Response to Alcohol Study

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey
the study doesn’t say that drinking alcohol in moderation will kill you; it’s simply associated with death and disease.

And that’s key because alcohol consumption—when controlled—has been shown in some other reputable studies to potentially be helpful, particularly when it comes to wine. Moderate drinking has been shown to reduce the risk of heart attacks,

As David Spiegelhalter, the Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, told CNN: "Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no 'safe' level does not seem an argument for abstention. There is no safe level of driving, but governments do not recommend that people avoid driving. Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention."
Click to expand...

Alcohol Unsafe? - Response

. . . . . Pete
 
As this boards roving health reporter (cutrently coming to you from beautiful Dublin, I might add) I’ll weigh in on this. First, correlation does not equal causation. The Lancet article and the popular qrteup do a surprisingly good job of making that point. The association of alcohol with violent and accidental death has been extensively documented. People who drink moderately are also probably more likely to associate with heavy drinkers than teetotalers are, again raising the odds for those non-disease related deaths. It is also noteworthy that that correlation was limited to a specific age range (15-49), a demographic that some of us at least do not fall into. So, congrats, fellow geezers, on surviving your earlier risky behavior. May I suggest a nice bottle of wine as a way to celebrate? One final serious note: in other meta-analyses that looked at specific outcomes, moderate consumption of alcohol (and wine, more specifically) has been linked to lower incidence of heart disease, stroke, neurodegenerative diseases and even some metabolic diseases. OTOH, alcohol is a known carcinogen, so you must balance your risks if so minded.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
You’re in charge of you.
Click to expand...

Not always. Sometimes genetics has the more important say, and sometimes being poor and living near toxic environmental hazards has the upper hand.
 
Somewhere else somebody pointed out that the results could have been interpreted rather differently, given the stats: "One bottle of wine per day does not lead to clearly discernible health risks".

I did not do the math myself, but based on the many limitations of this kind of meta-analysis it seems rather likely that the pretty modest differences at lower alcohol consumption levels are questionable in their significance.
 
Three perspectives on this...

crhner56.jpg
I know which one I prefer! (Exclamation point intended.)

. . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
Three perspectives on this...

crhner56.jpg
I know which one I prefer! (Exclamation point intended.)

. . . . Pete
Click to expand...

I wouldn't invite either the pessimist or the optimist to my house given what they appear to believe a full glass of wine is...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top