakfast twice causes heart disease.
As previous researchβeven press releases a few years ago from the American Heart Associationβhave touted the cardiometabolic benefits of intermittent fasting, this is another case of the media blowing things out of proportion.
That said, intermittent fasting is certainly not for everyoneβespecially women of reproductive age or those with a history of disordered eating.
Some downsides of intermittent fasting can include under-eating calories and nutrients, increased cortisol levels, dysregulated thyroid and sex hormones, and increased fatigue and stress.
Overall, while itβs possible that these results are accurate, we would need randomized controlled trials that split people into fasting and non-fasting groups to see if 8-hour eating windows do, in fact, increase the risk of heart disease-related mortality.

