> 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.

▲

pretzellogician 8 hours ago | parent [-]

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 8 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.)