Please publish the internal NIH study that stopped this research.
When you're in the middle of Stage 4 breast cancer, just had an operation to remove a cancerous tumor on your femur and underwent radiation, losing some hair from the back of your head, when you've seen and experienced Fulvestrant, which comes with a very long needle that shoots into each buttock, a glass or two of red wine at the end of the day is very good for you.
http://www.thecriticalmom.blogspot.com
I am 76. I have three cannabis cigarettes that are 60 mg of cannabis during a day plus 50 cl of vodka 38 percent strength with coca-cola.
I got injections for diabetics 2. My doctor lets me go through a big blood test every six months. No more diabetes, gone. Has been feeling great after 16 years. Nothing wrong with the blood test. I have never felt this good.
My sexual orientation is great. No motion but one day a week when I go shopping.
Kudos to the industry for putting their money where their mouth is. There is strong evidence that light drinking leads to less heart disease and longer life, BUT it needs to be tested in a clinical trial. The Alcoholism Institute at the NIH isn't interested in investigating whether drinking prevents heart disease, and with tight current budgets, no one else at the NIH will fund it. Industry is basically offering to pay an extra $68 million in taxes if the NIH will conduct an independent unbiased clinical trial. I see no evidence they are doing it to influence the study. They are funding it so it will actually get done after talking about it for 50 years, and they believe that an unbiased clinical trial will prove them right and be good for sales. If they are wrong, they'll kick themselves. It will be great to see the results.
1
except...1) the design and way the question is framed is biased to find a positive result that will be generalized way beyond the population to which it should apply (so for little money from the industry perspective they will get a huge PR and advertising boon with the appearance of scientific backing), 2) plenty of observational studies find plenty of health benefits from other exposures later found to be false in properly done trials--and in this case we are talking about a carcinogen and teratogen taken by 2 billion people, and there are already plenty of studies done well that have debunked the purported benefits (Stockwell et al J Stud Alc Drug for example that finds zero mortality benefit when studied properly, plus Mendelian randomization studies). If it were not alcohol with industry influence, no one would approve or fund a study of a carcinogenic teratogen as a possible preventive pharmacotherapy particularly when there are plenty of alternatives...
Rich -
(1) No, the study was not designed in a biased way. It was carefully thought out to answer the fundamental question at hand: Does light to moderate drinking result in health benefits, particularly cardiovascular benefits"
Google "PMID 27688006."
(2) $68 mIllion is NOT a "little" bit of money.
Do I detect a lack of objectivity here?
And (3) What are you afraid of? Don't you want the truth? This is an RCT, after all. You fear the truth, don't you?
Why on earth would anybody trust the results conducted by the liquor industry regarding any negative aspects of liquor?
Elizabethnyc - This is not "conducted by the liquor industry."
It is conducted by the National Institute on on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
But, hey, why ever trust them? After all, everyone there works to minimize Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism...
Does it seem ironic to anyone else that someone named "Nestle" has written a book and commented for this article about how the food industry influences nutrition and health?
A study without strict controls is no study at all.
1
There is a great number of limitations in this study, as Registered Dietitian I can tell you that is not the same to drink a glass of red wine every day, than to drink a margarita. HUGE difference if they are letting participants have a "drink of their choice". Second, diet and physical activity play a key role in health. If some one is having a glass of red wine every night in the study with a burger and French fries and has a heart attack , clearly the wine is not the only cause. 6 years is a long time to conduct a study based solely on having or not having a drink without even putting into account the kind of drink.
1
Last year 6 scientists compiled a state-of-the-art study on the nexus alcohol and cancer published by the Swedish Associaiton of Physicians and IOGT-NTO.
http://iogt.se/wp-content/uploads/Alkohol-och-cancerrapport-2016_ENG.pdf
Alcohol is carcinogenic. Full stop.
http://iogt.se/wp-content/uploads/Alkohol-och-cancerrapport-2016_ENG.pdf
Alcohol is carcinogenic. Full stop.
Maybe alcohol in moderation increases cancer but decreases heart disease and the cancel out.
Herb, they not only cancel out, but the all-cause mortality data, which not only include any cancer increases, but also automobile accidents, liver issues, alcoholism, etc., indicate that the NET effect of alcohol consumption is about a 10-13% DECREASE in all-cause mortality, at least for light to moderate drinkers. See PMID 21343207 or 24670372, for example.
(I do caution that this is for in Western countries. Asian populations have different ethanol-processing gene-distributions and for them, the net costs and benefits will be different.)
(I do caution that this is for in Western countries. Asian populations have different ethanol-processing gene-distributions and for them, the net costs and benefits will be different.)
As per my post of 7/10, in 2016, Stockwell et al concluded that drinkers of roughly 1 to 17 drinks per week derived no longevity benefit whatever from their drinking compared with those who drank less. http://europepmc.org/articles/pmc4803651
Well, their methodology has been questioned too—so who knows? I couldn’t argue with anyone who adopts a policy of drinking from zero to, say, 2 drinks a day, in terms of health.
Well, their methodology has been questioned too—so who knows? I couldn’t argue with anyone who adopts a policy of drinking from zero to, say, 2 drinks a day, in terms of health.
Fine, but let's all remember that correlation does not mean causation.
Are we watching the death rattle of the industry desperately trying to prove that alcohol is not a poisonous substance whick in itself is impossible - as it IS a poisionous substance, which even when consumed at low levels increases the risk to develop a great number of diseases.
A possible health benefit remains to be proven as very few good studies - which means randomized - have been carried out and those who have do not support the theory of a health benefit.
Sorry all of you who desperately cling to poor quality science.
IARC writes in the European Code Against Cancer:
"Consumption of any amount of alcohol increases your cancer risk. The more alcohol you drink, the higher the risk of developing cancer. Reducing your consumption or – even better – avoiding alcohol completely will help reduce your cancer risk."
As one example of recent science in the field. The Code was launched in October 2014.
A possible health benefit remains to be proven as very few good studies - which means randomized - have been carried out and those who have do not support the theory of a health benefit.
Sorry all of you who desperately cling to poor quality science.
IARC writes in the European Code Against Cancer:
"Consumption of any amount of alcohol increases your cancer risk. The more alcohol you drink, the higher the risk of developing cancer. Reducing your consumption or – even better – avoiding alcohol completely will help reduce your cancer risk."
As one example of recent science in the field. The Code was launched in October 2014.
Per-Åke Andersson - Black pepper has long been known to be carcinogenic too. Search for PMID 1617288 or 2098270. But we still eat it. Just because something elevates a particular cancer a bit does not mean you ban it. Outdoor exercise unquestionably raises deadly skin cancer rates. I lost a good friend, a daily runner and marathoner, to melanoma. Should we recommend no all outdoor exercise?
Yes, epidemiological studies provide evidence of slight increases in breast cancer and oropharyngeal/esophageal cancer with alcohol use—particularly high alcohol use—but these increases are relatively small in rate and magnitude. However, there are no, or almost-no, total-cancer increases with light drinking. See, for example PMID 28546524 and 22910838. But if you believe the epidemiological evidence of slight cancer increases (which you should), then you have ALSO got to accept the much more overwhelming similar epidemiological evidence of HUGE decreases in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality—around 30%—and in diabetes—around 30%—and, so, in ALL-CAUSE mortality—over 10%. Net effects and all-cause mortality are the key.
It is the big risks and total picture that count.
If more people became low and moderate drinkers, all-cause mortality would go DOWN. Sorry, but that's, in fact, what the actual data say.
Yes, epidemiological studies provide evidence of slight increases in breast cancer and oropharyngeal/esophageal cancer with alcohol use—particularly high alcohol use—but these increases are relatively small in rate and magnitude. However, there are no, or almost-no, total-cancer increases with light drinking. See, for example PMID 28546524 and 22910838. But if you believe the epidemiological evidence of slight cancer increases (which you should), then you have ALSO got to accept the much more overwhelming similar epidemiological evidence of HUGE decreases in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality—around 30%—and in diabetes—around 30%—and, so, in ALL-CAUSE mortality—over 10%. Net effects and all-cause mortality are the key.
It is the big risks and total picture that count.
If more people became low and moderate drinkers, all-cause mortality would go DOWN. Sorry, but that's, in fact, what the actual data say.
Per-Åke Andersson - "Death rattle of the industry," huh?
News to me. Easy to check out.
Perhaps you might refer to statistics from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism at: https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/surveillance102/tab1_13.htm?
USA per capita gallons of ethanol alcohol consumed in 1993: 2.23.
In 2003: 2.22.
In 2013: 2.34.
(Looks awfully constant in Sweden, the EU, and rest-of-the-world too...)
"Death rattle"?
Ummm, can we trust your other comments too?
News to me. Easy to check out.
Perhaps you might refer to statistics from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism at: https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/surveillance102/tab1_13.htm?
USA per capita gallons of ethanol alcohol consumed in 1993: 2.23.
In 2003: 2.22.
In 2013: 2.34.
(Looks awfully constant in Sweden, the EU, and rest-of-the-world too...)
"Death rattle"?
Ummm, can we trust your other comments too?
The quick and easiest question: Is sugar (alcohol is SUGAR) good for you?
Especially red wine is very healthy for heart and blood, beer not too much ...
There is no significant evidence supporting your statement, Katarzyna.
Studies supporting your view are low quality, rarely randomized.
Studies supporting your view are low quality, rarely randomized.
“No significant evidence” Per-Åke Andersson? While it is the ethanol in alcoholic drinks that appears to confer the most cardiovascular benefit, indeed some studies evince an added boost for red wine.
See, for example, PMID 7767150, 10975958, 12070110, 12965884, 15455646, 22076059, 22639493, 22852062, 24053784, and 25961601. Alas, that is significant evidence. Some studies attribute the boost in CVD benefits from red wine to the polyphenols it contains. Lots of cites for that too...
For many randomized trials on alcohol and biochemical CVD risk factors, see PMID 21343206. For a randomized trial with “hard outcomes,” see this NYT article. Oh, and where are all those randomized trials to support your position? Please cite them for us. Thanks.
See, for example, PMID 7767150, 10975958, 12070110, 12965884, 15455646, 22076059, 22639493, 22852062, 24053784, and 25961601. Alas, that is significant evidence. Some studies attribute the boost in CVD benefits from red wine to the polyphenols it contains. Lots of cites for that too...
For many randomized trials on alcohol and biochemical CVD risk factors, see PMID 21343206. For a randomized trial with “hard outcomes,” see this NYT article. Oh, and where are all those randomized trials to support your position? Please cite them for us. Thanks.
Big Food/Big Pharma, here we go again.
Find me a study that's NOT paid for by the food or drug that's being studied, even though studies funded this way have been determined to be five times more likely to produce results favorable to the product under study. Shame on our NIH for going for this scam!
Look at the AHA list of "Heart Check" foods: look at sodium content, then look at how much one pays AHA to get a food tested.
Look at the huge statin study called Jupiter (as well as many other statin studies) sponsored by a drug company making a statin.
Look at the new $14,000/year "cholesterol drugs" and see who pays the doctors who tout them. A Dr K received tens of thousands from drug R; the payments are not even mentioned in the NY Times article on the new drugs.
To cap it off, we find the prescription drug industry pushing against the requirement that their payments to doctors be reported. Because they, of course, know that such payments are influential.
We KNOW that studies funded by a the makers of a food or drug are much more likely to find favorably for the guys who paid the bill. Nevertheless, we go on basing our health decisions on such money-tainted so-called science.
Would anyone like to place a very large bet with me regarding the conclusions of this present study on alcohol? I want my NIH to wash its hands of this kind of filth.
Statinvictims.com
Find me a study that's NOT paid for by the food or drug that's being studied, even though studies funded this way have been determined to be five times more likely to produce results favorable to the product under study. Shame on our NIH for going for this scam!
Look at the AHA list of "Heart Check" foods: look at sodium content, then look at how much one pays AHA to get a food tested.
Look at the huge statin study called Jupiter (as well as many other statin studies) sponsored by a drug company making a statin.
Look at the new $14,000/year "cholesterol drugs" and see who pays the doctors who tout them. A Dr K received tens of thousands from drug R; the payments are not even mentioned in the NY Times article on the new drugs.
To cap it off, we find the prescription drug industry pushing against the requirement that their payments to doctors be reported. Because they, of course, know that such payments are influential.
We KNOW that studies funded by a the makers of a food or drug are much more likely to find favorably for the guys who paid the bill. Nevertheless, we go on basing our health decisions on such money-tainted so-called science.
Would anyone like to place a very large bet with me regarding the conclusions of this present study on alcohol? I want my NIH to wash its hands of this kind of filth.
Statinvictims.com
3
In 2016, Stockwell et al concluded that low-volume drinkers (roughly 1 to 17 drinks per week) derived no longevity benefit whatever from their drinking compared with those who drank less.
They reviewed 87 previous studies, encompassing 3,998,616 individuals, which on the surface of it appeared to show a longevity benefit. Stockwell et al claimed that biases drove that finding, including the fact that the comparison group who drank less would have included individuals who had given up drinking for health reasons that would cause shorter life expectancy. http://europepmc.org/articles/pmc4803651
This isn’t settled science.
They reviewed 87 previous studies, encompassing 3,998,616 individuals, which on the surface of it appeared to show a longevity benefit. Stockwell et al claimed that biases drove that finding, including the fact that the comparison group who drank less would have included individuals who had given up drinking for health reasons that would cause shorter life expectancy. http://europepmc.org/articles/pmc4803651
This isn’t settled science.
Stockwell’s “meta-analysis” is a good example of how to cherry-pick studies to get an answer that you want. He slices and dices the studies to get the answer he apparently wants. While he starts out with 84 datasets, he finally ends up with only 6. That isn’t a meta-analysis; that is cherry-picking.
You should not segregate former drinkers from the analysis unless recent. Alcohol has an important anti-coagulation effect that many postulate is a major reason for decreased myocardial infarctions and mortality. So former drinkers should be in the dataset with abstainers.
My wife would qualify as a former drinker and her current near-abstinence has nothing at all to do with adverse health. She just now prefers other beverages. Weeding people like her out of the datasets would be biasing them in the other direction. Teetotaling former-alcoholics are relatively rare. (And those I know have been abstainers for decades, where they are much closer to lifetime abstainers than to lifelong drinkers.)
Moreover, RCTs indicate both significantly lowered “bad” LDL and significantly increased “good” HDL with alcohol. See PMID 21343206. Is Stockwell willing to chuck the “cholesterol hypothesis” in writing? And these RANDOMIZED studies also show statistically-significant higher adiponectin and lower fibrinogen levels, both cardio-protective.
But hey, yes, this why a large, long-term, hard-outcome randomized controlled trial, like the one attacked in the article, needs to be done.
You should not segregate former drinkers from the analysis unless recent. Alcohol has an important anti-coagulation effect that many postulate is a major reason for decreased myocardial infarctions and mortality. So former drinkers should be in the dataset with abstainers.
My wife would qualify as a former drinker and her current near-abstinence has nothing at all to do with adverse health. She just now prefers other beverages. Weeding people like her out of the datasets would be biasing them in the other direction. Teetotaling former-alcoholics are relatively rare. (And those I know have been abstainers for decades, where they are much closer to lifetime abstainers than to lifelong drinkers.)
Moreover, RCTs indicate both significantly lowered “bad” LDL and significantly increased “good” HDL with alcohol. See PMID 21343206. Is Stockwell willing to chuck the “cholesterol hypothesis” in writing? And these RANDOMIZED studies also show statistically-significant higher adiponectin and lower fibrinogen levels, both cardio-protective.
But hey, yes, this why a large, long-term, hard-outcome randomized controlled trial, like the one attacked in the article, needs to be done.
OK, let’s look at a study that explicitly separated out “former drinkers,” PMID 21098615. Seek it out. For the combined French and Irish populations examined, compared to regular-pattern drinkers, the never-drinkers had 100% more hard coronary events, the binge drinkers had 100% more, and the former-drinkers had 60% more. yes a difference, but not much.
I note no concern in Stockwell for bias on the OTHER END of the “J-curve.” Hmmm. There, DAILY high-alcohol drinkers are always lumped together with BINGE drinkers. But the hard-outcome effects are likely vastly different for these two groups. After all, there are two ways, to drink an average of 20 drinks per week. One way is to have 3 drinks/day every day of the week. A second way is to abstain for five days, but then to have 10 drinks on Friday and Saturday nights.
Here 9.4% of the Irish cohort were “binge” drinkers compared to only 0.5% of the French. But despite similar total amounts of weekly alcohol, the Irish cohort had 76% more hard coronary events than the French. So you have to segregate the PATTERN of drinking at the high end of the dose-response curve or you bias the benefits of regular high-alcohol consumption too low.
See also “Alcohol and Coronary Heart Disease: Drinking Patterns and Mediators of Effect,” in the Annals of Epidemiology, vol. 17, issue 5, supplement, May 2007, Pages S3-S7, with similar results. Plus see: PMID 22453658 and 25567363.
I note no concern in Stockwell for bias on the OTHER END of the “J-curve.” Hmmm. There, DAILY high-alcohol drinkers are always lumped together with BINGE drinkers. But the hard-outcome effects are likely vastly different for these two groups. After all, there are two ways, to drink an average of 20 drinks per week. One way is to have 3 drinks/day every day of the week. A second way is to abstain for five days, but then to have 10 drinks on Friday and Saturday nights.
Here 9.4% of the Irish cohort were “binge” drinkers compared to only 0.5% of the French. But despite similar total amounts of weekly alcohol, the Irish cohort had 76% more hard coronary events than the French. So you have to segregate the PATTERN of drinking at the high end of the dose-response curve or you bias the benefits of regular high-alcohol consumption too low.
See also “Alcohol and Coronary Heart Disease: Drinking Patterns and Mediators of Effect,” in the Annals of Epidemiology, vol. 17, issue 5, supplement, May 2007, Pages S3-S7, with similar results. Plus see: PMID 22453658 and 25567363.
So does anyone think that the results of this study, whatever they show, whoever funded it, will actually influence people?
1
1 drink a day? Seems like a small slice of the population would use positive findings in that way. 1 leads to 2, etc.
3
Most of the anti-alochol commentary herein is steeped in bias. For example, one commenter cites and links to a governmental list of carcinogens, in which alcohol consumption is named. "Alcohol is carcingoen!" he exclaims. And next, he says, in the full throes of conspiracy theory, the NIH will suppress that list!
But also on that same list is UV (ultraviolet) A, B, and C radiation. That is, all sunlight! (I suppose he will blame the NIH for continuing to recommend that kids go out and play.)
This is a scientific question, and the emphasis need be on science. Thus far, the science has shown that there may well be a significant heart-health benefit to moderate alcohol consumption for many. It's not proven, but is highly suggestive. Not covered in this article, the science has also shown that there may well be a singnificant longevity benefit to moderate alcohol consumption vs. both non- and heavy-drinking, but that issue, too, is a complex one.
On the other hand, those who throw away the thus-far apparent health benefits of alcohol as though study after study does not strongly suggest that they are real, are irresponsible, and at best willfully intellectually dishonest, apparently in the service of their ideologies. That is the opposite of science.
But also on that same list is UV (ultraviolet) A, B, and C radiation. That is, all sunlight! (I suppose he will blame the NIH for continuing to recommend that kids go out and play.)
This is a scientific question, and the emphasis need be on science. Thus far, the science has shown that there may well be a significant heart-health benefit to moderate alcohol consumption for many. It's not proven, but is highly suggestive. Not covered in this article, the science has also shown that there may well be a singnificant longevity benefit to moderate alcohol consumption vs. both non- and heavy-drinking, but that issue, too, is a complex one.
On the other hand, those who throw away the thus-far apparent health benefits of alcohol as though study after study does not strongly suggest that they are real, are irresponsible, and at best willfully intellectually dishonest, apparently in the service of their ideologies. That is the opposite of science.
3
This topic caught my attention because alcoholism is a very common chronic disease effecting over 3 million Americans per year. In the text it says a little alcohol a day can prevent a heart attack. However, this was never proven to be true and alcohol can do way more harm than good. More than 30 percent of heavy drinkers develop alcoholic hepatitis. This can lead to the destruction of the liver causing problems such as jaundice, fever, abdominal pain and nausea. New research has even linked breast cancer to alcohol consumption. Yet the beverage manufacturers are still promoting these toxic drinks and still making millions. Even moderate and occasional drinking can cause atrial fibrillation problems which can cut off blood supply to the brain causing a stroke. Not only can it cause yourself problems but it can cause other people problems like drinking and driving. over 15,000 people are killed in alcoholic related crashes. In conclusion alcohol is not good for you, even in moderation.
2
Your conclusion that alcohol in moderation is unhealthful flies in the face of a mountain of scientific evidence that has accumulated and increased over time. It is not the final word, but it is strongly persuasive until more definitive research comes in. Read my and others' comments and follow the links therein.
You are looking only at the findings related to heavy drinking, and you clearly exaggerate the harmful effects of moderate intake.
You are looking only at the findings related to heavy drinking, and you clearly exaggerate the harmful effects of moderate intake.
Thank you for your introduction of sanity and fact, Dennis. Even I can see it through the total damage caused by the consumption of a half-glass of wine.
Half of the human planet do nto consume alcoholic drrinks, due to tradition, religion. Are they healthier ?
I slightly misspoke. The question of whether non-drinkers are healthier (more long-lived on average) is nuanced. The evidence is that *moderate* drinkers are more long-lived than either non- or heavy-drinkers. But when sub-groups are taken into account, the question becomes thornier. For a summary, see http://www.rwjf.org/en/culture-of-health/2013/08/alcohol_and_lifeexp.html .
But the available evidence vis-a-vis heart health is still very real. Alcohol appears to be substantively beneficial for many in that regard.
But the available evidence vis-a-vis heart health is still very real. Alcohol appears to be substantively beneficial for many in that regard.
1
The available evidence suggests that the overall answer is "no," particularly vis-a-vis heart health.
2
Hmnn....
Addiction,
Blurred executive function part of the brain governing self control,
Cancer,
DUI,
Etc...
See alcohol effects on health at
https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Hangovers/beyondHangovers.pdf
Addiction,
Blurred executive function part of the brain governing self control,
Cancer,
DUI,
Etc...
See alcohol effects on health at
https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Hangovers/beyondHangovers.pdf
1
Hmmm......
Strong correlation between moderate drinking and longevity.
Very strong correlation between moderate drinking and heart health across all strata.
See informed discussion at
http://www.rwjf.org/en/culture-of-health/2013/08/alcohol_and_lifeexp.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22229788
Strong correlation between moderate drinking and longevity.
Very strong correlation between moderate drinking and heart health across all strata.
See informed discussion at
http://www.rwjf.org/en/culture-of-health/2013/08/alcohol_and_lifeexp.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22229788
2
He who pays the piper tunes the call.
I Believe that like all drugs it has its benefits. For some alcohol is very debilitating but, if addiction is not in your DNA, I think moderate drinking is enjoyable.
Is it good for you I don't know. I am bothered by the amount of alcohol shown on TV as a symbol of sophistication. I see no reason the TV host needs alcohol in front of him/her at any point in the broadcast.
Is it good for you I don't know. I am bothered by the amount of alcohol shown on TV as a symbol of sophistication. I see no reason the TV host needs alcohol in front of him/her at any point in the broadcast.
1
Sounds like the basis of a very fine study. As others have noted, it would improve reliability if the subjects (in both the alcohol and no-alcohol groups) would agree to random blood alcohol-content monitoring. As to the "industry support", researchers are people, subject to the usual human frailties, and the need to get funding. As long as all the potential conflicts are disclosed, I think reasonable people will accept the results.
An anthropological view could also produce some critical thinking on the subject. Humans have been drinking alcohol for thousands of years. Very few cultures, if any at all, do not use alcohol entirely. There are alcohol drinkers even in cultures that prohibit it. East Germany had a problem when they legislated for zero pro mil because digestion naturally produces a small amount of alcohol. Our national history has had a very rocky relationship with alcohol in general. It is very hard, therefore, to find "objective" jurors when alcohol is "on trial" in the US.
2
Most interesting was the ethicists. These noble soles automatically assume that researchers are bought if a single industry dime helps to fund any research making the resultant research suspect. Likewise, they demand that anyone accepting a governmental position must totally divest himself of all his investments and put the proceeds into a blind trust, regardless of market conditions.
To quote the Orange one, "Sad"
Seriously, can we not place a bit of trust in anyone's integrity?
On a more practical bent, who is going to fund the research if not someone interested. For example, Tech Billionaires, not aging, are funding life extension research. Selfless or hoping to benefit? Should he researchers refuse such funding if the funding is extended out ot selfinteres?
To quote the Orange one, "Sad"
Seriously, can we not place a bit of trust in anyone's integrity?
On a more practical bent, who is going to fund the research if not someone interested. For example, Tech Billionaires, not aging, are funding life extension research. Selfless or hoping to benefit? Should he researchers refuse such funding if the funding is extended out ot selfinteres?
4
The majority of people who drink even moderately consume more than the study---as others have pointed out it-seems like a waste of money! And if the study doesn't factor in other variables such as how the people in the study eat and exercise--what's the point?
2
The study proposes to examine what statistical evidence suggests at least some people should be doing for their health. It does not matter how much people are drinking now.
2
Ron, the scores of large-scale, long-term, prospective epidemiological studies based on "hard outcomes" that have been done on alcohol consumption so far include things like what the participants "eat and exercise" at in their Cox proportional hazard regression models to "control" for them, mathematically eliminating the effect of such "confounders" as best they can. But skeptics can always point to hypothetically possible incomplete adjustment for such confounders. That is why this study--a RANDOMIZED Controlled Trial--or RCT, is being proposed.
Randomized-controlled-trials randomly put large numbers of people in each of the two experimental groups--teetotalers and light/moderate drinkers here. Consequently, whatever diet & exercise & sex & age & whatever-other-confounder-you-can-think-of will be almost EQUALLY REPRESENTED IN EACH group. So things like "eating & exercising" habits won't matter. Any resulting difference in the resulting number of heart attacks, or breast cancers, or all-cause deaths will simply depend on the only difference between the two groups--i.e. whether they consumed alcohol or not.
That is why we need such a study.
(And why neo-prohibitionists want to squelch/discredit it ahead of time with "FUD," fear, uncertainty, & doubt...)
Randomized-controlled-trials randomly put large numbers of people in each of the two experimental groups--teetotalers and light/moderate drinkers here. Consequently, whatever diet & exercise & sex & age & whatever-other-confounder-you-can-think-of will be almost EQUALLY REPRESENTED IN EACH group. So things like "eating & exercising" habits won't matter. Any resulting difference in the resulting number of heart attacks, or breast cancers, or all-cause deaths will simply depend on the only difference between the two groups--i.e. whether they consumed alcohol or not.
That is why we need such a study.
(And why neo-prohibitionists want to squelch/discredit it ahead of time with "FUD," fear, uncertainty, & doubt...)
the demographics need to be as broad as possible to show if lifestyle choices or income might have an impact...don't have a problem with the industry support as it is so difficult to get any research funding today
1
Studies with financing from special interests with ties to the outcome have a long and sordid history of promoting bad health. Big Sugar, Big Meat and Big Pharma along with just about every producer of processed food have sponsored many such "studies". Their purpose is to promote their products or at least confuse the science that implicates their product as a pathogen. They leave the public at the mercy of their advertising and the sponsors as the only clear winners. The result has been muddled messages that have prolonged the obesity, heart disease and cancer epidemics. Their corruption of government policy has continued its promotion of the Standard American Diet (SAD) and cost trillions to our unsustainable health system. The old adage that a person (or organization) will always do what they are incentivized to do couldn't apply more than to these industry-financed "studies". Buyer beware!
1
I'm not sure I have ever seen such biased science reporting.
Because this study is partially funded by the alcohol industry the results have to be suspect despite being conducted by the NIH and using a scientific methodology, unlike all those correlation without causation studies that the Times quotes extensively from. Because some of the researchers have been funded by the alcohol industry, they must be biased, despite the fact that their findings can be replicated or refuted by other researchers. And then there is the rundown of studies that link alcohol consumption with negative health outcomes, and not one word about those studies which link it to positive health outcomes.
Because this study is partially funded by the alcohol industry the results have to be suspect despite being conducted by the NIH and using a scientific methodology, unlike all those correlation without causation studies that the Times quotes extensively from. Because some of the researchers have been funded by the alcohol industry, they must be biased, despite the fact that their findings can be replicated or refuted by other researchers. And then there is the rundown of studies that link alcohol consumption with negative health outcomes, and not one word about those studies which link it to positive health outcomes.
3
Anyone in the 21st Century who thinks corporate funding of government research is OK does not know enough about the problem of science for sale.
Please see the current NIH List of Known Carcinogens which currently lists alcoholic beverages as a known carcinogen at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/listed_substances_508.pdf
Then ask how much longer will that list be published by NIH?
Please see the current NIH List of Known Carcinogens which currently lists alcoholic beverages as a known carcinogen at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/listed_substances_508.pdf
Then ask how much longer will that list be published by NIH?
1
Note the ABC's of alcohol.
A - addictive
B - blurs judgement and self control portions of the brain - beginning with the very first drink
C - carcinogenic
D - DUI causes deaths and injuries each year in the thousands
E - Etc. See https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/alcohols-effects-body
A - addictive
B - blurs judgement and self control portions of the brain - beginning with the very first drink
C - carcinogenic
D - DUI causes deaths and injuries each year in the thousands
E - Etc. See https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/alcohols-effects-body
If you take DUI off that list and add heart disease, you could be talking about overeating and obesity, or cigarette smoking. About 40 percent of Americans are obese. About 25 percent smoke. How many Americans drink too much? Do you know that 40 percent don't consume alcohol at all? That another 50 percent consume two drinks per day or less?
How about spending that money to do research on preventing alcoholism and drunk driving, thus actually preventing premature deaths? I guess that would rule out funding from the world’s largest alcoholic beverage manufacturers?
4
A large pluarality if not majority of Americans have an interest in finding out what interventions are efficacious vis-a-vis prevention of heart disease mortality. I am among them. There is significant research on prevention and treatment of addiction, including alcoholism. The most deadly addiction in the U.S., by far, is tobacco addiction. Yet the FDA, under law, cannot prohibit the sale, possession, or use of tobacco.
You are far too judgmental in deigning where research dollars ought, and ought not, be spent.
You are far too judgmental in deigning where research dollars ought, and ought not, be spent.
1
Judging from tables of average alcohol consumption versus life expectancy by country, higher alcohol consumption is positively correlated with longer life.
3
That's right, the evidence is strong for a protective effect of alcohol. The heart evidence is particularly strong. That's why the industry is willing to bet big money on an outcome it will like.
1
Seventh Day Adventists don’t drink and they live on average 10 years longer than most Americans. http://tinyurl.com/y939hor6
(Admittedly, they also don’t smoke or eat meat.)
(Admittedly, they also don’t smoke or eat meat.)
And the average French, Spanish, German, Australian, & Canadian all drink more than Americans do and they all have higher life expectancies. But that doesn't prove anything either.
(Admittedly, they all have universal health care-like systems...)
(Admittedly, they all have universal health care-like systems...)
2
Cycling and running can lead to medical problems, injury, or even fatal incidents. So can hiking or baseball or swimming or working out hard at the gym. And eating too much red meat, or drinking too much coffee, or driving to see family, or falling into depression over trivial matters, or staying sedentary on the couch all day. Can't we save our research money for studies on how to keep us safe from really egregious behaviors, rather than wasting it in efforts to discern minute (and contestable) changes in risk for day-to-day activities that people enjoy in life??
2
You misapprehend. Alcohol is thought to have a substantive effect on heart health for many, an effect that is likely greater than that conferred by many medications already being taken by millions for that very purpose. Since coronary heart disease is the #1 killer of both men and women, any intervention that can reduce the toll is thought to be worth investigating.
1
Yes Dennis--and it isn’t just heart disease, our #1 killer. Consider the documented protective effect of alcohol against diabetes, for example.
In an analysis of 26 separate studies, with over 700,000 individuals and over 30,000 resulting Type 2 diabetes cases: compared with the minimal category of alcohol consumption, light drinkers developed 17% fewer cases of diabetes over time and moderate drinkers developed 26% fewer cases. Google “PMID 26843157.” So, if you want, you can be a teetotaler blind to science and get about 20% more diabetes...
We need to honestly look at ALL of the risks--and benefits. Some of us believe that we owe it to people to provide the biological truth and then let them balance the relative risks, which too are very real, for themselves. For most people the data look like light drinking will add years to their lives. (And make those years more enjoyable...)
In an analysis of 26 separate studies, with over 700,000 individuals and over 30,000 resulting Type 2 diabetes cases: compared with the minimal category of alcohol consumption, light drinkers developed 17% fewer cases of diabetes over time and moderate drinkers developed 26% fewer cases. Google “PMID 26843157.” So, if you want, you can be a teetotaler blind to science and get about 20% more diabetes...
We need to honestly look at ALL of the risks--and benefits. Some of us believe that we owe it to people to provide the biological truth and then let them balance the relative risks, which too are very real, for themselves. For most people the data look like light drinking will add years to their lives. (And make those years more enjoyable...)
I am always aware that the choice many times is between a beer or wine vs. another drink which may be worse. I.e., diet cola, orange juice, etc. Water is too boring to drink all day.
1
'The concern, he said, is that any findings supporting the benefits of alcohol could easily be misinterpreted. “If there is some health benefit for people over 50 from one drink a day, many people will just hear that alcohol is good for you, and some will say, ‘ I can drink all the beer I want,’” he said.'
Well, for starters, that doesn't sound very scientific...
Well, for starters, that doesn't sound very scientific...
3
Or very rational...
2
Or reasonable.
3
The fact that some readers of the study (assuming it concludes that one drink a day is healthful) willbe irrationally, unrationally, and unscientificly extrapolate that alcohol in any amount is good for them is exactly the point of the article's comment.
If research shows daily exercise is good for you. Some folks are going to overdue it. Or upon reading that a cup of coffee daily is good for you, some will turn that into two pots a day.
If a little bit is good for you, a lot is probably a whole bit better.
If research shows daily exercise is good for you. Some folks are going to overdue it. Or upon reading that a cup of coffee daily is good for you, some will turn that into two pots a day.
If a little bit is good for you, a lot is probably a whole bit better.
1
It must be wonderful dying never having done anything harmful to oneself.
7
dying is easy. Disability is not.
Yeah, not doing anything that gives you pleasure just makes your life feel a whole lot longer.
A certain amount of this discussion seems to divide between those who minimize the dangers of alcohol and those who play the dangers up. Is there any hope for a meeting of the minds?
4
I agree. And I sympathize. We all need to be "honest analysts" and draw our analytical cost-benefit circle around ALL of society.
1
There is little chance, because (1) the folks whom alcohol hurts and helps are, respectively, by and large different populations (with different interests in this issue); and (2) some folks in both camps are ideologically- rather than evidence driven.
Dennis, do you really think that there are many folks in some "pro-alcohol camp" that are "ideologically-driven"? Who might they be?
I think we may have a false equivalence here. Is there really any such a thing as a "pro-alcohol camp" (apart from maybe wine-makers and beer companies, or organized crime hoping for prohibition again)?
People arguing for data and scientific evidence are not "ideological." That really isn't an "ideology;" it is a method.
I think we may have a false equivalence here. Is there really any such a thing as a "pro-alcohol camp" (apart from maybe wine-makers and beer companies, or organized crime hoping for prohibition again)?
People arguing for data and scientific evidence are not "ideological." That really isn't an "ideology;" it is a method.
For a more satirical take on alcohol consumption and heart attacks, check out http://www.johnnyrobish.com/in-the-news/clinical-trail-looks-alcohol-pre...
1
Whether a drink a day prevents heart attacks or not, I don't know many people who only have one drink a day. Most have at least two. Alcohol leads to depression which leads to increased drinking which leads to increased depression, and on. That's what I found. But I don't see that anyone has mentioned that here. I believe that the industry counts on the "allure" of enhanced sociability and turns a blind eye to the death and destruction their product leaves in its wake.
9
You need to hang out with better people. Quite a few people I know have a glass of wine or one beer and never go beyond that.
3
The vast majority of drinkers are in fact moderate drinkers. Consult the considerable literature. Also, your thesis, that alcohol -- which is a central nervous system depressant -- is in moderate amounts causally related to clinical depression, is simply not borne out by health science evidence.
The only thing you are right about is that alcohol is dangerous to some users, and that its effects on those users can certainly affect others as well.
The only thing you are right about is that alcohol is dangerous to some users, and that its effects on those users can certainly affect others as well.
While I agree that many people can have only one drink, I question whether that makes them "better" people.
1
One important variable is whether the wine (or alcoholic beverage) is consumed with a meal or not.
2
It would be enlightening to have a follow up article on what the various research institution's Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have to say on the subject of risk/benefit analysis for the safety of human study participants and how many do not approve the study at all related to issues: conflicts of interest, safety issues, contribution to generalizable knowledge, to mention only a few.
1
The difficulties inherent in this this research are so pervasive that the results will hardly be worth the millions of dollars invested in the study.
Nestle is right -- when a study is funded by an interested party, the results are almost always skewed towards the benefits of the item being studied. Added to that, companies selling alcoholic beverages depend on alcoholics to stay in business. Without the overdrinkers, these corporations' profits would shrink to unacceptable levels. Their supposed support of responsible drinking is just a fig leaf for their vested interests in seeking ever-increasing sales of their products.
Nestle is right -- when a study is funded by an interested party, the results are almost always skewed towards the benefits of the item being studied. Added to that, companies selling alcoholic beverages depend on alcoholics to stay in business. Without the overdrinkers, these corporations' profits would shrink to unacceptable levels. Their supposed support of responsible drinking is just a fig leaf for their vested interests in seeking ever-increasing sales of their products.
1
On another note: The NRA has funded a study to determine if gun ownership actually reduces crime.
The Automobile Association is sponsoring a study to determine if cars are environmentally friendly.
And the Catholic Church is investigating whether God does exist.
Care to guess the conclusions of these studies?
The Automobile Association is sponsoring a study to determine if cars are environmentally friendly.
And the Catholic Church is investigating whether God does exist.
Care to guess the conclusions of these studies?
3
Since "the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, will oversee the study," according to this article, then I guess it is guaranteed that its data and conclusions will be fabricated to minimize Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
So what are you worrying about?
So what are you worrying about?
Looks like there are worries that the progress towards legalization of objectively more healthy cannabis is worrying the scientific-economic universe that revolves around alcohol. No doubt there are some modest health benefits to moderate consumption of the drug, alcohol. What they are and whether they offset the well-known negative consequences of alcohol remains to be seen.
On the other hand, it is already known there is no safer clinically effective drug than cannabis. Its recreational use tends to result in more worries about weight gain from the munchies than the violence towards others and the user themselves caused by alcohol. While the smoking of cannabis is hard to justify with the availability of vaporizers and other healthier consumption alternatives, it seems to cause little in the way of the vast spectrum of disorders associated with tobacco -- and has virtually none of the physically addictive properties due to alcohol.
The alcohol industry would sure like to find some good news here. And there's plenty of room for wise choices in this market segment if only the gov't would get off the backs of those consumers who prefer cannabis to alcohol and those who want to supply them.
On the other hand, it is already known there is no safer clinically effective drug than cannabis. Its recreational use tends to result in more worries about weight gain from the munchies than the violence towards others and the user themselves caused by alcohol. While the smoking of cannabis is hard to justify with the availability of vaporizers and other healthier consumption alternatives, it seems to cause little in the way of the vast spectrum of disorders associated with tobacco -- and has virtually none of the physically addictive properties due to alcohol.
The alcohol industry would sure like to find some good news here. And there's plenty of room for wise choices in this market segment if only the gov't would get off the backs of those consumers who prefer cannabis to alcohol and those who want to supply them.
3
Wasn't there a recent study saying women have increased risk of breast cancer with 2 drinks a day?
6
This seems like an unfair characterization from the NY Times. I am confident that the NIH will produce a fair, unbiased study from several world-renowned scientists.
As for the issue at hand, I always thought it was odd that moderate alcohol consumption could be good for you regardless of the data that seemed to suggest some benefits. However, knowing there is a risk will not get me, nor most people, to stop drinking in moderation.
A refreshing, stiff drink at the end of a hard day is one of life's great indulgences if consumed responsibly. Nothing will change that fact.
As for the issue at hand, I always thought it was odd that moderate alcohol consumption could be good for you regardless of the data that seemed to suggest some benefits. However, knowing there is a risk will not get me, nor most people, to stop drinking in moderation.
A refreshing, stiff drink at the end of a hard day is one of life's great indulgences if consumed responsibly. Nothing will change that fact.
2
So for the 99.8% of the population that can't stop at one drink, alcohol is bad for you.
5
Barry, please provide us with scientific cites for your claim that "99.8% of the population can't stop at one drink." Thanks.
If you cannot, do you admit that you are someone who either, ahem, intentionally deceives, or are someone with a dubious hold on reality? (As, perhaps, others of similar views...).
If you cannot, do you admit that you are someone who either, ahem, intentionally deceives, or are someone with a dubious hold on reality? (As, perhaps, others of similar views...).
3
If the industry-sponsored research says so then it must be true.
1
Alcohol is a toxin. The marketing is pernicious. The use and overuse of alcohol is responsible for more illness, accidents and deaths than any other substance. 88,000 people die every year in the US because of it. My friend died earlier this year because of brain damage due to alcohol: she drank too much, fell and hit her head, and had seizures for the next 10 months; the last one was fatal. She racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in hospital bills in less than a year. NO - alcohol is not "good for you". It isn't good for anyone. Drink water, save your money, your relationships and your health. Tell the alcohol industry to go jump.
12
You are confusing abuse with consumption. I also suspect that you lack background in public health, which deals with large numbers of people, not just the outliers. Throwing morality at humans doesn't work so well. At least in the EU, rational, evidence based approaches are a thing.
3
Candy and ice cream is also not good for you.
5
i'm sorry for kathy's loss.
kate, your mention of the eu had me thinking about romans, etc. wine in moderation, introducing children to a bit diluted w/teaspoon of water ... just a natural acceptance of all things to be consumed & enjoyed in life.
actually, even natural fermentation of rice into sake, and corn into mash ...
want to go all righteous, americans? the colonists were drunk all day on cider
so, chill, think.
maybe accept.
kate, your mention of the eu had me thinking about romans, etc. wine in moderation, introducing children to a bit diluted w/teaspoon of water ... just a natural acceptance of all things to be consumed & enjoyed in life.
actually, even natural fermentation of rice into sake, and corn into mash ...
want to go all righteous, americans? the colonists were drunk all day on cider
so, chill, think.
maybe accept.
1
"[T]he National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, [] will oversee the study."
And yet so many commenters automatically reject this "gold standard" trial out of hand.
Have our institutions' credibility been so sullied by "fear, uncertainty, & doubt" that everybody sees Conspiracy everywhere?
And yet so many commenters automatically reject this "gold standard" trial out of hand.
Have our institutions' credibility been so sullied by "fear, uncertainty, & doubt" that everybody sees Conspiracy everywhere?
3
Yes
Yes, thanks to the anti-science/conspiracy theory crowd currently running this country.
The design of the study introduces inherent bias: the study will recruit volunteers; "participants will be randomly assigned to quit alcohol altogether or to drink a single alcoholic beverage of their choice every day."
Alcoholics cannot participate; they would be incapable of quitting alcohol altogether. People like me who don't care for the taste of alcohol or have incredibly low alcohol tolerance could not participate either. If assigned to the drink- an-alcoholic-beverage-a-day group, I could not tolerate it. So this study is inherently flawed to start. You will never get an unbiased group to participate.
Alcoholics cannot participate; they would be incapable of quitting alcohol altogether. People like me who don't care for the taste of alcohol or have incredibly low alcohol tolerance could not participate either. If assigned to the drink- an-alcoholic-beverage-a-day group, I could not tolerate it. So this study is inherently flawed to start. You will never get an unbiased group to participate.
7
Joyce, the "study is NOT inherently flawed to start."
The results will simply not apply to alcoholics.
The results will simply not apply to those who "have incredibly low alcohol tolerance."
No pharmaceutical is recommended for anyone who is incredibly sensitive to it, is allergic to it, or who would be prone to abuse it.
That doesn't man we don't test pharmaceuticals or promote their use for populations that can benefit from them.
Why are people so irrational when it comes to alcohol? Yes, alcohol abuse is responsible for many personal tragedies, but if, indeed, low or moderate alcohol consumption lowers all-cause mortality by 10%, effectively adding a few healthy years to the average American lifetime, why would you not want people to know this and advocate for it?
The results will simply not apply to alcoholics.
The results will simply not apply to those who "have incredibly low alcohol tolerance."
No pharmaceutical is recommended for anyone who is incredibly sensitive to it, is allergic to it, or who would be prone to abuse it.
That doesn't man we don't test pharmaceuticals or promote their use for populations that can benefit from them.
Why are people so irrational when it comes to alcohol? Yes, alcohol abuse is responsible for many personal tragedies, but if, indeed, low or moderate alcohol consumption lowers all-cause mortality by 10%, effectively adding a few healthy years to the average American lifetime, why would you not want people to know this and advocate for it?
1
People like you are a small percentage of the population.
1
Moderate alcohol consumption has been recognized to correlate with better health for decades. So does regular exercise, low dose aspirin use, and half a dozen other things, but moderate alcohol consumption is the ONLY thing correlated with good health that's opposed with such organized furor that its proponents are afraid to recommend it. EVERY study I have EVER seen in the Times that concludes that moderate drinking is helpful to the health somewhere parrots the words: "Researchers do not suggest that anyone begin drinking who does not already drink."
Would any researcher ever say that about exercise, low-dose aspirin, green vegetables, sunscreen, or other things beneficial to health? Even if this study proves beyond doubt that moderate alcohol use is beneficial, no doubt those words will still appear somewhere in it. The anti-alcohol zealots are controlling the discourse in this area and always have.
Would any researcher ever say that about exercise, low-dose aspirin, green vegetables, sunscreen, or other things beneficial to health? Even if this study proves beyond doubt that moderate alcohol use is beneficial, no doubt those words will still appear somewhere in it. The anti-alcohol zealots are controlling the discourse in this area and always have.
7
The point is that the other beneficial measures, unlike alcohol, do not entail a risk of harmful addiction. If good studies continue to show a benefit to moderate drinking, the key question is how to put into practice a safe conversion of light drinkers and non-drinkers to moderate drinkers, as well as determining (as by lipid testing) who is really benefiting. Converting heavy drinkers to moderate drinkers is rather a challenge, because they already know they should drink less.
1
Most of the alcohol zealots have seen the destruction that alcohol can visit upon susceptible individuals and their families. They can't be blamed for wanting to alert others to the grave dangers posed by alcohol for those who cannot drink in moderation.
Most commenters here are ignorant of the extant health science re: alcohol consumption and / or are ideologically blundered, by one-size-fits-all-ism and feminism. Much research, and many studies, support that alcohol is heart-protective, such that, at one drink a day, and perhaps even two, the benefits to *most* men far outweigh the risks. That is how ALL interventions to prolong life and health are adjudged. And the likely protective mechanisms are at least partially understood. Significant cardio-protection likely exists for women, but because of higher risks, and the lesser threat of coronary artery disease until later in life, the risk/benefit calculus is necessarily different. Indeed, we need individually-tailored intervention, but that is in its infancy. Most can drink in moderation; life-saving intervention is desperately needed for what is still the #1 killer of men *and* women; and this additional (and, in some ways, confirmatory) research is necessary. Industry funding is concerning, but hardly always polluting. The economically-stressed NIH - especially now- must make pragmatic calls re: industry funding, and has made a judgment call. Those who cry foul in knee-jerk fashion don't understand science *or* industry. Those who see this primarily through the lens of feminism distort the real world, where evidence-based intervention, while far from perfect, has HALVED the age-adjusted U.S. death rate from coronary heart disease in the last half century.
2
Having Irish roots, a few drinks now and then is standard fare.. About a week ago I found myself in Boca Raton on quite a hot day. I took my darling sweetheart to lunch at a swanky restaurant among the palm trees and Bentleys. I ordered a glass of white wine, nothing special. Not certain if it was the tropical heat or the fact that I was a bit hungry but that wine swept over me with a golden-hued wave of euphoria the likes of which I haven't felt ever in my drinking career. It was all over in about 5 minutes or so, but jeepers creepers, give me another!
10
What goes up must come down.
3
M,
i have irish roots too but can only handle a few drinks a month ... no worries, just a capful of whiskey & that's ok :)
a full glass of white wine & i'm swept away too, winter, summer, spring or fall.
ex husband used to smile, affectionately say i was a cheap date (no offense was intended or taken)
just a swoon, a kiss & yes , euphoria <3
give me another for sure ;)
i have irish roots too but can only handle a few drinks a month ... no worries, just a capful of whiskey & that's ok :)
a full glass of white wine & i'm swept away too, winter, summer, spring or fall.
ex husband used to smile, affectionately say i was a cheap date (no offense was intended or taken)
just a swoon, a kiss & yes , euphoria <3
give me another for sure ;)
1
Is that a couple of cases of whisky a month? Or a couple of carloads?
As stated in one scholarly observational study, “Moderate alcohol intake is associated with lower atherosclerosis risk, presumably due to increased HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) concentrations.” So, any individual who drinks either less or more than moderately can do a personal experiment:
1. Test blood lipid levels.
2. Launch into a period of moderate drinking.
3. Check them again.
In my own personal experiment, my blood lipids got worse, so I stopped drinking. If they had gotten better, I would have continued.
1. Test blood lipid levels.
2. Launch into a period of moderate drinking.
3. Check them again.
In my own personal experiment, my blood lipids got worse, so I stopped drinking. If they had gotten better, I would have continued.
5
Correction: The specific study that I quoted was a small prospective controlled study, not an observational study.
If the only benefit you thought you got from drinking was your lipid profile then drinking wasn't for you anyway.
1
Au contraire, I enjoyed my experiment and hoped for the opposite outcome. But then, the point of this discussion is balancing considerations of health and pleasure, isn’t it?
1
That is a LOT of money and it is dirty money at best. The funding alcohol sponsors are attempting by purchase the science to support a position that they 'hope' turns out to be true. Regardless of the results eventually reported, the science is already tainted. Those same dollars, if applied to good research, could help a lot of people. Here, they simply want to sell more alcohol. IMO, it stinks.
7
This study will prove exactly what they want it to.
Much like the Dairy industry study extolling the virtues of milk, and the anti milk advocates proving that humans don't need it.
BS. MS. PhD. Bull s. More s. Piled higher and Deeper.
Much like the Dairy industry study extolling the virtues of milk, and the anti milk advocates proving that humans don't need it.
BS. MS. PhD. Bull s. More s. Piled higher and Deeper.
3
Alcohol is an addictive drug. The hangovers are withdrawal symptoms.
11
Alcohol is the most insidious drug known to man. There are no other words that apply here other than these. Death and destruction are the hallmarks for many. The liquor industry is trying to colloquially put lipstick on a pig. Save your breath and time.
13
You are wrong, it is nicotine (in its most common delivery vehicle, burning tobacco). Cigarettes kill one of every other regular smokers, and horribly harm many of those not killed forthrightly.
3
!00 million for this?
I have devoted my entire life devoted to finding out what’s good for me.
Here is a partial list:
Sugar Cokes, chocolate milk.
Goldenberg Peanut Chews, Cadbury Fruit and Nut Bars, Mr. Goodbars.
Beef tongue sandwiches, extra lean, on Jewish rye.
Kosher hot dogs wrapped in bologna, topped with sauerkraut and deli-mustard served on an old fashioned Kaiser roll along with big kosher dill pickles and extra-thick, hand-cut onion rings.
Spaghetti Caruso.
Caesar salad prepared in a good Italian restaurant by a waiter who knows what he’s doing.
There’s a lot more, but for that NIH is going to have to come across with some real dough.
I have devoted my entire life devoted to finding out what’s good for me.
Here is a partial list:
Sugar Cokes, chocolate milk.
Goldenberg Peanut Chews, Cadbury Fruit and Nut Bars, Mr. Goodbars.
Beef tongue sandwiches, extra lean, on Jewish rye.
Kosher hot dogs wrapped in bologna, topped with sauerkraut and deli-mustard served on an old fashioned Kaiser roll along with big kosher dill pickles and extra-thick, hand-cut onion rings.
Spaghetti Caruso.
Caesar salad prepared in a good Italian restaurant by a waiter who knows what he’s doing.
There’s a lot more, but for that NIH is going to have to come across with some real dough.
12
I live for all those foods and I love you for admitting it publicly. please add to my list martinis, chocolate covered brandy stemmed cherries, and... pizza.
4
I have devoted my entire life to finding out what’s good for me.
6
I hope the study subjects will be separated by type of alcohol they are to drink - beer, wine, or liquor, but not a mix. All have different properties, aside from the alcohol content that can (and most likely do) contribute to it's health effects. A wine drinker may have a very different outcome from someone who takes a shot of whiskey.
And ideally, these three groups should be broken out int 2 dub-groups - men & women to see the different effects on esch sex each type of drink has.
Without these break-outs the results will be useless.
And ideally, these three groups should be broken out int 2 dub-groups - men & women to see the different effects on esch sex each type of drink has.
Without these break-outs the results will be useless.
1
Free drinks, but a fifty percent chance you'll be assigned to six years of abstinence. Right.
Personally, I believe that a daily glass of wine helps ward off attack by extra-terrestrials. I am now convinced that a sponsor can be found to examine this in a systematic way.
Personally, I believe that a daily glass of wine helps ward off attack by extra-terrestrials. I am now convinced that a sponsor can be found to examine this in a systematic way.
6
Because of the financial contribution by the alcohol-related companies, I already don't believe the expected results.
2
After spending 4 months recovering from acute pancreatitis my Dr. who is the Chief of Endoscopy at Weil Cornel Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital told me " the pancreas doesn't like alcohol". As a result I have not had an alcoholic drink since which is now 4 years. My weight is down, my strength is up, my sociability is actually better and longer lasting and I have a general felling of well being I find my peers who share my 80 age bracket just don't exhibit or express. My response to the old joke "is that the best you are going to feel" when I turn down an alcoholic drink is a rousing "yes".
7
I bet you don't miss a chance to tell people how well you feel not drinking. A little pancreatitis makes it easy to be superior.
1
Congratulations to the NYT for adding a grand total of 2 comments on this front-page article in the last 21 hours (and counting). They all must not be supportive, huh? So this is how respectful "freedom of speech" works, right? Appalling.
1
Any self-respecting researcher should refuse to be involved with such sponsorship.
6
There is a valid model for doing this - look up the Health Effects Institute, which received money from EPA and the automotive industry to independently settle issues of interest to both. This setup - where interested parties pay in money but don't control the results - was the brainchild of Archibald Cox. Their research has resulted in much greater regulation of motor vehicle emissions in the US, Europe, and Asia - and automakers have paid for a lot of it.
We can always find reasons to do whatever we desire, good or bad. Perpetrating this study is self serving garbage by the Liquor business.
They want to bring in the outliers to the frisson of alcohol for health reasons. Ridiculous.
They want to bring in the outliers to the frisson of alcohol for health reasons. Ridiculous.
3
The classic way a research is being subverted by "interested parties" is through selection bias - by recruiting a specific subsample that is very likely to benefit from the intervention, and unlikely to show harm from the intervention. Then, the intervention is promoted to a much larger (non selective) group - essentially, not the group it was studied on.
Here, "Problem drinkers and individuals who have never consumed alcohol will be ineligible, as will be certain women at high risk for breast cancer and people with certain medical conditions." So there we have it - selection bias that is clearly favorable to Industry is in play. Whether this is because Industry actually had a say in the design, or because the researchers decided on this biased design independently, I don't know. But if they proceed in this way, the results would probably be quite meaningless: even if the ultimate results favor drinking, a result that "drinking is good, only for people who do not have a problem related to drinking or are at risk for drinking-related harms" seems like a tautology to me - it does not require a scientific study to reach such a conclusion..
Here, "Problem drinkers and individuals who have never consumed alcohol will be ineligible, as will be certain women at high risk for breast cancer and people with certain medical conditions." So there we have it - selection bias that is clearly favorable to Industry is in play. Whether this is because Industry actually had a say in the design, or because the researchers decided on this biased design independently, I don't know. But if they proceed in this way, the results would probably be quite meaningless: even if the ultimate results favor drinking, a result that "drinking is good, only for people who do not have a problem related to drinking or are at risk for drinking-related harms" seems like a tautology to me - it does not require a scientific study to reach such a conclusion..
2
No. These are excluded for ethical reasons. Studies that subject the participants to known hazards will not be approved. My we have knee-jerk reactions!
It would be unethical to include in an alcohol consumption study, folks likely to be hurt by, and to hurt others due to, alcohol consumption. You have managed to miss the forest *and* the trees in your puritanical adjudging.
1
I fully understand the ethical point, but there is - for example - no ethical reason to exclude people who previously did not drink. Over zealous exclusion due to ethics will simply lead to selection bias that will render the results less generalizable, that's all.
Umm, did I just observe a fox entering the hen house?
Let's fund other studies with millions of dollars:
One syringe of heroin a day
One pack of tobacco per day
One cup of coffee a day
One diet soda a day
One donut a day
One pain pill per day
A certain portion of the population will become addicts.
Does not make any difference if the number is 1%, 3%, 5%, or whatever.
Let's look to help those with addiction problems to a positive solution.
That's a good place to spend the millions!
Let's fund other studies with millions of dollars:
One syringe of heroin a day
One pack of tobacco per day
One cup of coffee a day
One diet soda a day
One donut a day
One pain pill per day
A certain portion of the population will become addicts.
Does not make any difference if the number is 1%, 3%, 5%, or whatever.
Let's look to help those with addiction problems to a positive solution.
That's a good place to spend the millions!
1
You might consider this: PROHIBITION DID NOT WORK. Humans have been drinking beer for longer than they have been baking bread! It used to be the only way to ensure that your water was safe to drink. Also, diet soda a day and a donut a day probably wouldn't hurt you, either, Mr. Perfect. Get off your high horse - you are addicted to it.
1
My mother was an alcoholic for over 30 years - she did die of a heart attack - at age 95.
4
Was it her last 30 years or did she quit at some point?
Ethanol is an anticoagulant. A drink per day is healthier than abstaining. A drink = 1 oz. 80 proof, 5 oz. wine, 12 oz. beer.
1
You just need to look at the average longevity and general happiness of Italian towns and villages to figure out that drinking a little "vino rosso" at dinner in the company of your friends cannot be bad for your health.
But more important than the alcohol intake to the health and longevity of the Italians is their low fat mediterranean diet, the relaxed pace of life, and don't forget the free health care service, pensions and social safety net...
I think Americans have a lot to learn from Mediterranean people, not just how to consume alcohol sensibly.
But more important than the alcohol intake to the health and longevity of the Italians is their low fat mediterranean diet, the relaxed pace of life, and don't forget the free health care service, pensions and social safety net...
I think Americans have a lot to learn from Mediterranean people, not just how to consume alcohol sensibly.
4
Since when a mediterranean diet is low fat? Italians eat a lot of fat and a lot of cheese. Mediterranean diet is in the eye of the beholder or in Ancel Keys' eyes!
In the Big Fat Surprise book you find the true story, and myth, of the diet.
In the Big Fat Surprise book you find the true story, and myth, of the diet.
3
I guess Anheuser Busch must also have played a role in financing the study.
1
Examine how this article frames the study’s 50:50 male:female goal: “And while the investigators’ goal is to recruit an equal number of men and women, and analyze results by gender, Dr. Mukamal said the trial most likely would not be able to detect gender differences unless they are pronounced. The lack of focus on gender differences related to alcohol consumption has drawn criticism. It is already known that...heart disease in women is different than it is in men. Women respond differently than men to many medications...”
Is trying to include women, as well as men, portrayed here as a Good Thing or as a Bad Thing? Would it have been better to examine only men? Is that what "critics" want?
“Drawn criticism,” ay? Clever writing. Isn’t 50:50 the best way, given research funding limitations, the BEST way to uncover any gender differences? Yet this is written up as a negative. Hmmm.
Is trying to include women, as well as men, portrayed here as a Good Thing or as a Bad Thing? Would it have been better to examine only men? Is that what "critics" want?
“Drawn criticism,” ay? Clever writing. Isn’t 50:50 the best way, given research funding limitations, the BEST way to uncover any gender differences? Yet this is written up as a negative. Hmmm.
3
Having the Alcohol industry back the research is on par with the witch from Hansel and Gretel giving a baking class.
The tobacco industry tried the same thing. Coca-cola tried the same thing. The NRA has tried to convince the world with research that machine guns are not a problem.
It's best never to trust data created by an industry that stands to gain from it.
The tobacco industry tried the same thing. Coca-cola tried the same thing. The NRA has tried to convince the world with research that machine guns are not a problem.
It's best never to trust data created by an industry that stands to gain from it.
1
Actually, the NRA has SUPRESSED gun research, precisely what many here are trying to do!
1
When does common sense enter into these studies? One hundred million dollars to put a cherry on top of an ice cream sundae? Ethanol is an irritant to: tongue, mouth, esophagus, stomach, bladder, liver, pancreas, etc etc. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that it increases the risk of seven cancers. So even if it helps prevent a heart attack in some, my guess is it contributes to cancer in many.
3
They heard Trump was elected and ever since have thought they could drink as much as they want and still be employed.
Read the auto numbers, dummies...
Read the auto numbers, dummies...
Ever since the humans discovered ethanol (chemical formula C2H5OH) and its behavior effects on its consumers, the theologians, moral philosophers, and medical practitioners have been debating its longer-term effects on the individuals and society as a whole. I fear that the conclusions of the new international team studying this subject would be no different from the dictum of St. Augustin, "it is good never to eat meat and drink wine when by so doing we scandalize our brothers" https://ivu.org/history/christian/augustine.html
Sounds like the neo-prohibitionists are using the classic FUD strategy here to me. Don’t examine the data, but rather, spread “Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.” Unfortunately, real science doesn’t stand a chance.
What an unfair hatchet job!
As much as I hate to admit it, maybe there is Fake News from prime outlets out there..?
How is this any different than gun-advocates forbidding/undercutting any scientific studies on gun violence?
Do we similarly automatically reject all alcohol study results from addiction-center researchers, as they are obviously financially-biased and compromised?
Unscientific/religious-do-gooder neo-prohibitionists know that a large randomized controlled trial like this will be the last word, confirming the scores of large epidemiological studies supporting huge cardiovascular outcome improvements with moderate alcohol consumption. (Now those were adequately and objectively reported in the article, right?) Google "PMID 21343207" for a compilation of 84 of these datasets. See also PMID 21343206. The unscientific/religious-do-gooder neo-prohibitionists know what is coming and their only out is to pre-attack the researchers themselves before the trial has even started. Sounds Trumpian... Sad.
As much as I hate to admit it, maybe there is Fake News from prime outlets out there..?
How is this any different than gun-advocates forbidding/undercutting any scientific studies on gun violence?
Do we similarly automatically reject all alcohol study results from addiction-center researchers, as they are obviously financially-biased and compromised?
Unscientific/religious-do-gooder neo-prohibitionists know that a large randomized controlled trial like this will be the last word, confirming the scores of large epidemiological studies supporting huge cardiovascular outcome improvements with moderate alcohol consumption. (Now those were adequately and objectively reported in the article, right?) Google "PMID 21343207" for a compilation of 84 of these datasets. See also PMID 21343206. The unscientific/religious-do-gooder neo-prohibitionists know what is coming and their only out is to pre-attack the researchers themselves before the trial has even started. Sounds Trumpian... Sad.
The number of subjects should be increased to provide enough power to discriminate any differences between the sexes.
The RAW data should be made available to the global public so that any competent statistician can develop the results whether biased by industry or not. Then let them fight it out.
I wouldn't participate in this study because although I average just under a serving per day, most days I have none. Life's too short for the required regimen.
The RAW data should be made available to the global public so that any competent statistician can develop the results whether biased by industry or not. Then let them fight it out.
I wouldn't participate in this study because although I average just under a serving per day, most days I have none. Life's too short for the required regimen.
1
Many commenters may not appreciate the tremendous amount of epidemiological work that has ALREADY been done on this issue. Google "PMID 21343207" for a compilation of 84 of these prospective datasets. See also PMID 21343206. Pick any 3 or 4 and look at their details. This really is no longer an open scientific question. The reduction in cardiovascular and even all-cause death from moderate drinking we see is very large.
This study, in contrast, will be a randomized controlled trial, the “gold standard” of medical evidence. A large number of people will be randomized to either regular drinking, or not, and after a long period of time the actual health outcomes of the two groups will be tabulated and compared. The only difference between the groups will be the alcohol consumption, so if one group sees a significant difference in hard health outcomes from the other, it must be due to the only difference--the alcohol. There is not much that blinded researchers can do to influence the results, unless you believe that a large academic group will all outright lie or make the data up.
Unscientific/religious-do-gooder neo-prohibitionists know that a large randomized trial like this will be the last word, confirming the scores of large epidemiological studies supporting huge cardiovascular outcome improvements with moderate alcohol consumption. They know what is coming and their only recourse is to pre-attack the researchers themselves like this before the trial has even started.
This study, in contrast, will be a randomized controlled trial, the “gold standard” of medical evidence. A large number of people will be randomized to either regular drinking, or not, and after a long period of time the actual health outcomes of the two groups will be tabulated and compared. The only difference between the groups will be the alcohol consumption, so if one group sees a significant difference in hard health outcomes from the other, it must be due to the only difference--the alcohol. There is not much that blinded researchers can do to influence the results, unless you believe that a large academic group will all outright lie or make the data up.
Unscientific/religious-do-gooder neo-prohibitionists know that a large randomized trial like this will be the last word, confirming the scores of large epidemiological studies supporting huge cardiovascular outcome improvements with moderate alcohol consumption. They know what is coming and their only recourse is to pre-attack the researchers themselves like this before the trial has even started.
7
Why is it automatically assumed that the findings and conclusions would be biased?
Aren't studies on climate change funded by entities who are concerned about climate change and therefore want further "proof?"
Aren't studies on climate change funded by entities who are concerned about climate change and therefore want further "proof?"
3
I love the photo and caption.
Does that look like "a drink a day" to you?
Cute subliminal message on how you are supposed to respond to the article...
Does that look like "a drink a day" to you?
Cute subliminal message on how you are supposed to respond to the article...
2
It doesn't make any difference. The people that drink every day aren't going to stop and people that don't aren't going to start.
3
What a pointless publicity stunt. We already have the authoritative work of Professor David Nutt. We know that alcohol is more or less the worst drug in existence, when judged on its impact on society and individuals (as much as I may personally like the stuff...). We already know that governments will prop up this unhealthy, dangerous drug in favour of safer, smarter alternatives. Why bother with a new study on marginal, borderline 'benefits' except as a marketing tactic?
5
You should only drink alcohol if you are a disciplined person. For instance having a glass of wine (and only one glass) with lunch or dinner.
All other drinking of alcohol is dangerous to your health. It might be nice to join in the atmosphere of a bar but it's ruining you. Most people don't realize this til it's too late. When a stroke flattens them on the floor or they are crushed in a car accident.
All other drinking of alcohol is dangerous to your health. It might be nice to join in the atmosphere of a bar but it's ruining you. Most people don't realize this til it's too late. When a stroke flattens them on the floor or they are crushed in a car accident.
Peter, alcohol consumption is not associated with strokes. Google "PMID 21343207" for a compilation of 18 separate studies on alcohol and strokes.
And all other non-excessive drinking of alcohol is, on average, not dangerous to your health, but rather promotes it. From the same meta-analysis, you can see from 22 studies that mortality from cardiovascular disease, our number one killer, is reduced by around a whopping 25%. Modern medicine does not have a single pharmaceutical that can do that. And death from all causes at any age, on average, is reduced by 13%. Yes, alcohol causes horrific tragedies for some. But society has to accept what is best for the many, not just the few.
You can choose not to believe it--like choosing not to believe in climate change--but you would be rejecting the scientific method for religion or dogma.
And all other non-excessive drinking of alcohol is, on average, not dangerous to your health, but rather promotes it. From the same meta-analysis, you can see from 22 studies that mortality from cardiovascular disease, our number one killer, is reduced by around a whopping 25%. Modern medicine does not have a single pharmaceutical that can do that. And death from all causes at any age, on average, is reduced by 13%. Yes, alcohol causes horrific tragedies for some. But society has to accept what is best for the many, not just the few.
You can choose not to believe it--like choosing not to believe in climate change--but you would be rejecting the scientific method for religion or dogma.
If one follows a healthy lifestyle, then some things - like a drink a day - simply may not have any affect, good or bad, upon the individual. So to posit that the drink a day was in fact a positive influence is utter nonsense.
Put it another way, as someone who has been sober for the last 23 years, takes no meds, and is in overall excellent health, I should be able to "conclude" right at this moment that my daily intake of NO alcohol has attributed to my overall excellent health.
And on one hand, that is true: I'm not drunk in a gutter somewhere (although to be honest, I would have been dead about 22 years ago). On the other hand, my not drinking has absolutely nothing to do with my health. My eating a varied, seasonal diet, exercising most daily for 1-3 hours, overall active lifestyle (I walk/bike most everywhere), and various other positives (yoga practitioner for 20-odd years, meditation, etc.)...I'd wager those have far, far more to do with my state of health.
And I really, really doubt that adding in a daily shot of alcohol would magically make me "healthier".
Then again, that is what booze does: it makes you believe things that Just Ain't So. Take it from the ex-drunk. That's truth, baby.
Put it another way, as someone who has been sober for the last 23 years, takes no meds, and is in overall excellent health, I should be able to "conclude" right at this moment that my daily intake of NO alcohol has attributed to my overall excellent health.
And on one hand, that is true: I'm not drunk in a gutter somewhere (although to be honest, I would have been dead about 22 years ago). On the other hand, my not drinking has absolutely nothing to do with my health. My eating a varied, seasonal diet, exercising most daily for 1-3 hours, overall active lifestyle (I walk/bike most everywhere), and various other positives (yoga practitioner for 20-odd years, meditation, etc.)...I'd wager those have far, far more to do with my state of health.
And I really, really doubt that adding in a daily shot of alcohol would magically make me "healthier".
Then again, that is what booze does: it makes you believe things that Just Ain't So. Take it from the ex-drunk. That's truth, baby.
8
A glass of wine with ev’ry meal
Has certainly got an appeal.
And since all I do
Is snack all day through,
By noon I’m as drunk as an eel!
Has certainly got an appeal.
And since all I do
Is snack all day through,
By noon I’m as drunk as an eel!
12
Alcohol adds empty calories to an already over calorie public.
Alcohol breaks dow to aldehydes which are associated with cancer.
The reservitrol in Red wine that is the "good guy" is in such small amounts it would take a gallon to give any useful amount.
Any amount of alcohol is not good for your cells.
These findings have been discovered over and over.
Alcohol breaks dow to aldehydes which are associated with cancer.
The reservitrol in Red wine that is the "good guy" is in such small amounts it would take a gallon to give any useful amount.
Any amount of alcohol is not good for your cells.
These findings have been discovered over and over.
2
Richard, body-mass-index and weight gain are simply not associated with light or moderate alcohol consumption. Sorry.
See: “Alcohol consumption and body weight: a systematic review,” by Googling “PMID: 21790610”.
(You might also check out: PMID 20212182, PMID 14506485, PMID 21622496, and PMID 27128677, among others...)
As for: "Any amount of alcohol is not good for your cells. These findings have been discovered over and over," I don't know where to start! Please cite your health-outcome evidence for us. There is a really huge body of published medical research out there that can be consulted before making outrageous off-the-cuff claims. Use PUBMED and help us--your tax dollars pay for it.
See: “Alcohol consumption and body weight: a systematic review,” by Googling “PMID: 21790610”.
(You might also check out: PMID 20212182, PMID 14506485, PMID 21622496, and PMID 27128677, among others...)
As for: "Any amount of alcohol is not good for your cells. These findings have been discovered over and over," I don't know where to start! Please cite your health-outcome evidence for us. There is a really huge body of published medical research out there that can be consulted before making outrageous off-the-cuff claims. Use PUBMED and help us--your tax dollars pay for it.
1
Discounting a study for the mere presence of industry ties is a poor excuse for journalism. Scientific reasoning much be judged on it's scientific merits regardless of funding source. The New York Times heritage calls for much better work. Where is the thoughtful analysis this paper is known for?
1
In the agreements setting up the funding for the study, the corporations contributing should have had to add a clause pledging to continue to fund future ongoing research into the effects of alcohol no matter whether the outcomes of such studies are supportive, or not, of their interests. Submitting signed budgeting projections for future years is recommended. The obvious stick the funders hold is to withhold further funding if outcomes are not as they wish. One would also hope that there also is a clause preventing any communication between the corporations or trade groups or their agents and any principals or other members of the study. Only what is available to the general public should be available to the funders.
There is probably no way to do this research other than the way it is being done. So the choices are to have the results of the research conducted with industry financng or not have the results of the research. i would rather have the results of the research. I suspect it will not change much, however. In most situations one drink per day will neither harm nor help health to any measurable extent, and in situations where one drink may be harmful the individual in question probably knows that already.
3
If alcohol is good for you, it isn't because of its healthy ingredients. It's because of its calming effect. But there are surely negative side effects for non-drinkers who decide to consume a couple of drinks a day. Exercise, reading, gardening, and going to a museum or the park are all relaxing activities with few if any side effects. Even if a couple of drinks helps the heart, it seems medically irresponsible to recommend drinking when there are so many more healthy options.
1
Michjas, I would agree with you if people would actually exercise, read, garden, and go to a museum when recommended. But, in fact, they don't. That has been demonstrated scientifically again and again.
Consequently, to me, it seems medically irresponsible NOT to recommend light to moderate drinking when we know that, at least in the West, it reduces cardiovascular disease deaths, our largest killer, by a whopping 25%, and all-cause mortality--which includes its admittedly negative health effects too--by over 10%. (Google PMID 21343207.) In fact, I believe that it morally reprehensible to inhibit this message. if the net effect is, in fact, a 10% all-cause mortality benefit--how can it NOT be?
Consequently, to me, it seems medically irresponsible NOT to recommend light to moderate drinking when we know that, at least in the West, it reduces cardiovascular disease deaths, our largest killer, by a whopping 25%, and all-cause mortality--which includes its admittedly negative health effects too--by over 10%. (Google PMID 21343207.) In fact, I believe that it morally reprehensible to inhibit this message. if the net effect is, in fact, a 10% all-cause mortality benefit--how can it NOT be?
There's a myopia from the get-go in studying the benefits of moderate consumption of an addictive drug. One might smirk were it not for the ninety thousand deaths caused by alcohol every year in the US. That's half again as many as that caused by the opiod crisis.
1
The study methodology is deeply disturbing. It is established that the repetitive action of doing something leads to habit formation.
Such habit formation has its positive effects. However, when it comes to psychotropic or potentially addictive substances, the habit soon leads to craving and dependance. Such effects are damaging.
This, quite apart from the potential to distort the study's findings, will have deleterious impact on the unsuspecting participants and highly irresponsible.
Such habit formation has its positive effects. However, when it comes to psychotropic or potentially addictive substances, the habit soon leads to craving and dependance. Such effects are damaging.
This, quite apart from the potential to distort the study's findings, will have deleterious impact on the unsuspecting participants and highly irresponsible.
3
This particular study has a focus on the odds of a heart attack, but there are so many other health outcomes that alcohol can influence. I read about how drinking alcohol can reduce the quality of sleep, and that was my major concern. So, I installed a free app on my iphone and monitored my sleep quality (i.e., you can see the graph of "awake","sleep", and "deep sleep"; a good sleep has several cycles of these phases per night) for about two months, making notes on whether I drank alcohol the night before or not. I am now convinced that drinking a glass of wine or a shot of whiskey before going to bed negatively affects my sleep quality, even if it may help me initially falling asleep. (this may not be the case for you; it was for me) This didn't stop me drinking at night completely, but this experiment on myself reduced the extent of my habit, as I do care about my productivity the following day.
Epidemiological studies, such as the described in this article, may be good for making a general "on-the-average" statement about a specific question, but we know that there is so much person-to-person variation in how we respond to medicine, food, and alcohol. Obviously, we cannot conduct an experiment on ourselves about a heart attack, but in the near future, I hope that we will be able to monitor subclinical markers of heart (and other types of) health and relate those to diet, alcohol, and other things so that we make make decisions that make sense individually.
Epidemiological studies, such as the described in this article, may be good for making a general "on-the-average" statement about a specific question, but we know that there is so much person-to-person variation in how we respond to medicine, food, and alcohol. Obviously, we cannot conduct an experiment on ourselves about a heart attack, but in the near future, I hope that we will be able to monitor subclinical markers of heart (and other types of) health and relate those to diet, alcohol, and other things so that we make make decisions that make sense individually.
1
The New England Journal of Medicine published a study of amazing scope in 2003, attempting to support or refute the claim that red wine was more protective against heart attack than other forms of alcohol.
38,000 male health professionals were studied prospectively over a 12 year period. Several conclusions were drawn from the study (cited below). Red wine was not found to be any more protective than any other form of alcohol. Most noteworthy, however, was the statistically profound reduction in heart attack risk of all drinkers compared to non-drinkers.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022095
38,000 male health professionals were studied prospectively over a 12 year period. Several conclusions were drawn from the study (cited below). Red wine was not found to be any more protective than any other form of alcohol. Most noteworthy, however, was the statistically profound reduction in heart attack risk of all drinkers compared to non-drinkers.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022095
Millenia of alcohol consumption testifies to its enduring benefits for pleasure &/or for some amorphous health benefits.
The sad thng is that few truly independent studies can happen when we don't have government funding.
The alcohol purveyors may be seeking legitimacy, but their botton-line won't be impacted either way.
The sad thng is that few truly independent studies can happen when we don't have government funding.
The alcohol purveyors may be seeking legitimacy, but their botton-line won't be impacted either way.
1
My wife and I try to live healthy lives but sometimes science and medical research just seem like they want to reduce all of our actions down to a statistic that says whether it will prolong or shorten our lives. I find it irksome that the medical industry seems to view people like an automobile with approved fuel and lubricants and a maintenance schedule.
2
Good to be skeptical, but let's reserve judgment rather than condemning the study in advance. Virtually every drug in use is supported by studies conducted by the manufacturer, and there wouldn't be drugs without this mode of study. The important things are proper construction of the study, transparency and independent analysis of the data.
1
Researchers who have benefitted in the past from a financial arrangement with the alcoholic beverage industry quite naturally want to maintain friendly relations with industry executives in order to maximize their chances of receiving industry money again in the future. There need not be any conscious intent to falsify the results of this study for an unconscious bias to exist. This is just common sense. In my mind, some researchers' previous ties to the alcoholic beverage industry are much more problematic than the fact that the industry is helping to fund the study.
Like others commenting, I think the self-reporting aspect will likely make the study useless. I also think that a study of essentially medicinal use of alcohol will likely show either a negligible or very small effect. This specific question is mildly interesting from a scientific viewpoint, and I'm sure that brewers and distillers will use any study results as cover.
But the problem is that, in general, people don't drink one drink. Despite all the exhortations to "drink responsibly," the undeniable fact is that the alcohol industry results in MASSIVE negative externalities (health care costs, criminal behavior, injury and death of other drivers, passengers, cyclists, pedestrians, bystanders, etc.), that they take absolutely no responsibility for, and for which they pay no penalty. I'm not arguing for a return of Prohibition, but to me there's not a lot of difference between this or an opioid dealer (Oxy or heroin) sponsoring a study to show that responsible use of small amounts is OK. Even if the study proves that argument, it completely misses the point that the cost of irresponsible use so massively outweighs the benefit of responsible use.
(Disclaimer: lots of second hand exposure to alcoholics, in the home and in the workplace. I look at liquor stores in the same way that most people would view a heroin dealer on a playground. So yeah, obvious bitterness noted.)
But the problem is that, in general, people don't drink one drink. Despite all the exhortations to "drink responsibly," the undeniable fact is that the alcohol industry results in MASSIVE negative externalities (health care costs, criminal behavior, injury and death of other drivers, passengers, cyclists, pedestrians, bystanders, etc.), that they take absolutely no responsibility for, and for which they pay no penalty. I'm not arguing for a return of Prohibition, but to me there's not a lot of difference between this or an opioid dealer (Oxy or heroin) sponsoring a study to show that responsible use of small amounts is OK. Even if the study proves that argument, it completely misses the point that the cost of irresponsible use so massively outweighs the benefit of responsible use.
(Disclaimer: lots of second hand exposure to alcoholics, in the home and in the workplace. I look at liquor stores in the same way that most people would view a heroin dealer on a playground. So yeah, obvious bitterness noted.)
3
It's inflammatory. It raises people's cholesterol and triglycerides because it's made of sugar. It inhibits good judgement. It's implicated in many cancers in even modest amounts. It's expensive. It's addictive and is basically the only addictive drug where the withdrawal can be lethal.
It's also fun, about the only thing going for it.
I can tell you, without a study, it is, for most people, a bad thing.
It's also fun, about the only thing going for it.
I can tell you, without a study, it is, for most people, a bad thing.
6
El Herno, your statements are simply not correct. Please google "PMID 21343206" or "Effect of alcohol consumption on biological markers associated with risk of coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies," from the British Medical Journal.
Alcohol is NOT inflammatory. From an analysis of 10 studies, their conclusions on “Inflammatory markers: The association of alcohol with levels of C reactive protein, interleukin 6, and tumour necrosis factor alpha was not significant.” In other words, no increased inflammation.
Similarly, alcohol does NOT raises people's cholesterol and triglycerides. Instead, it lowers "bad" LDL cholesterol (33 studies) and raises "good" HDL cholesterol (24 studies), all by statistically-significant amounts. There was no net effect on and triglycerides (31 studies). See PMID 21343206. If you have lots of data to the contrary, please cite it for us. Otherwise, these many datasets help to explain the significant beneficial cardiovascular outcomes with alcohol consumption that we observe time and time again.
Alcohol is NOT inflammatory. From an analysis of 10 studies, their conclusions on “Inflammatory markers: The association of alcohol with levels of C reactive protein, interleukin 6, and tumour necrosis factor alpha was not significant.” In other words, no increased inflammation.
Similarly, alcohol does NOT raises people's cholesterol and triglycerides. Instead, it lowers "bad" LDL cholesterol (33 studies) and raises "good" HDL cholesterol (24 studies), all by statistically-significant amounts. There was no net effect on and triglycerides (31 studies). See PMID 21343206. If you have lots of data to the contrary, please cite it for us. Otherwise, these many datasets help to explain the significant beneficial cardiovascular outcomes with alcohol consumption that we observe time and time again.
Anyone interested in an excellent analysis of how industry influences scientists and how causation studies such as this one are a nearly pointless exercise should read T. Colin Campbell's book 'Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition' (2013).
1
This is really Alice's Wonderland or the land where the wolf sleeps peacefully with sheep.
It is not exclusively an alcohol problem, which is already a major reason to drink with moderation or just stop drinking.
The huge, ignored problem is the added chemicals to all the marketed beers, wines and liquors. The chemicals are vital for transporting and keeping drinkable the liquid.
Therefore, even if we accept the legendary myth that a glass of wine is good for health, the question is what is the content of the glass. Most of the wine and liquors on retail may have nothing to do with that legend born when the wine makers made their wine for themselves first and sold the rest on the nearest market in order to conserve the drinkable quality.
The final question might be: is healthy for the "exceptional" American society having no one around to play the role of a serious public supervisor to be really above everyone concerned and tell the truth to the first coming American people?
It is not exclusively an alcohol problem, which is already a major reason to drink with moderation or just stop drinking.
The huge, ignored problem is the added chemicals to all the marketed beers, wines and liquors. The chemicals are vital for transporting and keeping drinkable the liquid.
Therefore, even if we accept the legendary myth that a glass of wine is good for health, the question is what is the content of the glass. Most of the wine and liquors on retail may have nothing to do with that legend born when the wine makers made their wine for themselves first and sold the rest on the nearest market in order to conserve the drinkable quality.
The final question might be: is healthy for the "exceptional" American society having no one around to play the role of a serious public supervisor to be really above everyone concerned and tell the truth to the first coming American people?
1
Having read medical literature for 50 years, it's worth noting that there have been a number of studies over the past 40 years that have shown beneficial effects of light regular alcohol consumption. I paid attention to those reports since I personally come from a culture where alcohol use was forbidden. No need to get too focused on who funds this particular study. It is just more science and more information.
To look at possible bias, let’s examine the following paragraph: “The study has several limitations. Adverse events related to alcohol, including car accidents, major falls, heart conditions, alcohol abuse and new cancer diagnoses will be tracked, but the study is not large enough or long enough to detect an increase in breast cancer.”
So, under the guise of “several study limitations” are—instead—written a long series of study strengths. Clever. The only “limitation” apparently is that the study is not powered to determine expected breast cancer increases to a statistically-significant degree (not to not “detect” them), which is not the point of the study and which would make it prohibitively expensive. Clever writing and misdirection. Objective? Well...
So, under the guise of “several study limitations” are—instead—written a long series of study strengths. Clever. The only “limitation” apparently is that the study is not powered to determine expected breast cancer increases to a statistically-significant degree (not to not “detect” them), which is not the point of the study and which would make it prohibitively expensive. Clever writing and misdirection. Objective? Well...
1
The 'French Paradox' hypothesis, red wine as alcohol source, is yet to be proven. I recall a famed heart surgeon at Mass General Hospital revealing in a social gathering that he enjoyed a dinnertime glass of good, hearty red wine most evenings. He offered that in his experience moderate wine drinkers had healthier coronary arteries than non drinkers, both groups used tobacco. This study though of questionable sponsorship (bias?) might offer insights into the Paradox hypothesis.
1
Bias alert! No, not the alcohol industry, but the anti-alcohol lobby. Even in this article, the solid scientific research linking moderate drinking to heart health is downplayed, while the correlation between alcohol and breast cancer is presented as causal--which has not been studied, much less proven. All studies need funding, and all funders are interested parties. The news here is that moderate drinking will finally be given a proper scientific trial. Perhaps we will learn what the healthiest, longest-lived populations on our planet already know: that a glass of wine with dinner enhances health and life. Cheers.
1
Why would a reputable news outlet waste its resources by presenting an "industry-backed study" the conclusions of which obviously can't be verified? What next, a revival of tobacco industry studies extolling the virtues of cigarettes?
WSJ ran a story maybe 10 months ago about the alcohol industry and their ad people flipping out because a recent World Health Org report showed even moderate drinking showed an increase in cancer, cognitive functions (dementia), diabetes, and many other issues. This one study, which will not detect increases in cancer nor diminished cognitive capabilities, will only focus on heart health. Alcohol is basically a poison and Russia took the WHO report so seriously it imposed a large tax on vodka (one thing the Russians may have gotten right). The alcohol lobby is terrified that it may, and possibly should, end up in the same category as cigarettes.
1
Phil, it is simply incorrect to say "This one study, which will not detect increases in cancer nor diminished cognitive capabilities, will only focus on heart health." In fact, all sorts of morbidity will be tracked and counted and the data published, including for cancers. But the SIZE of this study was selected based on a guess of how big the difference in cardiovascular event count might be over the period and so, how many people have to be included to get a statistically-significant result.
Epidemiological studies do indicate a small increase in breast cancer incidence with alcohol consumption, particularly with high consumption, but this increase is relatively small and breast cancer is something that only a small fraction of people get (at least relative to heart disease or all-cause death). See, for example, a compilation of 60 studies by googling “PMID 28546524,” or see PMID 19244173 or, interestingly, 23569314.
So to detect a statistically-significant difference in breast cancer rates between the two groups, the number of trial participants (or the length of the study) might have to be 5-times larger--and so about 5-times as expensive. That is why they do not expect to see a breast cancer difference, because of the necessary trial size, not because of some nefarious conspiracy.
Epidemiological studies do indicate a small increase in breast cancer incidence with alcohol consumption, particularly with high consumption, but this increase is relatively small and breast cancer is something that only a small fraction of people get (at least relative to heart disease or all-cause death). See, for example, a compilation of 60 studies by googling “PMID 28546524,” or see PMID 19244173 or, interestingly, 23569314.
So to detect a statistically-significant difference in breast cancer rates between the two groups, the number of trial participants (or the length of the study) might have to be 5-times larger--and so about 5-times as expensive. That is why they do not expect to see a breast cancer difference, because of the necessary trial size, not because of some nefarious conspiracy.
Ahhh, Phil. More misconceptions. Please go to the medical literature, people. Light or moderate alcohol consumption is NOT associated with increased diabetes, but rather with diabetes PREVENTION.
For an examination of 15 studies, google “PMID 15735217,” or “Moderate alcohol consumption lowers the risk of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of prospective observational studies.” Their “Conclusions: The present evidence from observational studies suggests an approximately 30% reduced risk of type 2 diabetes in moderate alcohol consumers.” Or see PMID 15864527.
How does it work? See PMID: 26458258, “Effects of Initiating Moderate Alcohol Intake on Cardiometabolic Risk in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A 2-Year Randomized, Controlled Trial.” Or see PMID: 17848609.
And if you already have diabetes, alcohol will help you live longer: Google PMID 24578358.
But, hey, who cares about real science and data when you can have holier/healthier-than-thou dogma and preconceived notions?
For an examination of 15 studies, google “PMID 15735217,” or “Moderate alcohol consumption lowers the risk of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of prospective observational studies.” Their “Conclusions: The present evidence from observational studies suggests an approximately 30% reduced risk of type 2 diabetes in moderate alcohol consumers.” Or see PMID 15864527.
How does it work? See PMID: 26458258, “Effects of Initiating Moderate Alcohol Intake on Cardiometabolic Risk in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A 2-Year Randomized, Controlled Trial.” Or see PMID: 17848609.
And if you already have diabetes, alcohol will help you live longer: Google PMID 24578358.
But, hey, who cares about real science and data when you can have holier/healthier-than-thou dogma and preconceived notions?
Who's going to agree to have just one drink each day and how much do those kind of people resemble actual regular imbibers? Moderate social/prandial drinkers don't conflate wine with vitamin supplements. And one-size portions don't fit all.
1
Almost no one drinks "one drink a day." 77% of all alcohol consumed in the USA is done by the top decile of drinkers, more than ten servings per day. 30% don't drink; another 30% drink fewer than one serving per week.
We already know what the results of this study will be, based on who profits: they will discover that alcohol is better than vitamins.
We already know what the results of this study will be, based on who profits: they will discover that alcohol is better than vitamins.
1
There is no way that a credible report will emerge when almost all of the people who are running the study have connections with the alcohol industry.
These people could recuse themselves but the better course of action is to let universities conduct this study. The funding can come from the government and private charitable donors with no interest in the industry or in influencing the outcome.
These people could recuse themselves but the better course of action is to let universities conduct this study. The funding can come from the government and private charitable donors with no interest in the industry or in influencing the outcome.
There are different percentages of alcohol in beers-- some very low alcohol and some very potent. Same with wines. How can they control that the participants always drink the same % of alcohol in their beer or wine, week after week? Or that the participant doesn't have a second beer? Or no beer? Or wine instead of beer?
Also, alcohol consumption is discouraged with some medications. One alcoholic beverage a day, day after day, week after week, seems like a lot. And especially as people age, they may want to drink on weekends.
Also, alcohol consumption is discouraged with some medications. One alcoholic beverage a day, day after day, week after week, seems like a lot. And especially as people age, they may want to drink on weekends.
Prohibition is dead. Get over it.
I suspect any number of studies you endorse were sponsored by interested parties.
I suspect any number of studies you endorse were sponsored by interested parties.
1
Why will “individuals who have never consumed alcohol [] be ineligible”? Isn’t the point to compare the health effects of no alcohol with light to moderate alcohol consumption? Won’t this bias the results towards the null, towards lowering the measurement of any possible positive effects? If one of the ultimate points might be to tell teetotallers to either stay the course or to begin imbibing, don’t you want such people in the study population? Is this reported correctly?
Another important point is that short-term effects (6 years, as here) are likely much less than lifetime effects. The many, many large-scale, long-term prospective epidemiological studies on alcohol consumption largely measure the lifetime, or at least long-term, effects, which is really what we want to know.
To examine short-term CHANGE-in-alcohol-consumption morbidity and mortality effects, search for and read: “PMID 18328303,” “PMID 10999974,” “PMID 20876712,” and “PMID 27169583.” As in the many lifetime-up-to-that-point prospective studies, these change-in-consumption datasets indicate that beginning or increasing alcohol consumption (as long as not to excessive levels) leads to significantly lower cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality.
Another important point is that short-term effects (6 years, as here) are likely much less than lifetime effects. The many, many large-scale, long-term prospective epidemiological studies on alcohol consumption largely measure the lifetime, or at least long-term, effects, which is really what we want to know.
To examine short-term CHANGE-in-alcohol-consumption morbidity and mortality effects, search for and read: “PMID 18328303,” “PMID 10999974,” “PMID 20876712,” and “PMID 27169583.” As in the many lifetime-up-to-that-point prospective studies, these change-in-consumption datasets indicate that beginning or increasing alcohol consumption (as long as not to excessive levels) leads to significantly lower cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality.
how can this study as described in this article possibly work?
for starters, not only is a large cohort being told to go on the wagon for 6 years (not individuals already in recovery presumably, b/c of the risk of being placed in the 1-drink-a-day cohort), but the "drinkers" are supposed to quit after a single drink. Unlikely. People generally are less than truthful when it comes to such matters as sex, drugs and alcohol consumption.
second, how is the study going to determine - in any way - a causal relationship to heart disease (and don't get me started on confounders). Liver damage, brain damage, sexual dysfunction - maybe. but heart disease?
third, of course there's inherent bias. it's the equivalent to a referee unconsciously granting home team advantage, despite his or her best intentions otherwise.
for starters, not only is a large cohort being told to go on the wagon for 6 years (not individuals already in recovery presumably, b/c of the risk of being placed in the 1-drink-a-day cohort), but the "drinkers" are supposed to quit after a single drink. Unlikely. People generally are less than truthful when it comes to such matters as sex, drugs and alcohol consumption.
second, how is the study going to determine - in any way - a causal relationship to heart disease (and don't get me started on confounders). Liver damage, brain damage, sexual dysfunction - maybe. but heart disease?
third, of course there's inherent bias. it's the equivalent to a referee unconsciously granting home team advantage, despite his or her best intentions otherwise.
1
This study is flawed from the beginning. The effects of alcohol are determined by blood alcohol levels which are determined by physical size of the participants, rate of metabolism by the individual which is genetic, amount and nature of food in the stomach at the time of consumption. So without BAC levels they are comparing apples and oranges. Clearly the food part will vary on a daily basis.
Next question is whether 6 yrs is a long enough time to depict a difference.
Then you have the underlying psychological state of participants.
Then there is the compliance issue. A drink a day, what about holidays?"
Bottom line is whether this study shows benefits or not, there are significant problems with the protocol. No matter whose money it is, a study done poorly is not worth doing. Whatever the results, both sides will point out the flaws when the study doesn't favor them.
Next question is whether 6 yrs is a long enough time to depict a difference.
Then you have the underlying psychological state of participants.
Then there is the compliance issue. A drink a day, what about holidays?"
Bottom line is whether this study shows benefits or not, there are significant problems with the protocol. No matter whose money it is, a study done poorly is not worth doing. Whatever the results, both sides will point out the flaws when the study doesn't favor them.
1
The article mentions that the study will take place at 16 sites around the world, starting at medical centers in the United States, Europe, Africa and South America. Interestingly, however, there is no mention of Asia. Including Asian participants is critical because approximately 36% of East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese and Korean) suffer from Alcohol Flushing Response. These individuals (as well as some Caucasians and Native Americans) lack the ALDH2 liver enzyme that breaks down alcohol and, as a result, they are at a higher risk for esophageal cancer, liver cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. Even at one drink a day! Will individuals who lack the ALDH2 enzyme be considered “problem drinkers” and thus be ineligible for the study? In some way the Asian population should be definitely be included in the study and the ALDH2 issue should be addressed. Otherwise, it may look like the companies who are financing the study are trying to steer clear of a population that might yield unfavorable results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.10...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.10...
8
I was surprised not to see interviews with the folks at the Center For Alcohol Studies at Rutgers. They have been studying these things longer than almost anyone.
I can save all that money for the proposed study by declaring the result: "Alcohol is unarguably good for you". I shall continue to follow the result of this study.
As usual, people are missing a basic fact here: what might be good for one person (with one set of genetics, and one particular lifestyle) is, in fact, bad for another person (with different genetics and a different lifestyle)-- and it's awfully hard to tell one group from the other. So the whole logic of this venture is of limited value, or perhaps none at all. Clearly alcohol is a very dangerous drug, do we need to know more? Some of us chose to flirt with this danger -- and for a host of different reasons. I expect that a study showing statistically small benefits or risks will convince no one to change their lifestyle choices. So why bother with all this? Harvard would appear, again, to be gearing up for another boondoggle.
In the U.S., 90,000 people die annually from alcohol-related causes, making alcohol the fourth leading preventable cause of death. If you want a drink, have one--but please don't pretend it's smart or safe to do so.
2
Is Alcohol Good for You?
No
Next question?
No
Next question?
4
'no leverage whatsoever'
right - no influence - just like Rupert Murdoch - may correctly claim he does not interfere in the editorial policy of his media - no leverage !
he just picks editors who think and act like he does - so - no need to interfere - they are clones of his desires !
right - no influence - just like Rupert Murdoch - may correctly claim he does not interfere in the editorial policy of his media - no leverage !
he just picks editors who think and act like he does - so - no need to interfere - they are clones of his desires !
They say that not drinking will make you live longer but the truth is it only seems longer!
2
Imagine how much good could be done if that $100 million could be spent on researching gun violence. Not possible because Congress will not allow it.
This research on one alcoholic drink per day is a huge waste of money.
This research on one alcoholic drink per day is a huge waste of money.
1
The real question is, are you worse off if you stay away from the stuff? My own experience is a resounding NO. The drink that gives maximum pleasure, maximum health benefit, and top bang for buck, is a chilled glass of water. Aaaaaaah.
3
To this physician who is tired of reading about the influence of for-profit businesses on medical research, it is simply astonishing that the N.I.H. is allowing the alcohol industry to fund a major study of the health effects of alcohol. The results, whatever they are (and I'm willing to take bets), are already contaminated and literally incredible. For the researchers to claim that the funding will have no effect on their findings is as absurd as the protestations of doctors who accept free meals and entertainment from "drug reps" of pharmacy companies that they are not influenced in their prescribing. - - - Dr. Koob and Dr. Mukamal, it is not yet too late. Give back the industry money. This is what public funding is for.
1
After twenty years of social drinking and seven years of relative abstinence, it has been my personal experience that since my thirties, even a single glass of alcohol disrupts the quality of that night's sleep. Regardless of the type of alcohol, food that accompanies it, my hydration etc., alcohol seems to inhibit my deep, continuous sleep, and leaves me feeling unrested. I'm not alone in this, but it's sure not discussed much anywhere, perhaps because it runs counter to conventional wisdom. In a nation where a third of people report having poor sleep most nights, I wonder about the connection.
3
As a former academic, I now work as an industry scientist (biotech). My experience in publishing research that we have sponsored is that the academic authors who served as investigators interpret the results. Good publication practice (look up GPP2) is designed to preserve scientific integrity in publishing, including industry-sponsored research. I'm not naive enough to think that there is never misconduct, but it raises my hackles when the mere presence of industry funding casts doubt onto research. Moreover, in this case the NIH is the sponsor, so it appears that there is a firewall between industry and the research.
1
Save your money , invest in livers. The answer in no .
1
If a research proposal with characteristics of the one-alcohol-drink study described in this article were submitted to NIH asking for NIH funding, would it be funded? I think not because the study design is lacking. Based on the description of the study presented in the article - volunteer participants, difficult if not impossible to ascertain that participants followed their assigned drinking requirements, among other things - the very likely outcome of the study can be predicted now -- "inconclusive."
1
Spot on. Who is going to quit drinking for this study? How will you tell? Who is going to start drinking for this study? Who is going to cut back drinking for this study?
Its a mess. More money from the industry going to data with little to no meaning, although that may be the point.
Its a mess. More money from the industry going to data with little to no meaning, although that may be the point.
Not to rain on your parade, but this study IS being run, and partially-funded, by the esteemed National Institutes of Health. Indeed, as the article says, its "National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, [ ] will oversee the study."
But just because the study gets millions of dollars from, and is run by, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, doesn't mean that its results will automatically end up being biased, finding no benefits and only health costs. (Though many commenters appear to believe that that is the way most science works. If so, then they should be all in favor of the study, with its alcohol-abuse-and-alcoholism-interested overseers.)
As you might expect, a lot of thought of has gone into the issues of properly designing such a trial. Search for "PMID 27688006", "Moderate Alcohol Consumption and Chronic Disease: The Case for a Long-Term Trial," in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, a full copy of which is available at www.researchgate.net, for those interested.
But just because the study gets millions of dollars from, and is run by, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, doesn't mean that its results will automatically end up being biased, finding no benefits and only health costs. (Though many commenters appear to believe that that is the way most science works. If so, then they should be all in favor of the study, with its alcohol-abuse-and-alcoholism-interested overseers.)
As you might expect, a lot of thought of has gone into the issues of properly designing such a trial. Search for "PMID 27688006", "Moderate Alcohol Consumption and Chronic Disease: The Case for a Long-Term Trial," in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, a full copy of which is available at www.researchgate.net, for those interested.
No matter how well structured such a study professes to be, the flaws of studying people's behavior will be evident regardless of the amount of money thrown at it. Moderation is the key. But gee, one drink is good but two drinks and I'm an alcoholic? Good to know.
I agree that all all alcohol is not created equal. My family yearly makes over 200 litres of organic apple cider and drink it almost daily. We love that stuff! The commercial ciders are often adulterated with additives, extra sugars (a crime!), stabilizers and even made from imported apple juice concentrates... from China, Argentina, you name it... yuk. It's the same with beers, wines and spirits, there's a lot of inferior stuff out there.
We don't need a Big Daddy OK to have one pitiful drink for health. Drink good quality, make your own if you can, live well, relax and be happy. Bottoms up!
I agree that all all alcohol is not created equal. My family yearly makes over 200 litres of organic apple cider and drink it almost daily. We love that stuff! The commercial ciders are often adulterated with additives, extra sugars (a crime!), stabilizers and even made from imported apple juice concentrates... from China, Argentina, you name it... yuk. It's the same with beers, wines and spirits, there's a lot of inferior stuff out there.
We don't need a Big Daddy OK to have one pitiful drink for health. Drink good quality, make your own if you can, live well, relax and be happy. Bottoms up!
Anyone who believes this study isn't biased is under the influence of alcohol.
What if your happiness effects your health to the same extent as moderate drinking? Then if the moderate drinking brings you happiness but has a negative impact on your health, then you gain something by not drinking, but lose something by being less happy.
The negative impact of moderate drinking is probably subtle and difficult to measure. Millions, possibly billions of people do it, and they don't seem to be dying of any related disease or condition. Otherwise it would show up in current medical statistics, like lung cancer in smokers, or black lung in coal miners.
Interpreting the results of this study is going to be tricky at best. I predict that it will reveal no clear result.
The negative impact of moderate drinking is probably subtle and difficult to measure. Millions, possibly billions of people do it, and they don't seem to be dying of any related disease or condition. Otherwise it would show up in current medical statistics, like lung cancer in smokers, or black lung in coal miners.
Interpreting the results of this study is going to be tricky at best. I predict that it will reveal no clear result.
1
In most articles about research in socially-loaded areas, there is an assumption that only industry-supported research is subject to bias. But even the purest university-based science is subject to partisan influences. Such research is conducted using peer review. Evaluation by colleagues determines whether the research is funded, whether it is approved by institutional review boards, and whether it is published. It is inescapable that these reviews are influenced by the prevailing views in the field. Thus proposals and papers that challenge the orthodox understanding are likely to undergo much more rigorous, and often hostile, scrutiny than those which reflect it.
The result is that research which goes with the flow is more likely to see the light of day. In the end, scientific methodology will ensure that better theories emerge, but that may be a long and sometimes acrimonious process. And young researchers trying to establish themselves in the field certainly know which side their bread is buttered on.
The result is that research which goes with the flow is more likely to see the light of day. In the end, scientific methodology will ensure that better theories emerge, but that may be a long and sometimes acrimonious process. And young researchers trying to establish themselves in the field certainly know which side their bread is buttered on.
At the end of the day a few drinks helps.
6
Bias alert! No, not the alcohol industry, but the anti-alcohol lobby, which is at least as powerful. Even in this article, the scientific research already linking moderate alcohol consumption and heart health is downplayed, while the correlation between alcohol and breast cancer is treated as causal--which has not been proven or even studied. All research is funded. Of course interested parties fund it. The news here is that moderate alcohol consumption finally gets a proper study. Perhaps we Americans will finally learn what the healthiest, longest-lived populations on our planet already know: that a glass of wine with dinner enhances health and life.
14
"Alcohol, the cause and solution to all life's problems."
Homer Simpson.
Homer Simpson.
40
I'll Drink to That!
No matter how this study is designed, it will not be able to determine whether or not alcohol consumption has a causal relationship to either increased or decreased heart attacks -- or any other medical condition not directly related to alcohol intake.
All that will be discovered is which group -- drinkers or abstainers -- has fewer heart attacks over the period of the study. One of the two groups is almost certain to have more and the other less. (If the cohort is large enough, the chances of exactly even outcomes is unlikely).
Regardless of which way the results align, they will tell us nothing about causes and there will be the same controversy after the trial as before.
For there to be even a scientifically defensible association, the difference between groups would have to be large -- like twice as many heart attacks or more in one group or the other. That will not happen, because alcohol, as far as medical science knows, does not prevent nor cause heart attacks. There is no biologically plausible pathway to a causal relationship.
Already, as we see in the article, anti-alcohol forces are already worried that if the study shows some slight appearance of a benefit, that it will encourage the public to alcoholism.
The alcohol beverage industry hopes to see any even ephemeral positive result in hopes it will allay fears about the dangers of alcohol consumption.
The deleterious effects of alcohol on individuals and society are already well known and and ignored.
All that will be discovered is which group -- drinkers or abstainers -- has fewer heart attacks over the period of the study. One of the two groups is almost certain to have more and the other less. (If the cohort is large enough, the chances of exactly even outcomes is unlikely).
Regardless of which way the results align, they will tell us nothing about causes and there will be the same controversy after the trial as before.
For there to be even a scientifically defensible association, the difference between groups would have to be large -- like twice as many heart attacks or more in one group or the other. That will not happen, because alcohol, as far as medical science knows, does not prevent nor cause heart attacks. There is no biologically plausible pathway to a causal relationship.
Already, as we see in the article, anti-alcohol forces are already worried that if the study shows some slight appearance of a benefit, that it will encourage the public to alcoholism.
The alcohol beverage industry hopes to see any even ephemeral positive result in hopes it will allay fears about the dangers of alcohol consumption.
The deleterious effects of alcohol on individuals and society are already well known and and ignored.
24
The alcohol beverage industry has their response at the ready...if this six-year study concludes that consuming alcohol does not effect one's health/longevity, they'll say, "see, we told you".
If on the other hand, the six-year study concludes that consuming alcohol does effect one's health/longevity, they'll say, "other factors should also have been taken into account".
They are right on both counts - it's a win-win for the alcohol industry to support this study.
If on the other hand, the six-year study concludes that consuming alcohol does effect one's health/longevity, they'll say, "other factors should also have been taken into account".
They are right on both counts - it's a win-win for the alcohol industry to support this study.
1
I actually believe that causality is a false trail and is hardly ever the aim of science. Does cigarette smoking cause lung cancer? After all, fewer than 10 percent of lifelong smokers get lung cancer. And even your standard of a biologically plausible pathway seems insufficient to prove causality. There are many plausible reasons that modest drinking could prevent coronary disease. But causality? Physicists are not even sure that mass "causes" spacetime to warp or is simply highly correlated. Let's get rid of this totem.
2
The American public needs no encouragement to succumb to alcoholism—we are already a nation of alcoholics!
1
I'm reminded of a time, weveral years ago, when I was working in the certified medical education world (all MDs are required to accrue credits toward recertification every year). We were approached by Coca-Cola to create a program for pediatricians to essentially extol the virtues of "prescribing" Diet Coke (by name) to overweight children. Yes, it seems crazy (as does this alcohol study—sorry but it is), but Coke was sincere. So we interview several experts in the field to try to get a handle on this. Only one subject matter expert was willing to go on the record in support of the program—and we quickly found out he was a paid consultant for Coke.
The good news? The program never happened because Diet Coke IS bad for ALL children.
Let's hope this industry-sponsored study has a little more integrity than the Coke study did. Somehow, having been in the business for many years, I highly doubt it. Just saying...
The good news? The program never happened because Diet Coke IS bad for ALL children.
Let's hope this industry-sponsored study has a little more integrity than the Coke study did. Somehow, having been in the business for many years, I highly doubt it. Just saying...
94
It reminds me of the “Reach for a Lucky Instead of a Sweet” campaign of the 30s.
1
Why is Diet Coke bad for all children? Is it the sucralose? (It used to be sweetened with aspartame.) Non-cola, non-carbonated, sucralose-sweetened drinks like Fruit2O have been very helpful to me in weight control. I am not aware of evidence of harm from sucralose, including children. I have read that it can backfire in terms of the hoped-for benefits like weight control, but that has not been the case for me. Often what one reads about harm from non-sugar sweeteners does not distinguish among aspartame, sucralose, etc. I would think that sucralose-sweetened beverages would be better for children than sugar-sweetened beverages, but am open to contrary evidence.
1
Research you probably support is conducted by interested parties. Women's health foundations have established that banning abortions results in more unwanted births and more abortions. Research by anti-gun foundations has established that legalization of assault weapons plays no useful purpose. And all kinds of environmental foundations have funded research regarding clean water, clean air and the viability of renewable energy. If you insist on research from disinterested parties, the funding of research will collapse. The wise thing to do is to assure that the research is valid and is rigorously verifiable. It isn't the best solution, but there are questions that have to be answered and will only be answered if money is forthcoming
47
Research used to be fully funded by the government.
1
And, I would add, if the resulting studies are rigorously scientific.
1
The problem with this position is that industry only funds studies that will offer a marketable solution. It's more investment money for them than 'for the good of the public' search for answers. The role that government OF THE PEOPLE should be playing (but sadly hasn't played for decades now) is to a) determine questions of genuine public (and not commercial) interest and b) make sure that research gets done according to the highest, most objective standards. Public universities used to be the places where this type of research happened, but as states have bailed, departments and labs are now entirely beholden to private sector money to "survive", if doing the bidding of industry can be understood as "survival".
On the surface it sounds like the investigators and NIH have structured this study to avoid the despicable behavior of Harvard researchers back in the 60s who knowingly sold their souls to the sugar industry in order to make fats the coronary bad guys (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-sh....
But the clear involvement of many of the principals in pro-alcohol research and publicity should properly raise many eyebrows. As a social scientist I must say that I will view any positive results attributed to moderate alcohol consumption with a very jaundiced eye. I will applaud, and be more inclined to trust, any negative results precisely because such findings would run counter to my expectations based on the histories described in this article.
The very LAST thing good science needs right now is yet another study, with truly vast implications, the integrity of which is so easy to question on its face. I truly hope that the researchers are burdened by the weight of the responsibility that they have assumed, not only because individuals will make personal--and consequential--health-related decisions based on what they find, but because the scientific enterprise in the United States is already held in suspicion by such a large proportion of the voting public.
But the clear involvement of many of the principals in pro-alcohol research and publicity should properly raise many eyebrows. As a social scientist I must say that I will view any positive results attributed to moderate alcohol consumption with a very jaundiced eye. I will applaud, and be more inclined to trust, any negative results precisely because such findings would run counter to my expectations based on the histories described in this article.
The very LAST thing good science needs right now is yet another study, with truly vast implications, the integrity of which is so easy to question on its face. I truly hope that the researchers are burdened by the weight of the responsibility that they have assumed, not only because individuals will make personal--and consequential--health-related decisions based on what they find, but because the scientific enterprise in the United States is already held in suspicion by such a large proportion of the voting public.
49
Prejudged science?
I wish it were a novel concept.
Let the data drive the conclusions AFTER it is collected rigorously.
I wish it were a novel concept.
Let the data drive the conclusions AFTER it is collected rigorously.
1
You write: "As a social scientist I must say that I will view any positive results attributed to moderate alcohol consumption with a very jaundiced eye." ???
May I suggest that that is the very definition of "pre-biased"? May I suggest that you are not truly a "scientist," with such an attitude.
If you are truly a scientist, I challenge you to Google "PMID 21343207" and then examine any random ten or twenty of the cited studies. Ditto PMID 21343206. But I guess that the methods of social scientists are so much more rigorous than those of medical science...
May I suggest that that is the very definition of "pre-biased"? May I suggest that you are not truly a "scientist," with such an attitude.
If you are truly a scientist, I challenge you to Google "PMID 21343207" and then examine any random ten or twenty of the cited studies. Ditto PMID 21343206. But I guess that the methods of social scientists are so much more rigorous than those of medical science...
On the surface of it, this looks like the desired kind of study to answer the question at hand—randomized and controlled (though, of necessity, without the double-blind feature, which would require participants not to know whether they were drinking alcohol or not).
I see two problems here.
1. “Investigators have not determined how they will verify that participants are sticking to their regimens of one drink a day or no alcohol at all.” 6 years of sticking to the prescribed regimen combined with reliable reporting? Good luck. People are notorious for misrepresenting their drinking.
2. The backing of the alcohol industry will make any result that supports a value in moderate drinking suspect. I wouldn’t believe it.
Without such a study, we are left with information from so-called “observational” studies—i.e. analysis of what has been observed to happen without any control by the investigators. As was noted, the fact that such studies have appeared to show a health value to moderate drinking is countered by critics who “say moderate drinking may just be something that healthy people tend to do, not something that makes people healthy.” Yes, such “confounders” are a problem. Nonetheless, properly conducted observational studies are valuable. The dangers of cigarettes were made evident from observational studies—although, admittedly, the evidence there was overwhelming.
In all, this study looks like a waste of time and money.
I see two problems here.
1. “Investigators have not determined how they will verify that participants are sticking to their regimens of one drink a day or no alcohol at all.” 6 years of sticking to the prescribed regimen combined with reliable reporting? Good luck. People are notorious for misrepresenting their drinking.
2. The backing of the alcohol industry will make any result that supports a value in moderate drinking suspect. I wouldn’t believe it.
Without such a study, we are left with information from so-called “observational” studies—i.e. analysis of what has been observed to happen without any control by the investigators. As was noted, the fact that such studies have appeared to show a health value to moderate drinking is countered by critics who “say moderate drinking may just be something that healthy people tend to do, not something that makes people healthy.” Yes, such “confounders” are a problem. Nonetheless, properly conducted observational studies are valuable. The dangers of cigarettes were made evident from observational studies—although, admittedly, the evidence there was overwhelming.
In all, this study looks like a waste of time and money.
29
With you until you got to: "In all, this study looks like a waste of time and money." Why not a large, long-term, randomized controlled trial with hard outcomes? That is exactly what the question needs, as neo-prohibitionists refuse to believe the literally hundreds of studies that say moderate alcohol is of tremendous cardiovascular value. What are you afraid of?
As we know from scientific studies . independent, made by scientists without conflict of interest - that one drink a day may well be enough to trigger a cancer to develop I question the ethics of this experiemt.
Not all alcoholic beverages are the same. A veritable study about alcohol consumption and it's effects can only be judged effectively if pure ethyle alcohol were to be the source component of such a study.
21
But nobody drinks pure alcohol. And the impurities of, say, wine, may be precisely the source of wine's benefits. If anything, I think the study should stick to one type of alcohol -- probably wine, since it is linked to so many health benefits already.
1
Define "pure". Generics vs patented? Adjuncts. Background/trace compounds? What are the tolerances? Practically, can't be done.
And how, pray tell, would that lead to any solid conclusions, since virtually none of those who include ethanol containing products in their regimen consume as neutral lab spirits?
2
The concern mentioned at the end of the article, that findings of some small benefit at low consumption levels will be "misinterpreted", bothers me. The implication seems to be that we should not attempt to determine the effect, because people will simply use the results to justify bad behavior. This seems a bit controlling and Puritanical, and more than a little anti-science. Manipulating the truth in order to get people to do the right thing, or not to do the wrong thing, is a dangerous slippery slope.
I would very much like to know whether light alcohol consumption is good, bad, or neither, and I can easily imagine any of those three cases being the result. Whether certain authorities feel I and others might act appropriately based on the outcome is really not a valid consideration. Let us at least make some organized effort to find out.
I would very much like to know whether light alcohol consumption is good, bad, or neither, and I can easily imagine any of those three cases being the result. Whether certain authorities feel I and others might act appropriately based on the outcome is really not a valid consideration. Let us at least make some organized effort to find out.
42
Nothing in small (1/2 oz.) quantities is good… Just ask me! Fortunately for my liver, I just quit-it. So, I feel this study will be ridiculous, because being a"Normal" drinker is kind of counterintuitive to the requirements of the study i.e. anybody that drinks before would most likely NOT be able to drink or not drink the quantities specified, without some embellishment.
1
Talk about slippery slopes, did you mean "right" or "wrong" legally, morally, socially, religiously, culturally....
I agree with Jake Bounds that "sponsors" of studies may influence both the results and the acceptance of the results. But that should not discourage private funding of carefully designed and rigorously administered studies. The descriptions of the studies as "sponsored by" or "funded by" will diminish the acceptance of the results, and the efficacy of any recommendations or conclusions researchers may draw. If charged words are taken out of the descriptions of the studies, and if the parties funding them are isolated from the formulation of the study methods and the accumulation of information, the results ought to be evaluated, objectively explained and disseminated. I have no doubt that some individuals will have a prejudice or bias when they make personal decisions on how the studies and their outcomes will affect their own lives; or the advice they give others on how to conduct their lives. For example, people still smoke tobacco products and talk on their cell phones while driving. However, we should not be deprived of the opportunity to get the money to conduct these studies. We should not be misled by rhetoric surrounding how the money gets there, or how previous "sponsors" of studies may have influenced studies, methods, outcomes or conclusions.
I tend to view (modest!) alcohol consumption as a mood elevating drug exhibiting both unexpected benefits and substantive side effects. Any serious analysis has to be at best statistical and would not apply at the individual level. I am skeptical of the alcohol industry, on the one hand, and those who have their expertise in alcohol abuse. It is possible that very careful studies will show that modest drinking increases the risk of certain cancers but reduces coronary heart disease and overall mortality from all causes. Whether an individual uses alcohol or not would then depend on genetic knowledge that we don't yet have. In the meantime I will drink modestly because I like to, willing to tolerate the risk.
65
'a little bit of what you fancy does you good' ?
Ima with you on that - positive mood-elevating endorphins go a long way to reducing stress cortisol and adrenalin's toxic and corrosive effects on the body
why keep your stomach tied up in knots - causing Crohn's Disease or maybe even Cancer ?
relax - have a beer - enjoy a little conviviality- let the tongue hang loose - let it all out - and tomorrow's another day - and a fresh start for a Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity !
Ima with you on that - positive mood-elevating endorphins go a long way to reducing stress cortisol and adrenalin's toxic and corrosive effects on the body
why keep your stomach tied up in knots - causing Crohn's Disease or maybe even Cancer ?
relax - have a beer - enjoy a little conviviality- let the tongue hang loose - let it all out - and tomorrow's another day - and a fresh start for a Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity !
Richard, you write: "It is possible that very careful studies will show that modest drinking increases the risk of certain cancers but reduces coronary heart disease and overall mortality from all causes."
It is not only possible, but well-proven. Literally over a hundred of careful studies have proven those things. While alcohol causes tragedy for some individuals, the important point is that, in sum, across the population, the net effect is, indeed, as you say, a significant reduction in "overall mortality from all causes." But some people do not want this known.
It is not only possible, but well-proven. Literally over a hundred of careful studies have proven those things. While alcohol causes tragedy for some individuals, the important point is that, in sum, across the population, the net effect is, indeed, as you say, a significant reduction in "overall mortality from all causes." But some people do not want this known.
1
I like to drink and will continue, but the idea that one drink is modest is idiotic. That is taking medicine not enjoying a drink. The tight definition of modest makes the study pretty useless, for those who would enjoy wine or beer with dinner.