What if it is the opposite and beeing sedentary is a marker of cognitive decline (in this case genetic, but maybe it is also the case for other risk factors).
The good ole 'a glass a day of wine is healthy' issue. For those that don't know - it isn't. The numerous studies that found that all failed to account for a really simple issue. People who are unhealthy tend to give up drinking more frequently than those that aren't, even if for undiagnosed reasons.
So it turns out that people that were drinking a tiny amount of alcohol, but not enough to start seeing the endless negative affects of alcohol, were healthier than those that drunk none, but only because of this bias. The right amount of alcohol, so far as health is concerned, is zero.
It's quite insightful to see how this error then spawned a whole new series of 'approved' explanations for why wine was supposed to be healthy for you, such as antioxidants or whatever. In many fields everything remains extremely ad hoc - from brain plaque to serotonin, and I'll even add in intentional partial reps!
I didn't know about this, thanks for the explanation.
> It's quite insightful to see how this error then spawned a whole new series of 'approved' explanations for why wine was supposed to be healthy for you, such as antioxidants or whatever.
Your analysis provides a very nice example of how science studies can be meaningless. And that this isn't a problem, as long as someone is making money. How many years did we see yet another study being rolled out about France, red wine, red wine extracts in pill form, etc. And yet all that literature is based on a pretty obvious false assumption. That no one was inclined to correct.
The French Paradox as explained there is summarized as “despite cholestrol and saturated fats”. Nothwitstanding the “paradox” being invented by a Frenchman (in the 80’s), the idea that cholestrol and saturated fats were unhealthy is an American idea from the 80’s and prior which was supposedly deduced from the Food Pyramid. And the Food Pyramid seem to have been based on what foodstuff makers were willing to lobby the federal government.
Well maybe it was a paradox back then. But now there are good theories as to why cholestrol and saturated fats are not that bad. (Or even bad?)
This one was made up by someone who has no actual real life experience with alcoholics. In real life you can buy wine for about £1 per liter. Even homeless people can afford several liters per day.
I just checked my local grocery store website. The cheapest wine they have is $4 for 750 mL, and $5 off if you spend $15. So you could buy 4 bottles for $12. That's still $3/L.
But ah, yeah, your point still stands. Wine can be REALLY cheap.
Though back when I worked retail, I only ever had one guy that was always buying lots of wine. The customers that came in frequently to buy alcohol typically bought 12- or 24-packs of cheap beer, though the homeless would buy 40 oz Olde English 800 or the 24 oz Steel Reserve cans.
FWIW, I live in Oregon where hard liquor has to be bought from licensed liquor stores, not grocery stores.
