Had I known this was going to be on today, I would have had my wife record it and watch it with me later. Dr. Malcolm Lloyd DiscussesThe Benefits of Daily Drinking - New York Post
According to the Mayo Clinic, there is some evidence (stress "some") that moderate (stress "moderate," as in one or two drinks) drinking might (stress "might," as in it's not certain) have some (stress "some") health benefits. But, says Mayo, drinking has many well-established deleterious effects. Their recommendation, given all the evidence (as opposed to one or two isolated studies, out of the context of the full range of knowledge on the subject) is that if you presently have one or two drinks a day, it is not necessary that you quit, but (and this is very important) you should not begin drinking, if you don't already, out of the misguided and false belief that drinking will improve your health. You can find a doctor or two who will tell you to drink. But most will tell you not to start drinking if you don't already. And all responsible doctors will tell you that excessive drinking (more than two drinks a day, or more than one if you are elderly) will more than negate any benefits, and will do you considerable damage. Articles like those in the OP are flat-out irresponsible. Interestingly, he states that most of the research showing benefits is on red wine, but then he states, apparently on no other evidence than his own prejudices, that other forms of alcohol provide the same benefits. The Mayo Clinic, on the other hand, notes that the research shows that purple grape juice may have the same benefits as red wine, but without the alcohol. (Both, however, have calories, so drink even grape juice in moderation.) Look, guys: Drink if you want to. I am all in favor of anyone's right to kill themselves. It's your body and you can abuse it all you like. Just don't call abstinence "dangerous." That's bullshit.
Daniel, you buzzkill!! (and for the record, I drink in excessive moderation ... as in maybe a beer every few months).
Good post Daniel. We should also remember that Etoh is a carcinogen. I have tried more than once to start an Etoh habit to bring up my HDL, but my tea preferences keep getting in the way.
I heard many years ago - 20? - that people who drank moderately had on average a longer lifespan than people who drank rarely or not at all, but some articles pointed out that it may not be a cause and effect relationship - that perhaps moderate drinkers had a more relaxed lifestyle than many of the people in the 'no or little' drinking group. I drink 'socially', but I have a stressful job that leaves little time for personal life and socialization. I'm a single empty-nester, and I'm told that drinking alone is not a good idea. So my 'social' drinking may lead to at most two drinks in a month. Reducing the job stress so that I had more free time for socialization would probably increase my lifespan, but I doubt that drinking more by itself would increase my lifespan.
If you go back a few decades, doctors used to prescribe SMOKING for their patients. In other words, doctors are often WRONG.
I am indeed stressed. Personal thing going on right now. But that does not alter the fact that alcohol kills a shitload of people. Next to socializing with sheep, heavy drinking seems to be the primary obsession of many folks here. Heavy drinking has killed several people who were very important in my life, and when drinkers drive, they kill more people than Osama bin Laden could ever hope to strike down.
Hey Daniel... actually, I think, like the sheep thing, folks are much more likely to TALK about drinking than actually drink! I know I love to talk about our local wines, my love of Guinness, etc., but I think I've not had a glass of wine in over a month, and it's been a LOOOONNNNGG time since I've drank more than a sip of beer! After meeting some of the 'hardiest partiers' at PC, I know that quite a few of them drink rarely, if at all, due to various factors in their lives. Talking about drinking is more recreational fiction than factual planning! I know you love us all, and are just concerned. Thank you :kiss:
The actual thing that will get you into all kinds of trouble is drinking with sheep. Whew, don't get me started!
Some of the more recent studies linked benefits statistically to alcohol in general, not red wine, and were related to blood pressure. Red wine benefits are usually related to flavonoids and antioxidants. The beneficial effects are pretty clear. The problem is, as with most things, that it's a two edged sword. Along with the benefits comes a host of potential problems. There is the obvious set of problems associated with alcohol abuse. There are calories - we tend to be an overweight society. There is an increased risk of some forms of cancer. Almost everything has a yin and a yang. Even something as fundamental as water is dangerous and damaging. Life is not simple. Tom
There is a huge difference between heavy drinking or drunk driving and moderate or social drinking. I started rethinking my ideas about alcohol when I started traveling internationally. In Europe, drinking simply isn't a big deal, it is part of life. For example, in Sweden 3% beer was served in the company cafeteria at lunch. However, they also have very strict drunk driving laws with 0 tolerance. If you test for any alcohol in your system you are arrested for drunk driving. This meant that they take designated drivers very seriously if everyone wasn't using public transportation to get home. (These also means that people aren't trying to do math to calculate drinks per hour per body weight to trying to determine if they are fit to drive.) Personally I'm a moderate and social drinker. I will usually have one beer or glass of wine with dinner. Drinking is connected to eating and I'm not one to just sit around and drink. Getting drunk or buzzed is not my goal but instead it is to enjoy the flavor of the drink. Even in social situations it is very rare for me to have more than 2 drinks in an evening. In general I'm a believer in "everything in moderation" and I don't follow the ever changing recommendations from the medical community.
This is precisely the point. Be it alcohol or chocolate or what-have-you, someone finds one positive aspect in an otherwise damaging food, and suddenly the cry is "Cobra venom is good for you!" This is very true. But most alcoholics insist they are only social drinkers. This does not mean that everyone who claims to be a social drinker is an alcoholic. But it does mean that a self diagnosis of "social drinker" is unreliable. It's like asking people "Are you a liar?" Very few will answer "Yes."
This cuts both ways. I read an article in the Sunday paper that said woman shouldn't consume soy products because of an increased risk of breast cancer. So should my wife cut out the soy products? I don't thinks so. Again, everything in moderation. If my experience working for a Japanese company and traveling repeatedly to Japan is representative, the Japanese smoke like chimneys, drink like fish, and work like slaves. However they still manage to live longer than Americans. It just goes to show we don't know nearly as much as we think we do about how the human body works. You still seem to be equating all drinking with alcoholism. That simply isn't the case.
See, this is why people need to educate themselves on the issues more deeply, and not rely on random press reports. Asians have been using soy for millennia with no problems. But the soy we are getting in the U.S. today is not traditionally-grown soy. Nearly all the soybeans grown in the U.S. today have been genetically modified for increased tolerance to Roundup (otherwise known as agent orange) and are grown with massive quantities of the herbicide. It's probably not the soy itself causing the increased cancer. It's the chemical residue. (Hint: Monsanto developed the resistant soy varieties and also makes Roundup. They also produce and sell other Roundup-ready crop seeds.) "All things in moderation" applies to natural foods. It does not apply to the poisons that have entered our food supply in the last half century, which never existed before. I think your statistics are out of date. As Japanese have adopted western lifestyle habits their health and longevity have plummeted. Japanese businessmen are notorious for dying young of over-work. I specifically said this was not the case. What I said, if you re-read my post, is that not all self-styled social drinkers are alcoholics, but that you cannot trust a person's self-diagnosis as "social drinker" because nearly everyone who drinks self-describes as a "social drinker." And the majority of people who call themselves alcoholics are people in treatment, who because they have recognized their illness, are no longer drinking. Not all drinking is alcoholism. But alcoholism frequently hides behind social drinking.
Daniel With all due respect, lets look at the chemistry Monsanto originally had a patent on Roundup, but it's now off-patent and available as a no-name. The active ingredient in Roundup is glyphosate Glyphosate is analogous to glycine, and in plants it interferes with phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan - these are amino acids What used to be called "agent orange" was actually a mixture of about 45% 2,4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4 D), 45% 2,4,5 trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5 T), 5% kerosene, and 5% "other" stuff (Trace chemicals and contamination from poor batch control) Just so everybody is aware .... "agent orange" was very widely distributed and used throughout North America. It was sold under the Dow label as Esteron Brush Killer. Esteron Brush Killer was widely used by state, county, and local agencies to control growth along right-of-ways, ditches, parks, etc. Utilities like pipeline operators heavily used Esteron, eg the former Haines Pipeline in Alaska DEC - Contaminated Sites Program - Site Summary - Haines-Fairbanks Pipeline Corridor Here in Canada, utility operators like Manitoba Hydro, Quebec Hydro, and Ontario Hydro showered Esteron along their power line right-of-way corridors. Both Agent Orange and Dow Esteron Brush Killer were - and are - highly effective defoliants. The problem lies with 2,4,5 T. It's crucial to have very precise batch control when making 2,4,5 T, especially temperature control If you don't have precise control, you will also make trace amounts of 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-penta-dioxin. Usually, 2,3,7,8 TCDD is just called "dioxin" Because of the possibility of dioxin exposure, neither Esteron or 2,4,5 T are allowed in North America. If you wish, I can get into the chemistry behind glyphosate, 2,4 D, 2,4,5 T, or 2,3,7,8 TCDD You may now return to your scheduled programming ....
