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!:
I would not tell people to eat crap, stop exercising... but be sure to drink moderately. That would only make sense if alcohol was SO healthy that it overrode everything else.
But we know that broccoli is healthy (I trust no one is going to argue here), yet no matter how healthy broccoli is, we wouldn't recommend it "over thousands of other options" either, right? No one thing (other than eating well and exercising and having a low stress life and being born with good genes - and even that is four things) is so important to do it over and above all else.
Alcohol doesn't have to be "the healthiest thing in the world" to be "healthy."
I don't see anything saying that alcohol alone is healthy. Only when it's added to something that is already very healthy (red wine / grape juice for example). It's like adding a drop of gasoline to your orange juice and saying "oh look how healthy gasoline is", (pointing out all the benefits drinking orange juice can have).
http://www.medicaldaily.com/7-health-benefits-drinking-alcohol-247552
It's out there. Mayo Clinic above, Medical Daily, etc. The alcohol benefits are just over overshadowed by the benefits of what is with it.
It looks like you didn't follow the references all the way through.
I looked at one just as an example, "lower risk of cardiovascular disease (high blood pressure)" and followed it all the way to the study. It's based on this:
Abstract BACKGROUND: Moderate alcohol consumption decreases the risk of coronary heart disease, but its relation to peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Physicians' Health Study, a randomized trial of the use of aspirin and beta-carotene in 22071 apparently healthy men, we documented 433 incident cases of PAD during 11 years of follow-up. After we controlled for age and treatment assignment, daily drinkers (> or = 7 drinks per week) had a relative risk (RR) of PAD of 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 1.17) compared with the reference group (< 1 drink per week). After additional control for smoking, however, the RR was 0.68 (0.52 to 0.89). Further control for exercise, diabetes mellitus, and parental history of myocardial infarction revealed an RR of 0.74 (0.57 to 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate alcohol consumption appears to decrease the risk of PAD in apparently healthy men.This is basing the results on the drink they had, not the alcohol itself. For all we know they had their alcohol in red wine and orange juice... which are known to help with this stuff.
-
Based on less than 7 drinks per week...? Nothing to do with alcohol alone.
If i had 7 non alcoholic drinks of red wine or pomegranate juice per week... i'm sure that would still apply.
-
Everything in the articles you post are saying "alcohol" but they are not. They are based on otherwise healthy drinks that contain alcohol. Nothing on alcohol alone.
-
Yeah I followed your other link too... same thing.
Conclusion is that alcohol is still bad, but the drinks it's in is still providing the health benefits.
You get people injecting or drinking pure alcohol, all that goes out the door.
-
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
Based on less than 7 drinks per week...? Nothing to do with alcohol alone.
If i had 7 non alcoholic drinks of red wine or pomegranate juice per week... i'm sure that would still apply.
You say that, but that goes against the articles. That's a big assumption, not totally unreasonable as a theory, but it's just that. If there was a reason to believe that that was correct, you'd expect scientific research on that, and it would be obvious that saying alcohol rather than the mixers, was incorrect.
basically, you are claiming that sources like the Mayo Clinic don't know the difference between grape juice and alcohol.
-
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
You get people injecting or drinking pure alcohol, all that goes out the door.
Which article said that?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
Based on less than 7 drinks per week...? Nothing to do with alcohol alone.
If i had 7 non alcoholic drinks of red wine or pomegranate juice per week... i'm sure that would still apply.
You say that, but that goes against the articles. That's a big assumption, not totally unreasonable as a theory, but it's just that. If there was a reason to believe that that was correct, you'd expect scientific research on that, and it would be obvious that saying alcohol rather than the mixers, was incorrect.
basically, you are claiming that sources like the Mayo Clinic don't know the difference between grape juice and alcohol.
I'm sure they know the difference. But they are not controlling for that difference. So it's very likely why they are seeing those results due to the drink and not the alcohol.
-
All they are basing it off of is less than 7 drinks per day of very healthy people, as it says in that study. It does not factor in whay the drink is, or if they are taking other supplements... which could be the case of they are so healthy.
Bad study imho.
-
@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!:
Based on less than 7 drinks per week...? Nothing to do with alcohol alone.
If i had 7 non alcoholic drinks of red wine or pomegranate juice per week... i'm sure that would still apply.
You say that, but that goes against the articles. That's a big assumption, not totally unreasonable as a theory, but it's just that. If there was a reason to believe that that was correct, you'd expect scientific research on that, and it would be obvious that saying alcohol rather than the mixers, was incorrect.
basically, you are claiming that sources like the Mayo Clinic don't know the difference between grape juice and alcohol.
I'm sure they know the difference. But they are not controlling for that difference. So it's very likely why they are seeing those results due to the drink and not the alcohol.
If they know the difference, and are not controlling for it, that would mean that they are flat out lying.
-
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
All they are basing it off of is less than 7 drinks per day of very healthy people, as it says in that study.
That represents something like 90% of all drinkers.
-
@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!:
Based on less than 7 drinks per week...? Nothing to do with alcohol alone.
If i had 7 non alcoholic drinks of red wine or pomegranate juice per week... i'm sure that would still apply.
You say that, but that goes against the articles. That's a big assumption, not totally unreasonable as a theory, but it's just that. If there was a reason to believe that that was correct, you'd expect scientific research on that, and it would be obvious that saying alcohol rather than the mixers, was incorrect.
basically, you are claiming that sources like the Mayo Clinic don't know the difference between grape juice and alcohol.
I'm sure they know the difference. But they are not controlling for that difference. So it's very likely why they are seeing those results due to the drink and not the alcohol.
If they know the difference, and are not controlling for it, that would mean that they are flat out lying.
It looks like they are... It's very much a correlation case, not causation.
-
I'm not saying that US doctors aren't willing to flat out lie, or that the Mayo clinic is some gold standard of scientific rigor. I'm only pointing out that knowingly lying about the results of their study is... well lying.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
All they are basing it off of is less than 7 drinks per day of very healthy people, as it says in that study.
That represents something like 90% of all drinkers.
Where is this statistic?
-
@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 they are basing it off of is less than 7 drinks per day of very healthy people, as it says in that study.
That represents something like 90% of all drinkers.
Where is this statistic?
It's been published a LOT recently as the US just did a recent study and showed just how little people actually drink. I've seen it several times just this week, so in theory I can find it again.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
I'm not saying that US doctors aren't willing to flat out lie, or that the Mayo clinic is some gold standard of scientific rigor. I'm only pointing out that knowingly lying about the results of their study is... well lying.
Look at this stuff all the way through to the study's themselves. And see what they account for. Nothing to make a real determination of health and alcohol alone.
-
This one is from 2014, but it's not like these numbers change much over time.
80% of Americans have one drink OR LESS per day.
90% of Americans have two drinks or LESS per day.Only 10% of all Americans, the top decile, go past the 2 (or about 2.2) drinks per day average mark. All drinkers of 2.2 or higher fall into just 10% of the total population.
-
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
I'm not saying that US doctors aren't willing to flat out lie, or that the Mayo clinic is some gold standard of scientific rigor. I'm only pointing out that knowingly lying about the results of their study is... well lying.
Look at this stuff all the way through to the study's themselves. And see what they account for. Nothing to make a real determination of health and alcohol alone.
That may be true, but they seem to use more rigor than the studies claiming the alcohol itself is bad. Take the recent study from the UK, they didn't even have a control group and did less, rather than more.
-
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. But If you have more than that and those drinks contain alcohol, the negative impact of alcohol will outweigh the benefits of the drink the alcohol is in.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
This one is from 2014, but it's not like these numbers change much over time.
80% of Americans have one drink OR LESS per day.
90% of Americans have two drinks or LESS per day.Only 10% of all Americans, the top decile, go past the 2 (or about 2.2) drinks per day average mark. All drinkers of 2.2 or higher fall into just 10% of the total population.
That does not say 90 percent of drinkers are healthy.
Even if it did say something like that which it doesnt at all, it would need to account for the relatively new (young) drinkers in which alcohol consumption would not yet had time to diminish their health, and to also determine what healthy is.
Just being alive isn't a good definition of healthy.
I know a large percentage of the population drinks. I also know a large percentage of the population is unhealthy.
