“Health benefits” of moderate drinking disappear when controlling for wealth
theconversation.com
theconversation.com
Excuse me while I go eat some chocolate "for Alzheimer's prevention". ;)
If anything it demonstrates how a bias may influence study design and reporting.
For some time now we've thought that moderate drinking does not provide any health advantages[1] except to older women, and that it provides a small health advantage to those women.
This research just tells us that moderate drinking isn't useful to older women either.
[1] there are some advantages but these are outweighed by the disadvantages.
It also does show evidence of heath benefit for women. It's likely that men also benifit though to a lesser degree, which is to small to show in this data. Remember westerners had daily alcohol intake for a very long time. Much like Milk it's negative effects on that population are likely reduced.
PS: This is also analyzing 3rd party data for heath effects which is a very low order of evidence. https://xkcd.com/882/
> We split the adults aged 50 or older into groups reflecting their average level of drinking, from non-drinkers through to those drinking three or more drinks a day.
The decision to split a naturally continuous or interval variable into discrete groups and then compare those groups has no valid statistical purpose. It serves no advantage over the regression alternative but it does lower the power of the analysis. ANOVA really just needs to die already. It became popular in the social sciences because it was a feasible way of doing inferential statistics back when computations were done with a pen and paper. Now we have computers and there's no excuse not to use better methods, an obvious alternative being linear regression.
Boycott bad stats. If you are a reviewer then hold the field to a higher standard.
http://www.isupportresearch.com/whats-the-difference-between... (short definitions)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4083571/
The short definitions from your link seem to say that interventional studies are ones with interventions, and observational studies don't have interventions except when they do. This is pretty confusing.
Moderate-dose Regular Lifelong Alcohol Intake Changes the Intestinal Flora, Protects against Aging, and Keeps Spatial Memory in the Senescence-accelerated Mouse Prone 8 (SAMP8) Model.
Do you have any tips on finding good research quickly? Is it just getting more familiar with the pubmed filters?
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/ Appendix 9 or https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
"The people who told us about sun block were the same people who told us, when I was a kid, that eggs were good. So I ate a lot of eggs. Ten years later they said they were bad. I went, "Well, I just ate the eggs!" So I stopped eating eggs, and ten years later they said they were good again! Well, then I ate twice as many, and then they said they were bad. Well, now I'm really fucked! Then they said they're good, they're bad, they're good, the whites are good, th-the yellows - make up your mind! It's breakfast I've gotta eat!"
So, hopefully the causal explanation is that drinking moderately makes you smarter and richer, and eventually healthier.
Or, rather, that's what a single, recent, and not battle tested, study claims.
It will take a lot more studies, and meta-studies to come to any such conclusion -- even assuming this one got it right.
Stop drinking was the single best thing I did to recover from depression and anxiety.
the same can be said of statements like "coffee has health benefits" when it can cause acid reflux for me and others who are susceptible.
everyone needs to evaluate general health suggestions against their personal health history. personally i find them marginally useless.
This kind of behaviour is consistent with the finding in article.
On the other hand, it seems clear that ethanol itself isn't healthy. Thus, if you want the health benefits, skip the wine and use wine vinegar. Use alcohol for the pleasure it provides.
2- If you control for wealth, you also likely inject all the other variables associated with wealth, such as likely lower stress level, better health-care, etc., thus mainly demonstrating, again, that being poor is "not so good" for you.
3- Although not in the range of the study, the subjective element, as usual, is missing. How to quantify the temporary relief, the feeling of happiness, control or whatever, offered by drugs/alcohol, even in the face of long-term lack of benefit or even negative consequences? Would moments of happiness count in a life of misery? Could such moments postpone the onset of health issues?
4- I believe that the intent of a statistical study needs to be initially defined. I believe there needs to be a broad "idea" prior to formulating a hypothesis and churning numbers. If it is not stated, it becomes implicit and open the results to endless discussion, thereby, in effect, negating the scientific (i.e. quantitative) aspect.
I would be interested to see a study that compared the health of moderate drinkers with similar people who didn't drink but did some meditation, yoga, or anything else that makes people more relaxed.
It kinda makes sense that as people marry and settle down that the people who think $20/week on booze while raising children are either well off or consider booze to be a high priority. The latter former is healthier in general and the latter probably makes other questionable decisions that affect their health.
Well, it's still a single research. Let's wait 5-10 years for it to be criticized by other studies, replicated, further proved and all that.
Until then it's just noise as far as any layperson is concerned.
Also, alcohol makes you happy with oneself? It makes you forget if you drink enough of it ...
Cross-culturally? Would the similar results be obtained in Ireland, Poland, Russia? Perhaps my generalizations are somehow better match to reality?
You're probably unaware, but some regions has tradition of alcohol consumption deep in their culture and even national identity and nearly everyone consumes alcohol to various degrees.
New Zealand is one of those places.
> nearly everyone consumes alcohol to various degrees.
That's the point of the study. Wealthy people consume alcohol in moderate amounts, the working class are likely:
1) Consuming it in much greater amounts, or
2) Abstaining from alcohol entirely. Perhaps because of previous problems with alcohol abuse, strict religious adherence, etc. You can think of multiple reasons that might explain seeing such a class disparity.
New Zealand is one of those places.
We (family) pretty much have a glass of wine with dinner every night and no we are not French.
People mention that its social lubricant, but I just don't get it. I've had great times with groups that don't drink any alcohol: sometimes we just eat great food, play games, etc. I've had similar experiences with mixed groups of drinkers and nondrinkers.
Interestingly, when I'm in a group where everyone is drinking (except for myself) it seems like the entire interaction has moved to another dimension. Everyone just seems quiet.
---
I guess I should also clarify: when I say benefits, I mean in comparison to other beverages. For example, tea is arguably the healthiest thing you can drink in moderate quantities, short of water [1]. There are obviously more reasons to eat and drink other than health, but for a health minded person, is there any reason to start drinking?
[1] http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/04/13-reasons-to-love-tea...
I quit drinking about 6 months ago and I couldn't feel better. I have a lot of fun with my drinking and non-drinking friends.
There is no doubt that you can have fun without drinking. The problem with never trying it is that you close yourself off to a massive part of the Western human experience. It is baked into the culture and is also a huge part of business relations. Being a lifelong teetotaller is in some ways tantamount to being a virgin.
I also have the self discipline to have one beer or one glass of wine, while many do not. If one beer always led to a 6-pack I would stop drinking.
What I buy depends on the context. If it's the middle of summer and I'm at a baseball game, I'll always get a hot dog and Budweiser.
Tonight I'm going to grill something and I'll have a Shiner Bock with it. Right now in my fridge I have two cans of Guinness (the doo hickey in the can always impresses me).
It also helps people who struggle with small talk, or interacting with others in general, to relax and loosen up.
Happens to me a lot because I don't like wine and beer and it seems that in the US people really really don't like to drink spirits socially. Or even to mix their own cocktails.
Sometimes I miss parties with my slavic friends where we go through bottles of gin and vodka and such things. Def don't miss the next day hangover tho :D
And yes it IS a social lubricant. Lowers inhibitions.
Edit: on second thought, maybe avoiding spirits at parties isn't a US thing. Maybe I'm just getting older and people around me no longer enjoy getting smashed
And anyway it probably has more to do with age than geography. People don't get as smashed in their late 20's as they do in high school and college when drinking is more like a competition on who can get the most drunk the fastest.
Or maybe I'm just going to the wrong parties. You're right, geography is prob a correlation.
That sounds like a lot of vodka, especially for a first-time drinker! Depending on the size of the cup, that was likely at least 5 drinks, and likely more (1 drink of spirits is usually less than you think, and almost always less than what you see poured on TV).
Given that it is also easier to drink liquor faster than something like beer, you likely had quite a bit of alcohol in a pretty short time. I'd be sick, too.
The kind of vodka that someone having their first drink does not go down quicker than beer unless you're already drunk.
Measures poured at someone's home tend to be more than 35ml.
I know when I'm very tired (from being up late or exercising a ton) I get somewhat loopy and it seems to have a similar effect on my inhibitions.
Replace alcoholic drinks with a good pizza, and you might answer your own question.
A warning ( and possible reason to _never_ drink): some who have a tendency toward alcoholism may enjoy drinking much more than the rest of us. Some alcoholic authors' descriptions of the allure of alcohol are quite striking.
My experience: one drink relaxes me - more makes me ill. I enjoy a drink in social company. My linguistic faculty (esp. foreign languages)(no pun intended) _seem_ to improve under the influence, but maybe that's the liquor speaking! I like many of the sayings associated with social drinking, e.g.,
"In vino veritas!"
In terms of taste, I think it becomes much more appealing in hot weather, as a chilled beer is very refreshing. Also, it's something you tend to sip gradually, which lends itself to situations where you are sitting with friends for extended periods. Similarly with wine.
It does seem to cause people to lower their inhibitions which leads to easier conversation. Drunk people are very tiresome though.
The wort is stuffed with maltose, dextrose before fermentation.
The yeast turns most of the fermentable sugars into alcohol, true, but some are left, and some are required.
The yeast cannot work above a certain level of alcohol (%ABV), so any sugars added above that will not be fermented.
Some styles have added non fermentables (lactose) to add sweetness.
Also in cold weather, a mulled ale is amazing. :-)
Alcohol is also a carcinogen and even if you stop drinking the effects still lingers for at least 15 years: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...
I'm keeping this in my mental file cabinet for the semi-weekly "beer, wine or vodka and fruit juice" debate.
>It also kills germs/bacteria
I'd wager that moonshine kills them deader.
>I think it becomes much more appealing in hot weather, as a chilled beer is very refreshing.
>Also, it's something you tend to sip gradually
Those aren't the same drink. Beer can be downed rapidly after finishing a laborious task. IPAs and other "beer inspired" substances are what you slowly sip when you have a lot of time on your hands.
Honestly, as a tea lover it baffles me how people can prefer alcohol at parties. A high quality sencha can make you "tea drunk" which is what I prefer over being ordinary drunk. The magical combination of caffeine and l-theanin (and maybe some unknown stuff) can put you in a relaxed, slightly euphoric state with a thirst for action. Oddly enough, at times it can even reduce the power negative feelings have on me. Alcohol, otoh, makes me feel rather ... numb.
As far as the tea is concerned, tea starting at roughly 12 (€|$) / 100g (maybe a little cheaper if you're lucky) tends to have this effect. Furthermore, the effect also depends on finding the right steeping time, water temperature and tea-leaves/water ratio for each individual tea. Moreover, I suspect different teas work for different people. If you're "seriously" into Sencha it's advisable to get a Kyusu which is a traditional Japanese teapot that helps bringing out the best flavor.
Incidentally, I find tolerance builds, unfortunately, rather quickly when I drink Sencha very frequently. So at times it seems like a good idea to skip it for a few days.
Most people experience some form of anxiety when socializing.
Other things can help, like familiarity (groups that know each other well) and structure (e.g. playing a game together).
On balance, there does not seem to be any direct health benefit to drinking. Or the upsides are nullified by the downsides, but there may be indirect benefits depending on who you are. Just a course example: if not drinking leads to social isolation, there are well known health risks associated with isolation.
I mean, it's pretty clear that genetics have a huge impact in how long you live regardless of what your lifestyle is like, and it's also clear that the advice seems to change every few years anyway.
May as well just live how you like and deal with things as they come. And if that's a short life... well at least it was an enjoyable one till that point.
Lots of vegetables, lots of legumes, fermented food products, and moderate consumption of animal products with an emphasis on fish. Eat enough so you don't feel weak, but limit consumption to stay fairly lean at the same time.
A lifetime of forcing oneself to do something unappealing and then topping it off with denial of things one likes doesn't sound like a overall good trade, even if you live longer.
That's me in a nutshell. There are lots of ways to get exercise without "exercising". Personally I tend to get off the bus a few stops early each morning and walk the last 30 minutes to work. Great way to some exercise in and a great way to start the morning. Another example, my closest food store is 1.5 km down the road. If I know I only need a few things I'll walk instead of taking the car.
On the food front I eat most of what I used to eat but less, compensating with getting higher quality products. I also started to get much more adventurous with my eating trying all kinds of different ingredients and cooking techniques, not because they where healthy, but for the love of food. It turned out that some of those things that where pretty delicious also had the side benefit of apparently being healthy as well (who knew). So I slowly started to phase those things more into my diet. Over the course of a handful of years I managed to greatly improve my diet without feeling like I was giving up on anything or denying myself anything I wanted.
Because healthy eating and habits improve the quality of the life during the quantity your genetics give you.
The issue is to be able to indulge in a bit of self experimentation. You eat and drink what you enjoy, and do regular checks.
If you change what you eat and drink, the checks will tell you if it is good or not for you.
In this instance, he lied twice.
First the article content doesn't support the title's claim at all.
In idiomatic english, something being "not so good for you" implies it's bad for you. For example the synonyms "not so good" on thesaurus.com are "bad" & "poor".
That errant "so", obviously deliberately chosen, is a lie.
They didn't find that at all. They're actually found moderate drinking has no discernible consequence on health and only heavy drinkers are at risk.
But even that is a lie, that they admit themselves. There's this gem:
In women, moderate alcohol use was still linked with a health benefit, but given the few women drinking moderately (4%) this effect was questionable.
So the researcher has actually decide to ignore his own results! Either it's mathematically significant or not significant. You can't just discard results that don't agree with your temperance stance.