Drinking alcohol is healthier than abstaining

[Bravus]

SDAs avoid alcohol for their health, right? Um... turns out perhaps they shouldn't:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014332,00.html

[Gerr]

Yeah, pretty soon someone will come up with a study that shows that dying is better than living.

[SivartM]

I'd rather live for less time and be able to experience life with a clear mind.

I'm feeling kind of depressed these days. But if I have feelings, I want to feel them, not drown them. If I can't feel depressed, can I really feel happy? I'd rather be depressed than not be able to be depressed.

[Bravus]

I think you may have confused 'ethanol' with 'Prozac'. HTH, HAND.

[SivartM]

I think you may have confused 'ethanol' with 'Prozac'. HTH, HAND.

Ethanol probably works better...

I just can't see why the human race does not just abandon substances that cause so much destruction. I don't care if it's fun; we get upset about alcohol-related incidents, but heaven forbid they take away my precious drug. What if people who use cocaine live longer too? It's like some sick race to see who can live the longest at whatever the cost.

[Bravus]

There are also billions of excellent reasons *not* to use alcohol: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breakin...x-1225909272163

My point, as always, is that our arguments are better when they're buttressed by truth and evidence, and worst when they ignore evidence.

The world is a complex place, and something can be *both* beneficial and harmful.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The standard Alcoholics Anonymous explanation for this finding is that many of those who show up as abstainers in such research are actually former hard-core drunks who had already incurred health problems associated with drinking.

This is wrong.

Quote:

Tradition Five: Each group has but one primary purpose - to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers."

Tradition Ten: Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.

The health impact of consuming alcohol is an outside issue as far as AA is concerned. AA has no opinion on it. Time Magazine undermines their own credibility by asserting otherwise.

[Dr. Shane]

Yeah, pretty soon someone will come up with a study that shows that dying is better than living.

We know that Adventists average a longer life span and those that are vegetarians average a little longer. Alcohol consumption or abstinence is only one factor in longevity. When the Adventist lifestyle is embraced as a whole, we know the results are better than average.

[Gerr]

SDAs avoid alcohol for their health, right? Um... turns out perhaps they shouldn't:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014332,00.html

Perhaps they shouldn't? Are you recommending I start drinking now?

The so-called beneficial effect of red wine is NOT from the alcohol, but from the poly-phenols that are also found in Concord grape juice.

I would also like to know WHO is funding such and such study. To many so-called research done even by so-called reputable scientist/researchers are tainted because of WHO is paying for the cost of the research. Millions and millions of dollars are spent by the egg and dairy industry to discredit negative research results to their business. They fund research touting the benefits instead. I wouldn't be surprised if the alcohol industry is not behind this.

This has happened over and over again in the drug industry and probably is still going on.

[BobRyan]

The study showed the wonderful benefits of heavy drinking -

Quote:

One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the abstainers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014332,00.html#ixzz0yI929ckW

But curiously enough - the "gray zones" study - does not bear out the benefit of heavy drinking. Thus the Loma Linda area for retired SDAs was selected as having longer lives than the U.S average.

How wonderful that the "heavy drinking" study did not dare compare to that group as the "control" - eh Bravus?

in Christ,

Bob

[Gerr]

Excellent point, Bob.

[Bravus]

It might be an excellent rhetorical point, but it's a very poor scientific point. The control group for a study should be a sample that represents the general population. The retired SDAs are an exceptional group for a number of reasons. It would be possible to do a study with them as one experimental group, drinkers as another experimental group and the general population as the control. The study Bob described would not be scientifically useful.

And if you did that study, you'd find that the retired SDAs lived longer than the general population: in fact, that study has already been done.

The study being discussed here has shown that moderate drinkers in general live longer than both heavy drinkers and teetotallers. That is what the evidence says, and it ought to be addressed seriously. The questions about who funded the study are appropriate, and I'll look into them, but looking into them is the appropriate response, not just making an assumption as a pretext to ignore inconvenient evidence.

Gerry, you missed the logic of my opening post. It said IF people were avoiding drinking purely for health reasons THEN they might like to reconsider, given the evidence on health. I then, *myself* later in the thread brought lots of evidence about excellent other reasons for avoiding drinking, and no, I'm definitely not suggesting that you take it up.

Check the .sig.

[Bravus]

I looked at the full text of the research paper described in the article I originally linked, through my university library. I'm tempted to make the full text available, but that would be unethical, since you don't have subscriptions to that journal. Gerry, as a medico you may have sources that allow you to check it out.

(And Shane, I take your point that the journalist who wrote the paper was taking license when they claimed that AA had a certain view: but IMO scientists shouldn't be blamed for the failings of journalists, which is why I always try to go direct to the source paper.)

Here's the mandatory statement from the end of the paper disclosing the funding sources for the research:

"This work was supported by NIAAA Grant AA15685 and

by Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research

and Development Service funds. The opinions expressed here are the authors’ and do not necessarily represent the opinions

of the Department of Veterans Affairs."

The NIAAA is the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, part of the National Institutes on health http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/ No shadowy alcohol corporations here, just the good old US taxpayer.

The specific purpose of the study was to control for the effect of reformed drinkers on earlier studies showing that non-drinkers lived less long than moderate drinkers... and that finding turned out to be robust. That is, even if we take out those among the non-drinkers who were former heavy drinkers, and look only at the life-long non-drinkers, they still live less long than the moderate drinkers.

This paper is only correlational, and their only guess at causation is 'confounding factors'. That is, while the author of the newspaper article seemed to suggest that the drinking *caused* the longevity, the authors of the scientific paper don't.

The truth is out there.

[Woody]

On ABC News tonight they said that drinking can increase your chance for cancer by 100 times.

[phkrause]

Its like the coffee saga, one day its no good for you the next day its good for you. And on it goes.

[Dr. Shane]

Other than its reference to Alcoholics Anonymous, I found the article to be rather well balanced.

The article acknowledged the elevated risk of cancer for drinkers.

Quote:

heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus)

They also listed reasons to abstain from drinking.

Quote:

even if drinking is associated with longer life, it can be dangerous: it can impair your memory severely and it can lead to nonlethal falls and other mishaps (like, say, cheating on your spouse in a drunken haze) that can screw up your life. There's also the dependency issue: if you become addicted to alcohol, you may spend a long time trying to get off the bottle.

The article also suggests the benefits of alcohol may be more psychological than physical (although the two are tied together).

Quote:

alcohol lubricates so many social interactions, and social interactions are vital for maintaining mental and physical health. As I pointed out last year, nondrinkers show greater signs of depression than those who allow themselves to join the party.

The healthful benefits of drinking may simply come from reduced stress, less depression and a more active social life. If that is the case, A non-drinker can avoid the risks associated with drinking and still gain the benefits if they can another way to reduce stress, lessen depression and have an active social life. Enter the church. For many, an active spiritual life accomplishes these things.

Another factor I didn't see mentioned in the article is laughter. It is no secret that laughter is healthy. I wouldn't be surprised if the average drinker laughs more than the average non-drinker.

[phkrause]

There more talkative that's for sure. LOL

[Gerr]

Here's an article I just copied from Scientific American:

What are the effects of alcohol on the brain?

.

Anthony Dekker D.O., Director of Ambulatory Care and Community Health at Phoenix Indian Medical Center, replies:

A BRAIN ON BOOZE

Image: MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE

UNDER THE INFLUENCE of alcohol, the brain experiences impairments in the regions shown:

Frontal Lobe (A) Loss of reason, caution, inhibitions, sociability, talkativeness and intelligence

Parietal Lobe ( Loss of fine motor skills, slower reaction time, shaking

Temporal Lobe © Slurred speech, impaired hearing Occipital Lobe (D) Blurred vision, poor distance judgement

Cerebellum (E) Lack of muscle coordination and balance

Brain Stem (F) Loss of vital functions

The product of the oldest chemical reaction studied by man<, alcohol, continues to challenge researchers. Since the original work on alcohol's neurological effects in the early 20th century, new theories have regularly emerged. What we have learned is that alcohol is a sedative-hypnotic in the acute intoxication phase for most patients. But it diminishes the quality of sleep. Individuals with sleep apnea often experience longer and more severe apneic episodes and hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation, after drinking alcohol.

In other individuals, though, alcohol may act as a stimulant. Indeed, its association with violent and self-abusive behavior is well documented. At intoxicating levels, alcohol is a vasodilator (it causes blood vessels to relax and widen), but at even higher levels, it becomes a vasoconstrictor, shrinking the vessels and increasing blood pressure, exacerbating such conditions as migraine headaches and frostbite. Researchers have also thoroughly documented the effects of alcohol on the developing fetus. Approximately one third of all babies born to alcoholic mothers will develop Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or Effects (FAS or FAE), causing central nervous system (CNS) dysfunctions including Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and impaired IQ. There are also growth and facial abnormalities associated with these infants.

In the early 1900s, H. Meyer and Charles Ernest Overton originally theorized that the effect of alcohol was achieved by altering the lipid environment of cell membranes. This theory, however, requires much higher concentrations of alcohol than are clinically observed. A recent theory, supported by several researchers, pins alcohol's effect on voltage and ligand-gated ion channels that control neuronal activity. Two distinct ligand-gated channels have been identified, inhibitory ones (GABA receptors and strychnine-sensitive glycine receptors) and excitatory ones (N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) and non-NMDA glutamate-activated channels and the 5HT3 subtype of serotonin receptors).

The inhibitory aspect occurs due to a hyperpolarization of neurons, secondary to an influx of chloride ions. The neuron becomes less likely to achieve the threshold membrane potential. The excitatory receptor is dependent on the NMDA and non-NMDA glutamate receptors that control the influx of sodium and calcium, which bind to endogenous neurotransmitters (glutamate or aspartate) and depolarize the neuronal membrane. The NMDA receptor seems to have a high permiability to calcium, which acts as a catalyst to several intracellular events.

Chronic exposure to alcohol seems to alter the NMDA receptors and this may play a role in the clinical symptoms of alcohol withdrawal. In vitro studies have demonstrated an increase in the binding sites for MK801 (dizocilpine) in neurons chronically exposed to alcohol. This rise may account for the acclimation process, in which greater concentrations of alcohol are needed to cause experimental and clinical symptoms of intoxication. NMDA can cause seizure activity. Mice that have been exposed to chronically elevated levels of alcohol reveal increased numbers of NMDA receptors and NMDA related seizure activity. The NMDA antagonist MK801 has been shown to decrease the severity of seizures in these mice during withdrawal. Through a complex process of cell membrane ion pumps and neurotransmitter stimulation, the multi-faceted effects of alcohol and alcohol withdrawal are becoming better understood.

One may argue that the alcohol levels being discussed in this article may very well be higher than that consumed by the subjects in Bravus' article. But with these established effects of alcohol just on the brain alone, it is very difficult for me to believe that people who consume this poison actually live longer than those who avoid it altogether. Besides, a substance that lowers one's inhibitions should be something every Christian ought to be wary of. And its effect on one's reflexes ought to make every driver, especially teenagers and the elderly, avoid it completely.

[Bravus]

Probably good to indicate that the final paragraph is from Gerry Cabalo rather than Scientific American.

[Gerr]

Sorry about that, Bravus. My error. But that's pretty obvious that the last paragraph is mine, isn't it?

[Bravus]

I'm not trying to be picky, but it's the same font, same size, no real delineation... I guess I'm just being an academic type and being careful about clear attribution.

Anyway, I think we're all agreed that there are plenty of good reasons to avoid alcohol. Longevity just isn't one of them.

[phkrause]

Gerry, some years back a group did a test on the people in France and also dame up with a result that drinking alcohol had its benefits, and so on. Than another group did the exact same test but removed the alcohol to show that the benefit's that the first group were getting was actually from the grapes being used. So of course there claim was to drink non-alcoholic wine. Just like that article a few years back on longevity of life, in National Geographic, showed that in Italy, if I'm not mistaken, that one of the reasons they lived longer is because they had a shot of wine each day. But from what I've read in other article's it was probably the grape juice in the wine, at least I like to believe that, that was the beneficial item. Plus of course they were hard workers. Also in the report they mentioned Japan, not sure which city, but that they lived longer because of the diet of fish that they ate. I tend to think that being out doors and hard work were more of a factor than the fish. And as far as the Adventist's living longer as a group than, about 7-10 years, the article mentioned that there closeness with there God was one of the factors besides there diet. So I tend to

believe there are many factors for longevity besides the things we eat and drink, which would also say there are many factors for not living a long life.