Health Warning

Printer-friendly version

Author: 

Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

According to this article, one alcoholic drink per day increases the risk of Bowel and Liver cancers fivefold!

See the link:http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/article.aspx?cp-documentid=12251532

Happy New Year!

Angharad.

Comments

One Drink

Obviously the egghead who decided this was the case, is just about to have his funding coming up for review and he has to justify his existence for another year. Very soon you will have another egghead saying that one drink a day is good for you.

I am not always so cynical, it just comes on when the experts start looking for funding for there pet theory.

Definition of an expert is:-
EX - Has Been
Spurt - A drip under pressure
Expert A Has been Drip Under Pressure

Have good New Year

Huggs

ELIZA


ELIZA

It's not usually the experts who get it wrong.

It's journalists looking for easy, sensational copy and only half reading the reports and only half understanding the implications of the half that they do read. Dr Ben Goldacre (another Guardian contributor and a 'real' (medical) doctor) writes a column called 'Bad Science' and skilfully deconstructs half-baked journalistic science-based claims - even if they appear in his own paper. I'll wait for his take on the matter and continue my modest alcohol intake viz Real ale, red wine and scotch - not usually all on the same day :) As a pescatarian I eat lots of vegetables (and occasionally fish) and usually the whole vegetable at that; I think I'll take my chances.

Geoff

However, experts *do* get it wrong

Especially when they go outside their area of expertise.

I'm a mathematician by training. Although I am *not* a professional statistician, I can walk the walk, and the much utilised quote "Statistics in the hands of an engineer are like a lamppost to a drunk—they're used more for support than illumination" is all too true.

Most non-statisticians spot a correlation, and immediately decide they have found cause & effect to support their thesis - even when their "cause" has a time lag of 800 years on their "effect". Even if they do recognise that cause does precede effect, they fail to understand that there is a difference between correlation and cause & effect. Effect A & B may be correlated if they are both caused by a third factor C, but even if A precedes B this need not be a causal relationship.

Secondly, most non-statisticians do not understand the subject, and make horrible blunders. In the UK, a paediatric doctor gave "expert" testimony on a child's death, and as a result, the mother was imprisoned for almost two years. This "expert" may have had medical expertise, but as a statistician he sucked!!! He got his probabilities wrong by almost five orders of magnitude - a professional journal I read quoted 70,000 times too high.

Thirdly, most non-statisticians fail to apply the results back to the real world in a sane or logical manner. There was a Canadian medical study that concluded that saccharine was carcinogenic. The bureaucrats and politicians decided to "protect" the public and ban the additive. However, the dosage that showed the lowest level of observable effects was equal to a human drinking over 40 litres of saccharine-loaded carbonated drinks, every day, for over 20 years. Any such idiot would have suffered many other medical problems long before they developed a "saccharine cancer". (For the Americans on this forum, I will point out that every inhabitant of Denver receives - every year - more high energy radiation, due to the thinner atmosphere at over 5,000 feet, than anyone suffered from Three Mile Island. If the accident there was so dangerous, why haven't you evacuated Denver?)

Well Before, In Fact


However, the dosage that showed the lowest level of observable effects was equal to a human drinking over 40 litres of saccharine-loaded carbonated drinks, every day, for over 20 years. Any such idiot would have suffered many other medical problems long before they developed a "saccharine cancer".

Nearly two years ago, a radio station in the US had a contest with a game-console prize for who could drink the most water ("Hold your wee for a Wii"). The winner, at seven liters or so, died. (Depressing links Here and Here.) It seems the human body isn't just a giant laboratory vessel or a water bottle. The poor woman with the rapid drinking capacity diluted her serum electrolytes below the level where the little magical bit that makes the heart beat could continue to operate. She maybe could have been saved if anyone recognized the warning signs of hyponatremia, or if anyone had bothered to do any research at all before holding such a stupid contest. Arrhythmia deaths have occurred from drinking even smaller quantities of water rapidly.

So, never mind the quantity of toxic additives in the 40 liters of soda. Without replacement electrolytes, the water is plenty deadly all by itself.

You'll have to forgive me for chiming in with this little bit of electrolyte consciousness awareness raising, but I'm just recovering from a scary bout of gastroenteritis with some very rapid dehydration. I think I just barely escaped hospitalization with the help of some sports drinks.

What's the base?

Do no drinks per day increase it tenfold? And the regular imbibing of, say, ten drinks diminish the risk to, say, 3.8%?

Or is it the other way round?

I read recently that a glass of wine per day increases life expectancy. So perhaps it is a question of swings and roundabouts. Looks like it all depends on what you want to die of. The choice is yours.

Hugs,

Fleurie Fleurie

Fleurie

Undoubtedly True, But...

From this wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol

The U.S. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) has completed an extensive review of current scientific knowledge about the health effects of moderate alcohol consumption. It found that the lowest death rate from all causes occurs at the level of one to two drinks per day. That is, moderate drinkers have the greatest longevity.

A 23-year prospective study of 12,000 male British physicians aged 48–78, found that overall mortality was significantly lower in the group consuming an average of 2–3 "units" (British unit = 8 g) per day than in the non-alcohol-drinking group (relative risk 0.81, confidence interval 0.76–0.87, P = 0.001). The authors noted that the causes of death that are already known to be augmentable by alcohol accounted for only 5% of the deaths (1% liver disease, 2% cancer of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, or oesophagus, and 2% external causes of death) and were significantly elevated only among men consuming >2 units/day.

In a 1996 American Heart Association scientific statement, Thomas A. Pearson, MD, PhD noted: "A large number of observational studies have consistently demonstrated a U-shaped relation between alcohol consumption and total mortality. This relation appears to hold in men and women who are middle aged or older. The lowest mortality occurs in those who consume one or two drinks per day. In teetotalers or occasional drinkers, the rates are higher than in those consuming one or two drinks per day. In persons who consume three or more drinks per day, total mortality climbs rapidly with increasing numbers of drinks per day.

Please do note the word "men" in the above paragraphs. Women metabolize alcohol differently. The health equivalent of two drinks a day in men is the same as one drink a day in women. One drink a day in men is half a drink in women. So, slash those consumption numbers in half, girls!

We know from other studies that colon cancer is somehow related to fat and fiber consumption, too, and from levels of vitamin D. One of the things we know about beer is that it's quite low in fiber and vitamins, and a source of empty calories. It also borrows some of the same metabolic pathways as fat uses in its metabolism. So, if you're allergic to "rabbit food" and regularly pack down plates of bangers and chips, that daily pint probably does make things significantly worse, colon-cancer-wise, but it's likely due to overall dietary issues as much as anything. Worse, there's a problem specific to beers using malts roasted at high temperature, specifically acrylamides. Nitrosamines (another class of known carcinogens) are associated with some kilning (drying oven, for beer ingredients) parameters, too. The latter show up in most whiskeys, as well.

A French wine-consumption study, now famous, found that different quantities of red and white wines had similar effects on longevity, it taking twice as much red wine to achieve the same deleterious effects as white, and lesser quantities of both proving beneficial.

When I googled >alcohol beneficial<, I tripped over an article head suggesting that alcohol in moderate quantity might be more beneficial in people of a certain genetic makeup than in others.

So, obviously there's bags more to learn about alcohol, diet, socializing and overall health. One thing we know for certain, though. Stress can be bad for you, so choose your worries wisely. And, overall health might be related to overall diet and lifestyle, so eat your veggies, take your vities and watch those waistlines, too!