It isn’t new. I have seen numerous popular press article citing that drinking wine is better for longevity than going to the gym, but I saw one today (the day I am writing this) that particularly got under my skin.
It was a USAToday.com* article titled: “Study: Drinking Alcohol More Important Than Exercise to Living Past 90”. It is based on data collected in an ongoing 90+ Study at the University of California-Irvine. The research focuses on a variety of factors, but the writer zeroes in on the evidence that drinking “two glasses of beer or wine a day improved (1600 nonagenarian’s) odds of living longer than those who abstained by about 18%”. Now, I do think that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that moderate consumption of beer or wine on a regular basis may have some health benefit, but it is important to look at the whole picture. Dig deeper, and it is clear that the researchers are looking at a number of important variables. It is also important to consider the nature of the study (and other such studies).
Most importantly, the 90+ Study is correlational. With such data, there can be no assumption of cause-and-effect. To truly conclude that wine adds longevity, researchers would likely need to look at twins, separated at birth, and given very controlled diet and exercise restrictions. Such a study is not likely to happen. Given that the study is correlational, we have to be careful what we conclude.
The article focuses on wine (ignoring even that beer may be linked to longevity, as well). It is after all in USA Today and not the Journal of the American Medical Association. It is for the casual reader. The article also ignores the other data. (Though there is mention of a role of exercise and body weight.) Likewise, the fact that the data are published in a rather large number of papers causes me some concern. There is a tendency in health research to “cherry-pick” results rather than to look at the whole picture.
Digging deeper into the 90+ Study, one finds that exercise and genetics are also likely contributors to longevity. The 90+ Study also tracks body mass index (BMI = weight in kg ¸ height (in cm) squared). The data suggest that people who are overweight but not obese have greater longevity than people who are of normal weight. Now before jumping to the conclusion that your moderate Dunlap’s disease (i.e., where the belly done lap over the belt) is healthy, consider the challenge in using BMI as a measure of body fat. In my opinion, BMI is a rather useless measure. Why? Because it assumes that weight alone in the health concern. It does not take into account that there is a difference between fat and lean tissue (i.e., bone and muscle). In other words, BMI does not measure body composition! One can weigh the same at 90 and one did at 20, but that does not tell us anything. One may have maintained significantly more muscle (or gained muscle) over 70 years, while another may have replaced muscle weight with fat. In both cases, the BMI may be in the “healthy” range. “Overweight” on the BMI charts (25-29.9 kg/cm2) can, therefore, mean that one is muscular, overfat, or a combination of both. Which then leads to greater longevity? I would contest that it is the combination of greater muscle mass and a healthy (not overly lean) body fat. This is not determined in the research, though. In fact, while the researchers conclude that being overweight is associated with longevity, they make it clear that BMI standards are inappropriate for the elderly**.
The researchers also look at the association between a number of genetic markers (e.g., APOE2) and longevity—particularly with regard to dementia. Genetics research—especially epigenetics—is still in the toddler stage. It is quite likely that numerous genetic associations will be established in coming years. I trust it will become increasingly clear that the greatest association with longevity will come from heredity.
So, what is one to make of all this? First, we must take the summary of research in popular press (and, incidentally, one should consider this post to be in that category) with a grain of salt. Always go to the original source for the facts. (For full disclosure, I have not read all of the 90+ Study research. The USA Today article links to the study webpage which links to the publication links: http://www.mind.uci.edu/research-studies/90plus-study/.) Second, step back and look at the big picture. Moderate beer/wine consumption can contribute to good health and longevity, but it is no replacement for regular exercise and physical activity. One should maintain a healthy body weight which means bone and muscle with only the necessary amount of adipose (fat) tissue. The best way to live longer is to not do the things that will kill you sooner.
Bottom line: If you want to live to be 90+, live a heathy lifestyle, but, most importantly, choose your parents wisely.
Be your best today; be better tomorrow. (And may you have many more tomorrows!)
Carpe momento!
**https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4454365/pdf/nihms692412.pdf