Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2019 Jun 20;14(6):e0218463. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218463

Impacts of unfavourable lifestyle factors on biomarkers of liver function, inflammation and lipid status

Ulla Nivukoski 1, Markus Niemelä 1,2, Aini Bloigu 3, Risto Bloigu 4, Mauri Aalto 5, Tiina Laatikainen 6,7,8, Onni Niemelä 1,*
Editor: Pedro Tauler9
PMCID: PMC6586311  PMID: 31220128

Abstract

Background

Adopting a healthy lifestyle is associated with prolonged life expectancy. The main modifiable lifestyle-related risk factors are hazardous alcohol drinking, smoking, excess body weight and lack of physical activity. Our aim was to estimate the impact of unfavourable lifestyle factors on abnormalities in laboratory tests reflecting liver status, inflammation and lipid metabolism in a population-based cross-sectional study.

Methods

The study included 22,273 participants (10,561 men, 11,712 women) aged 25–74 years from the National FINRISK Study. Data on alcohol use, smoking, body weight, and physical activity were recorded from structured interviews. The risk scores for the various life style factors were established on a 0–8 scale and used to stratify the population in classes to allow estimates of their joint effects. Serum liver enzymes (GGT, ALT), C-reactive protein (CRP) and lipid profiles were measured using standard laboratory techniques.

Results

Consistent dose-response relationships were observed between the number of unfavourable risk factors and serum levels of GGT, ALT, CRP, cholesterol, HDL, LDL and triglycerides (p < 0.0005 for linear trend in all comparisons). When compared with those with zero risk factors, the multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for abnormalities in all biomarkers were significantly higher in those with a sum of risk score two or more. The most striking increases in ORs in the group with the highest numbers of risk factors were observed among men in serum GGT: 26.6 (12.4–57.0), ALT: 40.3 (5.3–307.8), CRP: 16.2 (7.8–33.7) and serum triglycerides: 14.4 (8.6–24.0).

Conclusions

The data support the view that the presence of unfavourable life style risk factors is associated with distinct abnormalities in laboratory tests for liver function, inflammation and lipid status. Such biomarkers may prove to be of value in the assessment of interventions aimed at reducing unfavourable risk factors and in helping individuals in long-term maintenance of lifestyle modifications.

Introduction

Heavy alcohol drinking, smoking, excess body weight and lack of physical exercise are common modifiable risk factors of lifestyle, which may all contribute to the incidence of chronic diseases and premature death [1–5]. There may also be synergistic and additive interactions between such factors in individuals with clustering of unfavourable lifestyle factors [3, 4, 6]. Therefore, interventions aimed at reducing the number of risk factors has been recognized as an important target in both personalized medicine and public health policies [7]. Recent studies have estimated that adopting a healthy lifestyle even at the age of 50 could add more than a decade to life suggesting significant therapeutic potential for lifestyle interventions [3, 8].

A large body of evidence indicates that the occurrence of increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT), and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) enzyme activities in apparently healthy individuals may often be attributed to unhealthy lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or excess body weight [9–13]. The increases in these liver enzymes may also associate with extra-hepatic disease risks, including metabolic syndrome, and cardio- or cerebrovascular events [13–15]. While the biochemical pathways underlying such observations have remained unclear, previous findings have suggested that inflammatory processes [16–18], oxidative stress [19, 20] and generation of abnormal lipid profiles [21] are key pathogenic factors in the sequence of events leading to hepatotoxicity [22] or other adverse health effects, such as incident stroke [5], in individuals presenting with various clusters of risk factors.

So far, only few studies have been available to examine the individual and joint impacts of the various unfavourable life style factors on biochemical indices of health. Considering this issue, we aimed to investigate the combined effects of various lifestyle-related factors on biomarkers of liver status (ALT, GGT), inflammation (C-reactive protein) and lipid metabolism (cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, triglycerides) in a large national FINRISK population-based study, which includes detailed records on alcohol consumption, smoking, physical activity and health status. It is assumed that further understanding of the biomarker behaviour in response to various types of unhealthy behaviours may improve our possibilities for interventions aimed at adopting more favourable lifestyles.

Materials and methods

Study design, data sources and participants

The study collects extensive data from a cross-sectional population health survey (The National FINRISK Study) carried out in Finland in 1997, 2002 and 2007. In each survey year an age- and gender stratified random sample was drawn from the population register according to an international protocol [23]. Clinical examinations included physical measurements, laboratory tests and detailed questionnaires gathering information on current health status, alcohol intake, diet, smoking, physical activity, medical history and socioeconomic factors [23, 24]. Body weight and height were measured to the nearest 0.1 kg and 0.1 cm, respectively. Body mass index (BMI, kg/m2) was calculated as a measure of relative body weight. The data was available from 22,273 apparently healthy individuals: 10,561 men and 11,712 women (mean age 49 ± 13 years, range 25–74 years) who completed the questionnaires and attended the medical examination. The study excluded individuals with any apparent clinical signs of liver disease, ischaemic heart or brain disease or active infection at the time of blood sampling.

The questionnaire used here for registering information on health and lifestyle has been previously developed and validated for use in international population-based health surveys [23–25]. The responses to each question on alcohol consumption, smoking, physical activity and coffee consumption are assigned to mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive categories [25]. Data on alcohol consumption was registered from the past 12 months prior to blood sampling and included information on the types of beverages consumed as well as the amounts and frequencies of consumption. The ethanol content in different beverages was quantitated in grams of ethanol based on defined portion sizes as follows: regular beer 12 grams (1/3 L), strong beer 15.5 grams (1/3 L), long drink 15.5 grams (1/3 L), spirit 12 grams (4 cL), wine 12 grams (12 cL) and cider 12 grams (1/3 L). Information on smoking habits was collected with a set of standardized questions and the data was expressed as the amounts of cigarettes per day. Habitual physical activity including both the number and total time used for physical exercises were also registered from each participant. Coffee consumption was assessed with a set of standardized questions and expressed as the intake of standard servings of coffee (cups) per day.

The data obtained from the questionnaires was subsequently used to define scores for low risk (= 0), medium risk (= 1) and high risk (= 2) categories for each individual risk factor following recent work on health-related risk assessment in relation to alcohol consumption, smoking, BMI status and physical activity [3, 8, 26–28]. In this work, the variables were, however, categorized into three ordinal levels to yield increased statistical power as compared to previously used dichotomous classification [3]. For alcohol consumption the scores were defined as follows: 0 = no consumption; 1 = alcohol consumption between 1–14 (men) or 1–7 (women) standard drinks per week; 2 = alcohol consumption exceeding 14 drinks (men) or 7 drinks (women) per week. For smoking 0 = no smoking, 1 = 1–19 cigarettes per day, 2 = ≥ 20 cigarettes per day; for BMI 0 = BMI < 25; 1 = BMI ≥ 25 and < 30; 2 = BMI ≥ 30. For physical activity 0 represents those with physical activity over 4 hours per week; 1 = those with physical activity between 0.5 and 4 hours per week and 2 = those with physical activity less than 30 min/week. The sum of these scores provided a total number of risk factors, with higher scores (maximum = 8) indicating an unhealthier lifestyle.

The approval for the data collection was received from the Coordinating Ethics Committee of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District in 2002 and 2007 and from the Ethics Committee of the National Public Health Institute in 1997. All surveys were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki according to the ethical rules of the National Public Health Institute.

Laboratory analyses

Serum liver enzymes (ALT and GGT) were measured by standard clinical chemical methods on an Abbott Architect clinical chemistry analyzer following the recommendations of the assay manufacturer (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA). High-sensitivity CRP, a biomarker of inflammation, was determined using a latex immunoassay (Sentinel Diagnostics, Milan, Italy) with the Abbott Architect c8000 clinical chemistry analyzer. Lipid profiles included determinations of total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein-associated cholesterol (HDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and total triglycerides using standard enzymatic methods. All laboratory tests were subjects to continuous external quality control programs organized by Labquality, Finland and CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) quality assurance and standardization program for serum lipids. The cut-offs for the normal limits of the different markers were as follows: ALT (50 U/L men; 35 U/L women), GGT (60 U/L men; 40 U/L women), CRP (3.0 mg/L), cholesterol (5 mmol/L), HDL cholesterol (1.0 mmol/L men, 1.2 mmol/L women), LDL cholesterol (3.0 mmol/L), triglycerides (1.7 mmol/L).

Statistical methods

The main characteristics were examined using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with polynomial contrasts to reveal possible trends across increasing risk score categories. The distribution of abnormal biomarker levels across the risk categories were analysed by chi-square test for trend. Binary logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) of abnormal biomarker levels associated with the risk score categories, adjusting for age and coffee consumption, as these factors are known to potentially associate with abnormal biomarker levels and showed association in univariate analysis. All factors were entered simultaneously into the multivariable model. Potential multicollinearity among the covariates was examined by calculating the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and no evidence was found. Correlations between the risk scores and various biomarkers were calculated using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients. The analyses were carried out with IBM SPSS Statistics 24.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The main demographic characteristics of the participants classified to subgroups according to the distribution of unfavourable lifestyle risk factor scores and gender are summarized in Table 1. Higher levels of alcohol consumption, increased body weight, smoking and physical inactivity were found to characterize the individuals with high risk scores. Age of the participants showed a quadratic association between the risk scores such that the highest mean ages were noted in the middle portion of the risk score categories (p < 0.0005 for both genders). Coffee consumption was found to increase with increasing number of risk factor scores in both men and women (p < 0.0005 for linear trend in both genders).

Table 1. Main characteristics of the participants, as classified according to lifestyle risk factor scores.

Men
    Risk score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7–8
    n (%) 217 (2.1) 1131 (10.7) 2321 (22.0) 2737 (25.9) 2181 (20.7) 1213 (11.5) 563 (5.3) 198 (1.9)
    Age, years, mean ± SD 44.1 ± 14.3 47.5 ± 14.3 50.0 ± 14.3 51.2 ± 13.5 50.1 ± 13.2 49.3 ± 12.2 47.9 ± 11.7 47.4 ± 10.4
    Alcohol consumption, g/day 0.0 ± 0.0 4.4 ± 6.3 6.9 ± 8.8 10.2 ± 13.0 15.3 ± 17.6 22.9 ± 25.1 33.0 ± 30.0 41.9 ± 29.8
    BMI 23.1 ± 1.4 24.1 ± 2.1 25.6 ± 2.8 27.2 ± 3.3 28.6 ± 4.4 29.3 ± 4.7 29.7 ± 5.1 31.7 ± 4.1
    Waist circumference, cm 82.8 ± 5.7 86.9 ± 7.0 91.3 ± 8.7 96.2 ± 9.9 100.1 ± 12.2 102.1 ± 12.6 103.1 ± 13.2 108.4 ± 11.1
    Smoking, cigarettes/day 0.0 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 1.8 1.0 ± 3.4 2.7 ± 6.2 5.8 ± 8.9 11.4 ± 11.0 18.2 ± 12.0 24.3 ± 9.4
    Coffee, cups/day 3.6 ± 2.9 3.9 ± 2.7 4.0 ± 2.7 4.5 ± 3.0 5.0 ± 3.5 5.3 ± 3.6 5.7 ± 3.7 5.9 ± 4.4
    Physical activity,
number of exercises per week		 4.3 ± 2.6 3.5 ± 2.1 2.9 ± 2.0 2.4 ± 2.0 2.0 ± 2.2 1.4 ± 1.7 1.3 ± 2.1 0.9 ± 1.8
Women
    Risk score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7–8
    n (%) 447 (3.8) 1939 (16.6) 3183 (27.2) 3004 (25.6) 1945 (16.6) 816 (7.0) 297 (2.5) 81 (0.7)
    Age, years, mean ± SD 41.5 ± 12.5 44.8 ± 13.4 47.8 ± 13.5 49.5 ± 13.2 49.9 ± 13.1 48.8 ± 12.2 47.5 ± 11.0 48.4 ± 11.4
    Alcohol consumption, g/day 0.0 ± 0.0 1.9 ± 3.2 3.3 ± 5.0 4.6 ± 7.5 6.4 ± 8.0 12.3 ± 11.9 16.8 ± 15.2 22.8 ± 18.7
    BMI 22.4 ± 1.6 23.0 ± 2.4 24.7 ± 3.3 27.4 ± 4.9 29.9 ± 5.7 30.7 ± 6.0 31.0 ± 5.7 33.3 ± 4.7
    Waist circumference, cm 73.8 ± 5.8 75.7 ± 7.3 79.7 ± 9.1 86.3 ± 12.2 92.4 ± 14.0 94.6 ± 14.5 95.9 ± 14.0 102.1 ± 12.0
    Smoking, cigarettes/day 0.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 1.2 0.9 ± 3.1 1.9 ± 4.6 3.6 ± 6.2 6.8 ± 8.3 14.6 ± 11.0 18.8 ± 6.7
    Coffee, cups/day 3.1 ± 2.5 3.2 ± 2.4 3.5 ± 2.4 3.8 ± 2.4 4.0 ± 2.6 4.2 ± 2.9 4.9 ± 3.1 4.5 ± 2.9
    Physical activity,
number of exercises per week		 3.7 ± 1.8 3.2 ± 2.1 2.7 ± 2.1 2.4 ± 2.0 2.0 ± 2.0 1.7 ± 1.9 1.3 ± 2.0 0.8 ± 0.8
Open in a new tab

BMI, body mass index; n, number of observations

Fig 1 demonstrates the median and interquartile ranges for the various biomarkers in groups with different risk factor status. Consistent dose-response relationships were observed between the number of unfavourable risk factors and biomarker levels in all biomarkers. The frequencies of values exceeding the upper normal limits for GGT, ALT, CRP and triglycerides or deviations from the target ranges for serum lipids in the different subgroups are summarized in Table 2. The occurrence of abnormal findings in each laboratory parameter was found to increase in a rather linear and significant manner as a function of the risk score status (p < 0.0005 for all comparisons).

Fig 1. Biomarkers of liver function, inflammation and lipid status in individuals with varying lifestyle risk factor status.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

The data for liver enzymes (GGT, ALT), hs-CRP (biomarker for inflammation) and lipid profiles (cholesterol, HDL, LDL, triglycerides) are shown for both men and women as medians and interquartile ranges. The box represents the middle 50% of the values and the whiskers go down to the 10th percentile and up to the 90th. The scores for the individual risk factors were defined as follows: Alcohol consumption, 0 = no consumption; 1 = alcohol consumption between 1–14 (men) or 1–7 (women) standard drinks per week; 2 = alcohol consumption exceeding 14 drinks (men) or 7 drinks (women) per week Smoking, 0 = no smoking, 1 = 1–19 cigarettes per day, 2 = ≥ 20 cigarettes per day BMI, 0 = BMI < 25; 1 = BMI ≥ 25 and < 30; 2 = ≥ 30 Physical activity, 0 = physical activity over 4 hours per week; 1 = physical activity between 0.5 and 4 hours per week; 2 = physical activity less than 30 min per week. The sum of the above scores provided a total number of risk factors, with higher scores (maximum = 8) indicating an unhealthier lifestyle.

Table 2. The proportion (%) of abnormal biomarker findings in individuals classified according to the number of life-style associated risk factor scores.

Men
    Risk score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7–8 pa
    GGT ≥ 60 U/L 3.7 5.8 8.2 14.7 20.8 29.2 38.2 49.5 < 0.0005
    ALT ≥ 50 U/L 1.4 2.8 6.0 11.3 14.7 18.8 25.3 31.8 < 0.0005
    CRP-hs ≥ 3 mg/L 4.2 8.9 13.3 16.0 22.0 28.0 33.8 42.1 < 0.0005
    Cholesterol ≥ 5 mmol/L 47.0 57.0 64.1 69.0 69.4 73.6 74.7 82.3 < 0.0005
    HDL ≤ 1 mmol/L 7.8 9.7 15.9 19.0 21.2 21.0 21.6 25.3 < 0.0005
    LDL ≥ 5 mmol/L 52.9 56.3 61.4 64.8 66.3 68.0 73.5 66.9 < 0.0005
    Triglycerides ≥ 1.7 mmol/L 12.0 16.8 25.7 35.6 41.4 47.8 50.3 65.7 < 0.0005
Women
    Risk score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7–8 pa
    GGT ≥ 40 U/L 5.8 4.7 7.1 11.5 16.4 25.5 30.6 33.3 < 0.0005
    ALT ≥ 35 U/L 3.7 5.8 6.0 9.0 12.7 14.2 16.4 11.1 < 0.0005
    CRP-hs ≥ 3 mg/L 9.7 12.0 15.1 23.0 33.3 35.8 39.4 58.0 < 0.0005
    Cholesterol ≥ 5 mmol/L 54.9 56.9 62.5 67.1 68.9 67.5 67.0 76.5 < 0.0005
    HDL ≤ 1.2 mmol/L 6.3 8.9 12.0 16.4 22.1 23.4 20.1 30.0 < 0.0005
    LDL ≥ 5 mmol/L 44.5 47.3 53.5 58.8 60.7 60.3 59.9 71.2 < 0.0005
    Triglycerides ≥ 1.7 mmol/L 6.7 8.9 12.7 19.7 25.2 29.0 31.0 43.2 < 0.0005
Open in a new tab

a, p for linear trend

GGT, gamma-glutamyltransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; CRP, C-reactive protein; HDL, high-density lipoproteins; LDL, low-density lipoprotein

Table 3 summarizes the multivariable relative risks of abnormal biomarker findings according to different risk categories. The biomarkers of liver status, inflammation and lipid profiles were all found to react to life-style associated risk factors in a sensitive manner and to show significant associations with the number of risk scores when compared with participants with zero risk factors. The most striking increases in ORs in the group with the highest numbers of risk factors were observed for men in serum GGT: 26.6 (12.4–57.0), ALT: 40.3 (5.3–307.8), CRP: 16.2 (7.8–33.7) and serum triglycerides: 14.4 (8.6–24.0). When using BMI as a covariate in the binary logistic regression analyses, similar findings on ORs for abnormal biomarker status were observed, except for the lack of significance for HDL cholesterol in men and for HDL-, LDL- and total cholesterol in women (data not shown).

Table 3. Odds ratios (ORs) for abnormal biomarker status according to individual lifestyle risk factor scores, as adjusted for age and coffee consumption.

Men Women
Risk score OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
GGT 0
1 1.5 (0.7 to 3.1) 0.7 (0.4 to 1.1)
2 2.1 (1.0 to 4.4)a 1.0 (0.6 to 1.5)
3 4.2 (2.1 to 8.7)c 1.6 (1.1 to 2.4)a
4 6.7 (3.3 to 13.7)c 2.4 (1.6 to 3.7)c
5 10.5 (5.1 to 21.5)c 4.6 (3.0 to 7.1)c
6 16.6 (8.0 to 34.4)c 6.6 (4.1 to 10.6)c
7–8 26.6 (12.4 to 57.0)c 7.0 (3.8 to 13.1)c
ALT 0
1 2.1 (0.3 to 16.4) 1.6 (0.7 to 3.8)
2 5.0 (0.7 to 37.2) 1.6 (0.7 to 3.8)
3 11.3 (1.5 to 82.4)a 2.6 (1.1 to 6.0)a
4 15.6 (2.1 to 114.4)b 3.8 (1.6 to 8.8)b
5 20.8 (2.8 to 153.0)b 4.4 (1.8 to 10.4)b
6 30.0 (4.0 to 222.4)b 5.4 (2.1 to 14.1)c
7–8 40.3 (5.3 to 307.8)c 3.5 (0.8 to 15.0)
CRP 0
1 2.0 (1.0 to 4.0) 1.2 (0.9 to 1.8)
2 3.0 (1.5 to 5.8)b 1.6 (1.2 to 2.3)b
3 3.6 (1.8 to 7.1)c 2.7 (2.0 to 3.8)c
4 5.6 (2.8 to 11.0)c 4.7 (3.3 to 6.5)c
5 7.9 (4.0 to 15.7)c 5.4 (3.8 to 7.6)c
6 11.1 (5.5 to 22.2)c 6.6 (4.4 to 9.8)c
7–8 16.2 (7.8 to 33.7)c 13.7 (7.9 to 23.7)c
Chol 0
1 1.4 (1.0 to 1.9)a 0.9 (0.7 to 1.1)
2 1.8 (1.4 to 2.4)c 1.0 (0.8 to 1.2)
3 2.1 (1.6 to 2.8)c 1.1 (0.9 to 1.4)
4 2.2 (1.7 to 3.0)c 1.2 (1.0 to 1.5)
5 2.8 (2.1 to 3.8)c 1.2 (0.9 to 1.5)
6 3.0 (2.1 to 4.2)c 1.2 (0.9 to 1.7)
7–8 4.9 (3.1 to 7.8)c 1.9 (1.1 to 3.4)a
HDL 0
1 1.3 (0.7 to 2.1) 1.5 (1.0 to 2.3)
2 2.2 (1.3 to 3.6)b 2.1 (1.4 to 3.1)c
3 2.7 (1.7 to 4.5)c 2.9 (2.0 to 4.4)c
4 3.2 (1.9 to 5.3)c 4.2 (2.8 to 6.4)c
5 3.2 (1.9 to 5.3)c 4.7 (3.0 to 7.1)c
6 3.3 (1.9 to 5.7)c 3.9 (2.4 to 6.4)c
7–8 4.1 (2.3 to 7.5)c 6.6 (3.5 to 12.2)c
LDL 0
1 1.1 (0.8 to 1.6) 1.0 (0.7 to 1.3)
2 1.4 (1.0 to 1.9) 1.1 (0.9 to 1.4)
3 1.5 (1.1 to 2.2)a 1.3 (1.0 to 1.7)a
4 1.6 (1.2 to 2.3)b 1.4 (1.1 to 1.9)b
5 1.8 (1.3 to 2.6)b 1.4 (1.1 to 1.9)a
6 2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)c 1.4 (1.0 to 2.1)
7–8 1.7 (1.1 to 2.9)a 2.5 (1.3 to 4.8)b
Trigl 0
1 1.5 (0.9 to 2.3) 1.2 (0.8 to 1.8)
2 2.5 (1.6 to 3.8)c 1.6 (1.1 to 2.4)a
3 3.9 (2.6 to 6.0)c 2.7 (1.8 to 4.0)c
4 5.1 (3.3 to 7.9)c 3.8 (2.5 to 5.5)c
5 6.7 (4.4 to 10.4)c 4.8 (3.2 to 7.3)c
6 7.6 (4.8 to 11.9)c 5.8 (3.7 to 9.2)c
7–8 14.4 (8.6 to 24.0)c 9.7 (5.4 to 17.4)c
Open in a new tab

a, p < 0.05

b, p < 0.01

c, p < 0.001. For abbreviations, see Table 2.

The strongest correlations between the numbers of various unfavourable risk factors and laboratory tests were observed for serum GGT (rs = 0.381 for men; rs = 0.311 for women); ALT (rs = 0.252 for men; rs = 0.166 for women), CRP (rs = 0.308 for men; rs = 0.293 for women) and serum triglycerides (rs = 0.274 for men, rs = 0.258 for women (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons).

Discussion

The present cross-sectional observational study among a large population-based sample of individuals indicate that unfavourable lifestyle factors increase the risk for abnormalities in biomarkers for liver status, inflammation and lipid profiles in a rather linear and significant manner, which supports the view that profound health benefits could be achieved following the habits of a healthy lifestyle. According to recent observations adherence to favourable lifestyle factors significantly prolongs residual life expectancy [3] and reduces the burden of various chronic diseases [5, 26, 27]. Our data further indicates that laboratory parameters could be used as tools in patient advice and guidance during interventions aimed at achieving a more favourable lifestyle. The biomarkers chosen for the present comparisons appear to be sensitive indicators of adverse biomedical effects related to lifestyle and could therefore also be used in the follow-up of individual patients for long-term maintenance of lifestyle modifications.

Recent findings in lifestyle medicine have indicated that the main determinants for adopting a healthy life style include alcohol drinking in moderation, weight control, not smoking, and taking regular exercise [3, 6, 26, 27]. These studies have also emphasized the benefits of avoiding combinations of unfavourable risk factors, which is also in accordance with the present findings using biomarker levels as outcome measures. Previous studies on alcohol consumption as an individual lifestyle risk factor have recently concluded that regular alcohol drinking in amounts exceeding 8 standard drinks per week would lower residual life expectancy at the age of 40 years by 0.5 years, the levels of 30 drinks per week leading to a loss of 4–5 years [26–28]. In individuals with excess body weight even smaller levels of alcohol consumption increase the relative risk of hepatotoxicity, as reflected in elevated liver enzyme activities, fatty changes in the liver and increased rates of mortality due to liver cirrhosis [11, 12, 29]. Previous studies have also reported significant synergistic effect of smoking and alcohol use in increasing liver enzyme activities [30, 31].

Based on current findings lifestyle intervention could be effective when treating patients with liver problems [32–34]. However, the likelihood for a wide variety of other clinical conditions, such as heart diseases, diabetes or cancer are also significantly driven by lifestyle [3, 8, 26, 27]. Typical pathophysiological characteristics associated with lifestyle and disease risks seem to include chronic inflammation, oxidative stress and altered fatty acid metabolism [9, 18, 34]. Thus, it may be expected that systematic measurements of conventional biomarkers reflecting liver status, inflammation and lipid profiles could also offer a significant contribution to the comprehensive assessment of such patients and help in elucidating the mechanisms behind the adverse effects of various behavioural phenotypes. Previously, changes in liver enzyme activities have been shown to be associated with both hepatic and extrahepatic disease risks, including cardio- and cerebrovascular risks, deposition of triglycerides in tissues and the development of insulin resistance [10, 15, 35, 36]. Based on the present analysis which excluded individuals with clinically apparent diseases at the time of the study the biomarker responses appear to represent early changes in the sequence of events leading from risk exposure to possible disease outcomes. It should further be noted that in this material similar conclusions on a significant linear relationships between the sum of lifestyle risk factors and current biomarker levels were also reached by further exclusions of individuals with any previous history of cardiac or cerebrovascular diseases, chronic inflammatory diseases, diabetes or abnormal oral glucose test (data not shown).

Previous studies have suggested possible mechanistic links between hepatic and extrahepatic disease outcomes, as supported by findings indicating that GGT enzyme is able to fuel LDL oxidation in coronary plaques [37]. In accordance with this view, alcohol and its reactive metabolites are known to exert toxic effects virtually in all tissues and even relatively low levels of chronic drinking may increase the risk for carcinogenesis [38–40], cognitive decline [41, 42], cardiac dysfunction [43–45] and all-cause mortality [28, 46], which may also associate with abnormalities in blood lipid profiles and indices of inflammation [47–49]. Based on the present data abnormalities in serum CRP, a widely used clinical biomarker of inflammation, and lipid profiles appear to follow the burden of unfavourable risk factors and abnormalities in markers of liver function in a sensitive manner. Although CRP alone may be considered as a relatively unspecific biomarker of inflammation, previous studies have shown that CRP levels predict cardiovascular events even in individuals without any atherosclerotic manifestations or conventional risk factors [50, 51]. Evidence also suggests that CRP is an important regulator of inflammatory processes [51].

Physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour are typical characteristics of an unhealthy lifestyle and increasingly common causes of health problems across the world [3, 6, 32, 52–55]. The present biomarker-based data also underscores the benefits of physical activity as an independent and significant part of a favourable lifestyle. The individuals engaged in moderate or vigorous physical activity show significantly lower risks for biomarker abnormalities than the corresponding groups of those with low or sedentary activity even in the presence of other risk factors. The data also supports the view that physical exercise could also be used as a therapeutic approach to counteract life-style associated adverse metabolic and obesogenic effects and possibly confer long-term benefits to lifestyle-associated disease burden in general [54, 56–58]. Previously, moderate to vigorous physical activity was found to improve the degree of hepatic steatosis in fatty liver disease through reducing inflammation and oxidative stress and altering lipid metabolism even in the absence of any detectable weight reduction [34]. Interestingly, recent UK biobank based study has also concluded that physically active individuals have longer life expectancies across the different levels and indices of adiposity than those with low levels of activity [58].

Based on current data the biomarker responses to factors of lifestyle seem to be significantly driven by their joint effects. However, it should be emphasized that there may also be other types of unhealthy behaviours, such as particular dietary patterns, which may contribute to adverse health effects [3, 8, 26, 27]. Unfortunately, in this work we did not have sufficient information available on the exact compositions of the diet. Here the unfavourable lifestyle factors were, however, found to be associated with an increasing trend of coffee consumption in the high risk subgroups, which is in accordance with previous observations indicating that heavy smoking may be related with increased coffee intake [59]. Interestingly, coffee consumption has been previously shown to be associated with a reduced risk for both all-cause and cause-specific mortality [60]. Lower levels of liver-derived enzymes have also been found to occur in alcohol consumers with high levels of coffee consumption when compared to those with no coffee consumption suggesting possible hepatoprotective effects of coffee intake [12, 60].

Previous work has also emphasized the role of high-fat diets in aggravating inflammation, oxidative stress and metabolic aberrations [18–20]. High carbohydrate and processed/red meat consumption together with insufficient vegetable, fruit or vitamin intake are other important dietary components which may associate with adverse metabolic and hepatic effects [18, 26, 27, 32, 61]. Thus, the individual assessment of health risks should include considerations of the quality of the diet which may include several synergistic triggers for adverse health effects, as also previously reported from both experimental animal models [20] and human studies [12, 13, 18, 62–67]. In real life situations simultaneous adherence to several low-risk lifestyle-related factors may, however, be difficult. Thus, there is an obvious need for improved national health policies emphasizing tools for health care outcome measurements. The present findings suggest a possible expanded role for clinical laboratory information in the follow-up of patients presenting with unfavourable lifestyle risk factors.

Following previous work on lifestyle factors and health risks [3], we used BMI here as a part of the risk factor scoring system instead of using it as a covariate. This may be justified to prevent over-adjustment due to controlling for a variable which may be on a causal pathway between exposure and outcome. In this work the lack of information on the quality of the diet may further support the choice of using BMI as part of the lifestyle-related index. This approach was also supported by additional analyses using BMI as a covariate where similar conclusions were also reached on a linear relationships between the sum of lifestyle risk factors and biomarker levels, except for a lack of significance for HDL-cholesterol in men and for HDL-, LDL- and total cholesterol in women.

The strengths of this study include the large number of study subjects and a comprehensive assessment of various lifestyle risk factors together with several biomarkers. The study also included separate assessments for both genders. Nevertheless, our study has some potential limitations. Due to the observational and cross-sectional nature of the study and lack of follow-up data it is difficult to derive any causal relationships. The lifestyle factors were self-reported and thus underreporting and biased recall may occur particularly in the parameters pertaining to less socially desirable behaviours. The association between the current risk factors, the quality of the diet and biomarker responses clearly warrant future studies in large follow-up materials. Future studies are also needed to examine the effect of lifestyle factors on indices of inflammation using a wider selection of biomarkers.

Nevertheless, our study demonstrates previously unrecognized relationships between life style risk factors and biomarker abnormalities, which may prove to be useful in public health recommendations. The data also suggests a potential for using biomarker-based algorithms in a comprehensive assessment of interventions aimed at reducing the risks, which based on recent findings seem to have a major impact on life expectancies and disease outcomes.

Data Availability

THL Biobank administrates and grants access to the FINRISK data to research projects that are of high scientific quality and impact, are ethically conducted, and that correspond with the research areas of THL Biobank. All data are available for application at https://thl.fi/en/web/thl-biobank/for-researchers/sample-collections/the-national-finrisk-study-1992-2012. The name of dataset is the National FINRISK Study 1992-2012. Interested researchers can replicate our study findings in their entirety by directly obtaining the data and following the protocol in the Methods section. The authors did not have any special access privileges that others would not have. More information: finriski(at)thl.fi.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by: Competitive State Research Financing of the Expert Responsibility area of Seinäjoki Central Hospital and University of Tampere, Grant no: VTR 5300/3116 to ON; and by the Finnish Foundation for the Promotion of Laboratory Medicine Grant no 10/2014 to ON. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Behrens G, Fischer B, Kohler S, Park Y, Hollenbeck AR, Leitzmann MF. Healthy lifestyle behaviors and decreased risk of mortality in a large prospective study of U.S. women and men. Eur J Epidemiol. 2013;28: 361–372. 10.1007/s10654-013-9796-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Connor JP, Haber PS, Hall WD. Alcohol use disorders. Lancet. 2016;387: 988–998. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00122-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Li Y, Pan A, Wang DD, Liu X, Dhana K, Franco OH et al. Impact of healthy lifestyle factors on life expectancies in the US population. Circulation. 2018;138: 345–355. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.032047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD, Danaei G, Shibuya K, Adair-Rohani H et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380: 2224–2260. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rutten-Jacobs LC, Larsson SC, Malik R, Rannikmae K, Sudlow CL, Dichgans M et al. Genetic risk, incident stroke, and the benefits of adhering to a healthy lifestyle: cohort study of 306 473 UK Biobank participants. BMJ. 2018;363: k4168 10.1136/bmj.k4168 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Romaguera D, Tauler P, Bennasar M, Pericas J, Moreno C, Martinez S et al. Determinants and patterns of physical activity practice among Spanish university students. J Sports Sci. 2011;29: 989–997. 10.1080/02640414.2011.578149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.McGinnis M, Williams-Russo P, Knickman JR. The case for more active policy attention to health promotion. Health Affairs. 2002;21: 78–93. 10.1377/hlthaff.21.2.78 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tamakoshi A, Tamakoshi K, Lin Y, Yagyu K, Kikuchi S, JACC Study Group. Healthy lifestyle and preventable death: findings from the Japan Collaborative Cohort (JACC) Study. Prev Med. 2009;48: 486–492. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.02.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Danielsson J, Kangastupa P, Laatikainen T, Aalto M, Niemelä O. Impacts of common factors of life style on serum liver enzymes. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20: 11743–11752. 10.3748/wjg.v20.i33.11743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kim WR, Flamm SL, Di Bisceglie AM, Bodenheimer HC. Serum activity of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as an indicator of health and disease. Hepatology. 2008;47: 1363–1370. 10.1002/hep.22109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lau K, Baumeister SE, Lieb W, Meffert PJ, Lerch MM, Mayerle J et al. The combined effects of alcohol consumption and body mass index on hepatic steatosis in a general population sample of European men and women. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015;41: 467–476. 10.1111/apt.13067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Niemelä O, Niemelä M, Bloigu R, Aalto M, Laatikainen T. Where should the safe limits of alcohol consumption stand in light of liver enzyme abnormalities in alcohol consumers? PLoS One. 2017;12: e0188574 10.1371/journal.pone.0188574 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ruhl CE, Everhart JE. Elevated serum alanine aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyltransferase and mortality in the United States population. Gastroenterology. 2009;136: 477–485. 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.10.052 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lee TH, Kim WR, Benson JT, Therneau TM, Melton LJ III. Serum aminotransferase activity and mortality risk in a United States community. Hepatology. 2008;47: 880–887. 10.1002/hep.22090 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ruttmann E, Brant LJ, Concin H, Diem G, Rapp K, Ulmer H et al. Gamma-glutamyltransferase as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease mortality: an epidemiological investigation in a cohort of 163,944 Austrian adults. Circulation. 2005;112: 2130–2137. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.552547 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Latvala J, Hietala J, Koivisto H, Järvi K, Anttila P, Niemelä O. Immune responses to ethanol metabolites and cytokine profiles differentiate alcoholics with or without liver disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100: 1303–1310. 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.41509.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Oliveira A, Rodríguez-Artalejo F, Lopes C. Alcohol intake and systemic markers of inflammation—shape of the association according to sex and body mass index. Alcohol Alcohol. 2010;45: 119–125. 10.1093/alcalc/agp092 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Zheng JS, Sharp SJ, Imamura F, Koulman A, Schulze MB, Ye Z et al. Association between plasma phospholipid saturated fatty acids and metabolic markers of lipid, hepatic, inflammation and glycaemic pathways in eight European countries: a cross-sectional analysis in the EPIC-InterAct study. BMC Med. 2017;15: 203 10.1186/s12916-017-0968-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Caro AA, Cederbaum AI. Oxidative stress, toxicology, and pharmacology of CYP2E1. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2004;44: 27–42. 10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.44.101802.121704 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tsukamoto H, Horne W, Kamimura S, Niemelä O, Parkkila S, Ylä-Herttuala S et al. Experimental liver cirrhosis induced by alcohol and iron. J Clin Invest. 1995;96: 620–630. 10.1172/JCI118077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hao G, Wang Z, Zhang L, Chen Z, Wang X, Guo M et al. Relationship between alcohol consumption and serum lipid profiles among middle-aged population in China: a multiple-center cardiovascular epidemiological study. Angiology. 2015;66: 753–758. 10.1177/0003319714549557 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wang HJ, Gao B, Zakhari S, Nagy LE. Inflammation in alcoholic liver disease. Annu Rev Nutr. 2012;32: 343–368. 10.1146/annurev-nutr-072610-145138 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.The World Health Organization MONICA Project (Monitoring trends and determinants in cardiovascular disease): a major international collaboration. WHO MONICA Project Principal Investigators. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41: 105–114. 10.1016/0895-4356(88)90084-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kuulasmaa K, Tolonen H, Cepaitis Z, Laatikainen T, Nissinen A, Vartiainen E et al. European health risk monitoring project. Finnish National Public Health Institute (KTL), Helsinki: 2006. Available from: www.thl.fi/ehrm (11.9.2018). [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Luepker RV, Evans A, McKeigue P, Srinath Reddy K. Cardiovascular survey methods. World Health Organization WHO; ), Geneva: 2004. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42569 (18.10.2018). [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Li K, Hüsing A, Kaaks R. Lifestyle risk factors and residual life expectancy at age 40: a German cohort study. BMC Med. 2014;12: 59 10.1186/1741-7015-12-59 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Manuel DG, Perez R, Sanmartin C, Taljaard M, Hennessy D, Wilson K et al. Measuring burden of unhealthy behaviours using a multivariable predictive approach: life expectancy lost in Canada attributable to smoking, alcohol, physical inactivity, and diet. PLoS Med. 2016;13: e1002082 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wood AM, Kaptoge S, Butterworth AS, Willeit P, Warnakula S, Bolton T et al. Risk thresholds for alcohol consumption: combined analysis of individual-participant data for 599 912 current drinkers in 83 prospective studies. Lancet. 2018;391: 1513–1523. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30134-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tapper EB, Parikh ND. Mortality due to cirrhosis and liver cancer in the United States, 1999–2016: observational study. BMJ. 2018;362: k2817 10.1136/bmj.k2817 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Breitling LP, Raum E, Müller H, Rothenbacher D, Brenner H. Synergism between smoking and alcohol consumption with respect to serum gamma-glutamyltransferase. Hepatology. 2009;49: 802–808. 10.1002/hep.22727 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Park EY, Lim MK, Oh JK, Cho H, Bae MJ, Yun EH et al. Independent and supra-additive effects of alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, and metabolic syndrome on the elevation of serum liver enzyme levels. PLoS One. 2013;8: e63439 10.1371/journal.pone.0063439 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Romero-Gómez M, Zelber-Sagi S, Trenell M. Treatment of NAFLD with diet, physical activity and exercise. J Hepatol. 2017;67: 829–846. 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.05.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Teeriniemi AM, Salonurmi T, Jokelainen T, Vähänikkilä H, Alahäivälä T, Karppinen P et al. A randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of a Web-based health behaviour change support system and group lifestyle counselling on body weight loss in overweight and obese subjects: 2-year outcomes. J Intern Med. 2018;284: 534–545. 10.1111/joim.12802 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Oh S, Shida T, Yamagishi K, Tanaka K, So R, Tsujimoto T et al. Moderate to vigorous physical activity volume is an important factor for managing nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a retrospective study. Hepatology. 2015;61: 1205–1215. 10.1002/hep.27544 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kazemi-Shirazi L, Endler G, Winkler S, Schickbauer T, Wagner O, Marsik C. Gamma glutamyltransferase and long-term survival: is it just the liver? Clin Chem. 2007;53: 940–946. 10.1373/clinchem.2006.081620 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Niemelä O. Biomarker-based approaches for assessing alcohol use disorders. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13: 166 10.3390/ijerph13020166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kozakova M, Palombo C, Eng MP, Dekker J, Flyvbjerg A, Mitrakou A et al. Fatty liver index, gamma-glutamyltransferase, and early carotid plaques. Hepatology. 2012;55: 1406–1415. 10.1002/hep.25555 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bagnardi V, Rota M, Botteri E, Tramacere I, Islami F, Fedirko V et al. Light alcohol drinking and cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2013;24: 301–308. 10.1093/annonc/mds337 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Cao Y, Willett WC, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci EL. Light to moderate intake of alcohol, drinking patterns, and risk of cancer: results from two prospective US cohort studies. BMJ. 2015;351: h4238 10.1136/bmj.h4238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Choi YJ, Myung SK, Lee JH. Light alcohol drinking and risk of cancer: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Cancer Res Treat. 2018;50: 474–487. 10.4143/crt.2017.094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Schwarzinger M, Pollock BG, Hasan OSM, Dufouil C, Rehm J, QalyDays Study Group. Contribution of alcohol use disorders to the burden of dementia in France 2008–13: a nationwide retrospective cohort study. Lancet Public Health. 2018;3: e124–e132. 10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30022-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Topiwala A, Allan CL, Valkanova V, Zsoldos E, Filippini N, Sexton C et al. Moderate alcohol consumption as risk factor for adverse brain outcomes and cognitive decline: longitudinal cohort study. BMJ. 2017;357: j2353 10.1136/bmj.j2353 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Catena C, Colussi G, Verheyen ND, Novello M, Fagotto V, Soardo G et al. Moderate alcohol consumption is associated with left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in nonalcoholic hypertensive patients. Hypertension. 2016;68: 1208–1216. 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.08145 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Klatsky AL. Alcohol and cardiovascular diseases: where do we stand today? J Intern Med. 2015;278: 238–250. 10.1111/joim.12390 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.McManus DD, Yin X, Gladstone R, Vittinghoff E, Vasan RS, Larson MG et al. Alcohol consumption, left atrial diameter, and atrial fibrillation. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5: e004060 10.1161/JAHA.116.004060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Sipilä P, Rose RJ, Kaprio J. Drinking and mortality: long-term follow-up of drinking-discordant twin pairs. Addiction. 2016;111: 245–254. 10.1111/add.13152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Libby P, Ridker PM, Hansson GK, Leducq Transatlantic Network on Atherothrombosis. Inflammation in atherosclerosis: from pathophysiology to practice. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54: 2129–2138. 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.09.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Moradi H, Streja E, Kalantar-Zadeh K. Serum high density lipoprotein cholesterol level and risk of death: let's avoid the extremes. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9: 4849–4852. 10.21037/jtd.2017.10.155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ridker PM, Everett BM, Thuren T, MacFadyen JG, Chang WH, Ballantyne C et al. Antiinflammatory therapy with canakinumab for atherosclerotic disease. N Engl J Med. 2017;377: 1119–1131. 10.1056/NEJMoa1707914 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Koenig W. C-reactive protein and cardiovascular risk: will the controversy end after CANTOS? Clin Chem. 2017;63: 1897–1898. 10.1373/clinchem.2017.273243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Sproston NR, Ashworth JJ. Role of C-reactive protein at sites of inflammation and infection. Front Immunol. 2018;9: 754 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00754 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Sundberg CJ. Physical activity: what is already being done and how we can avert 1 million deaths annually in future. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50: 319 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Warburton DE, Bredin SS. Reflections on physical activity and health: what should we recommend? Can J Cardiol. 2016;32: 495–504. 10.1016/j.cjca.2016.01.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kyu HH, Bachman VF, Alexander LT, Mumford JE, Afshin A, Estep K et al. Physical activity and risk of breast cancer, colon cancer, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, and ischemic stroke events: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. BMJ. 2016;354: i3857 10.1136/bmj.i3857 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Smith AD, Crippa A, Woodcock J, Brage S. Physical activity and incident type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Diabetologia. 2016;59: 2527–2545. 10.1007/s00125-016-4079-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Lawlor DA, Sattar N, Smith GD, Ebrahim S. The associations of physical activity and adiposity with alanine aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyltransferase. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;161: 1081–1088. 10.1093/aje/kwi125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Perreault K, Bauman A, Johnson N, Britton A, Rangul V, Stamatakis E. Does physical activity moderate the association between alcohol drinking and all-cause, cancer and cardiovascular diseases mortality? A pooled analysis of eight British population cohorts. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51: 651–657. 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096194 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Zaccardi F, Davies MJ, Khunti K, Yates T4. Comparative relevance of physical fitness and adiposity on life expectancy: a UK biobank observational study. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;Epub ahead of print. 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.10.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Bjørngaard JH, Nordestgaard AT, Taylor AE, Treur JL, Gabrielsen ME, Munafò MR et al. Heavier smoking increases coffee consumption: findings from a Mendelian randomization analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46: 1958–1967. 10.1093/ije/dyx147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Gunter MJ, Murphy N, Cross AJ, Dossus L, Dartois L, Fagherazzi G et al. Coffee drinking and mortality in 10 European countries: a multinational cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167: 236–247. 10.7326/M16-2945 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Halsted CH, Villanueva JA, Devlin AM, Niemelä O, Parkkila S, Garrow TA et al. Folate deficiency disturbs hepatic methionine metabolism and promotes liver injury in the ethanol-fed micropig. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99: 10072–10077. 10.1073/pnas.112336399 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Day CP, James OF. Steatohepatitis: a tale of two "hits"? Gastroenterology. 1998;114: 842–845. 10.1016/S0016-5085(98)70599-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Fraser A, Harris R, Sattar N, Ebrahim S, Davey Smith G, Lawlor DA. Alanine aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyltransferase, and incident diabetes: the British Women's Heart and Health Study and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2009;32: 741–750. 10.2337/dc08-1870 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Ghouri N, Preiss D, Sattar N. Liver enzymes, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and incident cardiovascular disease: a narrative review and clinical perspective of prospective data. Hepatology. 2010;52: 1156–1161. 10.1002/hep.23789 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Joshi PK, Pirastu N, Kentistou KA, Fischer K, Hofer E, Schraut KE et al. Genome-wide meta-analysis associates HLA-DQA1/DRB1 and LPA and lifestyle factors with human longevity. Nat Commun. 2017;8: 910 10.1038/s41467-017-00934-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Liu B, Balkwill A, Reeves G, Beral V, Million Women Study Collaborators. Body mass index and risk of liver cirrhosis in middle aged UK women: prospective study. BMJ. 2010;340: c912 10.1136/bmj.c912 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Tsai J, Ford ES, Zhao G, Li C, Greenlund KJ, Croft JB. Co-occurrence of obesity and patterns of alcohol use associated with elevated serum hepatic enzymes in US adults. J Behav Med. 2012;35: 200–210. 10.1007/s10865-011-9353-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

THL Biobank administrates and grants access to the FINRISK data to research projects that are of high scientific quality and impact, are ethically conducted, and that correspond with the research areas of THL Biobank. All data are available for application at https://thl.fi/en/web/thl-biobank/for-researchers/sample-collections/the-national-finrisk-study-1992-2012. The name of dataset is the National FINRISK Study 1992-2012. Interested researchers can replicate our study findings in their entirety by directly obtaining the data and following the protocol in the Methods section. The authors did not have any special access privileges that others would not have. More information: finriski(at)thl.fi.

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES