Originally Posted by
PeteHski
The study itself (or preview) already covers the potential flaws and limitations of this kind of long term study with limited data. The authors are not claiming that it is a causal link and one of the lead authors does express surprise at the data findings, given previous findings from short term studies. But what can they do? Just ignore the data? Or try to discover why there is a surprising link?
I don't think there is a link other than it was the one question asked? If the authors purpose was to find out if there was a link between IM fasting and heart disease, why wouldn't they try to rule out any other "known" contributing factors from the study group? My personal opinion is that the study was intentionally biased.