View this post on the web at [link removed]

The American Heart Association (AHA)—an organization with a long history of conflicts of interest—is back with some fabulous research absolutely nobody should take seriously.
The organization, with an impressive list of conflicts of interest, is making headlines again after publishing research [ [link removed] ] flagging intermittent fasting as a serious health risk [ [link removed] ]—a diet that when done correctly, is proven to have numerous health benefits [ [link removed] ].
Yes, the same entity that canceled red meat, brought you inflammatory seed oils and high fructose corn syrup, and slapped a “heart-healthy” sticker on junk cereals like Cheerios is back to tell you that intermittent fasting could potentially kill you.
According to a preliminary study of more than 20,000 adults, participants who followed an 8-hour time-restricting eating schedule had a 91% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease compared with those who had a standard schedule of eating across 12 to 16 hours per day.
Additionally, researchers found those with heart disease or cancer also had an increased risk of cardiovascular death and that intermittent fasting did not decrease mortality.
Researchers investigated the potential long-term health effects of following an 8-hour time-restricted eating plan, known as “intermittent fasting.”
They reviewed the 2003-2018 dietary patterns of participants with an average age of 49 from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys and compared the data to 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.
(Smart move to use a 2019 cutoff, or they might have seen a breathtaking amount of coincidental cardiovascular deaths from COVID-19 vaccines.)
Intermittent fasting or time-restricted eating involves limiting the number of hours a day that you consume food. Some people may eat in a 4- to 12-hour window in 24 hours, while others may follow a 16:8 eating schedule—fasting for 16 hours and consuming their day’s worth of calories during 8 hours.
Among people with existing cardiovascular disease, an eating duration of no less than 8 hours but less than 10 hours each day was associated with a 66% higher risk of dying from heart disease or stroke.
Researchers found that an eating window of more than 16 hours per day was associated with a lower risk of dying from cancer among those with cancer, and intermittent fasting didn’t reduce the overall risk of death from any cause.
So, break out those toxic Little Debbie snacks and load up throughout the day to increase your longevity.
But not so fast…
Megan’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
In full disclosure, I am not a fan of long-term intermittent fasting and never have been. Although I recognize the benefits of a good fast, most people lose weight with intermittent fasting because they generally eat less during a restricted window. But if you restrict calories, you’ll lose weight no matter which diet you choose to adhere to.
What these geniuses didn’t tell us is what these 20,000 people were eating during the study. They didn’t tell us how many calories they consumed during the day—whether intermittent fasting or not. They didn’t give ustailed information about the participant’s health histories, medications, or exercise regimens.
What we do know is that eating a “standard American diet” will subject you to a higher risk of any number of health problems, whether you drink your soda and eat your McDonald’s between 3:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. or whether you consume meals like that throughout a standard eating window.
Were these intermittent fasters loading up on “heart-healthy” Cheerios? We have no idea. Were they eating Paleo? Doubt it, but we don’t know. Did they get snacks? Exactly how much were they eating?
Another limitation of the study is that they looked at food intake over TWO days. At this point, we can hardly take this research seriously.
Here is a statement straight from the news release on the AHA’s website:
“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 [ [link removed] ]. 
“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,” he added.
“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.”
Shut the front door. Is this even a valid study? The mainstream media certainly thinks it is.
Yet, a valid study would have gathered information on what foods people consumed over a longer period of time. It would also have looked at caloric and nutrient intake. Wouldn’t it be nice to know what these people ate, if they were on any medications, or if they were couch potatoes? Seems like essential information to include.
Although the results are preliminary until picked up by a peer-reviewed journal, nothing suggests this study was properly done. Nevertheless, we’re likely to see this monstrosity of a paper in a mainstream journal that only sells bad science, and the mainstream media has already scared anyone who was considering intermittent fasting away from a potentially healthier diet towards a pharmaceutical drug.
So what’s behind the study?
We don’t know, but the study’s senior author, Dr. Victor Wenze Zhong, professor and chair of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, gives us a clue.
“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 Dr. Zhong. “However, the long-term health effects of time-restricted eating, including risk of death from any cause or cardiovascular disease, are unknown.”
A brief walk through the PubMed database reveals numerous studies on intermittent fasting, but that’s neither here nor there. Most of the studies that show the benefits of this diet were not funded, promoted, or undertaken by researchers or associations that get their funding primarily from Big pHARMa—which makes bank on cardiovascular drugs—or the trade associations that represent the food industries that lose money when you lose weight.
Here’s the most important thing you need to know about the AHA.
“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.”
Oh goodness. This is embarrassing. Look at all the pharmaceutical companies [ [link removed] ] that lose money if the AHA recommends legit diets that would help people get healthy and avoid needing their drugs.
The top donors on the AHA’s annual 2022-2023 report make cardiovascular drugs. Guess who else is on this list? The manufacturer of Ozempic—a weight loss drug with side effects that would scare the hair off a cat and tumors right into your thyroid.
But there’s nothing to see here.
Guess who else the AHA partners with?
In 2020, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave the AHA [ [link removed] ] $3.3 million for some super fun, “healthy” initiatives. In November 2023, they gave the AHA another [ [link removed] ]$1.5 million grant.
It’s a well-known fact [ [link removed] ] that the AHA has also received funding [ [link removed] ] from Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, the American Beverage Association—a trade organization that represents companies that make unhealthy products and is busy pretending cancer-causing aspartame is good for you—and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
It also partners with General Mills [ [link removed] ]. Apparently, it costs money to stick to the American Heart Association’s heart-healthy seal of approval on cereals loaded with toxic ingredients [ [link removed] ].
If we followed the money, we would inevitably land at one of three places: a pharmaceutical company, an elitist organization that couldn’t care less if we are casualties in their scheme to usher in a new world order, or a major food corporation that profits off of making sick people sicker.
Should you discard the idea of intermittent fasting? Certainly not. The only things that should be flagged as health risks are the mainstream media, the American Heart Association, and bad science like this.
I can’t do it without you. Consider joining me to raise awareness for the issues the mainstream media won’t cover and help empower others with the information and courage they need to leave the herd.
X: @megan_redshaw
Instagram: megan.redshaw
Telegram: @realmeganredshaw

Unsubscribe [link removed]?