Red wine / Alcohol
Peace Onoith
I am finding that half a glass of red wine helps me fall asleep
quickly.
Now, I keep reading about the health benefits of red wine, but also
some articles as to how the "french paradox" theory was a hoax. eh?
Does light alcohol consumption lead to degeneration of the brain
cells?
I'd like to keep the couple of dozen I still have, intact :~D.
thanks
suzee
I don't have studies to quote, though I think there are some. A glass a
day is supposed to beneficial. Anything over 2 glasses per day and you
lose the good effect.
sue
Paul Rogers
"Peace Onoith" <x...@m-net.arbornet.org> wrote in message
news:ba2051f6.02021...@posting.google.com...
Probably the opposite.
Paul R
Tom Phillips
Peace Onoith wrote:
> I am a teetotaller...have been for the last 32 years.
> I am finding that half a glass of red wine helps me fall asleep
> quickly.
> Now, I keep reading about the health benefits of red wine, but also
> some articles as to how the "french paradox" theory was a hoax. eh?
> Does light alcohol consumption lead to degeneration of the brain
> cells?
Alcohol is not a food and kills brain cells, period. Degeneration?
Alcohol has many degenerative effects on tissues and especially organs,
but usually through overindulgence. Alcohol is addictive for many
people and my understanding is part of alcoholism is due to chemcial
changes it effects in the brain (as with many other drug addictions.)
I can't speak to any nutritional effects or supposed benefits, tho....I
do drink lots of grape juice :-)
David
A minor point, alcohol itself has calories and is consumed. This would make
it a food.
mbansch314
If you look long enough you will find this claim. Red wine does appears to
offer a health benefit. It's probably not the sole explanation for the
"French Paradox."
> Does light alcohol consumption lead to degeneration of the brain
> cells?
> I'd like to keep the couple of dozen I still have, intact :~D.
You have more than a few dozen left. After age 30 we all loose brain cells
even if you don't drink.
If alcohol gets past the liver it will enter the brain. When the brain
metabolizes it chemicals are formed that kill brain cells.
No way around it. But the flavinoids in red wine are known to decrease the
damage that alcohol does to the liver and they probably also decrease the
damage that alcohol does to the brain.
What you have to understand is that both the liver and the brain have a
tremendous metabolic reserve. We only use about 10% of our liver function
and only about 10% of our brain function.
Even with a little alcohol coming in, there are still going to be plenty of
liver and brain cells to let you make it into old age with a good liver and
a good brain.
If I remember correctly, moderate alcohol intake actually decreases the risk
of Alzheimer's disease. Abnormal loss of liver function or brain function
can occur but alcohol is more likely to take out the liver before it takes
out the brain.
The best thing you can do to try to protect both the liver and the brain is
to use a MSM supplement.
If you want to drink red wine for a health benefit there are better ways of
doing it. If you just like the effect of 1 or 2 glasses of red wine, I'll
join you.
DRCEEPHD
>From: x...@m-net.arbornet.org (Peace Onoith)
>Date: 2/12/02 8:09 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <ba2051f6.02021...@posting.google.com>
>
>Does light alcohol consumption lead to degeneration of the brain
>cells?
>I'd like to keep the couple of dozen I still have, intact :~D.
>
>thanks
Noah, the vegetarian, ate no meat until after the flood.
Noah, sired his first son at the age of 502.
Noah, drank wine.
Figure it out for yourself.
Cee
Paul Rogers
news:20020212235804...@mb-ck.aol.com...
1. Wine and vegetarianism inhibit gonadal maturity? (toxicity of ethanol;
low zinc . . .?)
2. He was on the ark a *lot* longer than 40 days?
3. Sexual abstinence improves longevity? (any truth in this?)
Paul R
Tom Phillips
David wrote:
> A minor point, alcohol itself has calories and is consumed. This would make
> it a food.
A stupid point. It's the sugar and starches from unfermented wine (i.e., juice
from grapes) that provides the calories and flavonoids. Alcohol is the result
of fermentation and has no nutritional value. If you think it's a food, try
drinking pure alcohol and see what it does to you.
Tom Phillips
DRCEEPHD wrote:
> Noah, sired his first son at the age of 502.
>
> Noah, drank wine.
>
> Figure it out for yourself.
uh...
"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a brawler, and whoever is led
astray by it is not wise." Proverbs 20.1
A proverb written by a man much wiser than Noah :-) Here's another:
"Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the
cup, when it swirls around smoothly; at the last it bites like a
serpent, and stings like a viper. " Proverbs 23.31-32
There are different words used in the Bible for wine. Some mean
fermented wine, some mean unfermented wine (grape juice.) Noah of
course drank the fermented kind, got drunk, and made a complete and
utter fool of himself. *That* was why the story was related in the
Torah, as an object lesson, not as a health advertisement for
fermented wine. Thus, Solomon penned his well known proverbs.
Figure it out.
Jay Tanzman
Sorry, Tom, but nutritionists classify ethanol as a macronutrient. A
technicality, but true.
-Jay
Jay Tanzman
I've got it! Noah's wine drinking caused temporary (~500 years) impotence due
to testicular atrophy. However, it also lead to longevity. But, after 500
years of drinking wine, enough of Noah's brain cells had been lost so that he
started to forget to drink his wine. This, along with the
testosterone-enhancing effects of meat consumption, enabled his testes to return
to normal and he was finally able to get his wife pregnant.
-Jay
David
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 04:20:59 GMT, David <wire...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>A minor point, alcohol itself has calories and is consumed. This would
>>make it a food.
>
> beer makes you fat, so it must have *something* in it :)
>
True but that's the calories of the beer and the ethanol it contains. It
also has some estrogenic effect that leads to the beer belly.
DB
MattLB
> David wrote:
>
> > A minor point, alcohol itself has calories and is consumed. This would make
> > it a food.
>
> A stupid point. It's the sugar and starches from unfermented wine (i.e., juice
> from grapes) that provides the calories and flavonoids. Alcohol is the result
> of fermentation and has no nutritional value.
Fermentation means converting pyruvate to ethanol(alcohol) - a process
performed by yeast and some bacteria. The pyruvate is made from
glucose, and the glucose comes from the carbohydrates in the grape
juice.
Therefore the calories in wine come from the alcohol and the alcohol
is converted to ATP or fat in the liver.
> If you think it's a food, try
> drinking pure alcohol and see what it does to you.
Whether or not it should be called a food is debatable, but it's
certainly a source of metabolic fuel. Just because it has negative
effects in excess doesn't disqualify it from being a food - there are
plenty of other substances in the diet that taken in excess would
poison/kill you. Try eating a glass of salt and see what effect that
has.
MattLB
Peter Fackelmann
Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
>A stupid point. It's the sugar and starches from unfermented wine (i.e., juice
>from grapes) that provides the calories and flavonoids. Alcohol is the result
>of fermentation and has no nutritional value.
In fact the antioxidative capacity is much higher in
red wine than in red grape juice.
I repeat myself:
Antioxidative capacity (TEAC values [mmol/L Trolox])
Elderberry juice 55 (50 60)
Red grape juice 4 (2 6)
Red wine 11 (7 18)
<http://bibd.uni-giessen.de/gdoc/2001/uni/d010023/d010023g.pdf>
Regards
Peter
Jay Tanzman
> In fact the antioxidative capacity is much higher in
> red wine than in red grape juice.
>
> Antioxidative capacity (TEAC values [mmol/L Trolox])
>
> Red grape juice 4 (2 6)
> Red wine 11 (7 18)
Hmm, that's interesting. I wonder if that is just because red wine is more
concentrated than grape juice.
-Jay
Tom Phillips
James Kerr wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 04:20:59 GMT, David <wire...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >A minor point, alcohol itself has calories and is consumed. This would make
> >it a food.
>
> beer makes you fat, so it must have *something* in it :)
My understanding is it's the effect beer has, not the specific caloric value.
Tom Phillips
having highly toxic effects on tissues and organs and the blood stream in varying
amounts and as Marty also pointed out, kills brain cells. It's also highly
addictive to many people.
Could you explain what the purpose of this macronutrient is and why it is essential
to the body?
Thanks.
Tom Phillips
Peter Fackelmann wrote:
> In article <3C6A7038...@aol.com>,
> Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >A stupid point. It's the sugar and starches from unfermented wine (i.e., juice
> >from grapes) that provides the calories and flavonoids. Alcohol is the result
> >of fermentation and has no nutritional value.
>
> In fact the antioxidative capacity is much higher in
> red wine than in red grape juice.
>
> I repeat myself:
>
> Antioxidative capacity (TEAC values [mmol/L Trolox])
>
> Elderberry juice 55 (50 ? 60)
> Red grape juice 4 (2 ? 6)
> Red wine 11 (7 ? 18)
> <http://bibd.uni-giessen.de/gdoc/2001/uni/d010023/d010023g.pdf>
>
> Regards
>
> Peter
Tom Phillips
MattLB wrote:
> Fermentation means converting pyruvate to ethanol(alcohol) - a process
> performed by yeast and some bacteria. The pyruvate is made from
> glucose, and the glucose comes from the carbohydrates in the grape
> juice.
>
> Therefore the calories in wine come from the alcohol and the alcohol
> is converted to ATP or fat in the liver.
>
> > If you think it's a food, try
> > drinking pure alcohol and see what it does to you.
>
> Whether or not it should be called a food is debatable, but it's
> certainly a source of metabolic fuel. Just because it has negative
> effects in excess doesn't disqualify it from being a food - there are
> plenty of other substances in the diet that taken in excess would
> poison/kill you. Try eating a glass of salt and see what effect that
> has.
>
> MattLB
To be sure alcohol is a chemcial substance created by the chemical reactions induced by
fermentation. But this could't take place if the food wasn't present to begin with. I
also would call ethnoal a metabolic fuel.
Dave B.
> In that case I stand corrected. But it is nevertheless a substance
> identified as having highly toxic effects on tissues and organs and the
> blood stream in varying amounts and as Marty also pointed out, kills brain
> cells. It's also highly addictive to many people.
>
> Could you explain what the purpose of this macronutrient is and why it is
> essential to the body?
It has no purpose. It's just there and the body has evolved the ability to
deal with it. The liver actually produces like an ounce of alcohol every
day. It isn't essential to the body but then again neither are
carbohydrates or fiber.
DB
Dave B.
> The hazards of drinking it outwiegh it's benefits.
Helps alot of people maintain their mental health. You have to factor that
in as well. It is a delicate balance.
DB
Tom Phillips
MattLB wrote:
> Fermentation means converting pyruvate to ethanol(alcohol) - a process
> performed by yeast and some bacteria. The pyruvate is made from
> glucose, and the glucose comes from the carbohydrates in the grape
> juice.
>
> Therefore the calories in wine come from the alcohol and the alcohol
> is converted to ATP or fat in the liver.
>
> > If you think it's a food, try
> > drinking pure alcohol and see what it does to you.
>
> Whether or not it should be called a food is debatable, but it's
> certainly a source of metabolic fuel. Just because it has negative
> effects in excess doesn't disqualify it from being a food - there are
> plenty of other substances in the diet that taken in excess would
> poison/kill you. Try eating a glass of salt and see what effect that
> has.
Sorry about that.
As I was saying, to be sure alcohol is a chemcial substance created by the chemical
reactions induced by
fermentation. But this could't take place if the food wasn't present (and tinkered with)
to begin with. Food can ferment naturally, and when it does we generally throw it out
rather than drink it. I also wouldn't call ethanol a metabolic fuel. Metabolism (to
quote my dictionary) is the complex of physical and chemical processes occurring within
a living cell or organism that are necessary for the maintenance of life. My
understanding is the effect of alcohol on the bloodstream can actually inhibit oxygen
and nutrients from reaching cells and as a chemical substance alcohol has no beneficial
effect on the maintenance of living cells.
Alcohol does have has negative effects even in moderation. As even Martin pointed out it
kills brain cells on contact. Granted we lose cells as we age, but the effects of
alcohol on the body is not a natural process. We don't need alcohol (unless Jay tells me
otherwise...) Anything in excess can have hramful effects if too much is "imbibed," even
water. But water is essential to life and alcohol isn't. It's effects are classified as
a drug and a very powerful drug it is.
Tom Phillips
digestion and health, does it not?
Tom Phillips
"Dave B." wrote:
I run instead :-)
Dave B.
> Sorry about that.
>
> As I was saying, to be sure alcohol is a chemcial substance created by the
> chemical reactions induced by
> fermentation. But this could't take place if the food wasn't present (and
> tinkered with) to begin with. Food can ferment naturally, and when it does
> we generally throw it out rather than drink it. I also wouldn't call
> ethanol a metabolic fuel. Metabolism (to quote my dictionary) is the
> complex of physical and chemical processes occurring within a living cell
> or organism that are necessary for the maintenance of life. My
> understanding is the effect of alcohol on the bloodstream can actually
> inhibit oxygen and nutrients from reaching cells and as a chemical
> substance alcohol has no beneficial effect on the maintenance of living
> cells.
>
> Alcohol does have has negative effects even in moderation. As even Martin
> pointed out it kills brain cells on contact.
Tons of things kill brain cells upon contact. But when you actually take
them
the body's machinery can detoxify them to some degree.
>Granted we lose cells as we
> age,
very few
>but the effects of alcohol on the body is not a natural process. We
> don't need alcohol (unless Jay tells me otherwise...) Anything in excess
> can have hramful effects if too much is "imbibed," even water. But water
> is essential to life and alcohol isn't. It's effects are classified as a
> drug and a very powerful drug it is.
Depends on your definition of a drug. Here's mine: Any chemical that
affects
the body but is not naturally present in the body.
DB
Tom Phillips
"Dave B." wrote:
> Tons of things kill brain cells upon contact. But when you actually take
> them the body's machinery can detoxify them to some degree.
To "some degree" is a big .
> >Granted we lose cells as we
> > age,
>
> very few
So alcohol causes unecessary cell loss?
> >But water
> > is essential to life and alcohol isn't. It's effects are classified as a
> > drug and a very powerful drug it is.
>
> Depends on your definition of a drug. Here's mine: Any chemical that
> affects the body but is not naturally present in the body.
My definition of a drug in the above context is any substance that is taken to
alter one's normal conscious state, addictive or not (which alcohol certainly
is) harmful or not (which most such mood altering drugs seem to be.)
Paul Chefurka
>Thanks. But I think fiber, maybe while not essentail, does greatly benefit
>digestion and health, does it not?
And red wine greatly benefits my enjoyment of the world I'm in and the
people I'm with. Perhaps that doesn't rate very highly on your list of
benefits, but I think a world without good Cabernet Sauvignon would be a
much poorer place.
Paul
Tom Phillips
Paul Chefurka wrote:
A sentiment echoed by most alcoholics I know.
Paul Chefurka
It's echoed by a whole lot of normal people, too. I don't understand your
aversion to alcohol, even in moderation. Compared to other things human
beings do to themselves, wine would seem to rank well below stuff like
landmines - or even refined sugar and trans-fats - on the universal danger
scale.
Paul
Tom Phillips
Paul Chefurka wrote:
> It's echoed by a whole lot of normal people, too. I don't understand your
> aversion to alcohol, even in moderation.
It's echoed by a whole lot of people who center their lives around it, just as
society does. In our society almost all social events are alcohol events, from
sports to weddings to family gatherings. An alcoholic isn't a falling down drunk;
many are "normal" people who drink "moderately" every day and go to work in the
morning and lead normal lives. It's a drug, and in a typically hypocritical
society like ours we put people in jail for lesser drug offenses while touting
the "health" benefits of the "approved" drug.
> Compared to other things human
> beings do to themselves, wine would seem to rank well below stuff like
> landmines - or even refined sugar and trans-fats - on the universal danger
> scale
I guarantee alcohol kills more people every year than landmines. It kills more
people than many wars. It's the most adused drug in history and nothing equals
the damage of alcohol on the human species over the last 5,000 years.
If people want to drink "moderately" I don't object. But just stop the damn
hypocrisy. Health my ass :-)
Paul Rogers
> The hazards of drinking it outwiegh it's benefits.
As Paracelsus said 500 years ago: "the dose makes the poison" . For one or two red wines/day the
benefits probably outweigh the hazards.
However, at higher doses beware. As well as the well-know adverse liver, brain, psychiatric and
cardiovascular effects, ethanol is a confirmed human carcinogen of the mouth, tongue, throat,
larynx, pharynx, esophagus, liver and possibly breast.
It sort of makes concerns about saccharin et al pale a bit eh?
Paul R
dal...@webtv.net
even in fairly large amounts. Of course, you have to be concerned about
becoming an alcoholic and you don't want to drink and drive. Otherwise,
as long as you don't drink so much that you damage your liver, or lose
control of your weight, it is good for you.
Bottom line, he says it's good for you but there is the issue of
controlling IT and not letting IT control you.
PS: He also said the medical community knows this but will not say it
because of the related problems such as alcoholism and drunk driving.
That is why they stress no more than 2 a day.
Dale
Martin Banschbach Ph.D.
>because of the related problems such as alcoholism and drunk driving.
>That is why they stress no more than 2 a day.
>
>Dale
Since I know a little about this area, I'm going to comment on this.
My son has abused just about anything he could get his hands on. The comment
about the U.S. wanting to lock up anyone abusing anything except alcohol is
correct. He has been arrested for drunk driving but that trip through the
court system was mild compared to his arrests for pot possession.
His pot smoking was less of a problem than his drinking (medically speaking).
Any control of his psychosis would be destroyed by alcohol abuse, the pot had
little effect (according to his psychiatrist) and may actually be beneficial
for his altered brain function.
Having spent a lot of time in medline, I have to agree with this assessment.
He would never be stable unless he stopped drinking. Pot would do little harm
and may actually help with schizophrenia. But pot is not legal in the U.S. and
even in states where it is, using it to control schizophrenia is not an
accepted medical treatment.
The kicker is that for someone without schizophrenia, alcohol can be
beneficial.
But the key is dose.
Alcohol is just like any other plant chemical (yeast produce it) and man found
long ago that it did have health benefits. But it can be abused.
Having spent so much time dealing with this issue on a personal level, I am
convinced that the dose is dependent on liver detoxification (a no brainer
right?).
In this regard it's just like nicotinic acid except humans can not become
addicted to nicotinic acid.
Part of the liver detoxification system forms 2-mercaptoethanolamine. This
gets the ethanol away from the alcohol dehydrogenase and produces a chemical
that is an extremely good antioxidant. Even better than lipoic acid. But to
do this the liver must have sulfur. If there is not enough available sulfur in
the liver, the ethanol will go primarily to acetaldehyde.
I hate to say that MSM is the best way to prevent a hangover, but that may be
the situation. With plenty of sulfur, the alcohol has an increased health
benefit even if the dose exceeds what is currently considered to be prudent.
If you look at the history of alcohol, you can find monks producing it using a
mixture of plant material. I think this was done to increase the sulfur
content of the liquore.
Marty B "You are what you eat"
Will Brink
> Peace Onoith wrote:
>
> > I am a teetotaller...have been for the last 32 years.
> > I am finding that half a glass of red wine helps me fall asleep
> > quickly.
> > Now, I keep reading about the health benefits of red wine, but also
> > some articles as to how the "french paradox" theory was a hoax. eh?
> > Does light alcohol consumption lead to degeneration of the brain
> > cells?
>
> Alcohol is not a food and kills brain cells, period.
Supply data to that statement.
> Degeneration?
> Alcohol has many degenerative effects on tissues and especially organs,
> but usually through overindulgence.
Exactly. Abuse is the key here. There is a lot of data showing limited
wine intakes is associated with longevity.
> Alcohol is addictive for many
> people and my understanding is part of alcoholism is due to chemcial
> changes it effects in the brain (as with many other drug addictions.)
>
> I can't speak to any nutritional effects or supposed benefits, tho....I
> do drink lots of grape juice :-)
--
Will Brink
__________________
http://www.brinkzone.com/
http://www.aboutsupplements.com/
Dave B.
>>PS: He also said the medical community knows this but will not say it
>>because of the related problems such as alcoholism and drunk driving.
>>That is why they stress no more than 2 a day.
>>
>>Dale
>
> Since I know a little about this area, I'm going to comment on this.
>
> My son has abused just about anything he could get his hands on.
Sounds like me in my younger days.
The
> comment about the U.S. wanting to lock up anyone abusing anything except
> alcohol is
> correct. He has been arrested for drunk driving but that trip through the
> court system was mild compared to his arrests for pot possession.
>
> His pot smoking was less of a problem than his drinking (medically
> speaking). Any control of his psychosis would be destroyed by alcohol
> abuse,
I know 2 people who are disabled with schiz. and one also has manic dep.
(neither are me) They both drink alot (well, maybe 6 beers a day) and it
appears to have a beneficial effect on them, mentally speaking. Although
I'm sure they would if they drank like 12 or more drinks worth. They are
also on neuroleptics.
>the pot had little effect (according to his psychiatrist) and may
> actually be beneficial for his altered brain function.
>
Both people I mentioned do alot of cannabis and cigarettes. It appears to
really help keep them stable.
That must be why they recommend thiamine and cysteine (along with C) for
prevention of hangovers. I have used a combo of lipoate, thiamine, and C
for this purpose and it appears to work.
> I hate to say that MSM is the best way to prevent a hangover, but that may
> be
> the situation. With plenty of sulfur, the alcohol has an increased health
> benefit even if the dose exceeds what is currently considered to be
> prudent.
>
Great info.
> If you look at the history of alcohol, you can find monks producing it
> using a
> mixture of plant material. I think this was done to increase the sulfur
> content of the liquore.
>
>
>
> Marty B "You are what you eat"
Thanks for sharing the story.
DB
Martin Banschbach PhD
> > age,
>
> very few
Actually the normal loss can be very high in specific areas of the human
brain (over 50% loss from age 30 to age 80).
Most brain degenerative diseases require a much greater loss than this
"natural" loss for Parkinsonism or Alzheimer's disease to be diagnosed.
Like I said, as long as we can hold onto at least 10% of brain function (10%
of the specific neurotransmitter neurons that we were born with) we will be
fine in our old age.
--
Marty B. "You are what you eat."
http://centernet.okstate.edu/nutrition/index.html
The above website is for educational purposes
only. Material in this website and posted material
represents the opinion of Martin Banschbach,
Ph.D. and does not reflect Oklahoma State
University policy or position on nutrition.
Issues regarding the diagnosis and treatment
of human disease can not be addressed
by material in the above website or by
Martin Banschbach, Ph.D.
Any comments made by Martin
Banschbach, Ph.D. are invalid unless
confirmed by your personal physician.
Jay Tanzman
Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> In that case I stand corrected. But it is nevertheless a substance identified as
> having highly toxic effects on tissues and organs and the blood stream in varying
> amounts and as Marty also pointed out, kills brain cells. It's also highly
> addictive to many people.
>
> Could you explain what the purpose of this macronutrient is and why it is essential
> to the body?
I wouldn't say that nutirents have "purposes"; I'd say that they have
functions. Macronutrients, by definition, provide energy. Ethanol contains 7
kcal/g; hence, it is a macronutrient.
Nutrients need not be essential. The non-essential amino acids, for instance,
are still nutrients, since they have a function in the body.
Calling something a macronutrient isn't making a value judgment about it. Trans
fatty acids contain 9 kcal/g, so they are macronutrients, too, despite the fact
that nobody would say they are particularly healthful.
As to alcohol, up to two drinks per day, decreases CHD and all-cause mortality
in men compared with drinking no alcohol. For consumption greater than 2
drinks/d, mortality increases. For women, the effect of moderate consumption of
alcohol is unclear, as the protective effect against heart disease is countered
by a detrimental effect on breast cancer risk.
-Jay
P.S. Do you do any technical rock climbing, or strictly mountaineering?
MattLB
> > certainly a source of metabolic fuel. Just because it has negative
> > effects in excess doesn't disqualify it from being a food - there are
> > plenty of other substances in the diet that taken in excess would
> > poison/kill you. Try eating a glass of salt and see what effect that
> > has.
> As I was saying, to be sure alcohol is a chemcial substance created by the chemical
> reactions induced by
> fermentation. But this could't take place if the food wasn't present (and tinkered with)
> to begin with. Food can ferment naturally, and when it does we generally throw it out
> rather than drink it.
In days gone by we wouldn't have had that luxury and would have eaten
fruit that had started to ferment - hence modern humans have enzymes
specifically to deal with it. There is also bacterial fermentation in
the gut which will introduce ethanol to the body naturally.
> I also wouldn't call ethanol a metabolic fuel. Metabolism (to
> quote my dictionary) is the complex of physical and chemical processes occurring within
> a living cell or organism that are necessary for the maintenance of life.
Conversion of ethanol to fat IS necessary for the maintenance of life.
Any detoxification processes are included in metabolism, particularly
if they produce products that can be converted (eventually) to ATP -
such as ethanol. Metabolism is simply the balance between anabolism
(synthesis) and catabolism (breakdown) of molecules in the cells of
the body.
> My understanding is the effect of alcohol on the bloodstream can actually
> inhibit oxygen and nutrients from reaching cells and as a chemical substance
> alcohol has no beneficial effect on the maintenance of living cells.
I can't see how blood alcohol affects oxygen transport or nutrient
uptake, but I don't have evidence refuting it. However, alcohol has
beneficial effects on digestion by directly stimulating gastric
secretion of acid and pepsin from the stomach mucosa. This is only of
benefit if the alcohol is being consumed along with a meal, of course.
> Alcohol does have has negative effects even in moderation. As even Martin pointed out it
> kills brain cells on contact. Granted we lose cells as we age, but the effects of
> alcohol on the body is not a natural process. We don't need alcohol (unless Jay tells me
> otherwise...) Anything in excess can have hramful effects if too much is "imbibed," even
> water. But water is essential to life and alcohol isn't. It's effects are classified as
> a drug and a very powerful drug it is.
Almost any plants you eat contain harmful chemicals. Some of them the
body (or cooking) can deal with and are called food, some can't and
are classified as poisonous. Yew berries are very nutritious and birds
love them, but they're poisonous to humans. Yes, ethanol is toxic, but
the body can metabolize it to a form that's not only safe, but useful.
MattLB
Eggs Pancakes Syrup Toast Coffee
>From: Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com>
>Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 17:51 EST
>Message-id: <3C6AEDE1...@aol.com>
>
>
>Alcohol does have has negative effects even in moderation. As even Martin
>pointed out it
>kills brain cells on contact. Granted we lose cells as we age, but the
>effects of
>alcohol on the body is not a natural process.
You're wrong, as oodles of studies have shown...
Drink and thrive: Moderate alcohol use reduces dementia risk
Ben Harder
Alcohol doesn’t often get billed as a brain food, but new research
suggests that booze offers at least one cerebral benefit. It may reduce
aging drinkers’ risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and other forms
of dementia.
Although extreme alcohol consumption kills brain cells, there’s
contradictory evidence about whether long-term drinking has permanent
effects on cognitive abilities such as reasoning and memory. Prolonged,
excessive drinking can lead to the liver disease cirrhosis and may
contribute to breast cancer risk, however. Drinking is also responsible
for many accidental injuries and deaths.
Nevertheless, alcohol in moderation promotes cardiovascular health by
boosting concentrations of good cholesterol and inhibiting the formation
of dangerous blood clots (SN: 2/28/98, p. 142:
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/2_28_98/bob1.htm). Additional
compounds in red wine seem to benefit the heart and blood vessels (SN:
1/5/02, p. 8: http://www.sciencenews.org/20020105/note11.asp). Drinking
also appears to guard against macular degeneration, an incurable eye
disease.
Now, the brain joins the list of organs that seem to benefit from
alcohol.
From 1990 to 1999, Monique M.B. Breteler and her colleagues at the
Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, observed 5,395
individuals age 55 and older who didn’t initially show signs of
dementia. Of these participants, 1,443 “moderate drinkers” reported
having one to three alcohol beverages of some sort each day, while 2,674
said they consumed less than one drink and 165 acknowledged having four
or more drinks per day. Another 1,113 participants abstained altogether.
Over an average follow-up period of 6 years, 146 participants developed
Alzheimer’s disease and another 51 got some other form of age-related
dementia. That put overall risk for dementia at 3.7 percent. Risk was
about 4 percent among nondrinkers, light drinkers, and heavy drinkers,
but only 2.6 percent of the moderate drinkers developed dementia.
Once the researchers adjusted their data to account for participants’
sex, age, weight, blood pressure, use of tobacco, and other factors that
influence dementia, moderate drinkers showed only 58 percent the risk of
dementia calculated for nondrinkers, Breteler’s team reports in the Jan.
26 Lancet.
Moderate drinkers had an even more marked decrease in vascular dementia,
a condition in which blockages in blood vessels in the brain cause
recurring, minor strokes that gradually erode cognitive ability. The
researchers hypothesize that since vascular disorders are linked to
dementia in elderly people, alcohol’s benefits to blood vessels might
indirectly sustain brain function.
Jean-Marc Orgogozo, a neurological epidemiologist at the University of
Bordeaux in France hails the study. He and his colleagues have found
that French wine drinkers over the age of 65 have a reduced risk of
dementia. The new research supports that finding, shows that beer and
hard liquor—not just wine—are protective, and establishes the effect in
somewhat younger people, he says.
John R. Copeland, a psychiatrist who’s retired from the University of
Liverpool in England, calls the Dutch finding “very interesting but not
unexpected.” Although Copeland’s research suggested that heavy,
long-term drinking reduces cognitive ability in elderly men, people who
show benefits in the new study consumed alcohol in more modest,
“therapeutic quantities,” he says.
However, Orgogozo questions exactly what quantity constitutes a
happy-hour medium. His own past research suggests three to four drinks
per day are required to help ward off dementia. The lower threshold for
benefit in the Dutch study may reflect participants’ underreporting of
alcohol consumption in a country that, unlike France, attaches a stigma
to drinking, Orgogozo says.
References:
Ruitenberg, A., et al. 2002. Alcohol consumption and risk of dementia:
The Rotterdam Study. Lancet 359(Jan. 26):281-286.
Further Readings:
Fackelmann, K.A. 1998. Valuable vices. Science News 153(Feb.
28):142-143. Available at
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/2_28_98/bob1.htm.
Harder, B. 2002. A glass of red may keep arteries loose. Science News
161(Jan. 5):8. Available at
http://www.sciencenews.org/20020105/note11.asp.
Sources:
Monique M.B. Breteler
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics
Erasmus Medical Centre
P.O. Box 1738
3000 DR Rotterdam
Netherlands
John R. Copeland
St. Catherine's Hospital
University of Liverpool
Liverpool
United Kingdom
Jean-Marc Orgogozo
Université Victor Segalen Bordeaux 2
120 Avenue Pasteur
33600 Pessac
France
From Science News, Vol. 161, No. 5, Feb. 2, 2002, p. 67
________________________
THUS SAYETH WithBACON
Tom Phillips
Jay Tanzman wrote:
> Tom Phillips wrote:
> > Could you explain what the purpose of this macronutrient is and why it is essential
> > to the body?
>
> I wouldn't say that nutirents have "purposes"; I'd say that they have
> functions. Macronutrients, by definition, provide energy. Ethanol contains 7
> kcal/g; hence, it is a macronutrient.
>
> Nutrients need not be essential. The non-essential amino acids, for instance,
> are still nutrients, since they have a function in the body.
>
> Calling something a macronutrient isn't making a value judgment about it. Trans
> fatty acids contain 9 kcal/g, so they are macronutrients, too, despite the fact
> that nobody would say they are particularly healthful.
Martin states as metaboloized by the liver alcohol (regardless of amount) produces an
antioxident, if I read his post correctly.
> As to alcohol, up to two drinks per day, decreases CHD and all-cause mortality
> in men compared with drinking no alcohol. For consumption greater than 2
> drinks/d, mortality increases. For women, the effect of moderate consumption of
> alcohol is unclear, as the protective effect against heart disease is countered
> by a detrimental effect on breast cancer risk.
Pros and cons. It would seem that a healthy, cholesterol regulated diet with regular
exercise would provide a stronger heart and longer life. Aerobic exercise increases the
capillary capacity of the heart. Of course, people eat at macdonalds and don't exercise.
My problem with alcohol is the hypocrisy: no one I know drinks it like a medicinal
suppliment; they drink it because it's a drug claiming as a drug it's "healthy." Thus,
I was going to ask Marty what subsitute would be effective for the identified
antioxident.
> P.S. Do you do any technical rock climbing, or strictly mountaineering?
I used to either rock climb regularly or practice on a fine sandstone wall built by Ed
Webster, but in past years have been rather preoccupied. Life does get in the way :=) I
was more or less a recreational climber -- 5.9 tops. These days I often head for the
wilderness alone and thus am limited in my climbing. Last year I did a lot of solo
glacier travel exploring various potential peak routes.
Jay Tanzman
Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> Jay Tanzman wrote:
>
> > Tom Phillips wrote:
> > > Could you explain what the purpose of this macronutrient is and why it is essential
> > > to the body?
> >
> > I wouldn't say that nutirents have "purposes"; I'd say that they have
> > functions. Macronutrients, by definition, provide energy. Ethanol contains 7
> > kcal/g; hence, it is a macronutrient.
> >
> > Nutrients need not be essential. The non-essential amino acids, for instance,
> > are still nutrients, since they have a function in the body.
> >
> > Calling something a macronutrient isn't making a value judgment about it. Trans
> > fatty acids contain 9 kcal/g, so they are macronutrients, too, despite the fact
> > that nobody would say they are particularly healthful.
>
> Martin states as metaboloized by the liver alcohol (regardless of amount) produces an
> antioxident, if I read his post correctly.
An _anti-oxidant_? Alcohol intake increases peroxidation of fatty acids in the
liver, which is one cause of liver disease in alcoholics. The benefits of
moderate alcohol consumption are largely due to its HDL-raising effect.
> > As to alcohol, up to two drinks per day, decreases CHD and all-cause mortality
> > in men compared with drinking no alcohol. For consumption greater than 2
> > drinks/d, mortality increases. For women, the effect of moderate consumption of
> > alcohol is unclear, as the protective effect against heart disease is countered
> > by a detrimental effect on breast cancer risk.
>
> Pros and cons. It would seem that a healthy, cholesterol regulated diet with regular
> exercise would provide a stronger heart and longer life. Aerobic exercise increases the
> capillary capacity of the heart.
Even people who do execise and eat prudent diets get heart attacks sometimes.
Moderate alcohol consumption could only add additional cardio-protective
benefit.
> My problem with alcohol is the hypocrisy: no one I know drinks it like a medicinal
> suppliment; they drink it because it's a drug claiming as a drug it's "healthy." Thus,
> I was going to ask Marty what subsitute would be effective for the identified
> antioxident.
One reason that moderate alcohol consumption hasn't been widely recommended in
the U.S. is that some people will become addicted and become alcohol abusers.
It's been estimated that 7% of drinkers in the U.S. drink excessively. If this
figure is correct, then, the reduction in CHD mortality that would be effected
by moderate alcohol consumption would greatly outweigh the risk of alcoholism.
> > P.S. Do you do any technical rock climbing, or strictly mountaineering?
>
> I used to either rock climb regularly or practice on a fine sandstone wall built by Ed
> Webster, but in past years have been rather preoccupied. Life does get in the way :=) I
> was more or less a recreational climber -- 5.9 tops. These days I often head for the
> wilderness alone and thus am limited in my climbing. Last year I did a lot of solo
> glacier travel exploring various potential peak routes.
Sounds scary. I'm mainly just a wussy sport climber. ;-)
-Jay
Tom Phillips
MattLB wrote:
> In days gone by we wouldn't have had that luxury and would have eaten
> fruit that had started to ferment - hence modern humans have enzymes
> specifically to deal with it. There is also bacterial fermentation in
> the gut which will introduce ethanol to the body naturally.
Actually in days gone by people preserved plant foods. Fruit is easy to dry and store.
Indians made pemmican. Corn has been found that's a good 1,000 years old and still edible.
And what occurs naturally in the body is no comparison to drinking ounces of concentrated
alcohol commercially produced for the purpose of drinking and socially sanctioned drug use.
> > I also wouldn't call ethanol a metabolic fuel. Metabolism (to
> > quote my dictionary) is the complex of physical and chemical processes occurring within
> > a living cell or organism that are necessary for the maintenance of life.
>
> Conversion of ethanol to fat IS necessary for the maintenance of life.
Jack Daniels isn't :=) Could put in your gas tank tho...
> Any detoxification processes are included in metabolism, particularly
> if they produce products that can be converted (eventually) to ATP -
> such as ethanol. Metabolism is simply the balance between anabolism
> (synthesis) and catabolism (breakdown) of molecules in the cells of
> the body.
>
> I can't see how blood alcohol affects oxygen transport or nutrient
> uptake, but I don't have evidence refuting it.
maybe you should do some research on how alcohol (as drunk in concentrated forms) affects the
body. Sure, one ounce with a meal should have no detrimental effects (in adults over 30.) But
this is not how most people use alcohol.
> However, alcohol has
> beneficial effects on digestion by directly stimulating gastric
> secretion of acid and pepsin from the stomach mucosa. This is only of
> benefit if the alcohol is being consumed along with a meal, of course.
Most digestion takes place in the intestine. The stomach is really of little consequence and
mainly serves as a way station for food. Some partial breakdown does occur in the stomach
but people without stomachs can still digest food.
> > Alcohol does have has negative effects even in moderation. As even Martin pointed out it
> > kills brain cells on contact.
>
> Almost any plants you eat contain harmful chemicals. Some of them the
> body (or cooking) can deal with and are called food, some can't and
> are classified as poisonous. Yew berries are very nutritious and birds
> love them, but they're poisonous to humans.
Irrelevant. We're not talking about berries which people don't eat anyway and which are not
being marketed as a health product.
> Yes, ethanol is toxic, but
> the body can metabolize it to a form that's not only safe, but useful.
There is simply no way that these benefits of ingested alcohol can outweigh it's toxic,
poisonous, and addictive harm to the human body and tissues. When you eat a plant with a few
toxins, it doesn't kill brain cells or attack the heart muscle or liver. It doesn't interfer
with blood circulation (it's this that causes the alcohol "high.") You don't get addicited to
broccoli. You do to alcohol.
Tom Phillips
Eggs Pancakes Syrup Toast Coffee wrote:
>
> You're wrong, as oodles of studies have shown...
Yeah, and then there's alcoholism....not to mention several ten thousand
deaths from alcohol each year.
> Alcohol doesn’t often get billed as a brain food, but new research
> suggests that booze offers at least one cerebral benefit. It may reduce
> aging drinkers’ risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and other forms
> of dementia.
Then it should be prescribed by a doctor, not marketed and sold over the
counter as a health elixir.
> Although extreme alcohol consumption kills brain cells,
Wrong. Just one ounce does this.
> there’s
> contradictory evidence about whether long-term drinking has permanent
> effects on cognitive abilities such as reasoning and memory.
There's *definitive* evidence of long term harmful effects on organs and
tissues. There's definitive evidence of alcohol's addctive powers. Moderate
drinkers can turn into alcohol addicts and often do, most of whom are not
falling down drunks and winos and remaim responsible but are nontheless
alcoholics. Just ask Dick Van Dyke.
> Prolonged,
> excessive drinking can lead to the liver disease cirrhosis and may
> contribute to breast cancer risk, however. Drinking is also responsible
> for many accidental injuries and deaths.
>
> Nevertheless, alcohol in moderation promotes cardiovascular health by
> boosting concentrations of good cholesterol and inhibiting the formation
> of dangerous blood clots
So does aerobic exercise and a good cholesterol diet, and it does it better
with no deleterious effects.
The health benefits from alcohol are better achieved with better living
practices.
Tom Phillips
Will Brink wrote:
> > Alcohol is not a food and kills brain cells, period.
>
> Supply data to that statement.
Most everyone else here has backed that up and I don't really need to
"prove" it as it's common knowledge. You might as well ask me to prove the
sun rises every morning (i.e., the whole world already knows this..) and
even a cursory research effort on your part should suffice if you require
references. Alcohol is not a food (altough Jay qualifies it as a source of
energy and thus is a macronutrient) and it does kill brain cells. See Martin
Banschbachs posts.
> > Alcohol has many degenerative effects on tissues and especially organs,
> > but usually through overindulgence.
>
> Exactly. Abuse is the key here. There is a lot of data showing limited
> wine intakes is associated with longevity.
Now you prove that I'll live longer by drinking vs not drinking. Prove that
my controlling cholesterol with adequate exercise and a healthy diet with
additional suppliments like antioxident C and E won't provide me with as
long a life and a healthy heart as a daily wine drinker who even in
moderation risks alcoholism.
mark doran
>
> I guarantee alcohol kills more people every year than landmines. It kills
more
> people than many wars. It's the most adused drug in history and nothing
equals
> the damage of alcohol on the human species over the last 5,000 years.
Well, pardon the lecture in elementary moral philosophy, but there's no
comparison at all between someone accidentally stepping on a hidden landmine
and someone deliberately electing to drink alcohol in *whatever* amount,
having some grasp of the risks/benefits involved.
> If people want to drink "moderately" I don't object.
No, if people want to drink it's not your damn business. Simple.
M.
Tom Phillips
Jay Tanzman wrote:
> Tom Phillips wrote:
> > Martin states as metaboloized by the liver alcohol (regardless of amount) produces an
> > antioxident, if I read his post correctly.
>
> An _anti-oxidant_? Alcohol intake increases peroxidation of fatty acids in the
> liver, which is one cause of liver disease in alcoholics. The benefits of
> moderate alcohol consumption are largely due to its HDL-raising effect.
hmmm...I could have misread his post. Vis-a-vis, you can do the same without alcohol, right?
> > Pros and cons. It would seem that a healthy, cholesterol regulated diet with regular
> > exercise would provide a stronger heart and longer life. Aerobic exercise increases the
> > capillary capacity of the heart.
>
> Even people who do execise and eat prudent diets get heart attacks sometimes.
> Moderate alcohol consumption could only add additional cardio-protective
> benefit.
So does Vit E, correct? They say the same about taking an asprin every day but taking
analgesics on a daily long term basis could adversely affect the kidneys (which since I have
tinnitus I couldn't do anyway.)
> > My problem with alcohol is the hypocrisy: no one I know drinks it like a medicinal
> > suppliment; they drink it because it's a drug claiming as a drug it's "healthy." Thus,
> > I was going to ask Marty what subsitute would be effective for the identified
> > antioxident.
>
> One reason that moderate alcohol consumption hasn't been widely recommended in
> the U.S. is that some people will become addicted and become alcohol abusers.
> It's been estimated that 7% of drinkers in the U.S. drink excessively. If this
> figure is correct, then, the reduction in CHD mortality that would be effected
> by moderate alcohol consumption would greatly outweigh the risk of alcoholism.
7% sounds low. People prone to alcoholism (of which there are millions) whether they are
abusers or not simply do not drink from a moderation standpoint; they drink from addiction.
Thus the concept of moderation when dealing with an addictive drug is an oxymoron. So there
are more serious pros and cons than statistics might indicate.
Risk of alcoholism is very great. The poor quality of the life of an alcoholic must be taken
into consideration.
> > > P.S. Do you do any technical rock climbing, or strictly mountaineering?
> >
> > I used to either rock climb regularly or practice on a fine sandstone wall built by Ed
> > Webster, but in past years have been rather preoccupied. Life does get in the way :=) I
> > was more or less a recreational climber -- 5.9 tops. These days I often head for the
> > wilderness alone and thus am limited in my climbing. Last year I did a lot of solo
> > glacier travel exploring various potential peak routes.
>
> Sounds scary. I'm mainly just a wussy sport climber. ;-)
Once I petered out on a summit due to fatigue so my partner went on alone. We were doing a
moderately easy glacier route that crossed a bergshrund and he "wussed" out and did something
far harder (IMHO) instead: a 5th class "scramble" up an outcrop bypassing the nasty
bergshrund (which if you fell into it unroped likely would be deadly.) Later I felt better
and went up to meet him but I crossed the bergshrund (it has a sometime snowbridge people
periodically fall through.) He looked at me amazed that I would risk such a crevasses unroped
and said I had "balls." I thought he had the balls for doing his route. Moral: being a "wuss"
is a matter of perspective :=) The term really has no place in climbing or mountaineering
since people climb according to their comfort level and caution and experience are the
general rule.
I'm comfortable alone in the wilderness and enjoy wilderness summits. Rock to me was always a
part of the moutnaineering experience but wilderenss is my love, though I did used to enjoy
an afternoons climb at the local drive-in mountain park. I don't do much technical in the
backcountry beyond a 4th or easy 5th class because I don't like hauling in all that gear.
Crampons, ice axe, a rope, and a few biners and an ice screw are more than enough on a 8 day
trip covering 60-70 miles. I admire people who can hike in several miles and spend a week
doing 5.10 routes but it's not for for me. too old, maybe ...
Paul Chefurka
>Now you prove that I'll live longer by drinking vs not drinking. Prove that
>my controlling cholesterol with adequate exercise and a healthy diet with
>additional suppliments like antioxident C and E won't provide me with as
>long a life and a healthy heart as a daily wine drinker who even in
>moderation risks alcoholism.
Look, if you don't want to drink, don't drink. Nobody's saying that
because it might be beneficial in some instances that you have to do it.
By the same token, please don't say that because it's deleterious in some
instances that nobody should do it. I know you haven't explicitly said
that, but frankly you're coming across like a prohibitionist in a lab
coat.
This is one of those multifaceted risk/reward scenarios that defies simple
prescriptions. The fact that mankind has been drinking for tens of
thousands of years in the face of known potential negative consequences
indicates that any proscriptive action other than simple education is
doomed to failure. The '30s in the USA surely taught us that.
Again, if you don't want to drink alcohol, be my guest. It's a free world.
The same goes for me enjoying my Cabernet and single malt.
Paul
Tom Phillips
Paul Chefurka wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:52:11 -0700, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Now you prove that I'll live longer by drinking vs not drinking. Prove that
> >my controlling cholesterol with adequate exercise and a healthy diet with
> >additional suppliments like antioxident C and E won't provide me with as
> >long a life and a healthy heart as a daily wine drinker who even in
> >moderation risks alcoholism.
>
> Look, if you don't want to drink, don't drink.
Look, if you want to drink, drink. But don't call it a fucking health drink.
Moron.
Tom Phillips
mark doran wrote:
> "Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3C6B2F7D.
>
> > If people want to drink "moderately" I don't object.
>
> No, if people want to drink it's not your damn business. Simple.
ding ding...DUI waiting to happen....
If people call it a health drink it IS my business. Anything that concerns
public health I'll make my damn business if I want. So fuck off :=)
Simpleton.
Paul Chefurka
>If people call it a health drink it IS my business. Anything that concerns
>public health I'll make my damn business if I want. So fuck off :=)
>
>Simpleton.
You know, the profanity and the name-calling aren't doing your position a
lot of good. Perhaps you should have a drink and calm down :-)
Paul
Tom Phillips
my own business in a public forum on a public health matter. Even John "the
troll" has a right to post and debate. So again, fuck off. :=)
Paul Chefurka
>You know, neither boozo breath nor you have any business telling me to mind
>my own business in a public forum on a public health matter. Even John "the
>troll" has a right to post and debate. So again, fuck off. :=)
Sheesh, I don't care what or how you post. I was just pointing out that
your language is likely to undermine the credibility to your arguments.
Personally I think that sticking dispassionately to the facts of your case,
even (especially) in the face of provocation is going to win you a more
sympathetic hearing in a sci.x newsgroup.
But if this how you want to present and defend your position, I've got no
complaint. It's a free world - I certainly can't reach out through your
monitor and pull your fingers off the keyboard.
Paul
mark doran
>
> If people call it a health drink it IS my business. Anything that concerns
> public health I'll make my damn business if I want. So fuck off :=)
>
> Simpleton.
Come off it, sonny. That's not where you're coming from.
M.
MattLB
> > fruit that had started to ferment - hence modern humans have enzymes
> > specifically to deal with it. There is also bacterial fermentation in
> > the gut which will introduce ethanol to the body naturally.
> Actually in days gone by people preserved plant foods. Fruit is easy to dry and store.
> Indians made pemmican. Corn has been found that's a good 1,000 years old and still edible.
> And what occurs naturally in the body is no comparison to drinking ounces of concentrated
> alcohol commercially produced for the purpose of drinking and socially sanctioned drug use.
I never suggested it was, any more than the small amounts of cyanide
in food are any comparison to purified cyanide. The point is,
naturally produced alcohol has been around long enough in the
human/protohuman diet that there have evolved specific enzyme systems
to deal with it.
> > I can't see how blood alcohol affects oxygen transport or nutrient
> > uptake, but I don't have evidence refuting it.
>
> maybe you should do some research on how alcohol (as drunk in concentrated forms) affects the
> body. Sure, one ounce with a meal should have no detrimental effects (in adults over 30.) But
> this is not how most people use alcohol.
You're putting words in my mouth again. I made no comment on amounts
drunk or concentrations. I know something of how alcohol affects the
liver and brain, but I don't see how, biochemically speaking, it
affects oxygen transport.
> > However, alcohol has
> > beneficial effects on digestion by directly stimulating gastric
> > secretion of acid and pepsin from the stomach mucosa. This is only of
> > benefit if the alcohol is being consumed along with a meal, of course.
>
> Most digestion takes place in the intestine. The stomach is really of little consequence and
> mainly serves as a way station for food. Some partial breakdown does occur in the stomach
> but people without stomachs can still digest food.
This doesn't change the fact that it's a beneficial effect, which is
what you were denying existed.
> > > Alcohol does have has negative effects even in moderation. As even Martin pointed out it
> > > kills brain cells on contact.
> >
> > Almost any plants you eat contain harmful chemicals. Some of them the
> > body (or cooking) can deal with and are called food, some can't and
> > are classified as poisonous. Yew berries are very nutritious and birds
> > love them, but they're poisonous to humans.
>
> Irrelevant. We're not talking about berries which people don't eat anyway and which are not
> being marketed as a health product.
It's not irrelevant. You're suggesting anything which has bad effects
can't be called food. Red kidney beans are toxic unless they've been
thoroughly cooked. Does this mean they aren't food? Of course not.
> > Yes, ethanol is toxic, but
> > the body can metabolize it to a form that's not only safe, but useful.
>
> There is simply no way that these benefits of ingested alcohol can outweigh it's toxic,
> poisonous, and addictive harm to the human body and tissues.
Again, all I said was alcohol can be converted to something useful. I
didn't say its benefits were so good it should be recommended as a
health product.
>When you eat a plant with a few
> toxins, it doesn't kill brain cells or attack the heart muscle or liver.
How about if you drank those toxins concentrated? (This is the same
argument you're using)
> It doesn't interfer
> with blood circulation (it's this that causes the alcohol "high.")
The effects of alcohol on the brain are due to its inhibitory effects
on neurons, either by blocking stimulatory signals (such as glutamate)
or enhancing inhibitory signals (such as GABA). The first neurons
affected are those that limit behaviour. The result is feelings of
freedom, carefreeness and euphoria.
> You don't get addicited to
> broccoli. You do to alcohol.
People seem to get addicted to sugar/sugary foods and junk food in
general, hence the epidemic of obesity in America.
MattLB
Jay Tanzman
Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> Jay Tanzman wrote:
>
> > Tom Phillips wrote:
> > > Martin states as metaboloized by the liver alcohol (regardless of amount) produces an
> > > antioxident, if I read his post correctly.
> >
> > An _anti-oxidant_? Alcohol intake increases peroxidation of fatty acids in the
> > liver, which is one cause of liver disease in alcoholics. The benefits of
> > moderate alcohol consumption are largely due to its HDL-raising effect.
>
> hmmm...I could have misread his post. Vis-a-vis, you can do the same without alcohol, right?
I would presume that the effects on HDL would be roughly additive. For
instance, regular vigorous exercise and moderate alcohol consumption both raise
HDL. If a person did both, then their HDL level would presumably be higher --
and their CHD risk lower -- than if they did only one or the other.
> > > Pros and cons. It would seem that a healthy, cholesterol regulated diet with regular
> > > exercise would provide a stronger heart and longer life. Aerobic exercise increases the
> > > capillary capacity of the heart.
> >
> > Even people who do execise and eat prudent diets get heart attacks sometimes.
> > Moderate alcohol consumption could only add additional cardio-protective
> > benefit.
>
> So does Vit E, correct?
Early studies suggested that vitamin E supplementation was cardio-protective.
More recent studies have failed to support this.
> They say the same about taking an asprin every day but taking
> analgesics on a daily long term basis could adversely affect the kidneys (which since I have
> tinnitus I couldn't do anyway.)
There is s risk-benefit ratio for everything. Daily aspirin definitively
reduces CHD risk, but there are potential adverse effects, such as gastric
ulcer. Vigorous exercise reduces CHD risk, but you can get hit by a car on your
bike, develop osteoarthritis, etc. Moderate alcohol consumption reduces CHD
risk according to a consistent body of evidence, but there is a 7% chance of
becoming an alcohol abuser.
> > One reason that moderate alcohol consumption hasn't been widely recommended in
> > the U.S. is that some people will become addicted and become alcohol abusers.
> > It's been estimated that 7% of drinkers in the U.S. drink excessively. If this
> > figure is correct, then, the reduction in CHD mortality that would be effected
> > by moderate alcohol consumption would greatly outweigh the risk of alcoholism.
>
> 7% sounds low.
It's from a government study quoted in a graduate nutrition textbook. It's
probably the most reliable estimate available.
> People prone to alcoholism (of which there are millions) whether they are
> abusers or not simply do not drink from a moderation standpoint; they drink from addiction.
> Thus the concept of moderation when dealing with an addictive drug is an oxymoron. So there
> are more serious pros and cons than statistics might indicate.
Why? Apparently 93% of alcohol drinkers able to drink in moderation.
> Risk of alcoholism is very great. The poor quality of the life of an alcoholic must be taken
> into consideration.
So is the poor quality of life of the heart attack victim.
> > > > P.S. Do you do any technical rock climbing, or strictly mountaineering?
> > > Last year I did a lot of solo
> > > glacier travel exploring various potential peak routes.
> >
> > Sounds scary. I'm mainly just a wussy sport climber. ;-)
>
> Once I petered out on a summit due to fatigue so my partner went on alone. We were doing a
> moderately easy glacier route that crossed a bergshrund and he "wussed" out and did something
> far harder (IMHO) instead: a 5th class "scramble" up an outcrop bypassing the nasty
> bergshrund (which if you fell into it unroped likely would be deadly.) Later I felt better
> and went up to meet him but I crossed the bergshrund (it has a sometime snowbridge people
> periodically fall through.) He looked at me amazed that I would risk such a crevasses unroped
> and said I had "balls." I thought he had the balls for doing his route. Moral: being a "wuss"
> is a matter of perspective :=) The term really has no place in climbing or mountaineering
> since people climb according to their comfort level and caution and experience are the
> general rule.
I agree, but try convincing the trad weenies over at rec.climbing.
-Jay
Martin Banschbach PhD
in the
> liver, which is one cause of liver disease in alcoholics. The benefits of
> moderate alcohol consumption are largely due to its HDL-raising effect.
The liver can convert ethanol to 2-mercaptoethanolamine if there is enough
sulfate available to do this. The amine comes from glutamine and there
should always be enough of this around.
The liver is going to attempt to detoxify anything that it is exposed to
that is potentially harmful.
Alcohol dehydrogenase starts the metabolic process for ethanol and yes this
process does increase free radical formation. But if enough
2-mercaptoethanolamine is formed, the damage from alcohol metabolism in the
liver should be decreased. Finding medline material for
2-mercaptoethanolamine is hard (not much published). As a radioprotectant,
it's very good (Classified U.S. army data). I've been down this road many
times, no I can't prove it.
Without bioflavinods, the HDL that gets raised is HDL3 (triglyceride
containing HDL) indicating that liver metabolism of HDL3 has been
compromised (that's my take in a recent medline search for HDL3 and HDL2 for
a niacin effect).
With red wine, you appear to see an increase in both HDL2 and HDL3.
Saying that there is a health benefit to alcohol intake is like saying that
there is a health benefit to smoking. But smoking does appear to reduce the
risk of developing Alzheimer's.
My take on alcohol is that it does more harm than good (more people abuse it
than any other drug).
If you can control intake, then it probably does offer a significant health
benefit (red wine). I would never use nicotine's action on brain function
as a justification for smoking. Saying that wine is healthy is also no
justification for over consumption.
Alcohol is a drug that has specific actions in the human body. These
actions are modified by the form of the drug (kind of wine, straight
ethanol, beer, blends and liqueurs). Since wine and beer were so easy to
make, why did the monks spend most of their time trying to get blends using
plant material (herbs)?
Heck, if you wanted a good buzz, it was cheaper and easier to make some home
brew rather than the meticulous process that some monks use to produce their
alcohol products.
If you are going to be locked up in a monastery with no sex and no money for
the rest of your life why waste your time producing something that takes too
long to get a finished product from? Crank out beer and get a good buzz
everytime from a fresh batch.
Jay Tanzman
Martin Banschbach PhD wrote:
[snip]
> Saying that there is a health benefit to alcohol intake is like saying that
> there is a health benefit to smoking.
It's not like that at all. There is a consitent body of evidence that moderate
alcohol consumption reduces total mortality.
QUOTE:
Basic Res Cardiol 2001 Apr;96(2):128-35
Alcohol and the risk of myocardial infarction.
Flesch M, Rosenkranz S, Erdmann E, Bohm M.
Epidemiological studies have repeatedly demonstrated a beneficial effect of
moderate alcohol consumption on the incidence of coronary heart disease,
myocardial infarction and overall mortality. The latter increases with excessive
alcohol consumption. Although most epidemiological studies demonstrate a
beneficial effect of alcohol consumption independent from the specific kind of
alcoholic beverage, there is increasing evidence that wine and in particular red
wine might contain pharmacological substances, which prevent atherosclerosis and
myocardial infarction independent from the wine ethanol. Pathophysiological
mechanisms mediating these beneficial effects include effects of wine phenols
and tannins on LDL-cholesterol oxidation status, thrombocyte aggregation,
endothelial function and smooth muscle cell proliferation. Identification and
characterization of the pharmacologically active substances might provide the
stage for the development of new substances to be used in the prevention of
coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction.
END QUOTE
-Jay
Tom Phillips
good piece of advice is if you don't like the flames and language don't take a
moron's side....
I don't tolerate (1) someone who interferes with my right to speech (2) someone
who try's to shove a drink in my face. physically or digitally. It's NOT
acceptable. Ever.
(3) Using alcohol (except under a doctor's care) is never an individual
matter. Alcohol is a drug and has immediate deleterious effects. Always. If you
don't think so just swallow your glasses of wine and get in your car and see
what happens. All a cop needs is to smell alcohol on your breath and you're
arrested. No sobriety test required. Your explanations of "but officer I only
had my daily health dose and am below the legal intoxication limit" won't
impress him. I guarantee it.
Alcohol in any amount is a social issue. Always. It affects your family,
friends, social occasions and especially people you don't know. Therefore it's
my business. Anyone who thinks they can drink with impunity and it's only their
business is an accident waiting to happen. Like those unfortunate alcoholic
morons on today's college campuses who riot for their right to drink beer. Why
do they do this? Because alcohol is the acceptable drug and "healthy."
Tom Phillips
Martin Banschbach PhD wrote:
> Without bioflavinods, the HDL that gets raised is HDL3 (triglyceride
> containing HDL) indicating that liver metabolism of HDL3 has been
> compromised (that's my take in a recent medline search for HDL3 and HDL2 for
> a niacin effect).
>
> With red wine, you appear to see an increase in both HDL2 and HDL3.
Are there nutrients or combinations thereof or antioxidents that would have a
similar "health" benefit as is claimed or stated for moderate alcohol? I ask
this because there are many people who hear about that health benefits but who
are either known to be prone to alcoholism and simply could never drink in
moderation (the term is an oxymoron for them), or can't tolerate or don't like
alcohol to begin with. For example, I've actually heard of studies that showed
similar benefits could be obtained by using unfermented juice regularly.
Combined with supplimental antioxidnents, could this not be just as useful
without the dangers of using alcohol?
Jay Tanzman
Tom Phillips wrote:
> (3) Using alcohol (except under a doctor's care) is never an individual
> matter. Alcohol is a drug and has immediate deleterious effects. Always. If you
> don't think so just swallow your glasses of wine and get in your car and see
> what happens. All a cop needs is to smell alcohol on your breath and you're
> arrested. No sobriety test required. Your explanations of "but officer I only
> had my daily health dose and am below the legal intoxication limit" won't
> impress him. I guarantee it.
I think that by definition, being under the legal limit implies that you won't
be arrested.
-Jay
Tom Phillips
Jay Tanzman wrote:
> There is s risk-benefit ratio for everything. Daily aspirin definitively
> reduces CHD risk, but there are potential adverse effects, such as gastric
> ulcer. Vigorous exercise reduces CHD risk, but you can get hit by a car on your
> bike, develop osteoarthritis, etc.
Regular and moderate exercise presents very little serious or long term health risks outside of
minor injuries. I run on streets daily and the risk of getting hit by a car are nil -- unless that
driver is alcohol impaired. In the case of alcohol the risks of using and the overall harmful
effects on society (note I don't advocate prohibition) generally outweigh the benefits. With most
forms of exercise it would be just the opposite. Now sport climbing... :=)
> Moderate alcohol consumption reduces CHD
> risk according to a consistent body of evidence, but there is a 7% chance of
> becoming an alcohol abuser.
>
> > 7% sounds low.
>
> It's from a government study quoted in a graduate nutrition textbook. It's
> probably the most reliable estimate available.
My estimate is unscientifically based on the number of people I know who drink and the effect it
has on their lives. Way higher than 7%
> > People prone to alcoholism (of which there are millions) whether they are
> > abusers or not simply do not drink from a moderation standpoint; they drink from addiction.
> > Thus the concept of moderation when dealing with an addictive drug is an oxymoron. So there
> > are more serious pros and cons than statistics might indicate.
>
> Why? Apparently 93% of alcohol drinkers able to drink in moderation.
But they're "alcoholics." Thus the term "drink in moderation for health" precludes those who are
addicted, since then the reason they drink is from addiction.
> > Risk of alcoholism is very great. The poor quality of the life of an alcoholic must be taken
> > into consideration.
>
> So is the poor quality of life of the heart attack victim.
They should be encouraged to exercise and eat a good diet instead. Much better result with almost
zero risk. Now if a doctor thinks that someone with existing heart problems could benefit
temporarily from 2 ounces of wine a day, then so be it. But my neighbor (who's had 3 bypass
operations) was told to stop drinking entirely.
> >Moral: being a "wuss"
> > is a matter of perspective :=) The term really has no place in climbing or mountaineering
> > since people climb according to their comfort level and caution and experience are the
> > general rule.
>
> I agree, but try convincing the trad weenies over at rec.climbing.
Yeah, I've had a few run ins with some of them on cross posts, but I don't post in rec.climbing.
Many learn to climb an amazing 5.13 yet have no conception of mountaineering safety or looking
out for one's partner. I'd say their risk of serious harm from "exercise" is twice as high as
drinking and driving. ("ropes? we don't need no stinking ropes....!") When I learned to climb
being a wuss when it came to safety was top prorrity.
Jay Tanzman
Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> Jay Tanzman wrote:
>
> > There is s risk-benefit ratio for everything. Daily aspirin definitively
> > reduces CHD risk, but there are potential adverse effects, such as gastric
> > ulcer. Vigorous exercise reduces CHD risk, but you can get hit by a car on your
> > bike, develop osteoarthritis, etc.
>
> Regular and moderate exercise presents very little serious or long term health risks outside of
> minor injuries.
I have pretty bad arthritis in my knees from running. Not life-threatening, but
there's some pretty serious surgery is in my future.
> I run on streets daily and the risk of getting hit by a car are nil -- unless that
> driver is alcohol impaired.
The risk of a byciclist getting seriously injured is not negligible.
> In the case of alcohol the risks of using and the overall harmful
> effects on society (note I don't advocate prohibition) generally outweigh the benefits.
So you _claim_. I haven't read the whole thread, but among the posts of yours I
have read, you haven't presented any evidence of this; only your subjective
impressions.
What if two drinks a day cut heart attacks by 30% (a number I've made up, but
it's plausible). Trade that off with a 7% increase in alcoholism.
> With most
> forms of exercise it would be just the opposite. Now sport climbing... :=)
Actually, I think we've had a net positive effect on the environment in SoCal.
We've added a lot of bolts, but we've cleaned up a lot of trash, too. Now, if
we could just get cell phones banned at the crags...
> > Moderate alcohol consumption reduces CHD
> > risk according to a consistent body of evidence, but there is a 7% chance of
> > becoming an alcohol abuser.
> >
> > > 7% sounds low.
> >
> > It's from a government study quoted in a graduate nutrition textbook. It's
> > probably the most reliable estimate available.
>
> My estimate is unscientifically based on the number of people I know who drink and the effect it
> has on their lives. Way higher than 7%
>
> > > People prone to alcoholism (of which there are millions) whether they are
> > > abusers or not simply do not drink from a moderation standpoint; they drink from addiction.
> > > Thus the concept of moderation when dealing with an addictive drug is an oxymoron. So there
> > > are more serious pros and cons than statistics might indicate.
> >
> > Why? Apparently 93% of alcohol drinkers able to drink in moderation.
>
> But they're "alcoholics." Thus the term "drink in moderation for health" precludes those who are
> addicted, since then the reason they drink is from addiction.
My point is that the risk of becoming an alcoholic is apparently small. Just as
smoking marijuana doesn't "lead to hard drugs," drinking two glasses of wine a
day, doesn't lead to alcoholism, at least not for the vast majority of drinkers
(or marijuana smokers).
> > > Risk of alcoholism is very great. The poor quality of the life of an alcoholic must be taken
> > > into consideration.
> >
> > So is the poor quality of life of the heart attack victim.
>
> They should be encouraged to exercise and eat a good diet instead.
First of all, they already are encouraged to do so. Secondly, diet and exercise
will reduce CHD risk, but not eliminate it. Moderate consumption of alcohol, if
_added_ to diet and exercise, would further reduce risk. In the absense of
evidence to the contrary, you have to assume that the benefits are additive (by
Occam's razor).
> Much better result with almost
> zero risk. Now if a doctor thinks that someone with existing heart problems could benefit
> temporarily from 2 ounces of wine a day, then so be it. But my neighbor (who's had 3 bypass
> operations) was told to stop drinking entirely.
This is probably because he's on meds.
-Jay
Peace Onoith
human tendency towards mortality leads to certain death. ;)
I guess I'll just finish the jug of cheap burgundy (which I can scarcely swallow
without making faces) and quit my alcohol "experiment".
.
Steve Harris
news:ba2051f6.02021...@posting.google.com...
If you're going to drink cheap red wine, don't drink cheap "burgundy"
(quotes are used because of course the cheap burgundy is hardly from
Burgundy). The same for the cheapest cabernets which are one of the things
that go into cheap burgundys-- all this stuff is so tannic and chewy it will
probably put you off red wine forever.
For really cheap but drinkable dark red wine try a 5 L size of Chianti-- the
skinflint's red varietal. Carlo Rossi make a 5 L blended red table wine
which from the taste I suspect is mostly Chianti, called "Paisano."
Recommend you drink out of fruit jars while thinking of the folks in
Steinbeck's Tortilla Flat. Salud.
.
--
Steve Harris
You can email me at sbhar...@ix.netcom.com
But remove the numerals in the address first.
==============================
Our nada who art in Nada
Nada be thy nada..
-- Dada Hemingway
==========================
"
Tom Phillips
MattLB wrote:
> > > In days gone by we wouldn't have had that luxury and would have eaten
> > > fruit that had started to ferment -
>
> > Actually in days gone by people preserved plant foods. Fruit is easy to dry and store.
> > what occurs naturally in the body is no comparison to drinking ounces of concentrated
> > alcohol commercially produced for the purpose of drinking and socially sanctioned drug use.
>
> I never suggested it was, any more than the small amounts of cyanide
> in food are any comparison to purified cyanide. The point is,
> naturally produced alcohol has been around long enough in the
> human/protohuman diet that there have evolved specific enzyme systems
> to deal with it.
I think you were suggesting that. Nevertheless, fruit that's begun to ferment isn't a comparison
to a deliberately fermented beverage nor is any evolutionary biochemical trait to deal with
fermented fruit.
> > > I can't see how blood alcohol affects oxygen transport or nutrient
> > > uptake, but I don't have evidence refuting it.
> >
> > maybe you should do some research on how alcohol (as drunk in concentrated forms) affects the
> > body. Sure, one ounce with a meal should have no detrimental effects (in adults over 30.) But
> > this is not how most people use alcohol.
>
> You're putting words in my mouth again. I made no comment on amounts
> drunk or concentrations. I know something of how alcohol affects the
> liver and brain, but I don't see how, biochemically speaking, it
> affects oxygen transport.
No one is putting words in your mouth. My understanding is one of the effects produced by the
alcohol 'high" (since it is directly absorbed into the bloodstream) is it causes some sort of
interference with RBCs thus depriving nutrients and oxygen. As I remember, it's likened to a
""chugging" effect in the bloodstream. I don't have the specific references I read regarding this
so I can't cite it, which is why I suggested you could do that. regardless, it is known that
alcohol comsumption has negative impacts on the hematopoietic system in general:
"Alcohol’s adverse effects on the blood-building, or hematopoietic, system are both direct and
indirect. The direct consequences of alcohol(1) consumption include toxic effects on the bone
marrow; the blood cell pre-cursors; and the mature red blood cells (RBC’s), white blood cells
(WBC’s), and platelets. Alcohol’s indirect effects include nutritional deficiencies that impair
the production and function of various blood cells. (1. ...alcohol-related hematological problems
can occur at [lower] consumption levels. The drinker’s risk for developing these problems grows
with increasing alcohol consumption.) The Hematological Complications of Alcoholism, HAROLD S.
BALLARD, M.D. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
Long term alcohol use also affects on the brain (shrinking) and weakens the heart muscle. Shorter
term effects are reduced respiration, depressive effects on the central nervous system, and an
upseting of the bodies fluid balance as regulated by the kidneys (which is no doubt why drinking
alcohol causes dehydration.)
While the effect is cumulative, it occurs regaradless of much or little you drink. The fact is,
most people drink alcohol for this effect, not to gain health benefits.
> > > However, alcohol has
> > > beneficial effects on digestion by directly stimulating gastric
> > > secretion of acid and pepsin from the stomach mucosa. This is only of
> > > benefit if the alcohol is being consumed along with a meal, of course.
> >
> > Most digestion takes place in the intestine. The stomach is really of little consequence and
> > mainly serves as a way station for food. Some partial breakdown does occur in the stomach
> > but people without stomachs can still digest food.
>
> This doesn't change the fact that it's a beneficial effect, which is
> what you were denying existed.
of course it does (1) alcohol is absorbed directly in the small intestine, not digested (which is
why you shouldn't drink on an empty stomach.) (2) ingesting alcohol with food can cause absorbtion
problems with some nutrients according to the info I'm reading on NIH's website (medline.) If you
need an aid to digestion, I suggest yogurt or plant enzymes.
> > Irrelevant. We're not talking about berries which people don't eat anyway and which are not
> > being marketed as a health product.
>
> It's not irrelevant. You're suggesting anything which has bad effects
> can't be called food. Red kidney beans are toxic unless they've been
> thoroughly cooked. Does this mean they aren't food? Of course not.
Of course it's irrelevant. Berries that birds eat and humans don't aren't *distilled* liquors,
wines, or beers. These are *products* specifically designed and marketed for their alcohol content
as a drug. Your logic appears fallacious.
> > > Yes, ethanol is toxic, but
> > > the body can metabolize it to a form that's not only safe, but useful.
> >
> > There is simply no way that these benefits of ingested alcohol can outweigh it's toxic,
> > poisonous, and addictive harm to the human body and tissues.
>
> Again, all I said was alcohol can be converted to something useful. I
> didn't say its benefits were so good it should be recommended as a
> health product.
Then I fail to understand why you are arguing the point. As Jay graciously pointed out (since he
seems to favor alcohol use for health in moderation) the same benefits of raising HDL can be
obtained from regular exercise.
From the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) :
Q #17: Is alcohol good for your heart?
"Studies have shown that moderate drinkers -- men who have two or less drinks per day and women
who have one or less drinks per day -- are less likely to die from one form of heart disease than
are people who do not drink any alcohol or who drink more. It's believed that these smaller
amounts of alcohol help protect against heart disease by changing the blood's chemistry, thus
reducing the risk of blood clots in the heart's arteries.
If you are a nondrinker, however, you should not start drinking solely to benefit your heart. You
can guard against heart disease by exercising and eating foods that are low in fat. "
> > You don't get addicited to
> > broccoli. You do to alcohol.
>
> People seem to get addicted to sugar/sugary foods and junk food in
> general, hence the epidemic of obesity in America.
And there's no difference in your mind between glucose and alcohol? I don't believe sugar
permanently alters brain chemistry, as does alcohol addiction, cocaine addiction, and other highly
addictive drugs.
Jay Tanzman
dal...@webtv.net 이(가)
<4855-3C6...@storefull-2236.public.lawson.webtv.net>
A very good doctor (cardiologist) told me that alcohol is good for you
even in fairly large amounts.
Of course, you have to be concerned about
becoming an alcoholic and you don't want to drink and drive. Otherwise,
as long as you don't drink so much that you damage your liver, or lose
control of your weight, it is good for you.
Bottom line, he says it's good for you but there is the issue of
controlling IT and not letting IT control you.
Well, he's wrong. Total mortality increases above 2 drinks/day.
PS: He also said the medical community knows this but will not say it
because of the related problems such as alcoholism and drunk driving.
That is why they stress no more than 2 a day.
Your doctor is nuts.
-Jay
Tom Phillips
Jay Tanzman wrote:
> I have pretty bad arthritis in my knees from running. Not life-threatening, but
> there's some pretty serious surgery is in my future.
Knees tend to deteriorate as we age. Mine aren't what they used to either and I've never really
abused them, as evidenced from my last downclimb on a steep 3rd class route (2500 feet) I used to run
up and down those easy routes but now my knees just ache.
Swimming is a good cardio exercise if running is a problem for you.
> > I run on streets daily and the risk of getting hit by a car are nil -- unless that
> > driver is alcohol impaired.
>
> The risk of a byciclist getting seriously injured is not negligible.
True. They often ignore traffic signals :=) Kidding aside, obviously biking is dangerous amid
traffic. Bike trails are available in most cities and is also supposed to be easier on the knees.
> > In the case of alcohol the risks of using and the overall harmful
> > effects on society (note I don't advocate prohibition) generally outweigh the benefits.
>
> So you _claim_. I haven't read the whole thread, but among the posts of yours I
> have read, you haven't presented any evidence of this; only your subjective
> impressions.
I've just done some reading on medline. Long term alcohol consumption was reported to affect fluid
balance and kidneys, cause brain shrinkage, weaken the heart muscle, and cause damage to bone marrow
and red blood cells. These effects are not restricted to chronic alcoholics.
That fact is, the deleterious and harmful effects of alcohol are well known, like smoking. I don't
feel I need to offer cites. This is not a subject that requires proof on my part; others have already
proved it and anyone can do a little research if they want cites. What I read is that moderate
drinking can benefit some members of the adult population who might otherwsie suffer from *one* type
of heart disease (usually due to their own dietary negligence), but as you also stated exercise and
diet can achieve the same thing. Alcohol is an addictive drug. Everyone knows this. Alcohol kills.
Everyone knows this. What I am arguing is that most people drink not to benefit health, but to
benefit their own pleasure. It's the drug induced feeling or buzz they desire, not the benefit.
Society approves of this drug use while hypocritically prosecuting and jailing other more benign drug
users (pot smokers.)
> What if two drinks a day cut heart attacks by 30% (a number I've made up, but
> it's plausible). Trade that off with a 7% increase in alcoholism.
>
> > With most
> > forms of exercise it would be just the opposite. Now sport climbing... :=)
>
> Actually, I think we've had a net positive effect on the environment in SoCal.
> We've added a lot of bolts, but we've cleaned up a lot of trash, too. Now, if
> we could just get cell phones banned at the crags...
Not to sound too purist, but if the only way to climb a route is to bolt every stance I think it
should remain unclimbed. Of course, rappel anchors are a different story. Cell phones? Never happen
>
> > > Moderate alcohol consumption reduces CHD
> > > risk according to a consistent body of evidence, but there is a 7% chance of
> > > becoming an alcohol abuser.
> > >
> > > > 7% sounds low.
> > >
> > > It's from a government study quoted in a graduate nutrition textbook. It's
> > > probably the most reliable estimate available.
> >
> > My estimate is unscientifically based on the number of people I know who drink and the effect it
> > has on their lives. Way higher than 7%
> >
> > > > People prone to alcoholism (of which there are millions) whether they are
> > > > abusers or not simply do not drink from a moderation standpoint; they drink from addiction.
> > > > Thus the concept of moderation when dealing with an addictive drug is an oxymoron. So there
> > > > are more serious pros and cons than statistics might indicate.
> > >
> > > Why? Apparently 93% of alcohol drinkers able to drink in moderation.
> >
> > But they're "alcoholics." Thus the term "drink in moderation for health" precludes those who are
> > addicted, since then the reason they drink is from addiction.
>
> My point is that the risk of becoming an alcoholic is apparently small. Just as
> smoking marijuana doesn't "lead to hard drugs," drinking two glasses of wine a
> day, doesn't lead to alcoholism, at least not for the vast majority of drinkers
> (or marijuana smokers).
Well, just what makes people alcoholics is still largely unknown. But two things are sure: alcohol is
highly addictive and far more addictive than marijuana, and alcohol is the most prevalent drug in our
society. If you ask me, I'd say the risk was enormous. There are many millions of alcoholics in every
counrty, and in my medline readings were reports discussing the increased risks of heredity
alcoholism. Of course, such is always the debate, e.g., I never met a smoker who didn't say they
couldn't quit smoking any time they wanted or that claimed they could smoke without becoming
addicted.
> > They should be encouraged to exercise and eat a good diet instead.
>
> First of all, they already are encouraged to do so. Secondly, diet and exercise
> will reduce CHD risk, but not eliminate it. Moderate consumption of alcohol, if
> _added_ to diet and exercise, would further reduce risk. In the absense of
> evidence to the contrary, you have to assume that the benefits are additive (by
> Occam's razor).
Then one also has to assume the dangers of alcohol use are additive. As I said, people aren't
drinking for health. I know of not one single person who drinks for health.
> > Much better result with almost
> > zero risk. Now if a doctor thinks that someone with existing heart problems could benefit
> > temporarily from 2 ounces of wine a day, then so be it. But my neighbor (who's had 3 bypass
> > operations) was told to stop drinking entirely.
>
> This is probably because he's on meds.
No, it's not.
Tom Phillips
> Tom Phillips wrote:
> >Your explanations of "but officer I only
> > had my daily health dose and am below the legal intoxication limit" won't
> > impress him. I guarantee it.
>
> I think that by definition, being under the legal limit implies that you won't
> be arrested.
It may be implied but police officers have wide discretion in applying laws
(especially drunk driving laws) and in fact can handcuff you and take you to jail if
they smell alcohol on your breath. You may not be convicted but in my state thay can
do this and in fact did it to a friend of mine who had only had one glass of wine
before he drove home from a business meeting.
GreatTips
> > I have pretty bad arthritis in my knees from running. Not
life-threatening, but
> > there's some pretty serious surgery is in my future.
How does it feel to be on the bottom, Jay?
My knees are good as new. :-)
Paul Rogers
news:3C6DA5F6...@sph.llu.edu...
>
> Actually, I think we've had a net positive effect on the environment in
SoCal.
> We've added a lot of bolts, but we've cleaned up a lot of trash, too.
Now, if
> we could just get cell phones banned at the crags...
Do they climb with them -- and do they use 'hands free' attachments? <g>
(Maybe in the chalk bag . . .)
PR
MattLB
> > > alcohol commercially produced for the purpose of drinking and socially sanctioned drug use.
> >
> > I never suggested it was, any more than the small amounts of cyanide
> > in food are any comparison to purified cyanide. The point is,
> > naturally produced alcohol has been around long enough in the
> > human/protohuman diet that there have evolved specific enzyme systems
> > to deal with it.
>
> I think you were suggesting that. Nevertheless, fruit that's begun to ferment isn't a comparison
> to a deliberately fermented beverage nor is any evolutionary biochemical trait to deal with
> fermented fruit.
Ethanol is ethanol whether it comes from rotting fruit or a glass of
whiskey. Animals evolved a way to deal with ethanol because it was
encountered often enough that not doing so would cause death. Drinking
whiskey obviously overwhelms a system evolved to deal with the small
amounts of alcohol from fruit or gut bacteria.
>
> > > > I can't see how blood alcohol affects oxygen transport or nutrient
> > > > uptake, but I don't have evidence refuting it.
> > >
> > > maybe you should do some research on how alcohol (as drunk in concentrated forms) affects the
> > > body. Sure, one ounce with a meal should have no detrimental effects (in adults over 30.) But
> > > this is not how most people use alcohol.
> >
> > You're putting words in my mouth again. I made no comment on amounts
> > drunk or concentrations. I know something of how alcohol affects the
> > liver and brain, but I don't see how, biochemically speaking, it
> > affects oxygen transport.
> No one is putting words in your mouth. My understanding is one of the effects produced by the
> alcohol 'high" (since it is directly absorbed into the bloodstream) is it causes some sort of
> interference with RBCs thus depriving nutrients and oxygen. As I remember, it's likened to a
> ""chugging" effect in the bloodstream. I don't have the specific references I read regarding this
> so I can't cite it, which is why I suggested you could do that.
I haven't found anything along those lines. If anything ethanol
improves blood flow by raising blood pressure, dilating blood vessels
in the skin (hence the warm feeling) and decreasing platelet
activation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8198204&dopt=Abstract)
> regardless, it is known that
> alcohol comsumption has negative impacts on the hematopoietic system in general:
>
> "Alcohol's adverse effects on the blood-building, or hematopoietic, system are both direct and
> indirect. The direct consequences of alcohol(1) consumption include toxic effects on the bone
> marrow; the blood cell pre-cursors; and the mature red blood cells (RBC's), white blood cells
> (WBC's), and platelets. Alcohol's indirect effects include nutritional deficiencies that impair
> the production and function of various blood cells. (1. ...alcohol-related hematological problems
> can occur at [lower] consumption levels. The drinker's risk for developing these problems grows
> with increasing alcohol consumption.) The Hematological Complications of Alcoholism, HAROLD S.
> BALLARD, M.D. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
These are all fairly indirect consequences of long term alcohol
consumption/abuse. They don't relate to a one off consumption of
alcohol. Also, reducing the number of red blood cells produced isn't
the same as reducing the ability of a particular red blood cell to
carry oxygen, which is what I was querying. The only effect I've found
was a slight change in the composition of the fats in the outer
leaflet of the red blood cell membrane, which won't affect oxygen
transport.
> > > > However, alcohol has
> > > > beneficial effects on digestion by directly stimulating gastric
> > > > secretion of acid and pepsin from the stomach mucosa. This is only of
> > > > benefit if the alcohol is being consumed along with a meal, of course.
> > >
> > > Most digestion takes place in the intestine. The stomach is really of little consequence and
> > > mainly serves as a way station for food. Some partial breakdown does occur in the stomach
> > > but people without stomachs can still digest food.
> >
> > This doesn't change the fact that it's a beneficial effect, which is
> > what you were denying existed.
> of course it does (1) alcohol is absorbed directly in the small intestine, not digested (which is
> why you shouldn't drink on an empty stomach.)
Alcohol is absorbed by any part of the body it touches. The gut has a
profuse blood supply which means the alcohol gets taken up and spread
around the body more quickly, but the mouth, oesophagous and stomach
will all absorb some alcohol.
> (2) ingesting alcohol with food can cause absorbtion
> problems with some nutrients according to the info I'm reading on NIH's website (medline.) If you
> need an aid to digestion, I suggest yogurt or plant enzymes.
Again, you're jumping to the conclusion that I'm advocating alcohol as
a digestive aid. I'm not, merely showing it does have actions that
could be considered beneficial.
> > > Irrelevant. We're not talking about berries which people don't eat anyway and which are not
> > > being marketed as a health product.
> >
> > It's not irrelevant. You're suggesting anything which has bad effects
> > can't be called food. Red kidney beans are toxic unless they've been
> > thoroughly cooked. Does this mean they aren't food? Of course not.
>
> Of course it's irrelevant. Berries that birds eat and humans don't aren't *distilled* liquors,
> wines, or beers. These are *products* specifically designed and marketed for their alcohol content
> as a drug. Your logic appears fallacious.
You're saying alcohol is a man-made toxic drug and therefore isn't
food and isn't healthy. I'm saying that the being man-made argument
falls down because alcohol is encountered naturally in 'normal' foods
(albeit in tiny amounts) and being toxic is all a matter of degree.
Berries are designed to be eaten i.e. they are food. Yew berries
happen to be toxic 'food' as far as humans are concerned, but birds
can deal with the toxin, so it's just food to them. Humans can deal
with moderate amounts of toxic alcohol, so it *could* be considered
food to us.
While there's no doubt that many(most?) people consume alcohol as a
drug, others actually like the taste of certain wines and consume them
as connoiseurs, usually with their meals. These are two very different
situations, with very different short term and long term consequences.
> > > > Yes, ethanol is toxic, but
> > > > the body can metabolize it to a form that's not only safe, but useful.
> > > There is simply no way that these benefits of ingested alcohol can outweigh it's toxic,
> > > poisonous, and addictive harm to the human body and tissues.
> > Again, all I said was alcohol can be converted to something useful. I
> > didn't say its benefits were so good it should be recommended as a
> > health product.
> Then I fail to understand why you are arguing the point.
I've never argued alcohol should be used as a health supplement, just
that it's not ALL bad. In small quantities alcohol is not a problem as
the body can comfortably metabolize it.
What I am arguing is that alcohol is a special case (when compared to
other toxic substances) in that:
a) the body has specific systems to deal with it
b) it has desirable (to some) effects when taken in sufficent
quantities to overwhelm the system
While other drugs such as heroin tend to mimic existing body
chemicals, alcohol doesn't and it's 'high' producing effects are a
lucky coincidence. The natural presence of alcohol in rotting fruit
was another lucky coincidence. Both of these led to humans deliberated
fermenting fruit to create more alcohol.
> > People seem to get addicted to sugar/sugary foods and junk food in
> > general, hence the epidemic of obesity in America.
>
> And there's no difference in your mind between glucose and alcohol? I don't believe sugar
> permanently alters brain chemistry, as does alcohol addiction, cocaine addiction, and other highly
> addictive drugs.
Addiction is addiction. Some addictions have worse effects than
others. Obesity and the associated heart disease is a bigger killer
than alcoholism, so the distinction between alcohol and sugar is moot.
Also, I think you'll find diabetics (who have very high blood sugar)
suffer with neurological disorders.
MattLB
K
"Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote
> Regular and moderate exercise presents very little serious or long term
health risks outside of
> minor injuries. I run on streets daily and the risk of getting hit by a
car are nil -- unless that
> driver is alcohol impaired.
Hi -
This thread has held my interest.
Speaking of risk and safety, I'm going off-topic to complain about people
who exercise with their bicycles on no-shoulder highways while dragging
infants in-tow in those trailer contraptions. I'll bet any one of these
parents would probably go ballistic if they noticed a child in a car not
properly fastened down with a seatbelt and/or in a safety seat. Yet they
expose their kids to extreme harm by pulling them around on unsafe highways.
I see it done all the time.
Non-alcohol-impaired drivers have many accidents too. Mechanicals fail.
People don't pay attention. People fall asleep. Even adults walking along
roads and highways are at risk and some drivers just don't care to yield.
As for the risks of addiction to alcohol in taking a daily dose, I suspect
that they are significant. There are degrees of addiction and different
types - low level addiction - maybe needing a daily drink and then different
levels from there. There's also the periodic binge alcoholic.
Not everyone who has a drink a day is an alcoholic, but some are.
I agree that if the healthy benefit of one drink per day can be garnered in
another way, there's not much point from a health point of view for a
non-drinker to begin the habit. If a person wants to try to become a wine
connoisseur, that's another story! :) Wine does have as history at least as
long than mankind's written record. It is intertwined in social custom and
religious observance. Like anything else, too much of a good thing is where
we fail and have problems.
Kosta
Jay Tanzman
Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> Jay Tanzman wrote:
>
> > I have pretty bad arthritis in my knees from running. Not life-threatening, but
> > there's some pretty serious surgery is in my future.
>
> Knees tend to deteriorate as we age. Mine aren't what they used to either and I've never really
> abused them, as evidenced from my last downclimb on a steep 3rd class route (2500 feet) I used to run
> up and down those easy routes but now my knees just ache.
I strongly recommend you start taking glucosamine sulfate. I went from being
only able to run three times a week for 20 minutes to being able to run 5 times
a week for up to an hour after about a month on glucosamine.
> Swimming is a good cardio exercise if running is a problem for you.
It's also a risk factor for drowning. :-)
> > > In the case of alcohol the risks of using and the overall harmful
> > > effects on society (note I don't advocate prohibition) generally outweigh the benefits.
> >
> > So you _claim_. I haven't read the whole thread, but among the posts of yours I
> > have read, you haven't presented any evidence of this; only your subjective
> > impressions.
>
> I've just done some reading on medline. Long term alcohol consumption was reported to affect fluid
> balance and kidneys, cause brain shrinkage, weaken the heart muscle, and cause damage to bone marrow
> and red blood cells. These effects are not restricted to chronic alcoholics.
Drinking in excess of 2 drinks per day might do the above, but, as I have said
repeatedly, for men, drinking one to two drinks per day prolongs life compared
with not drinking at all. There is a consistent body of evidence showing this.
> That fact is, the deleterious and harmful effects of alcohol are well known, like smoking. I don't
> feel I need to offer cites.
You seem to be in denial. Again: drinking one to two drinks a day prolongs life
-- for men, anyway. There is a substantial literature on this, and I have
posted one review article of several that mention it. If you are claiming that
moderate drinking is unhealthul, then you are claiming that this body of
literature is wrong, and you need to cite literature to back up your claim. A
deleterious effect of moderate drinking on men's health is not "well known."
Quite the contrary.
> This is not a subject that requires proof on my part; others have already
> proved it and anyone can do a little research if they want cites.
Sorry, Tom, the literature on moderate drinking says it's good for you.
> What I read is that moderate
> drinking can benefit some members of the adult population who might otherwsie suffer from *one* type
> of heart disease (usually due to their own dietary negligence), but as you also stated exercise and
> diet can achieve the same thing.
No. What I have stated is that the effects of diet and moderate alcohol
consumption are most likely additive. Diet, exercise, lipid-lowering drugs, 2
glasses of wine a day -- none of these things eliminates heart attack risk in
the population; they only reduce it.
> Alcohol is an addictive drug.
Yeah, 7% of drinkers get addicted.
> Everyone knows this. Alcohol kills.
Except for 2 glasses of wine per day. I'm done repeating myself.
> Everyone knows this. What I am arguing is that most people drink not to benefit health, but to
> benefit their own pleasure. It's the drug induced feeling or buzz they desire, not the benefit.
Who cares? They get the benefit anyway. I eat salmon because it tastes good.
Fortunately, it is also protective against CHD.
> Society approves of this drug use while hypocritically prosecuting and jailing other more benign drug
> users (pot smokers.)
Then pot should be legalized, obviously.
> > What if two drinks a day cut heart attacks by 30% (a number I've made up, but
> > it's plausible). Trade that off with a 7% increase in alcoholism.
Why don't you address this point?
> > > With most
> > > forms of exercise it would be just the opposite. Now sport climbing... :=)
> >
> > Actually, I think we've had a net positive effect on the environment in SoCal.
> > We've added a lot of bolts, but we've cleaned up a lot of trash, too. Now, if
> > we could just get cell phones banned at the crags...
>
> Not to sound too purist, but if the only way to climb a route is to bolt every stance I think it
> should remain unclimbed.
You don't have to bolt it to climb it; you have to bolt it to protect it. Sport
climbing is climbing bolted routes, by definition.
> Of course, rappel anchors are a different story. Cell phones? Never happen
> > My point is that the risk of becoming an alcoholic is apparently small. Just as
> > smoking marijuana doesn't "lead to hard drugs," drinking two glasses of wine a
> > day, doesn't lead to alcoholism, at least not for the vast majority of drinkers
> > (or marijuana smokers).
>
> Well, just what makes people alcoholics is still largely unknown. But two things are sure: alcohol is
> highly addictive and far more addictive than marijuana, and alcohol is the most prevalent drug in our
> society. If you ask me, I'd say the risk was enormous.
7%.
> > > Much better result with almost
> > > zero risk. Now if a doctor thinks that someone with existing heart problems could benefit
> > > temporarily from 2 ounces of wine a day, then so be it. But my neighbor (who's had 3 bypass
> > > operations) was told to stop drinking entirely.
> >
> > This is probably because he's on meds.
>
> No, it's not.
I don't know why a doctor would recommend this. He's probably nutritionally
ignorant. Nearly all are.
In public health circles, there is now consensus that men who are moderate
drinkers should not be counseled to stop drinking. There is a debate as to
whether male non-drinkers should be counseled to drink moderately. The only
reason that there is any debate is because of the 7%.
-Jay
Tom Phillips
MattLB wrote:
> I haven't found anything along those lines.
As I indicated that reference is used from memory, so it may be outdated. If I find I'll post it.
> If anything ethanol
> improves blood flow by raising blood pressure, dilating blood vessels
> in the skin (hence the warm feeling) and decreasing platelet
> activation
I wouldn't say raising blood pressure is a good thing, but low blood pressure. Also, any experienced outdoor person
knows use of alcohol not only causes dehaydration it substantially increases the risk of hypothermia. That "warm"
feeling is a deception and can kill you in a situation where naturally constricting blood flow is essential to
survival. One of the many myths of alcohol is that it "warms" you when in reality it interferers with the body's heat
regulation.
> > regardless, it is known that
> > alcohol comsumption has negative impacts on the hematopoietic system in general:
> >
> > "Alcohol's adverse effects on the blood-building, or hematopoietic, system are both direct and
> > indirect. The direct consequences of alcohol(1) consumption include toxic effects on the bone
> > marrow; the blood cell pre-cursors; and the mature red blood cells (RBC's), white blood cells
> > (WBC's), and platelets. Alcohol's indirect effects include nutritional deficiencies that impair
> > the production and function of various blood cells. (1. ...alcohol-related hematological problems
> > can occur at [lower] consumption levels. The drinker's risk for developing these problems grows
> > with increasing alcohol consumption.) The Hematological Complications of Alcoholism, HAROLD S.
> > BALLARD, M.D. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
>
> These are all fairly indirect consequences of long term alcohol
> consumption/abuse. They don't relate to a one off consumption of
> alcohol.
But we're (at least I am) talking about long term daily use of alcohol for "health" benefits (actually only one health
benefit, raising good cholesterol), not one time drinking.
> Also, reducing the number of red blood cells produced isn't
> the same as reducing the ability of a particular red blood cell to
> carry oxygen, which is what I was querying.
If I find that I'll post it.
> The only effect I've found
> was a slight change in the composition of the fats in the outer
> leaflet of the red blood cell membrane, which won't affect oxygen
> transport.
The reference I posted noted that long term alcohol use damages red and white blood cells, which would affect
transport. It also has immediate depressive effects on respiration.
> Alcohol is absorbed by any part of the body it touches. The gut has a
> profuse blood supply which means the alcohol gets taken up and spread
> around the body more quickly, but the mouth, oesophagous and stomach
> will all absorb some alcohol
Yes, and it also interferes with the absorbtion of some nutrients in the small intestine.
> > (2) ingesting alcohol with food can cause absorbtion
> > problems with some nutrients according to the info I'm reading on NIH's website (medline.) If you
> > need an aid to digestion, I suggest yogurt or plant enzymes.
>
> Again, you're jumping to the conclusion that I'm advocating alcohol as
> a digestive aid. I'm not, merely showing it does have actions that
> could be considered beneficial.
I don't think I jumped to that conclusion since that appeared to me the conclusion you were stating. But I accept your
clarification.
> You're saying alcohol is a man-made toxic drug and therefore isn't
> food and isn't healthy. I'm saying that the being man-made argument
> falls down because alcohol is encountered naturally in 'normal' foods
> (albeit in tiny amounts) and being toxic is all a matter of degree.
> Berries are designed to be eaten i.e. they are food. Yew berries
> happen to be toxic 'food' as far as humans are concerned, but birds
> can deal with the toxin, so it's just food to them. Humans can deal
> with moderate amounts of toxic alcohol, so it *could* be considered
> food to us.
The alcohol people consume does not occur when food ferments on its own. The alcohol being consumed is specifically
manufactured for consumptive purposes. I don't what could be clearer. The fact that alcohol has caloric value
(according to Jay Tanzman) is why it's considered a micronutrient. But it's not an essential nutrient and in fact
provides no nutrition.
> While there's no doubt that many(most?) people consume alcohol as a
> drug, others actually like the taste of certain wines and consume them
> as connoiseurs, usually with their meals. These are two very different
> situations, with very different short term and long term consequences.
>
> > > > > Yes, ethanol is toxic, but
> > > > > the body can metabolize it to a form that's not only safe, but useful.
> > > > There is simply no way that these benefits of ingested alcohol can outweigh it's toxic,
> > > > poisonous, and addictive harm to the human body and tissues.
> > > Again, all I said was alcohol can be converted to something useful. I
> > > didn't say its benefits were so good it should be recommended as a
> > > health product.
> > Then I fail to understand why you are arguing the point.
>
> I've never argued alcohol should be used as a health supplement, just
> that it's not ALL bad. In small quantities alcohol is not a problem as
> the body can comfortably metabolize it.
O.K. But those small quantities do not occur in beer, wine, or distilled spirits (i.e., consumptive beverages.) So we
can agree on that?
> What I am arguing is that alcohol is a special case (when compared to
> other toxic substances) in that:
> a) the body has specific systems to deal with it
> b) it has desirable (to some) effects when taken in sufficent
> quantities to overwhelm the system
O.K.
> While other drugs such as heroin tend to mimic existing body
> chemicals, alcohol doesn't and it's 'high' producing effects are a
> lucky coincidence.
Tis my understanding that in the evolutionary scheme of things nothing is a coincidence since evolutionary processes
(which is what you are arguing) are selective.
> The natural presence of alcohol in rotting fruit
> was another lucky coincidence. Both of these led to humans deliberated
> fermenting fruit to create more alcohol.
>
> > > People seem to get addicted to sugar/sugary foods and junk food in
> > > general, hence the epidemic of obesity in America.
> >
> > And there's no difference in your mind between glucose and alcohol? I don't believe sugar
> > permanently alters brain chemistry, as does alcohol addiction, cocaine addiction, and other highly
> > addictive drugs.
>
> Addiction is addiction. Some addictions have worse effects than
> others.
Then addiction is not addiction. One can easily get addicted to caffeine but such is not life threatening.
> Obesity and the associated heart disease is a bigger killer
> than alcoholism, s
Actually, heart disease is one of the consequences of alcoholism. Granted, it's not arteriosclerosis but many
alcoholics die of heart failure.
> so the distinction between alcohol and sugar is moot.
Hardly. The fact is alcohol is more than an evolutionary trait or coincidence. It's also a an issue of human moral and
social judgment and there's no way around that common sense fact. Given that exception, I can accept your other points.
Tom Phillips
Jay Tanzman wrote:
> Tom Phillips wrote:
> > In the case of alcohol the risks of using and the overall harmful
> > effects on society (note I don't advocate prohibition) generally outweigh the benefits.
>
> So you _claim_. I haven't read the whole thread, but among the posts of yours I
> have read, you haven't presented any evidence of this; only your subjective
> impressions.
>
> What if two drinks a day cut heart attacks by 30% (a number I've made up, but
> it's plausible). Trade that off with a 7% increase in alcoholism.
I'm going to respond more directly to your subjectivism point:
If a study showed that use of cocaine raised good cholesterol would you advocate that as well? Would
you require proof that cocaine is bad for you over the limited good it does?
Ethyl alcohol is classified as both a poison and a drug, which is the reason alcohol is both toxic
and addictive. I don't have to "prove" that statement, it's a fact and anyone can look it up. You
argue there's a health benefit associated with moderate use and that is a scientific fact. O.K. But
then you make an assumption that using alcohol along with better more effective health measures (diet
and exercise) creates additive or even greater health benefits. I say common sense is more important
than speculation about drinking which likely benefits mainly the wine making industry. We know
alcohol has serious harmful effects and is a dangerous drug. The benefits of drinking it pale in
comparison to the harm it does.
If you want to call that subjectivism, O.K. But common sense reasoning is just as valid as science --
even more so perhaps -- when in the arena of human affairs. You say a risk of 7% statistical
alcoholism in the population is a small and therefore acceptable in moderate alcohol use.
Scientifically that may be valid. But I say just one life ruined or one person dead due to alcohol is
unacceptable. There's a reason debates over alcohol have often centered on the subjective morality of
using it. This is because how one weighs the value of human life is very subjective.
Steve Harris
> If you want to call that subjectivism, O.K. But common sense reasoning is
just as valid as science --
> even more so perhaps -- when in the arena of human affairs. You say a
risk of 7% statistical
> alcoholism in the population is a small and therefore acceptable in
moderate alcohol use.
> Scientifically that may be valid. But I say just one life ruined or one
person dead due to alcohol is
> unacceptable. There's a reason debates over alcohol have often centered on
the subjective morality of
> using it. This is because how one weighs the value of human life is very
subjective.
So right. That's why I say that even one life ruined or one person dead
because of swimming pools, trampolines, and snowboards is unacceptable. AND
hiking in the mountains. People have been killed hiking in the mountains.
Yes, they have.
Ms. Grundy
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited
bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate
name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message
& headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
Tom Phillips
Steve Harris wrote:
>
>
> So right. That's why I say that even one life ruined or one person dead
> because of swimming pools, trampolines, and snowboards is unacceptable. AND
> hiking in the mountains. People have been killed hiking in the mountains.
> Yes, they have.
Yeah, right, moron. All 30,000 plus highway dead. Then there's the alcoholic
dead. Then there's...well for a an MD your about as stupid as they come, aren't
ya?
Tom Phillips
http://www.ncadd.org/facts/problems.html
Tom Phillips
Jay Tanzman wrote:
> > Knees tend to deteriorate as we age. Mine aren't what they used to either and I've never really
> > abused them, as evidenced from my last downclimb on a steep 3rd class route (2500 feet) I used to run
> > up and down those easy routes but now my knees just ache.
>
> I strongly recommend you start taking glucosamine sulfate. I went from being
> only able to run three times a week for 20 minutes to being able to run 5 times
> a week for up to an hour after about a month on glucosamine.
Thanks.
> > Swimming is a good cardio exercise if running is a problem for you.
>
> It's also a risk factor for drowning. :-)
Only if ya can't swim...me? I was a lifeguard.
> > That fact is, the deleterious and harmful effects of alcohol are well known, like smoking. I don't
> > feel I need to offer cites.
>
> You seem to be in denial. Again: drinking one to two drinks a day prolongs life
> -- for men, anyway. There is a substantial literature on this, and I have
> posted one review article of several that mention it. If you are claiming that
> moderate drinking is unhealthul,
Ah...you know what I'm saying or you've been having trouble reading my posts. I don't need to prove
alcohol is both toxic and addictive. For people with a propensity for addiction the two drink limit is
total nonsense, an oxymoron. Just doesn't happen. Ever. Never.....
> > This is not a subject that requires proof on my part; others have already
> > proved it and anyone can do a little research if they want cites.
>
> Sorry, Tom, the literature on moderate drinking says it's good for you.
Sorry, Jay. Both modern and historical medical literature also says alcohol is bad for you...people are
free to weigh the small good vs the large bad.
> > What I read is that moderate
> > drinking can benefit some members of the adult population who might otherwsie suffer from *one* type
> > of heart disease (usually due to their own dietary negligence), but as you also stated exercise and
> > diet can achieve the same thing.
>
> No. What I have stated is that the effects of diet and moderate alcohol
> consumption are most likely additive. Diet, exercise, lipid-lowering drugs, 2
> glasses of wine a day -- none of these things eliminates heart attack risk in
> the population; they only reduce it.
Is that (additive) a fact based on clinical study? You've admitted regular exercise and diet provide the
same (and I would say most likely better) HDL effect as the 2 glass/day drink. So unless it's a fact, why
go there?
> > Alcohol is an addictive drug.
>
> Yeah, 7% of drinkers get addicted.
And that's 14 million people in the US, or to spin the statistics in a meaningful way, that's over 17% of
the adult US population.
> > Everyone knows this. Alcohol kills.
>
> Except for 2 glasses of wine per day. I'm done repeating myself.
Me too. Although it can still get you arrested...
> > Everyone knows this. What I am arguing is that most people drink not to benefit health, but to
> > benefit their own pleasure. It's the drug induced feeling or buzz they desire, not the benefit.
>
> Who cares? They get the benefit anyway. I eat salmon because it tastes good.
> Fortunately, it is also protective against CHD.
Well, that sort of shoots your drink for health argument out the window. Drinking for health is the whole
of your argument. You base your quoted stats on that (2 drinks a day only 7% risk alcoholism) Many people
drink more than two drinks when they drink, and thus that 7% stat is meaningless.
> > Society approves of this drug use while hypocritically prosecuting and jailing other more benign drug
> > users (pot smokers.)
>
> Then pot should be legalized, obviously.
Legal or not, we sholud be putting people in jail for smoking it -- unless they smoke and drive.
> > > What if two drinks a day cut heart attacks by 30% (a number I've made up, but
> > > it's plausible). Trade that off with a 7% increase in alcoholism.
>
> Why don't you address this point?
What if proper diet (i.e., no macdonalds etc) and exercise eliminates heart disease as a major problem in
this country? I can't carry on this conversation for ever let alone for ever on hypothetics.
> > Not to sound too purist, but if the only way to climb a route is to bolt every stance I think it
> > should remain unclimbed.
>
> You don't have to bolt it to climb it; you have to bolt it to protect it. Sport
> climbing is climbing bolted routes, by definition.
yeah, I know. and it's the same difference.
Sport climbers insist on climbing 5.25 routes real pro can't protect cause there's nothing on the wall --
smooth as plexiglass :=)
> > Of course, rappel anchors are a different story. Cell phones? Never happen
>
> > > My point is that the risk of becoming an alcoholic is apparently small. Just as
> > > smoking marijuana doesn't "lead to hard drugs," drinking two glasses of wine a
> > > day, doesn't lead to alcoholism, at least not for the vast majority of drinkers
> > > (or marijuana smokers).
> >
> > Well, just what makes people alcoholics is still largely unknown. But two things are sure: alcohol is
> > highly addictive and far more addictive than marijuana, and alcohol is the most prevalent drug in our
> > society. If you ask me, I'd say the risk was enormous.
>
> 7%.
You know, some day you'll have to acknowledge that 7% is an awful lot of people.
> > > > Much better result with almost
> > > > zero risk. Now if a doctor thinks that someone with existing heart problems could benefit
> > > > temporarily from 2 ounces of wine a day, then so be it. But my neighbor (who's had 3 bypass
> > > > operations) was told to stop drinking entirely.
> > >
> > > This is probably because he's on meds.
> >
> > No, it's not.
>
> I don't know why a doctor would recommend this. He's probably nutritionally
> ignorant. Nearly all are.
>
> In public health circles, there is now consensus that men who are moderate
> drinkers should not be counseled to stop drinking. There is a debate as to
> whether male non-drinkers should be counseled to drink moderately. The only
> reason that there is any debate is because of the 7%.
14 million people. Plus 100,000 dead each year from alcohol related deaths.
I don't think we going to advance this argument beyond this last post (I'll let you have the final word.)
Unless we start getting ridiculously facetious like SBHarris (who compares hiking deaths with alcohol
related deaths. Yeah, must be those grizzly bear attacks right and left in the woods. Course I've been
hiking in the woods for 40 years and never seen anyone actually die, and the search and rescue groups I
know only haul out about 90 people a year. Still, SB must know. He's a alcohol-wilderness medical
expert...NOT)
Sorry for that last rant :=)
Tom Phillips
chlorine, and sniffing pine cones, and snow, and, well....
"...each year 183,000 (37%) rapes and sexual assaults involve alcohol use by the
offender, as do just over 197,000 (15%) of robberies, about 661,000 (27%) aggravated
assaults, and nearly 1.7 million (25%) simple assaults (US Department of Justice,
Alcohol and Crime: An Analysis of National Data on the Prevalence of Alcohol
Involvement in Crime, 4/98)."
Tom Phillips
"Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), which can occur when women drink during pregnancy, is
the leading known environmental cause of mental retardation in theWestern World (Ibid.,
p.221). [For more information, see NCADD's "Alcohol and Other Drug-Related Birth
Defects" facts.] "
Don't get too worked up worrying about those swimming pool and hiking deaths, steve.
Woldn't do for an MD of your apparent caliber. Just tell your patients to go home and
have a drink by the pool.
Tom Phillips
Steve Harris wrote:
> So right. That's why I say that even one life ruined or one person dead
> because of swimming pools, trampolines, and snowboards is unacceptable. AND
> hiking in the mountains. People have been killed hiking in the mountains.
> Yes, they have.
Yeah, and jews were killed because they were jews. Me thinks you missed the
point regarding subjectivism, oh mental moron. I.e., if human life is only a
statistic, it has about as much value as the nazis gave it.
One really would expect more abstract thought from an MD.
Tom Phillips
Tom Phillips wrote:
> > > Society approves of this drug use while hypocritically prosecuting and jailing other more benign drug
> > > users (pot smokers.)
> >
> > Then pot should be legalized, obviously.
>
> Legal or not, we sholud be putting people in jail for smoking it -- unless they smoke and drive.
umm...*should not.*
Just want to be clear -- Tom Phillips.
DB
Talk about missing the point. You stated "But I say just one life ruined or
one person dead due to alcohol is unacceptable." Steve was trying to state
how everything is relative. Do you know how many people are killed by
aspirin every year? Running on the street? Walking down stairways?
DB
Jay Tanzman
Paul Rogers wrote:
>
> "Jay Tanzman" <jtan...@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C6DA5F6...@sph.llu.edu...
> >
> > Actually, I think we've had a net positive effect on the environment in
> SoCal.
> > We've added a lot of bolts, but we've cleaned up a lot of trash, too.
> Now, if
> > we could just get cell phones banned at the crags...
>
> Do they climb with them ...
A friend of mine bought his house using a cell phone while climbing.
-Jay
Steve Harris
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited
bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate
name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message
& headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
"Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3C6F863B...@aol.com...
>
>
> Steve Harris wrote:
>
> > So right. That's why I say that even one life ruined or one person dead
> > because of swimming pools, trampolines, and snowboards is unacceptable.
AND
> > hiking in the mountains. People have been killed hiking in the
mountains.
> > Yes, they have.
>
> Yeah, and jews were killed because they were jews. Me thinks you missed
the
> point regarding subjectivism, oh mental moron. I.e., if human life is only
a
> statistic, it has about as much value as the nazis gave it.
Oh, Wow. We've made it to Godwin's Law Limit in one step.
> One really would expect more abstract thought from an MD.
Well, one of us is capable of abstract throught and the other is not, that's
for sure.
SBH
Tom Phillips
Steve Harris wrote:
> Well, one of us is capable of abstract throught and the other is not, that's
> for sure.
I'm sure your patients (if ya actually have any) appreciate your sarcasitc wit,
steve.
Tom Phillips
DB wrote:
> Talk about missing the point.
no, the point (which in fact was my point not sbh asshole's) was in any
discussion on alcohol for health use the effects of addiction and abuse on
society are more relevant to the value placed on human life rather than on
statistics, i.e., you can't simply justify advocating using alcohol for a
better heart as being beneficial to society based on only 7% of the population
becoming alcoholics. People are not statistics (unless you're an ass of an MD
with a sarcastic bedside manner.) It's not just those 7%. It's the 100,000
alcohol related dead each year and the 14 million alcoholics times those
affected by said 14 million alcoholics. Etc.
Clear enough? Or do you guys need a diagram drawn in crayon?
> You stated "But I say just one life ruined or
> one person dead due to alcohol is unacceptable." Steve was trying to state
> how everything is relative. Do you know how many people are killed by
> aspirin every year? Running on the street? Walking down stairways?
Not as many as are killed by alcohol. And I do know how many are killed every
year by "hiking" (at least in my state which gets a higher proportion of such
deaths as compared with most other states in the union.) Way under 100. Better
to stand on a mountaintop in a thunderstorm with your ice axe used as a
lightning rod than to drink long term for "health." You'll have a better
chance of survivial.
Tom Phillips
MattLB
> > improves blood flow by raising blood pressure, dilating blood vessels
> > in the skin (hence the warm feeling) and decreasing platelet
> > activation
>
> I wouldn't say raising blood pressure is a good thing, but low blood pressure.
I wouldn't say raising blood pressure is a good thing either, just
that it's the opposite to slowing blood flow.
> > These are all fairly indirect consequences of long term alcohol
> > consumption/abuse. They don't relate to a one off consumption of
> > alcohol.
>
> But we're (at least I am) talking about long term daily use of alcohol for "health" benefits (actually only one health
> benefit, raising good cholesterol), not one time drinking.
My query *was* about the effects of a given ethanol molecule on a
given red blood cell. Long term alcohol abuse obviously causes a slew
of health disorders, so it's no surprise that blood cell production
would also be affected.
> The reference I posted noted that long term alcohol use damages red and white blood cells, which would affect
> transport. It also has immediate depressive effects on respiration.
It affects transport by reducing the number of transporters (cells),
though, rather than reducing the ability of any one transporter to
transport. It's the second of these that I can't see a mechanism for.
> The alcohol people consume does not occur when food ferments on its own. The alcohol being consumed is specifically
> manufactured for consumptive purposes. I don't what could be clearer. The fact that alcohol has caloric value
> (according to Jay Tanzman) is why it's considered a micronutrient. But it's not an essential nutrient and in fact
> provides no nutrition.
I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying about alcohol
consumption, just emphasising the fact that it's not alcohol per se,
but the quantities consumed that lead to all the health problems.
> > While other drugs such as heroin tend to mimic existing body
> > chemicals, alcohol doesn't and it's 'high' producing effects are a
> > lucky coincidence.
>
> Tis my understanding that in the evolutionary scheme of things nothing is a coincidence since evolutionary processes
> (which is what you are arguing) are selective.
I'm suggesting the 'feeling good' aspect of alcohol is a coincidence.
Disrupting the function of brain cells by alcohol occurs first in the
advanced brain structures which limit behaviour. If it didn't it
wouldn't have the same removal of inhibitions effect it does. Then it
would simply be a consciousness depressing drug and people wouldn't
drink it.
Natural selection gave animals systems for protecting against alcohol
buildup over time, which would be toxic. This is the level the
selection acted at. By the time humans started deliberately consuming
alcohol the system was already in place, but inadequate to remove the
alcohol as fast as it was being absorbed into the blood. Getting drunk
clearly doesn't select against reproduction of your genes, if anything
it does the complete opposite.:-)
> > Addiction is addiction. Some addictions have worse effects than
> > others.
>
> Then addiction is not addiction. One can easily get addicted to caffeine but such is not life threatening.
If you drank caffeine in the quantities and concentrations that
alcohol is drunk, it probably would be.
> > Obesity and the associated heart disease is a bigger killer
> > than alcoholism, s
>
> Actually, heart disease is one of the consequences of alcoholism. Granted, it's not arteriosclerosis but many
> alcoholics die of heart failure.
>
> > so the distinction between alcohol and sugar is moot.
> Hardly. The fact is alcohol is more than an evolutionary trait or coincidence. It's also a an issue of human moral and
> social judgment and there's no way around that common sense fact. Given that exception, I can accept your other points.
I don't think we're in disagreement about the ultimately negative
results of prolonged alcohol consumption, but I do think evolutionary
factors place it in a different category than something like nitrous
oxide (laughing gas) which is just a drug/chemical that causes mental
confusion and euphoria. It isn't encountered naturally, there are no
special systems to deal with it and it has no calorific value (AFAIK).
MattLB
Alf Christophersen
wrote:
>Thanks. But I think fiber, maybe while not essentail, does greatly benefit
>digestion and health, does it not?
It helps the bowel movements to empty the content faster than
otherwise would have happened.
Jay Tanzman
Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> Jay Tanzman wrote:
>
> > Tom Phillips wrote:
> > > In the case of alcohol the risks of using and the overall harmful
> > > effects on society (note I don't advocate prohibition) generally outweigh the benefits.
> >
> > So you _claim_. I haven't read the whole thread, but among the posts of yours I
> > have read, you haven't presented any evidence of this; only your subjective
> > impressions.
> >
> > What if two drinks a day cut heart attacks by 30% (a number I've made up, but
> > it's plausible). Trade that off with a 7% increase in alcoholism.
>
> I'm going to respond more directly to your subjectivism point:
>
> If a study showed that use of cocaine raised good cholesterol would you advocate that as well?
Possibly.
> Would
> you require proof that cocaine is bad for you over the limited good it does?
Yes.
> Ethyl alcohol is classified as both a poison and a drug, which is the reason alcohol is both toxic
> and addictive.
Simvistatin is classified as both a poison and a drug, too.
> I don't have to "prove" that statement, it's a fact and anyone can look it up. You
> argue there's a health benefit associated with moderate use and that is a scientific fact. O.K. But
> then you make an assumption that using alcohol along with better more effective health measures (diet
> and exercise) creates additive or even greater health benefits.
You are making the assumption that diet an exercise are "better" and "more
effective." Yes, I am assuming that the benefits would be simply additive, at
least to a fist approximation. This is probably the case. It is the simplest
assumption, and therefore the correct one to make for both biological and
logical reasons. See Occam's Razor.
> I say common sense is more important
> than speculation about drinking which likely benefits mainly the wine making industry.
And I say that objectivity and scientific reasoning is more important than
so-called common sense. Your so-called common sense is leading you astray. You
are completely unable to accept the fact that drinking two glasses of wine a day
is good for you.
> We know
> alcohol has serious harmful effects and is a dangerous drug.
We know that only about large doses of alcohol.
> The benefits of drinking it pale in
> comparison to the harm it does.
What part of "reduces total mortality" do you not understand?
> If you want to call that subjectivism, O.K.
OK.
> But common sense reasoning is just as valid as science --
> even more so perhaps -- when in the arena of human affairs. You say a risk of 7% statistical
> alcoholism in the population is a small and therefore acceptable in moderate alcohol use.
> Scientifically that may be valid. But I say just one life ruined or one person dead due to alcohol is
> unacceptable.
Why is a death from cirrhosis less acceptable than a death from a heart attack?
-Jay
Alf Christophersen
<SBHar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>For really cheap but drinkable dark red wine try a 5 L size of Chianti-- the
>skinflint's red varietal. Carlo Rossi make a 5 L blended red table wine
>which from the taste I suspect is mostly Chianti, called "Paisano."
>Recommend you drink out of fruit jars while thinking of the folks in
>Steinbeck's Tortilla Flat. Salud.
Hm. You all make me so thirsty, so I'll have to look for my bottle of
cognac and have a tiny nap. Skål !!
Martin Banschbach PhD
have a
> similar "health" benefit as is claimed or stated for moderate alcohol?
For HDL, nicotinic acid is going to do a much better job of raising the good
HDL than alcohol does (even with the wine bioflavinoids).
When I was looking for alcohol and gamma-tocopherol I came across a paper
looking at wine without alcohol and as I recall, the effects were very
similar to what you can see for wine with alcohol.
During fermentation, chemicals are going to come out of the seeds and skin
that will not apparently come out when grapes are pressed to produce juice.
I tried to find that paper but could not. I did find one that basically
says the same thing. "Effects of red wine and wine polyphenol resveratrol
on platelet aggregation in vivo and in vitro" Int J Mol Med 2002
Jan;9(1):77-79. Chinese red wine with and without alcohol had the same
action on platelet aggregation.
I know that there has been some discussion (in smn) of what happens if you
take red wine and boil it to remove the ethanol. To be honest, I don't know
if that destroys some of the action of the wine.
If you start looking at straight ethanol, you see less of a health benefit
than you do with wine. Merlot is apparently very high in polyphenols and
that's what my wife and I drink. My son is an alcoholic and it does not
bother him to have my wife and I drink wine in front of him. He never drank
wine and does not really like it (beer and bourbon where his drugs of
choice).
I'm sure that many alcoholics abuse wine but the impression that I get is
that beer and hard liquor are the preferred forms, wine, if it is used is
going to usually be a port with as high an alcohol content as possible.
--
Marty B. "You are what you eat."
http://centernet.okstate.edu/nutrition/index.html
The above website is for educational purposes
only. Material in this website and posted material
represents the opinion of Martin Banschbach,
Ph.D. and does not reflect Oklahoma State
University policy or position on nutrition.
Issues regarding the diagnosis and treatment
of human disease can not be addressed
by material in the above website or by
Martin Banschbach, Ph.D.
Any comments made by Martin
Banschbach, Ph.D. are invalid unless
confirmed by your personal physician.
DRCEEPHD
>From: "Martin Banschbach PhD" mba...@osu-com.okstate.edu
>Date: 2/18/02 4:47 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <a4ruea$9a...@news.cis.okstate.edu>
>During fermentation, chemicals are going to come out of the seeds and skin
>that will not apparently come out when grapes are pressed to produce juice.
Uhmmm, a comment.
Wine is usually made from the liquid that comes from pressing the grapes. The
seeds and skins are discarded.
How then can the absent seeds and skin impart chemicals?
Cee.
Steve Harris
news:a4ruea$9a...@news.cis.okstate.edu...
> > Are there nutrients or combinations thereof or antioxidants that would
> have a
> > similar "health" benefit as is claimed or stated for moderate alcohol?
>
> For HDL, nicotinic acid is going to do a much better job of raising the
good
> HDL than alcohol does (even with the wine bioflavinoids).
Yes, agree.
> I know that there has been some discussion (in smn) of what happens if you
> take red wine and boil it to remove the ethanol. To be honest, I don't
know
> if that destroys some of the action of the wine.
Ethanol by itself has some interruptive effects on cardiovascular disease in
animal models for it, so I suspect that it does also in humans. However,
when you try to see it epidemiologically it doesn't show up for beer (which
is a wash) and is acutally negative for whisky. I conclude that perhaps
these have some bad stuff which makes up for the ethanol. It does show up
for white wines, so my guess is it's not just the red stuff there, but the
alcohol as well. But it's hard to tell. What we need is some good stats
from vodka drinkers.
There's no doubt the red stuff in red wine is part of the good stuff, and
perhaps most of it. And you can get the same from grape juice (you just have
to drink twice as much). Grape juice drinking is a good gambit for
alcoholics or those with that in their history, or who can't drink ethanol
for health, social, or religious reasons. If 12 oz of grape juice is too
much, they make "lite" (no sugar added) liquid grape juice extract in cans,
which can be drunk straight instead of dilute. It's potent, and no doubt
somewhere about the same as wine. Or better.
> I'm sure that many alcoholics abuse wine but the impression that I get is
> that beer and hard liquor are the preferred forms, wine, if it is used is
> going to usually be a port with as high an alcohol content as possible.
I think they mix in sugar to make port, not alcohol. In any case, cheap wine
(not port) by the jug is the cheapest ethanol per dollar, so really poor
alcoholics, and really cheap physicians, tend to gravitate to that
eventually.
SBH
Steve Harris
news:20020218185055...@mb-mn.aol.com...
They aren't discarded immediately, for some wines. The longer they're left,
the more polyphenols you get.
Martin Banschbach Ph.D.
>The
>seeds and skins are discarded.
>
>How then can the absent seeds and skin impart chemicals?
That's not what I understand but then I do not make wine. If the grapes are
mashed and the entire mix is fermented and then the liquid coming off is used,
you will get some chemicals from the skin and seeds.
If only the juice is used, then you will not.
For the grape seed extract that is trademarked the company lit states that the
seeds are treated to get more extraction than what occurs during the wine
making process. I suspect that some wines are made with juice and some are
made with mashed grapes. Any wine makers in the audience?
Marty B "You are what you eat"
DRCEEPHD
>Date: 2/18/02 6:39 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020218193928...@mb-ch.aol.com>
> I suspect that some wines are made with juice and some are
>made with mashed grapes. Any wine makers in the audience?
Reasonable question.
I am not currently a wine maker, but I do recall that my grandfather could make
wine out of about anything...grape wine, elderberry wine, dandelion wine,
blackberry wine, etc.
We also had an orchard from which we would get a few barrels of apple juice.
I would siphon out as much as I could hold until the diarrhea got too bad, or
the fermentation made the juice into cider.
In every case, we used only the juice.
Cee.
Eggs Pancakes Syrup Toast Coffee
>"health" benefits (actually only one health
>benefit, raising good cholesterol),
Nope. Wrong. Alcohol has many health benefits, including reductions in
mortality from multiple factors, reductions in incidence of dementia, etc...
>The alcohol people consume does not occur when food ferments on its own. The
>alcohol being consumed is specifically
>manufactured for consumptive purposes.<<
What an idiotic argument. Are Vitamin C tablets found in nature? No, they are
"specifically manufactured for consumptive purposes." Guess that means they
must be bad for you, right?
________________________
THUS SAYETH WithBACON