Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!
-
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
All of the "pro alcohol" studies say the same thing... If you have a healthy drink a day, you will see the health benefits of that drink, even if it contains a small amount of alcohol.
That's not what the studies I've seen (and linked) claim. Maybe that's what they measured, but it is not what they state as the result. The words and meaning you are using are explicitely different than the words and meaning that they use.
I'm not debating what they are claiming. I'm saying what they are claiming is incorrect and inconclusive based on the study they did. You can see that for yourself if you bother to check.
That's fine, just be clear that you are saying that they are lying and falsifying the results. Which I agree they likely do, they are doctors mostly and I don't trust the field (I don't trust the process that they have to agree to to become doctors.) But those same problems exist with the studies that say that alcohol is bad. So you can't make that claim, either. If you are going to claim that you have studies that say that all alcohol is bad, then you are stuck accepting these more numerous, more rigous, and less political studies as being even more meaningful. you can't have it both ways.
As much as I don't trust doctors, the study from the UK gov't is far, far more useless as it shows nothing at all based on the complete lack of data collected.
So the bottom line is, until someone does an actual study, what we know is that alcohol poses so little health risk that there is no rational reason to be concerned about it as no one can find conclusive evidence of its risk except in extreme amounts that are not normal and that applies to all things, even things we know are healthy in small dosages. What we don't know is if alcohol in "proper" amounts is actually healthy, unhealthy, or neutral. But we do know that it is so close to neutral that modern medicine can't agree on which side it falls.
No, what we know is that minute amounts of alcohol in an otherwise healthy drink shows the healthy benefits of that drink... and that too many drinks with alcohol shows the negatice impact of alcohol. There is no study on JUST the alcohol alone.
Alcohol is never consumed alone. I'm not saying that as an excuse, it's just important to understand that alcohol consumed alone isn't the same thing. So even a study on that, wouldn't be useful. Because we don't know if it is the alcohol itself, or a drink with SOME alcohol (no one drinks straight alcohol, it hurts), or that alcohol acts as a tincture and makes us absord other nutrients, etc.
Same with salt. no one has ever done a study of salt to show its health benefits without that salt being a part of other food.
Yes we know, or everyone agrees, that some salt is good for us and too much is highly toxic. Even though we can't study someone that eats only salt.
Then you need to be clear on what you say is healthy. You don't know if alcohol is healthy. There's no study on alcohol.
PT says that there is and that it is shown to be healthy. They've accounted for the exact things you are stating as coincidental and say that that's false rumours and not substantiated.
-
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
But that's never what you say. You say alcohol is healthy, and I see nothing that says so.
That's what PT said you would say. It actually says that in the article...
"Lifehacker and Wired readers can now safely feel that if they go to parties or out to dinner with friends and behave socially, but drink only ginger ale and fruit juice, they'll live just as long as those who actually drink alcohol.
They won't. This has been disproven time and again by the best science we can come up with. But the rejection of science in this case is presented regularly by leading popular scientific and medical publications and spokespeople - and the idea that alcohol prolongs life will certainly never be spoken in schools. And you will (on average) die sooner if you believe them.
What can we say; we know alcohol's a toxin. We'll never believe alcohol can be good for you. This is America, for chrissake! We're willing to die for our true beliefs!"
-
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
I do see that salt is an essential nutrient that your body needs and you have health issues without it. Not so with alcohol.
How is one something you can claim and one not? If you say we can't measure alcohol unless people injest nothing but alcohol, then that must also apply to salt. It's an identical premise. Both are bad when you have zero, both have a healthy moderation number, both are unhealthy at inappropriately large quantities, and neither can be measured when taken alone but are always mixed in with other things.
Why then with everything the same, is one seen as an essetial nutrient and the other as poison?
-
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
I didn't see any studies on one beer a day, just that it's the alcohol equivalent of a 8oz glass of wine.
There are lots, though. And the UT one that PT quotes specifically includes that.
-
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
So to say alcohol is healthy is baseless.
Your belief here is that all observation, evidence, and studies aren't just wrong, but backwards, and that all researchers the world over are lying about it. And based on that belief that all studies and info are wrong, you consider it baseless. But there is no basis for feeling it is baseless.
We have pretty solid evidence, it appears, that alcohol is good for you (this ALWAYS means at the right quantity the same with water, sunshine and exercise) and that the studies that claim otherwise border on not even being able to be called studies.
The more I look, the more clear it is that there IS absolutely solid science (and logic) behind alcohol being good for us.
Worst case, if we got the science wrong and alcohol isn't the cause of the health, but just the trigger of other things, you still can't determine what those other things are and so... better have the alcohol so that those other things happen.
So basically there are two reasonable options...
- Alcohol itself is good for you.
- Something that happens with incredibly high incidence with alcohol and is almost universally absent without it makes us healthier not just on its own, but enough to completely obliterate any negatives from alcohol.
In either case, there is only one rational option - to drink the alcohol since if case 1 is the correct one, we need it. And if case 2 is the correct one, we haven't managed to identify what that other factor is and we need to have the alcohol to make sure that we get it.
So while you can try to argue that the scientific ability to measure alcohol in isolation isn't enough and that alcohol and salt can't be proven good or bad. What you can't argue is that drinking alcohol as an activity, isn't good for you.
That might be the most important actionable takeaway. We don't know if alcohol is good for you, but we definitely know that drinking alcohol is good for you.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
All of the "pro alcohol" studies say the same thing... If you have a healthy drink a day, you will see the health benefits of that drink, even if it contains a small amount of alcohol.
That's not what the studies I've seen (and linked) claim. Maybe that's what they measured, but it is not what they state as the result. The words and meaning you are using are explicitely different than the words and meaning that they use.
I'm not debating what they are claiming. I'm saying what they are claiming is incorrect and inconclusive based on the study they did. You can see that for yourself if you bother to check.
That's fine, just be clear that you are saying that they are lying and falsifying the results. Which I agree they likely do, they are doctors mostly and I don't trust the field (I don't trust the process that they have to agree to to become doctors.) But those same problems exist with the studies that say that alcohol is bad. So you can't make that claim, either. If you are going to claim that you have studies that say that all alcohol is bad, then you are stuck accepting these more numerous, more rigous, and less political studies as being even more meaningful. you can't have it both ways.
As much as I don't trust doctors, the study from the UK gov't is far, far more useless as it shows nothing at all based on the complete lack of data collected.
So the bottom line is, until someone does an actual study, what we know is that alcohol poses so little health risk that there is no rational reason to be concerned about it as no one can find conclusive evidence of its risk except in extreme amounts that are not normal and that applies to all things, even things we know are healthy in small dosages. What we don't know is if alcohol in "proper" amounts is actually healthy, unhealthy, or neutral. But we do know that it is so close to neutral that modern medicine can't agree on which side it falls.
No, what we know is that minute amounts of alcohol in an otherwise healthy drink shows the healthy benefits of that drink... and that too many drinks with alcohol shows the negatice impact of alcohol. There is no study on JUST the alcohol alone.
Alcohol is never consumed alone. I'm not saying that as an excuse, it's just important to understand that alcohol consumed alone isn't the same thing. So even a study on that, wouldn't be useful. Because we don't know if it is the alcohol itself, or a drink with SOME alcohol (no one drinks straight alcohol, it hurts), or that alcohol acts as a tincture and makes us absord other nutrients, etc.
Same with salt. no one has ever done a study of salt to show its health benefits without that salt being a part of other food.
Yes we know, or everyone agrees, that some salt is good for us and too much is highly toxic. Even though we can't study someone that eats only salt.
Then you need to be clear on what you say is healthy. You don't know if alcohol is healthy. There's no study on alcohol.
PT says that there is and that it is shown to be healthy. They've accounted for the exact things you are stating as coincidental and say that that's false rumours and not substantiated.
I see the article, but no references to the studies done... I can write a referenceless article too, saying the opposite...
Maybe the link isn't showing up on my phone?
I'll look again later. Out for the night.
-
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
I see the article, but no references to the studies done... I can write a referenceless article too, saying the opposite...
The research was done by UT and is linked, but UT has moved it. It was a reference at the time, though, and it's a well known study that has been linked elsewhere. PT is peer reviewed, so was checked when the article was new.
-
This is it, however...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2010.01286.x/abstract
-
Here is the full abstract...
Abstract
Background: Growing epidemiological evidence indicates that moderate alcohol consumption is associated with reduced total mortality among middle-aged and older adults. However, the salutary effect of moderate drinking may be overestimated owing to confounding factors. Abstainers may include former problem drinkers with existing health problems and may be atypical compared to drinkers in terms of sociodemographic and social-behavioral factors. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between alcohol consumption and all-cause mortality over 20 years among 1,824 older adults, controlling for a wide range of potential confounding factors associated with abstention.
Methods: The sample at baseline included 1,824 individuals between the ages of 55 and 65. The database at baseline included information on daily alcohol consumption, sociodemographic factors, former problem drinking status, health factors, and social-behavioral factors. Abstention was defined as abstaining from alcohol at baseline. Death across a 20-year follow-up period was confirmed primarily by death certificate.
Results: Controlling only for age and gender, compared to moderate drinkers, abstainers had a more than 2 times increased mortality risk, heavy drinkers had 70% increased risk, and light drinkers had 23% increased risk. A model controlling for former problem drinking status, existing health problems, and key sociodemographic and social-behavioral factors, as well as for age and gender, substantially reduced the mortality effect for abstainers compared to moderate drinkers. However, even after adjusting for all covariates, abstainers and heavy drinkers continued to show increased mortality risks of 51 and 45%, respectively, compared to moderate drinkers.
Conclusions: Findings are consistent with an interpretation that the survival effect for moderate drinking compared to abstention among older adults reflects 2 processes. First, the effect of confounding factors associated with alcohol abstention is considerable. However, even after taking account of traditional and nontraditional covariates, moderate alcohol consumption continued to show a beneficial effect in predicting mortality risk.
-
Okay so far every article and study posted so far is useless and doesn't tell us anything real that we can use, except this last article.
This last article seems to be something new to this discussion, not about what we were discussing such as 1 8oz red wine per day blah blah... But about social drinking, and how long you live... Not due to alcohol, but because of what you do when under the effects of alcohol when you drink socially... which is going to be more than 8oz of red wine.
I didn't read yet the whole article or the study because I need to sleep, but will look it over more tomorrow and we'll see what I can conclude from it.
Perhaps things are different than we both thought.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
I could do everything right, but if I started every day with 2lb of bacon, I'd die quickly.
To this, I say: Hurry to meet death before your bacon is taken!
(Sorry, I have nothing else to add to the discussion... but I couldn't let that one slip by)
-
I think averages don't work well with alcohol. I know people that drink a glass of wine everynight or maybe a mixed drink, but only one and never both. I also know people that drink very heavily one or two nights a month, but dont drink daily. They may drink 10 drinks a night for 2 days a month. Their total of 20 drinks is considered less than 1 drink a day. I think you could argue that heavy drinking does more damage than daily drinking
Even people who consider themselves non-drinkers tend to drink at least 3-4 times a year and sometimes heavily, but just on those occasions.
-
The test may have required a certain alcohol consumption on a certain interval for a set number of days, but in my experience that doesn't represent the real world. I would say a good number of casual drinkers drink to get drunk at least occassionally. They dont exactly fit the drink a day category nor do they fit into the binge drinking category.
-
@irj said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
The test may have required a certain alcohol consumption on a certain interval for a set number of days, but in my experience that doesn't represent the real world. I would say a good number of casual drinkers drink to get drunk at least occassionally. They dont exactly fit the drink a day category nor do they fit into the binge drinking category.
Only in the US. Outside of the US, steady moderate alcohol consumption is extremely normal.
-
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
Okay so far every article and study posted so far is useless and doesn't tell us anything real that we can use, except this last article.
This last article seems to be something new to this discussion, not about what we were discussing such as 1 8oz red wine per day blah blah... But about social drinking, and how long you live... Not due to alcohol, but because of what you do when under the effects of alcohol when you drink socially... which is going to be more than 8oz of red wine.
I didn't read yet the whole article or the study because I need to sleep, but will look it over more tomorrow and we'll see what I can conclude from it.
Perhaps things are different than we both thought.
But that last one is the one referenced by several of the others
I've been discussing the UT results since very early on. -
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
Okay so far every article and study posted so far is useless and doesn't tell us anything real that we can use, except this last article.
This last article seems to be something new to this discussion, not about what we were discussing such as 1 8oz red wine per day blah blah... But about social drinking, and how long you live... Not due to alcohol, but because of what you do when under the effects of alcohol when you drink socially... which is going to be more than 8oz of red wine.
I didn't read yet the whole article or the study because I need to sleep, but will look it over more tomorrow and we'll see what I can conclude from it.
Perhaps things are different than we both thought.
But that last one is the one referenced by several of the others
I've been discussing the UT results since very early on.That study has NOTHING to do with alcohol and health... literally, none whatsoever. It ONLY has to do with mortality risk. Just because you aren't dead, doesn't mean you are healthy. Again, being alive is not any kind of good indication of health.
You are doing what Robert is doing... by making yourself look correct by saying something completely different is true. This isn't even what this topic is about.
It does nothing to say that a heavy drinker who lived to be 100 years old was healthy. Maybe the last 30 years was the worst 30 years of his/her life because of health issues, but still drank and lived long.
The results speaks for itself.
That article you linked had made some bold claims... such as the basis of the article, it's in the title, says that alcohol is not a poison... which he is basing off of a study that is not even related.
-
So let's get back on track... you always start out saying alcohol is healthy, and that you drink because 8oz of wine was shown to be healthy if consumed moderately (7 or less per week, not all at once).
That's the basis of everything, which we now have shown to be bad studies and totally fake conclusions.
-
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
That study has NOTHING to do with alcohol and health... literally, none whatsoever. It ONLY has to do with mortality risk.
While mortality is not the end all of health, I think most people agree that being alive is the largest single and most objective health factor that there is and could ever possibly be.
-
The only real study done, has shown that moderate to heavy drinking is shown to have a positive effect on how long you live, but has NOTHING to do with your health.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
That study has NOTHING to do with alcohol and health... literally, none whatsoever. It ONLY has to do with mortality risk.
While mortality is not the end all of health, I think most people agree that being alive is the largest single and most objective health factor that there is and could ever possibly be.
I guess that's up to the individual to decide, how he/she wants to feel their last 20-30 years of their life.
