3 ms·
Sounds way too short and glib to establish any useful causality. And once a belief that drinking red wine is good for you has been around for a while, that hab
by bell-cot 7mo ago
Sounds way too short and glib to establish any useful causality.
And once a belief that drinking red wine is good for you has been around for a while, that habit will correlate with many healthy behaviors.
- ben_w 7mo agoThe article fortunately links to something less ad-filled and editorialised: https://www.acc.org/About-ACC/Press-Releases/2026/03/18/20/23/The-Health-Impacts-of-Alcohol-Depend-on-What-You-Drink-And-How-Much https://www.acc.org/About-ACC/Press-Releases/2026/03/18/20/2... 340,000 adults and 13 years doesn't sound "way too short and glib" to me? But there is an important missing word: "grape". Like, what if you only drink non-alcoholic grape juice? Which also has "polyphenols and antioxidants". And of course, such research has in fact been done, and says that yes, grape juice has an effect: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26633488/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26633488/
- bell-cot 7mo agoPoint on the issue with grape juice, or other sources of such nutrients. "short and glib" was a description of the Nautilus article. In the ACC article you linked - notice all the disclaimers in the 5th-to-last paragraph. Plus, if the "lifestyle factors" were self-reported - people who are more health-conscious often assess their own lifestyles by harsher metrics than less health-conscious people. The authors have very good reasons to recommend high-quality randomized trials.