I’ll politiely disagree. One family is not a sample. Research gives us information. IMO, you can increase or decrease the probability of a positive (or negative) health outcome with diet and exercise, but genetics matters as well.
I gave one family as an example. There are far more out there. I work in a public school and see a lot.
But that doesn’t answer my question. I’m honestly asking, if one has low visceral fat as measured by DEXA, can they have too much visceral fat around their organs? Does the DEXA give us an indication (or not) of visceral fat around the organs?
I can only speak for myself but when I eat more cleanly (not perfect, but with some conscious decisions To eat better) I just feel better overall. I have more energy, sleep better, my skin is clearer, I’m more motivated and feel pride in taking care of myself.
I may not be adding years onto my life but I’ll take feeling good daily through exercise and good eating over other poor lifestyle habits.
If anyone has a magic recipe for avoiding disease like cancer let us know. In the meantime I won’t poo-poo feeling healthy through action on a daily basis.
You’re not going to convince me that diet and exercise have little to no value in one’s health. Not even a snowball’s chance of persuading me.
My answer would remain the same. A DEXA scan alone cannot tell you the amount of visceral fat around the liver, no matter what the percentage says on the DEXA.
I had a friend with non alcoholic fatty liver disease who was fit and healthy and non smoker, non drinker. Normal DEXA scans with very low body fat (she was a gym rat). She was diagnosed after abnormal blood work. Thin people can have NAFLD.
I’ll add a cautionary tale to this answer. My best friend’s Dad is very lean; I don’t know if he ever had a DEXA scan but to my untrained eye I would estimate he’s always had 0% visceral fat. Yet he developed non-alcoholic (he doesn’t drink) fatty liver disease. The culprit? His diet has always been very high in fruit, i.e. fructose. Thankfully it was caught early through routine blood tests I think, and he was admonished to eat less fruit. He’s doing well after adjusting his diet. Everything in moderation!
I have no desire to convince you.
However, your insistence that all will be well if only one does X or Y can lead people to false expectations and that can get REALLY heavy on the mind when people get test results and go WTH? Ask me how I know.
I’ve seen identical twins where one got cancer and the other didn’t - in high school.
That’s an incorrect characterization of what I’m trying to say.
-
It’s all about arming yourself with information, then an individual can make their own health decisions.
-
There’s plenty, tons, massive amounts of research about the connection of diet and exercise to increasing the probabilities of good health outcomes.
-
There aren’t any guarantees in life, but death and taxes as they say.
Many health outcomes are like lottery results. But habits relating to health like eating, exercise, etc. can affect which lottery tickets you have and the chances of good or bad outcomes, even though there is no guarantee.
For example, smoking gives you extra lung cancer lottery tickets (and more for if you smoke more), but that does not guarantee that any of them will get the “prize”. Not smoking means having a very small number of lung cancer lottery tickets, but some non smokers are unlucky enough to have a ticket turn into a “prize”.
Smoking to lung issues and eating a bad diet for those prone to Type II diabetes are the main links I feel I’ve seen IRL and with the diet/Type II it does seem to run genetically. I have to be much more careful about what I eat than H does. It runs on both sides of my family and is non-existent in his. He can have all the sugar he wants and his numbers are fine. I need to eliminate a bit from my diet and mine are still higher than his. We’re the opposite when it comes to salt though, so it’s a good thing I prefer salty to sweet.
The rest sure seem to be pure luck of the draw.
In The Blue Zones, a little alcohol seems to be correlated with longer lives, not shorter. Even that knowledge doesn’t change how much (little) H and I consume though.
I do want to add that there’s probably no amount of diet and exercise, or even genetics, that’ll overcome living (or working) in a bad environment, such as living with an unhealthy water supply or near an energy-producing plant, where there’s an electromagnetic radiation field, as examples.
On this you and I agree. Toxins in the air/water/food/medications sure seem to change the odds. I think more study actually needs to be done in these areas. I can believe my mom fell prey to one of those TBH, esp since there seem to be a cluster of cancers in her area - same water.
I’ll make a couple of observations. I have no studies or proof for any of what I’m about to say. First, most alcohol is consumed for a few reasons. First is that it eases social interaction. That’s why so many drink socially. Second would be as part of their diet. Wine specifically is used as part of the meal and thus part of the diet. Again, my observation is that wine more so than other alcoholic beverages tends to go well with meals that tend to be more diverse and healthier. I suspect that is why France, Italy and Spain have some of the most diverse and healthy diets and are major wine producers and consumers. Same with California, Oregon and Washington. Alcohol is a toxin I’m sure. But just possibly a Pinot with your salmon might be better for you than a Soda with your hamburger. It will certainly motivate you to linger longer, converse easier and just possibly eat a bit less. Again, merely an opinion.
First of all…No one HAS to drink alcohol. I think most people would get along fine without it. Also, drinking too much can be unhealthy and alcohol can have a lot of calories.
I do think eating healthfully and staying active can help you live longer and healthier. Is it 100% foolproof? No, nothing is.
But I do know that when I eat healthier and exercise more, I feel better and I notice a difference in my skin and digestion.
Personally, I think everything in moderation.
FWIW I don’t interpret their comments as saying this. Simply that doing X or Y can improve outcomes, both for populations and individuals within. That can and is true, while also being true that improving e.g. from having an 80% chance of some bad outcome to 75% chance is still an improvement even if the chances are still high.
I’m speculating, but I’d like to think that, in the case of Western Europe, one reason they may have healthier outcomes overall than the US is due to their shorter working hours, longer vacations and generally higher quality of life.
Less stress certainly helps health outcomes, but no one will ever confuse me with an European expert.
My issue with the article started out with the headline - “Even a Little Alcohol Can Harm Your Health,” and the opening line - “Recent research makes it clear that any amount of drinking can be detrimental.”
Research is often not clear and definitive. Just look at all the reports about Covid, how to prevent it, and how to treat it.
Unfortunately we’re taught as children that science is infallible, which it isn’t - especially when it comes to medical and biological science. So people can be easily misled by statements like “Recent research makes it clear that any amount of drinking can be detrimental.” If that statement is true, how can one explain the endless articles about reports that conclude that an occasional glass of wine can be good for you? Why should people believe the latest research report overrides all the other research reports that conclude otherwise?
I rarely drink BTW.
More walking and cycling rather than driving has a lot to do with it:
“Countries with the highest levels of active transportation generally had the lowest obesity rates. Europeans walked more than United States residents (382 versus 140 km per person per year) and bicycled more (188 versus 40 km per person per year) in 2000.”