It Turns Out Moderate Drinking Isn't Good For Your Health, New Study Finds (spokesman.com) 123
"Drinking moderate amounts of alcohol every day does not — as once thought — protect against death from heart disease," writes the Washington Post, "nor does it contribute to a longer life, according to a sweeping new analysis of alcohol research."
The review, which examined existing research on the health and drinking habits of nearly 5 million people, is one of the largest studies to debunk the widely held belief that moderate drinking of wine or other alcoholic beverages is good for you. Last year, researchers in Britain examined genetic and medical data of nearly 400,000 people and concluded that even low alcohol intake was associated with increased risk of disease.
The new study, which appears Friday in Jama Network Open, also found that drinking relatively low levels of alcohol — 25 grams a day for women (less than 1 ounce) and 45 grams (about 1.5 ounces) or more per day for men — actually increased the risk of death. A standard wine pour is about 5 ounces. The standard serving size for beer is 12 ounces, and for distilled spirits, 1.5 ounces. "This study punctures the hope of many that moderate alcohol use is healthy," said Robert DuPont, a psychiatrist and substance abuse expert who served as the first director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.... Much of the research into the health effects of alcohol has been funded by the alcohol industry. One recent report found that 13,500 studies have been directly or indirectly paid for by the industry....
The new review, called a "meta-analysis," looked at 107 observational studies that involved more than 4.8 million people. The study stressed that previous estimates of the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption on the risk of death by "all causes" — meaning anything, including heart disease, cancer, infections and automobile accidents — were "significantly" biased by flaws in study design. Earlier research did not adjust for numerous factors that could influence the outcome, for example, age, sex, economic status and lifestyle behaviors such as exercise, smoking and diet, they said. Using statistical software, the researchers essentially removed the bias, adjusting for various factors that could skew the research. After doing so, they found no significant declines in the risk of death by any causes among the moderate drinkers.
The new study, which appears Friday in Jama Network Open, also found that drinking relatively low levels of alcohol — 25 grams a day for women (less than 1 ounce) and 45 grams (about 1.5 ounces) or more per day for men — actually increased the risk of death. A standard wine pour is about 5 ounces. The standard serving size for beer is 12 ounces, and for distilled spirits, 1.5 ounces. "This study punctures the hope of many that moderate alcohol use is healthy," said Robert DuPont, a psychiatrist and substance abuse expert who served as the first director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.... Much of the research into the health effects of alcohol has been funded by the alcohol industry. One recent report found that 13,500 studies have been directly or indirectly paid for by the industry....
The new review, called a "meta-analysis," looked at 107 observational studies that involved more than 4.8 million people. The study stressed that previous estimates of the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption on the risk of death by "all causes" — meaning anything, including heart disease, cancer, infections and automobile accidents — were "significantly" biased by flaws in study design. Earlier research did not adjust for numerous factors that could influence the outcome, for example, age, sex, economic status and lifestyle behaviors such as exercise, smoking and diet, they said. Using statistical software, the researchers essentially removed the bias, adjusting for various factors that could skew the research. After doing so, they found no significant declines in the risk of death by any causes among the moderate drinkers.
Wait 6 months... (Score:4, Interesting)
.. and there will be a new study stating the opposite. And so on...
Re: (Score:3)
.. and there will be a new study stating the opposite. And so on...
Starting on April 2.
Re: Wait 6 months... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait 6 months... (Score:5, Insightful)
.. and there will be a new study stating the opposite. And so on...
I'm sure the effect size will fluctuate, but the idea that even moderate drinking is quite bad for you has been around for a while [ccsa.ca].
The thing to understand is that drinking has been deeply ingrained in our culture for generations, particularly around social gathers which people understand are good for you, so it takes a long time for people (including scientists) to conclude that it's bad for you.
If you look at the long term trend line it goes something like "regular heavy drinking every day is bad, but a couple glasses of wine with dinner is fine (even healthy!)", then they study that for a bit and revise to "ok, a couple drinks every night is bad, but a couple drinks a week is fine".
Now, "ok, even those couple drinks a week have a detectable bad effect on your health".
Re: Wait 6 months... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I hate to agree with Mormon's on something but refraining from alcohol, other non-medical drugs and even caffeine might not be so bad. By avoiding those substances, it lets your body self regulate much better. If you can manage a regular bed time and wake time, you'll not NEED that pick me up in the morning. If you tend to drink coffee in the late afternoon to give you the extra boost (I totally get it) you have to be careful not to over-indulge less it disrupt you going to bed at a proper time.
Alcohol and
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the effect size will fluctuate, but the idea that even moderate drinking is quite bad for you has been around for a while
The idea that the Earth is flat has been around for a while too because, if you do not do the science and just use your feelings it looks flat. This is why we invented science because our feelings are often wrong. It may be that a moderate amount of alcohol is bad for you...or it may be good for you. Clearly, the systematic uncertainty in these studies is so large and, worse, these studies only look for correlation which means that even if they claim that it is bad for you (or good for you) they have no cl
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the effect size will fluctuate, but the idea that even moderate drinking is quite bad for you has been around for a while
The idea that the Earth is flat has been around for a while too because, if you do not do the science and just use your feelings it looks flat. This is why we invented science because our feelings are often wrong.
It turns out your feelings about my argument were wrong.
The link I provided was a list of over a dozen documents, based on scientific studies, saying that drinking was bad for you.
It may be that a moderate amount of alcohol is bad for you...or it may be good for you.
And the Earth may in fact be flat, but the evidence is overwhelmingly against that.
The evidence against moderate drinking is much more equivocal, but it would still be a surprise if the conclusions reversed at this point.
Clearly, the systematic uncertainty in these studies is so large and, worse, these studies only look for correlation which means that even if they claim that it is bad for you (or good for you) they have no clue whether it is, just that there is a correlation.
The only reason why there was ambiguity before now is it was based on correlation (and studies were usually fun
Re: (Score:2)
Well the causation is pretty obvious, alcohol is a poison and we see no shortage of harms at higher levels.
Water is a poison too. This is not drowning, you can drink enough of it that it kills you. Anything is lethal in sufficiently large amounts so a statement like this is meaningless. The question is what is a "safe" amount. Yes, we have plenty of evidence that in sufficiently large quantities alcohol is dangerous. However, the evidence that it is dangerous in small to moderate amounts is not at all clear.
Recently Canada drastically reduced its safe recommended amount of alcohol to significant derision fro
Re: Wait 6 months... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I generally do not drink alcohol. It seems that constant use of it would be bad; however, the few times I do drink (maybe once a year or so), I feel like very small amounts have a beneficial effect despite how nasty it tastes.
TL;DR, small amounts of alcoholic beverages have an effect that is so small, why even worry about it?
Re: (Score:2)
The last study I saw on this (probably on /. but I'm too lazy to look for it) nominally said "Any amount of alcohol is bad. The only redeeming characteristic is that if you're in an awkward social situation, a small amount of alcohol will help people talk to each other. Stop drinking as soon as people can relate to each other."
The flow chart looks like this: If you're lonely and at high risk of death for loneliness-connected factors, find a group you think you might be able to join. If you're having trouble
Re:Wait 6 months... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course there will be, because there's a trillion dollar industry whose profits depend on poorly-designed studies.
It never really passed the smell test that injesting moderate amounts of poison every day makes you live longer. But that's not to say people shouldn't drink. The real issue should be at what level of consumption the health risks fully offset the enjoyment it brings into your life.
Re: (Score:2)
It never really passed the smell test that injesting moderate amounts of poison every day makes you live longer. But that's not to say people shouldn't drink. The real issue should be at what level of consumption the health risks fully offset the enjoyment it brings into your life.
What if it's homeopathic. You just have to dilute the alcohol until there are no original molecules left, and then it won't be bad for you any more.
Re: (Score:2)
No, drinking is most likely just not great for you. Stop cherry-picking studies to support your desired outcome :)
Not this time (Score:4, Interesting)
But I can tell you is I don't drink and it never have and I've never had a doctor tell me I should start. To the contrary every doctor has always said the same thing when I tell them I don't drink, they said good don't start.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't drink and it never have and I've never had a doctor tell me I should start.
I actually have. Just goes to show, there are exceptions to almost every rule, depending on circumstances. :)
Most of the elderly, for example, are advised to take a low dose of aspirin daily, because the negative consequences of not doing so outweigh the side-effects of the aspirin itself, despite aspirin's harmful nature in the more general long-term case.
That's why studying these things matters, because Biology Is Complicated Sometimes and without science you never know which counter-intuitive therapies a
Re: (Score:2)
This is about the 50th time studies have shown moderate drinking doesn't help.
I don't hope that moderate drinking will help me. I just want to be sure that my alcohol consumption (3-4 glasses of wine per week) is not bad for my health. You know, I really like to have a glass of red wine or two with a good meal.
Re: (Score:2)
The BS factor is strong in this one ... (Score:2)
If the study itself is as deeply flawed as the summary, you can file this one round.
The thing that immediately struck me was how the summary conflates grams of alcohol with grams of a particular beverage. It speaks of the harmful effects of 45 grams/day of alcohol on men, then talks about the number of grams of a "typical wine pour," etc. as though those were the same thing. 12 ounces of typical American beer contains about half an ounce of alcohol, for instance. For wine, it varies considerably from one va
Re: (Score:3)
That could just be an idiot summarizer, but I feel that measuring intake probably is the biggest problem for these studies. The numbers are all self-reported.
People lose track of how many drinks they've had, especially in a busy social setting. Trying to tally an exact count on your study paperwork, 5 days after the fact? People won't be able to do it. Not unless they have an autistically strict consumption regimen.
People lie on self-reports due to social pressures. For example, trying to figure out what pe
Re: (Score:3)
They also have healthier work/life balance, get more time off per week and per year, not to mention get to retire at an earlier age, along with better healthcare systems.
Alcohol consumption isn't that only factor in play here.
Re: Wait 6 months... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Smoking is done by a minority group and a relatively SMALL industry. Think about the power and influence they have had for decades and even pioneered in some successful techniques still for sale today. Alcohol is a part of world culture, ingrained for generations in culture and the majority of the world drink (or would if they could) with a massive economy that revolves around it. It does more harm than most illegal drugs... If climate change was caused by alcohol, people would let the world burn... (they
Re:Wait 6 months... (Score:4, Informative)
Not to single you out because most other comments I've read mention generations. You, and they, should be using the term millennia, as in "Alcohold is a part of world culture, ingrained for millennia in cuture and ..."
Anecdotally, my grandfather drank bourbon and coke every day for more than 60 years and passed away, from complications from a broken back, at 95.
Someone needs to check this study's author's bio and make sure he isn't a religious freak or a vegan or supported by groups of these ilk, any of which could have biased the outcome.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why wait? Just read the damn study now. (Score:2)
25 grams a day for women (less than 1 ounce) and 45 grams (about 1.5 ounces) or more per day for men - actually increased the risk of death. A standard wine pour is about 5 ounces. The standard serving size for beer is 12 ounces, and for distilled spirits, 1.5 ounces.
Umm... no. That's not what the study [jamanetwork.com] says.
meta-analysis of 107 cohort studies involving more than 4.8 million participants found no significant reductions in risk of all-cause mortality for drinkers who drank less than 25 g of ethanol per day (about 2 Canadian standard drinks compared with lifetime nondrinkers) after adjustment for key study characteristics such as median age and sex of study cohorts.
There was a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality among female drinkers who drank 25 or more grams per day and among male drinkers who drank 45 or more grams per day.
Further...
meta-analysis of all 107 included studies found no significantly reduced risk of all-cause mortality among occasional (>0 to less than 1.3 g of ethanol per day; relative risk [RR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.06; P =.41) or low-volume drinkers (1.3-24.0 g per day; RR, 0.93; P = .07) compared with lifetime nondrinkers. .28) and significantly increased risk for drinkers who drank 45 to 64 and 65 or more grams per day (RR, 1.19 and 1.35; P less than .001). .03).
In the fully adjusted model, there was a nonsignificantly increased risk of all-cause mortality among drinkers who drank 25 to 44 g per day (RR, 1.05; P =
There were significantly larger risks of mortality among female drinkers compared with female lifetime nondrinkers (RR, 1.22; P =
And then there's this bit:
Bivariable analyses showed that mortality risks for alcohol consumers varied considerably according to other study characteristics, such as quality of the alcohol consumption measure, whether unhealthy individuals were excluded at baseline, and whether socioeconomic status was controlled for (Table 1).
Also, smoking and BMI (higher risk when controlled for) and exercise, diet, race (lower risk when controlled for). They forget to mention THOSE controls.
I.e. Drinking 25 grams or less of ETHANOL, per day - is just fine. Drinking more than 25 but less than 44 grams of ethanol, also probably fine.
25 grams or less comes out to:
In its measurements, the CCSA considers a standard drink to be a 12oz (355ml) serving of 5%-alcohol beer, a 5oz (148ml) glass of 12%-alcohol wine or a shot glass of 40% spirits.
TLDR: Summary conflates ounces of "Canadian standard drinks" or Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addicti
Re: (Score:2)
.. and there will be a new study stating the opposite. And so on...
But this lack of consensus is a huge finding and directly contradicts the advice that so many doctors give about how alcohol in moderation is healthy. The past "consensus" was that alcohol in moderation was not only not harmful but actually promoted health and decreased mortality. What this study and many others show is that there is clearly no consensus. It's the current recognition of the clear lack of consensus that is a the huge change.
Moreover, the finding that the alcohol industry, just like the su
I do guide myself by reasoning... (Score:5, Insightful)
... and it's quite basic: "If it's not present in nature in abundance (as in availability for animal to use it regularly), our genetic did not evolved enough as to design our body to support it". (alcohol, sugar, etc.)
And, adding to that, is the "Everything in excess of lack of, it's dangerous because our body has evolved to coexist with those." (vitamin, water, oxygen, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
But nature is also trying to kill you. In fact, there's hardly anywhere on the planet that you can survive and if you do, it's only to be food for something else.
So keep reasoning . . . food.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I do guide myself by reasoning... (Score:5, Funny)
Alcohol at least is very plentiful in nature, like e.g. birds like to get completely smashed on fermented apples and berries.
Birds sometimes fly full speed directly into my closed kitchen window. I'd hardly consider them to be the foremost experts on avoiding life's various hazards.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, evolution hasn't had time to account for the invention of good and large glass, which is a pretty recent thing. (around 150 years)
Re: (Score:2)
Alcohol is plentiful in dead rotting food, sure. On the other hand, sugar is plentiful in healthy fresh food.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I do guide myself by reasoning... (Score:2)
That seems like a median vs mean issue, no? Now that I think about it, when I see plots of life expectancy over time, is that mean or median life expectancy? I just googled median life expectancy over time and have yet to find a plot that specifically says median.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And if everyone else go on thinking like that, we'll never will!! ... Think about future generations and you do your bit.
Re: (Score:2)
I go by a much simpler guideline: If it smells like something you'd use to glue pipes together, don't drink it.
Helps also that I've just never really enjoyed the psychoactive effects of alcohol, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please, enlighten me, then, where bananas all over the world, at all days of the year, available to the whole human race to eat during thousands of years as to allow human body to co-exist with a required level of alcohol in our body?
Nope. As I stated in my previous comment, our body had not evolved to co-exist with alcohol.
Side-note: that doesn't mean a low quantity, from time to time, can be supported. That depends on each body, but not as a race.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all spices you consume are toxins for various species. And some are toxin's for humans. The poison is in the dose.
There is a youtuber who regularly covers people who consume too much of some common safe substance and it kills them.
Even water can kill you.
As for the study, I'm dubious. And it also seems the effect is very mild as we know many people who drink in a mildly immoderate way their entire life and die in their 90s while other teetotalers kick off in their mid 40s.
For example, The current
Re: (Score:2)
Ive often thought that western societies have a higher genetic tolerance for alcohol addiction due to its long term presence, and the terrible effects on indigenous populations where alcohol was introduced to places where it had never been before, both the American and Australian indigenous had chronic problems brought on by it on introduction that continue to this day.
Re: (Score:2)
... and it's quite basic: "If it's not present in nature in abundance (as in availability for animal to use it regularly), our genetic did not evolved enough as to design our body to support it". (alcohol, sugar, etc.)
Coffee is my favorite counterexample. It even contains an addictive drug! However studies consistently show it's good for health at typical usage levels. I guess you could say it's the exception that makes the rule (though such a cute concept has no relevance in statistics or logic).
Same study with sugary drinks (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Same study with sugary drinks (Score:2)
Interesting! (Score:3)
Depending on who you ask, I'm either going to live forever, or I've got a week to get my affairs in order.
I wonder who funded those older studies (Score:2)
I bet I can guess, though.
Yeah no shit. (Score:3)
It's a poison. I don't drink it because I've fooled myself into thinking it's health for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Weirder things have been found in nature than a small dose of poison having a net positive effect... but yes, as a general rule I would start from the assumption that poison is a bad thing for me and wait to be proven wrong.
Obesity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The study was done in Britain, where they're presently having various issues keeping their NHS running smoothly. One of the unfortunate side effects of socialized medicine is that the government tends to be a bit more "nanny state" when it comes to matters of health, since everybody literally ends up footing the bill for it.
Here in the USA, getting fat and sick really just means it's something for insurance companies to worry about, and joke's on them because there's no actual requirement to carry health i
Re: (Score:2)
No offense man, but you're well into "Tell me you know nothing about the NHS" territory there.
NICE (the part of the healthcare system responsible for these) studies this shit because that's literally their job. Individual studies are always biased, and often so to a ridiculous extent - especially when funded by pharmaceutical companies, who are as trustworthy today as the tobacco companies were in the 50s. NICE picks through those studies verifying protocols, procedures, sample sizes, etc, and weighting (si
Re: (Score:2)
The issue with alcohol is that it impairs judgement, specifically including the judgement about how drunk you already are and how much more you can take. Getting used to 2 beers every day (which is the amount the study calls "low amounts") means your "normal" level of intoxication already is above the legal driving limit in many countries - while you honestly believe that you barely even started.
Life's too short... (Score:2)
And everyone needs a vice. Everyone
If you are already moderating yourself, you'll be fine.
Obesity: Sources of Information (Score:3)
Center for Disease Control, CDC: Adult Obesity Facts [cdc.gov]
World Health Organization: Obesity and overweight [who.int]
HealthLine.com: Obesity in the United States [healthline.com]
Study is even less valid than the originals... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh* This 'study' is nothing of the sort. It's a meta data extraction and data manipulation paper, with no new research. Since the 'study' relies on nothing but data from all of the other studies, which it itself claims were biased, it's effectively a meaningless manipulation of data. Come back when you've done a proper new research set, one not funded by anyone with an agenda (ha ha, good luck), and you might be taken seriously. Otherwise? This is the sort of nonsense paper created by people that need a thesis on a budget. Attempting to create new conclusions from preexisting, flawed, data.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but I agree that meta-analysis papers are, in general, the weakest kind of study, because quite often, how you choose which papers to analyze makes more difference than the data itself. If you can point out flaws in the way each paper analyzed its data and correct for those flaws and show the previous papers to be crap, that might be a valid use of meta-analysis. Aggregating a bunch of bad studies into an even noisier study, however, is not, and unfortunately, that seems to b
Re: (Score:2)
This!
The biggest learning from this study is that other studies are biased and that studding this correlation is hard.
They focused on all-cause mortality because it was easy. I suppose they also tried to mathematically remove other bias but that's like trying to predict number of alien civilizations in the universe with Drake's equation. Garbage-in garbage-out.
This kills me (Score:2)
Re:This kills me (Score:5, Informative)
It would cost you nothing to criticize the paper based on what is written there, but you chose to just randomly speculate and err everywhere.
never never show is how their information is obtained-self reporting
Of course they have to show how the data is collected as self-reporting (how can you even believe they would find a way to avoid telling how they collected the data). The effect of self reporting is discussed:
A major limitation involves imperfect measurement of alcohol consumption in most included studies, and the fact that consumption in many studies was assessed at only 1 point in time. Self-reported alcohol consumption is underreported in most epidemiological studies[133,134] and even the classification of drinkers as lifetime abstainers can be unreliable, with several studies in developed countries finding that the majority of self-reported lifetime abstainers are in fact former drinkers.[135,136] If this is the case, the risks of various levels of alcohol consumption relative to presumed lifetime abstainers are underestimates. Merely removing former drinkers from analyses may bias studies in favor of drinkers, since former drinkers may be unhealthy, and should rightly be reallocated to drinking groups according to their history. However, this has only been explored in very few studies. Our study found that mortality risk differed significantly by cohort age and sex. It might be that the risk is also higher for other subgroups, such as people living with HIV,[137] a possibility future research should investigate.
It is virtually impossible to factor in all the variables
With that argument one could never do anything. The conclusions come from statistical approaches, which are a rigorous tools to make such conclusions.
someone got paid to do a "study"
Obviously, these people have a job. They are getting paid to be drug abuse doctors. They also disclose the source of funding, who in the team obtained the funding, and what the role of the funder was. If you have specific information they might have been bribed, please contact the authorities. But in any case, as this is a meta-analysis of previously existing data, it was not possible to them to bias the data collection.
Alcohol is poison....yeah and what about air pollutants, chemicals in the water, and micro plastics.
This is a very idiotic argument. These people work on the effect of drug abuse, what are they supposed to do, give their career and start a new one on micro plastics so they can publish on the topics that some random internet dude decided were more relevant?
The cancer rates are what we should be focusing on but no....
They used data from previous studies, which they cite. Cancer is addressed at the studies referenced 19, 21, 27, 32, 45, 61, 65, 67, 75.
Re: This kills me (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I know its anecdotal, but the worst killer of people Ive known, including my brother was due to alcoholism, more than cancer, more than illegal drugs, more than car accidents. Its also a major cause of violence in certain people, one chap I admire recognised that and gave it up with great difficulty, and now leads a very happy normal life never getting violent.
Luckily for me, Ive never found it a pleasant experience, which is interesting as my brother from the same parents and upbringing was a chronic alcoh
Re: This kills me (Score:2)
Relatively low amounts?? (Score:5, Informative)
relatively low levels of alcohol — 25 grams a day for women (less than 1 ounce) and 45 grams (about 1.5 ounces) or more per day for men
A 12 oz can of beer with 5% alcohol (which is average for a non-lite beer) is 14 grams of alcohol. This study is claiming that a "relatively low" amount of alcohol for a man is 45 grams, which is three cans of beer every single day .
I'm sorry but I don't count that as a relatively low amount of alcohol consumption. I guess I'm just a lightweight that consumes 16-20 oz of beer when eating out a few times a month.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd bet the average percent alcohol for all the beer consumed in the USA is below 5%, even given the craft beer renaissance and the apparent proliferation of west coast, double, triple, and imperial IPAs. Light beer is the most popular by far [statista.com], and many craft beer drinkers only drink one or two beers in a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for pointing that out. TFA conflated alcohol with "drinks".
So I can only have three regular beers, two glasses of wine, or two shots of 80 proof what ever.
I can live within those limits. :-)
My favorite rum toddy has 1.5 oz of 80 proof rum, so 0.6 oz of ethanol. No problem.
WCTU (Score:3)
Suspect somewhere in the fine print the actual sponsor will be identified -- any chance its the WCTU? Those were the fine folk who brought about US Prohibition. These meta-studies have the same smell...
Until you actually read the paper... (Score:2)
First, Ms Simons, who is presumably not a science graduate, has yet to realise that neither wine or beer are 100% alcohol. That 5-ounce pour of wine contains around 0.6 - 0.7 ounces of alcohol. In fact, 25g of alcohol is one third of a typical bottle of wine.
Second, it DOES show that moderate drinking decreases mortality for men.
This study is extremely good new for people (men in particular) who like a drink. In the UK, government advice is a maximum of 112 grams (14*8g) of alcohol per week, whereas this s
Re: (Score:3)
>> Second, it DOES show that moderate drinking decreases mortality for men.
Nowhere in the study they claim causation. In fact they argue that moderate drinking may correlate with being heather otherwise as in been able to drink. (healthy life --> some drinking rather than reverse).
Causation assumed, really reveresed (Score:2)
People that are not healthy do not drink moderately. Their liver cannot handle it.
Got cancer? Diabetes? Kidney disease? Taking pain medication?
Don't drink.
Surprise surprise, the majority of people that drink alcohol are healthy.
Because if you are not healthy you do not drink.
Socioeconomic factors - wine drinkers are wealthy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Booze is expensive and wine is not something commonly consumed among the poorest Americans.
Fine wine, no. Bum wines [bumwine.com], yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup - so this actually biases down the mortality rates for drinkers (vs if everybody drinks uniformly).
They also argue that the studies include former drinkers in abstinents which biases control group - mortality rate for non drinkers is increased improperly by this as former drinkers have damaged health by drinking.
Both effects may decrease drinking-mortality correlation incorrectly.
Define health (Score:2)
Maybe not my physical health, but it was certainly good for my mental health while I worked in IT and had to deal with other people.
(and thus their physical health)
Oh for mod points! (Score:2)
Thanks for a giggle
I read the opposite (Score:2)
In this updated systematic review and meta-analysis, daily low or moderate alcohol intake was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality risk, while increased risk was evident at higher consumption levels, starting at lower levels for women than men.
This study says moderate drinkers do not have higher mortality.
Basically everything's bad and wants to kill you. (Score:1)
As such, you should just do nothing.
At all.
Ever.
Be warned, that sort of "risky" behavioral choice ALSO comes with it's own dangers....
Just live your fucking life.
Try not to hurt anyone.
And maybe have a bit of FUN now and again.
Your funeral isn't supposed to be a bunch of people admiring how well preserved and youthful you look.
Think of the Bluesmobile from "The Blues Brothers".
Do everything that you need to do.
Then, at the end, fall apart SPECTACULARLY and be done.
A pint a day? (Score:2)
Not surprising given prior complicating factors (Score:2)
Causal? Or just correlated? (Score:2)
Speaking anecdotally, most non-drinkers that I know are very cautious people. I wouldn't be at all surprised if their life expectancy was higher, and it could have nothing at all to do with the physiological effects of alcohol.
Say what? (Score:2)
A standard wine pour is about 5 ounces. The standard serving size for beer is 12 ounces, and for distilled spirits, 1.5 ounces.
That statement is correct, but in the context of the article it's both irrelevant and misleading. Nobody cares about how much liquid you're drinking - the important information is how much alcohol you're consuming. The serving sizes given are roughly equivalent in alcohol content, but the article failed to explain that. Someone who didn't know better might believe that beer is worse for you than wine, and that both are worse than spirits.
Is it ... (Score:2)
Thought this was already debunked... (Score:2)
I've slept since then but I seem to recall that the researchers who discovered the link between reduced heart disease from red wine subsequently isolated the affect to resveratrol showing the substance increased the lifespan of mice by something like 300% and even reserved aging. They then launched a supplement company because the FDA doesn't recognize old age as a disease and an FDA approved drug is impossible.
I found it hilarious because the researchers were so clearly biased against supplements and found
That's probably true! (Score:2)
I can't remember where I read it but I'm pretty sure drinking alcohol allows that many more free-radicals to enter into your system, upping the overall chance you'll have cell mutation, aka cancer.
Moderate drinking could maybe balance out that extra free radicals with benefits but you could also drink regular fruit juice and get the same benefits of wine but without the alcohol. Of course then you'll likely be consuming more sugar, so you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I doubt a glass of wine
That is, of course, nonsense (Score:2)
Moderate drinking, if done right, actually improves mental health by improving R&R. The people doing this study obviously ignored that as "mental suff" is for "pussies". Quite funny given that one of the authors works at a department for psychology.
Better to burn out than fade away (Score:2)
We go back to hard drinking and screw the moderation stuff!!!!
April Fool's? (Score:2)
Stop confusing SCIENCE with STATISTICS (Score:2)
Real science certainly can and does use statistics at times, AS A TOOL. But the fact that science uses a tool does NOT mean that anybody else using the same tool is doing science.
Most of the time when we are told "the science says..." and it's about something people will eat, drink, or inhale, there's no actual science involved - somebody has done a "statistical study". There has been no new discovery about the underlying biological mechanisms - for example, no scientific deep-dive into the way the various
thought ? (Score:2)
"Drinking moderate amounts of alcohol every day does not â" as once thought â" protect against death from heart disease,"
Thought by whom? For as long as I remember, everything I've read on the subject essentially says that there's no safe, no-harm level of alcohol consumption. And that the anecdotal stories of one glas of wine day etc. are on the level of "olive oil is healthy" (no medical evidence for any difference to any other oil (except crude oil), it's just that it's more expensive and being wealthy and in general afford good food is the actual variable).
It is (Score:2)
But without the booze, life SEEMS longer.