>So it's not correct to wave it all away and say that it's all random bacterial infections

That is not what I said (per my comment "Yes, sure, lifestyle has something to do with any or all of these.") But it seems likely we'll find that lifestyle and diet are not the only cause, maybe not even the primary one.

>>> When Fuster presented the project in 2010, he noted how difficult it is to diagnose cardiovascular problems early and how simple it is to prevent them, with measures such as exercising, following a healthy diet, and not smoking. The new study shows that blood levels of imidazole propionate are lower in people with diets rich in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fish, tea, and low-fat dairy products.

So... cardiovascular problems can be "prevented" with those simple measures? It seems likely there are some non-smoking marathoner vegans that have died of heart attacks. But maybe he was mis-translated.

>About half of ulcers are caused by NSAID overuse.

(From https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8002800/: "NSAIDs are second to Helicobacter pylori infection in causing peptic ulceration in the upper GI tract.")

I didn't know that! Thank you, that is very interesting.

▲

ifwinterco 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Vegan diets are associated with higher risk of stroke, so you might not get a heart attack, but it's not as simple as 'less meat and more cardiovascular exercise == good'

▲

slibhb 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> That is not what I said (per my comment "Yes, sure, lifestyle has something to do with any or all of these.") But it seems likely we'll find that lifestyle and diet are not the only cause, maybe not even the primary one.

What would it even mean for lifestyle choices to directly cause some condition?

Attributing causation is largely subjective (up to a point). It's like saying "flipping the light switch didn't turn off the lights, rather it was the cessation of the flow of electrons".

> So... cardiovascular problems can be "prevented" with those simple measures? It seems likely there are some non-smoking marathoner vegans that have died of heart attacks. But maybe he was mis-translated.

Eating right, not getting fat, and exercising dramatically lowers the risk of heart disease. Some people who do all that will still get heart disease due to some congenital condition. But the vast majority of heart disease can be avoided.

▲

rendaw 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> What would it even mean for lifestyle choices to directly cause some condition?

Eating a diet largely of white rice directly causes beriberi. At least 9/10 people will get beriberi if they eat a diet that's mostly white rice. The median human body needs a certain amount of thiamine to operate properly, and without that certain body functions will cease to occur properly.

Eating too much spinach will cause kidney stones, but by exacerbating a different underlying cause (not directly). 9/10 people will not get kidney stones by eating too much spinach. Making the lifestyle choice to eat smaller amounts of spinach than the general population will protect against kidney stones, but it doesn't mean that spinach is bad to eat.

Without knowing the difference in bodily makeup that allows spinach to influence the occurrence of kidney stones, doctors will vilify spinach. But once the bodily factor that causes this will known, they'll either be able to treat that or recommend lifestyle (diet) changes specifically to the people who have that mutation, rather than vilifying spinach in general.

▲

pretzellogician 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yep, totally agree with your points.

>What would it even mean for lifestyle choices to directly cause some condition?

The glib answer would be something like woodworking and missing fingers :-)

But there are plenty of people (not me!) who believe, for example, that obesity and type-2 diabetes are directly caused by overeating and/or lack of exercise.

▲

FollowingTheDao 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I follow the same logic you do, even though I disagree with what you are saying.

Lifestyle choices increase the risk of these diseases but if they caused the disease, everyone who ate the diet would get the disease, and we know that is not true.

The difference is crucial because we know genetics plays a role as well so matching diet and genetics would be useful.

	▲	pretzellogician 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Perhaps I'm mis-stating something then, because I agree with you. (Just clarified my post in case that was the issue.)