8 ms·

That's actually the recommended amount of alcohol intake though. Clearly, alcoholics shouldn't be drinking, but for non-alcoholics there are significant health

by jarin 12y ago

That's actually the recommended amount of alcohol intake though. Clearly, alcoholics shouldn't be drinking, but for non-alcoholics there are significant health benefits to having a couple of drinks every day (to the point where NOT drinking is actually considered a risk factor for heart disease). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC28294/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC28294/

redthrowaway 12y ago
Alcohol's also very good at preventing dementia later in life. If you can't drink, then don't, but if you can then moderate drinking is far better for you than not drinking at all.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  > Alcohol's also very good at preventing dementia later in life. Source?
mahyarm 12y ago
6 years ago, a med school student friend had a really detailed powerpoint presentation showing actually, yes, drinking no alcohol is far better for you. I think this edge case benefit is just promoted by people wanting to feel better about their alcohol consumption, and not to mention pushed as a repetitive PR point by alcohol companies.
- smokeyj 12y ago
  Links would be helpful.
- chriskanan 12y ago
  A lot of research disagrees with that claim as a general assertion. This site summarizes that research: http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html#.VCS34fmzG8o http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html#.VCS34...
- wes-exp 12y ago
  promoted by people wanting to feel better about their alcohol consumption Maybe, but this works in reverse too. There is a bias towards assuming that behavior perceived as sinful must also be harmful. This manifests in bad science in any number of examples: meat consumption, fat consumption, and yes, alcohol consumption. The USDA food pyramid (1992 one) came out against sinful fats and guess what happened? A low-fat/high-carb craze that was completely ruinous to public health.
dfc 12y ago
Dr. Jarin, the American Heart Association has a slightly different take on alcohol consumption. For starters they recommend that women do not exceed 1 drink per day. Most importantly they do not seem to think that abstaining from alcohol is considered a risk factor: > How alcohol or wine affects cardiovascular risk merits > further research but right now the American Heart Association > does not recommend drinking wine or any other form of alcohol > to gain these potential benefits http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Alcohol-and-Heart-Health_UCM_305173_Article.jsp http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter...
- wes-exp 12y ago
  Keep in mind that almost no organization (outside alcohol sellers) can "recommend" alcohol consumption for the simple reason that alcohol is extremely negative for certain cohorts (i.e., alcoholics). Therefore, even if there are demonstrated benefits for the majority of the healthy population, no one wants to be seen as supporting the harms, which, in fairness, are often extremely bad. That said, even your quoted text admits that there may be potential health benefits to alcohol consumption in moderation.
  - dfc 12y ago
    Keep in mind that a "potential benefit of moderate alcohol consumption" is not the same thing as "NOT drinking is actually considered a risk factor." If the science clearly indicated that "NOT drinking is actually considered a risk factor for heart diseasee" do you think AHA would: (A) Refrain from mentioning the risk factor. (B) Present the risk factor with a stipulation that individuals "consult your doctor on the benefits and risks of consuming alcohol in moderation"
    - wes-exp 12y ago
      I agree that it is silly to think that not drinking is actually a risk factor for heart disease. I was never trying to support that claim. I was just trying to point out the institutional biases that may be at play when AHA makes recommendations about alcohol consumption. I would also like to point out that the very AHA page you linked to states "The incidence of heart disease in those who drink moderate amounts of alcohol (no more than two drinks per day for men or one drink per day for women) is lower than in nondrinkers." So there may be a potential benefit there that AHA acknowledges.
DanBC 12y ago
It is not the recommended amount of alcohol. Please do not mix the serving sizes people use with "one drink". You have no idea how much wine goes into the glass, not the strength of that wine. A standard drink of wine is 125 ml at an ABV (alcohol by volume) of 8%. Most people pour more than that, and most wine is stronger than that. 175 ml at 12% would be 2 units; 2 glasses of that is 4 units. See how easy it is to drink double the recommended limit?
ekianjo 12y ago
The heart disease benefits are far from being proven, and besides alcohol consumption is directly linked to cancer risk. There is no safe amount of alcohol to drink, and the cancer risk certainly makes all benefit/risk ratio close to nil. Net, if you care about your health in the long term, just don't drink. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/824237 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/824237
- wes-exp 12y ago
  Don't single out cancer without considering all-cause mortality. A number of studies show that moderate alcohol consumption results in overall less death even if cancer risk is increased. "The beneficial effects of alcohol are not only evident in cardiovascular disease, but also in reducing mortality from all causes." http://www.medhelp.org/heart-disease/articles/Alcohol-Consumption-Can-We-Safely-Toast-to-Our-Health-/593 http://www.medhelp.org/heart-disease/articles/Alcohol-Consum...
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    There is no cardiovascular benefit for alcohol intake. The only evidence for this is an observational study, which does not prove causation at all and is heavily disputed. It would not be the first time that observational studies are proven wrong in actual trials : > In recent years we have seen that the results of similar “observational” studies were disproved when subjected to a “randomized controlled trial”—the standard bearer of scientific proof. A good example of this is female hormone replacement. For decades it was believed that female hormone replacement was beneficial. But a randomized controlled trial, called the Women’s Health Initiative, demonstrated that the exact opposite was true. The study was stopped in 2002 because women taking the study pills of estrogen plus progestin were developing heart disease and breast cancer at increased rates compared to those taking the placebo or inactive pills." http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/01/red-wine-good-heart-brain.html http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/01/red-wine-good-heart-brai...
    - jholman 12y ago
      The concern about drawing conclusions from correlation is legitimate, but it's more than "an" (i.e. one) observational study. http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html That page cites 188 articles, almost all of them finding health benefits to drinking alcohol. Without having gone into all of them to look for methodological flaws, that hints at a very consistent pattern of correlation. That page alleges that it is maintained by a professor emeritus, who at least at this time, does not have nor need any funding from e.g. the alcohol industry. That's far from an exhaustive proof that he's free of bias, but it clears the most obvious source.

by jarin 12y ago

redthrowaway 12y ago

Alcohol's also very good at preventing dementia later in life. If you can't drink, then don't, but if you can then moderate drinking is far better for you than not drinking at all.

ekianjo 12y ago
> Alcohol's also very good at preventing dementia later in life. Source?

mahyarm 12y ago

6 years ago, a med school student friend had a really detailed powerpoint presentation showing actually, yes, drinking no alcohol is far better for you. I think this edge case benefit is just promoted by people wanting to feel better about their alcohol consumption, and not to mention pushed as a repetitive PR point by alcohol companies.

smokeyj 12y ago
Links would be helpful.
chriskanan 12y ago
A lot of research disagrees with that claim as a general assertion. This site summarizes that research: http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html#.VCS34fmzG8o http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html#.VCS34...
wes-exp 12y ago
promoted by people wanting to feel better about their alcohol consumption Maybe, but this works in reverse too. There is a bias towards assuming that behavior perceived as sinful must also be harmful. This manifests in bad science in any number of examples: meat consumption, fat consumption, and yes, alcohol consumption. The USDA food pyramid (1992 one) came out against sinful fats and guess what happened? A low-fat/high-carb craze that was completely ruinous to public health.

dfc 12y ago

Dr. Jarin, the American Heart Association has a slightly different take on alcohol consumption. For starters they recommend that women do not exceed 1 drink per day. Most importantly they do not seem to think that abstaining from alcohol is considered a risk factor: > How alcohol or wine affects cardiovascular risk merits > further research but right now the American Heart Association > does not recommend drinking wine or any other form of alcohol > to gain these potential benefits http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Alcohol-and-Heart-Health_UCM_305173_Article.jsp http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter...

wes-exp 12y ago
Keep in mind that almost no organization (outside alcohol sellers) can "recommend" alcohol consumption for the simple reason that alcohol is extremely negative for certain cohorts (i.e., alcoholics). Therefore, even if there are demonstrated benefits for the majority of the healthy population, no one wants to be seen as supporting the harms, which, in fairness, are often extremely bad. That said, even your quoted text admits that there may be potential health benefits to alcohol consumption in moderation.
- dfc 12y ago
  Keep in mind that a "potential benefit of moderate alcohol consumption" is not the same thing as "NOT drinking is actually considered a risk factor." If the science clearly indicated that "NOT drinking is actually considered a risk factor for heart diseasee" do you think AHA would: (A) Refrain from mentioning the risk factor. (B) Present the risk factor with a stipulation that individuals "consult your doctor on the benefits and risks of consuming alcohol in moderation"
  - wes-exp 12y ago
    I agree that it is silly to think that not drinking is actually a risk factor for heart disease. I was never trying to support that claim. I was just trying to point out the institutional biases that may be at play when AHA makes recommendations about alcohol consumption. I would also like to point out that the very AHA page you linked to states "The incidence of heart disease in those who drink moderate amounts of alcohol (no more than two drinks per day for men or one drink per day for women) is lower than in nondrinkers." So there may be a potential benefit there that AHA acknowledges.

DanBC 12y ago

It is not the recommended amount of alcohol. Please do not mix the serving sizes people use with "one drink". You have no idea how much wine goes into the glass, not the strength of that wine. A standard drink of wine is 125 ml at an ABV (alcohol by volume) of 8%. Most people pour more than that, and most wine is stronger than that. 175 ml at 12% would be 2 units; 2 glasses of that is 4 units. See how easy it is to drink double the recommended limit?

ekianjo 12y ago

The heart disease benefits are far from being proven, and besides alcohol consumption is directly linked to cancer risk. There is no safe amount of alcohol to drink, and the cancer risk certainly makes all benefit/risk ratio close to nil. Net, if you care about your health in the long term, just don't drink. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/824237 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/824237

wes-exp 12y ago
Don't single out cancer without considering all-cause mortality. A number of studies show that moderate alcohol consumption results in overall less death even if cancer risk is increased. "The beneficial effects of alcohol are not only evident in cardiovascular disease, but also in reducing mortality from all causes." http://www.medhelp.org/heart-disease/articles/Alcohol-Consumption-Can-We-Safely-Toast-to-Our-Health-/593 http://www.medhelp.org/heart-disease/articles/Alcohol-Consum...
- ekianjo 12y ago
  There is no cardiovascular benefit for alcohol intake. The only evidence for this is an observational study, which does not prove causation at all and is heavily disputed. It would not be the first time that observational studies are proven wrong in actual trials : > In recent years we have seen that the results of similar “observational” studies were disproved when subjected to a “randomized controlled trial”—the standard bearer of scientific proof. A good example of this is female hormone replacement. For decades it was believed that female hormone replacement was beneficial. But a randomized controlled trial, called the Women’s Health Initiative, demonstrated that the exact opposite was true. The study was stopped in 2002 because women taking the study pills of estrogen plus progestin were developing heart disease and breast cancer at increased rates compared to those taking the placebo or inactive pills." http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/01/red-wine-good-heart-brain.html http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/01/red-wine-good-heart-brai...
  - jholman 12y ago
    The concern about drawing conclusions from correlation is legitimate, but it's more than "an" (i.e. one) observational study. http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html That page cites 188 articles, almost all of them finding health benefits to drinking alcohol. Without having gone into all of them to look for methodological flaws, that hints at a very consistent pattern of correlation. That page alleges that it is maintained by a professor emeritus, who at least at this time, does not have nor need any funding from e.g. the alcohol industry. That's far from an exhaustive proof that he's free of bias, but it clears the most obvious source.