Another survey shows moderate drinking is good for longevity
Craig Cockburn
Tipple a day may keep early death away, scientists say
By Bryan Christie, Health Correspondent
The secret to a long life may lie in a little tipple each day, health
researchers report today.
The latest research carried out by doctors in Denmark provides further
evidence of the health benefits of moderate alcohol intake.
Another report, in the British Medical Journal, says that smokers are
largely ignoring advice to give up the habit, casting serious doubt on the
value of health promotion clinics throughout Britain.
In the Danish study, doctors analysed the drinking patterns of 13,000
people and tracked them over 10 years by which time about 2,000 had died.
They found that death rates were lowest in those who drank between one
and six alcoholic drinks a week. By contrast, teetotallers were almost
one-and-a-half times more likely to die in the ten years than moderate
drinkers.
The report is not a drinkers' charter. Death rates were found to rise for
heavy drinkers, with those taking 70 drinks a week having almost twice the
risk of abstainers and nearly two-and-a-half times that of moderate
drinkers.
The risks start to rise only after an intake of 42 drinks a week,
considerably in excess of the recommended levels in Britain of 21 units
of alcohol a week for men and 14 for women. A unit is a half pint of beer,
a measure of spirits or a standard glass of wine.
This is the latest in a series of studies highlighting the benefits of
moderate alcohol consumption. It is thought that alcohol has a role in
reducing cholesterol levels and thereby preventing heart disease.
The Danish researchers say that the phenomenon has been shown consistently,
as heart disease is more common among teetotallers, while cancers and
cirrhosis are the main cause of death among heavy drinkers.
The value of health promotion clinics is questioned in the other study,
which involved screening 18,500 men and women throughout Britain,
including a group in Dunfermline. They were offered advice on lowering
their risk of heart disease by giving up smoking, improving their diet
and taking more exercise.
Only 12 per cent of smokers acted positively on the advice in spite of
a year on counselling on lifestyle. The only patients who seemed to
benefit were those in the high risk heart attack category who managed
to lose some weight.
--
Craig Cockburn, pronounced "coburn" Email: cr...@scot.demon.co.uk
M.Sc. Student, Napier University, Edinburgh, Scotland
Sgri\obh thugam 'sa Ga\idhlig ma 'se do thoil e.
Stuart L. Laird
In a previous article, cr...@scot.demon.co.uk (Craig Cockburn) says:
>From The Scotsman, 28-Jan-94, P3 (this is the article in full)
>
>Tipple a day may keep early death away, scientists say
>By Bryan Christie, Health Correspondent
>
>The secret to a long life may lie in a little tipple each day, health
>researchers report today.
Dandy for non-alcoholics. I, on the other hand have no option for a
little tipple. I am an alcoholic. How many days, I wonder, did I SWEAR
to myself that I was going to have just one little tipple -- just to take
the edge off? Let's see. I drank alcoholicly for 11 years. That's 4015
days, more or less. There may have been a day or two each year when I
didn't drink, so we could round it off to 4000 days. So that's 4000
times I took the first drink, telling myself it would be the ONLY drink
that day. And 4000 times I didn't succeed. And if we were to want to
double that, I could say that there were also 4000 2nd drinks that I
swore would have been "just one more." And perhaps I managed to delude
myself about half the time that #3 would be "just one more, and then I'll
go home." So we could say that around 10,000 times I lied to myself that
I would just have one (more) little tipple. And 10,000 times I failed.
On the other hand, it's been over 18 years since I've had a drink or a
drug. I have the flu today (this week? this month?) so my head math
isn't working too wll, and I can't find my calculator, but that's
SOMEwhere around 6,000 times that I've said "I'm not going to have a
little tipple." And around 6,000 times that my success rate has been 100%.
Given that record, Craig, which would YOU choose?
--stuart
--
Stuart Laird (sla...@prairienet.org) |
____ 411 W. Hill St., Champaign, IL | THIS SPACE
\ / 61820 (217) 359-2745 (vox) | FOR RENT
\/ -2755 (fax) |
Keith Cox
L. Laird) wrote:
>
> In a previous article, cr...@scot.demon.co.uk (Craig Cockburn) says:
>
> >From The Scotsman, 28-Jan-94, P3 (this is the article in full)
> >
> >Tipple a day may keep early death away, scientists say
> >By Bryan Christie, Health Correspondent
> >
> >The secret to a long life may lie in a little tipple each day, health
> >researchers report today.
>
> Dandy for non-alcoholics.
Ditto. For me, "moderate" drinking meant that I somehow made it to my (or
somebody's) bed before I passed out. There isn't much doubt in my mind
that a "tipple" would lead me post-haste to an early grave.
Keith
--
Internet: kc...@sdd.hp.com
Of course, the opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.
Charles Roger Baxter
>From The Scotsman, 28-Jan-94, P3 (this is the article in full)
>
>evidence of the health benefits of moderate alcohol intake.
This is FANTASTIC news for those who can intake alcolhol 'moderately'.
(This is rather old news - are they still studying this shit?)
>Another report, in the British Medical Journal, says that smokers are
>largely ignoring advice to give up the habit, casting serious doubt on the
>value of health promotion clinics throughout Britain.
I just heard the other day that Japan's equivilent of a Surgeon General
encouraged the Japanese to take up smoking. Something about stress being
a bigger killer than lung cancer. (Just news via hearsay, folks.)
Why do you feel the need to cross-post to so may newsgroups? Quite frankly
I doubt that anyone on the group in which I received this really gives a shit!
Craig Cockburn
cba...@ringer.cs.utsa.edu "Charles Roger Baxter" writes:
> Why do you feel the need to cross-post to so may newsgroups? Quite frankly
> I doubt that anyone on the group in which I received this really gives a shit!
>
A lot of Americans still have a prohibition mentality and think alcohol
should be banned. I used to work for an American company in the UK and
there was all sorts of silly rubbish about drinking. I mean they didn't
mind people going off down the pub on a Friday and having 5 pints and
going back to work, but you couldn't have one glass of wine with a meal
in the canteen. In Germany where drinks machines have to sell beer, the
story I heard was that when the American company President visited,
they switched the machines off and removed the beer. In their US
offices, it's a sackable offence to take alcohol onto company property.
So, if you're having a party that night and you pop to the liquor store
at lunchtime then you'd better not park your car in the company car
park afterwards otherwise you could technically be sacked!
Craig
Victor Eijkhout
A lot of Americans still have a prohibition mentality and think alcohol
should be banned.
There is an interesting articley in this month's Spy about the
neo-prohibitionist movement. It reports about one organization
(don't have the name handy) that seems to consist of power-hungry
stiffs who love to make headlines by under-founded claims about
food and drink.
The Spy article mentions some facts, for instance
1/ there is no relation between birth defects and moderate
alcohol intake (they have a medical refernce for this)
2/ blacks have a lower average alcohol use than whites (in the US
at least) but a higher average of alcohol problems.
concluding that this movement of prohibiting alcohol
for the general good has no basis in fact. (I'm really condensing
the reporting here, read the original.)
--
Victor Eijkhout ..........................................................
Department of Computer Science ..................................... `Your
University of Tennessee ............................. modesty is typically
Knoxville TN 37996 .............................. human. I will excuse it.'
+1 615 974 8298 ..................... [Klingon ambassador to capt. Picard]
Doug Mauer
>From: cr...@scot.demon.co.uk (Craig Cockburn)
>Subject: Another survey shows moderate drinking is good for longevity
>Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 17:57:21 +0000
>From The Scotsman, 28-Jan-94, P3 (this is the article in full)
>In the Danish study, doctors analysed the drinking patterns of 13,000
>people and tracked them over 10 years by which time about 2,000 had died.
>They found that death rates were lowest in those who drank between one
>and six alcoholic drinks a week. By contrast, teetotallers were almost
>one-and-a-half times more likely to die in the ten years than moderate
>drinkers.
I wonder, if these 13,000 folks were all aged 20 to 30 after ten years the
oldest of them were only just reaching the age when alcoholism starts to take
it's toll, physically and socio-economically. I would need to know more about
the sampling population before I could give much credence to such statistics.
For example: It's been shown that for severe auto accidents, where people are
severely hurt or killed, the police don't test for sobriety, so the actuall %
of alcohol related accidents is lower than would show from police records.....
>The report is not a drinkers' charter. Death rates were found to
rise for>heavy drinkers, with those taking 70 drinks a week having almost
twice the>risk of abstainers and nearly two-and-a-half times that of moderate
>drinkers.
Considering that anyone who takes 70 drinks a week, probably is in the stage
where they seldom leave the house (or gutter), it's surprizing that they'd
have the time or oportunity to die. What is the nature of all these deaths.
Liver, heart, accident, how are they related to drinking?
>The risks start to rise only after an intake of 42 drinks a week,
>considerably in excess of the recommended levels in Britain of 21 units
>of alcohol a week for men and 14 for women. A unit is a half pint of beer,
>a measure of spirits or a standard glass of wine.
So alcohol won't kill you, It'll just ruin your life.....GG
>This is the latest in a series of studies highlighting the benefits of
>moderate alcohol consumption. It is thought that alcohol has a role in
>reducing cholesterol levels and thereby preventing heart disease.
>The Danish researchers say that the phenomenon has been shown consistently,
>as heart disease is more common among teetotallers, while cancers and
>cirrhosis are the main cause of death among heavy drinkers.
>The value of health promotion clinics is questioned in the other study,
>which involved screening 18,500 men and women throughout Britain,
>including a group in Dunfermline. They were offered advice on lowering
>their risk of heart disease by giving up smoking, improving their diet
>and taking more exercise.
>Only 12 per cent of smokers acted positively on the advice in spite of
>a year on counselling on lifestyle. The only patients who seemed to
>benefit were those in the high risk heart attack category who managed
>to lose some weight.
Statistics........I wonder how many of me out of 100 would have survived 5
more years of 42 drinks/ week-end?
Doug Mauer
278 Brush Mt. Rd
Blacksburg, VA 24060
Lindsay Van Sicklen
alt.recovery newsgroup. All a lot of this information does is
to give one license to indulge!. A number of years ago after a
lot of recovery in OA, a endocrinologist told me I didn't need
to worry about sugar and alcohol so long as I had it with my
meals. After all, I was a borderline hypoglycemic. What
followed was a substantial weight gain, a loss of recovery, and
battles I'm fighting to this very day. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF
THIS NEWSGROUP? TO INTELLECTUALIZE OR SUPPORT ONE ANOTHER AS WE
SEEK TO RECOVER FROM OUR VARIOUS ADDICTIONS !!!
Lindsay Van Sicklen - Richmond, VA
Al Sparks
> I, personally, don't think this is the best article for
> alt.recovery newsgroup.
> WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF
> THIS NEWSGROUP? TO INTELLECTUALIZE OR SUPPORT ONE ANOTHER AS WE
> SEEK TO RECOVER FROM OUR VARIOUS ADDICTIONS !!!
> Lindsay Van Sicklen - Richmond, VA
This thread is cross-posted all over the place. Your post brings up
some realities of usenet. 1. you said, "I personally, dont'
think...." which implies that these newsgroups are what people make
them. So the purpose of the newsgroups is what the posters make them.
Perhaps you should seek a moderated group.
=== Al
Dick Jackson
>
>A lot of Americans still have a prohibition mentality and think alcohol
>should be banned. I used to work for an American company in the UK and
>there was all sorts of silly rubbish about drinking. I mean they didn't
>mind people going off down the pub on a Friday and having 5 pints and
>going back to work, but you couldn't have one glass of wine with a meal
>in the canteen.
My company is very liberated but has a rule banning alcohol because
if someone caused an accident going home from a company tolerated
booze up, the hurtees could sue them for billions! (Well millions).
Actually the rule is now broken regularly, but enforcement used to be
tough.
Dick J
David P. Brockington
>In article <759779...@scot.demon.co.uk> cr...@scot.demon.co.uk writes:
>>From: cr...@scot.demon.co.uk (Craig Cockburn)
>>Subject: Another survey shows moderate drinking is good for longevity
>>Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 17:57:21 +0000
>>From The Scotsman, 28-Jan-94, P3 (this is the article in full)
>>In the Danish study, doctors analysed the drinking patterns of 13,000
>>people and tracked them over 10 years by which time about 2,000 had died.
>>They found that death rates were lowest in those who drank between one
>>and six alcoholic drinks a week. By contrast, teetotallers were almost
>>one-and-a-half times more likely to die in the ten years than moderate
>>drinkers.
>I wonder, if these 13,000 folks were all aged 20 to 30 after ten years the
>oldest of them were only just reaching the age when alcoholism starts to take
>it's toll, physically and socio-economically. I would need to know more about
>the sampling population before I could give much credence to such statistics.
My guess is that, considering that the findings were published in a
reputable, peer-reviewed publication, the methodology was sound. I would
even go out on a limb and posit that the investigators utilized random
probability sampling in assembling their panel survey. Statistically, it
doesn't get much sounder than that. Even if they didn't use random
probability, they certainly didn't fall into an outrageous trap like the
example you illustrated above.
>For example: It's been shown that for severe auto accidents, where people are
>severely hurt or killed, the police don't test for sobriety, so the actuall %
>of alcohol related accidents is lower than would show from police records.....
If I read this right, don't you mean that the actual % of alcohol
related accidents is higher? (Meaning, if the police did test for sobriety
at these accidents, they would find more drunks, which in turn would elevate
the percentage of alcohol related accidents.)
>>The report is not a drinkers' charter. Death rates were found to
>rise for>heavy drinkers, with those taking 70 drinks a week having almost
>twice the>risk of abstainers and nearly two-and-a-half times that of moderate
>>drinkers.
>Considering that anyone who takes 70 drinks a week, probably is in the stage
>where they seldom leave the house (or gutter),
According to the definition of "drink" in the study, 70 "drinks"
would equal 70 half-pints of beer, which would translate into 35 pints of beer
a week, which would average out to 5 pints a day. While this is a bit more
than my personal intake, I can easily imagine drinking 5 pints, spread out
across the day, (maybe one every two hours) and remaining a functional
component in society. Hell, if these pints were something on the order of
Regular Bitter, Bavarian Weizen or English Mild, one probably wouldn't even
notice the alcohol intake.
[remainer of posting deleted -- that bandwidth thang, ya know.]
David Brockington
Seattle, USA
bron...@u.washington.edu
Stuart L. Laird
Lindsay -- thank you a whole lot for saying this! It would be nice if we
could keep this topic to some newsgroup like .philosophy or .theory, or
some other form of mental-masturbation. We're here (or at least I'm
here) because we CAN'T have one or two little tipples a day (or little
pieces of cake, or little snorts of cocaine, or little sexual acting out,
or WHATEVER).
I particularly like your last line about what is the purpose of this
newsgroup. I've got to admit that sometimes what I read here makes me
wonder. And what's even WORSE is when I find myself CONTRIBUTING to the
nonsense.
Thanks again,
Stuart
------------------------------
--
Linda Lipinski
I want it. I just don't want it. The stuff does terrible things to my life!
I sure hope it'll be ok with the original poster of this crap if I don't
have 1-6 drinks a day. I wonder if he works for a liquor distributor?
--
-Lin
Stuart L. Laird
In a previous article, ali...@netcom.com (Linda Lipinski) says:
>Well, actually, Stuart, I CAN have a drink or a snort or whatever, whenever
>I want it. I just don't want it. The stuff does terrible things to my life!
Whoops, Lin. Did I leave out "IN SAFETY" there? Oh, I know what it was
you referred to. (Duh) What I can't do is have JUST ONE. Oh, maybe I
could have just one today. Maybe I could have just one or two a day for
2 weeks or 2 months. But EVENTUALLY, I will be in the hospital or the
gutter wondering how I got THERE again.
>I sure hope it'll be ok with the original poster of this crap if I don't
>have 1-6 drinks a day. I wonder if he works for a liquor distributor?
Hehh Heh. My theory on it (and a lot of the other postings, not
necessarily in this group, but in some other groups I read when my blood
pressure gets too low) is that there are too many academics who, while
employed financially are unemployed mentally. They've run out of
meaningful things to think about, so they start thinking about how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin or something equally bogus.
A lot of it, I think, comes from people whose personal belief system
prehibits their masturbation for meaningless self-amusement, so they do
it with their heads -- and with the same effect: a sticky mess,
signifying nothing.
<grin>
stuart
PS: Calling all Geeks: (not a putdown, I'm in the process of romancing
a truly wonderful one.)
It may be my befuddled memory, but didn't there used to be a way to
stop the crossposting of responses to messages that were crossposted
originally? I am posting this in alt.recovery, and it is my impression
that it will appear in all the groups the original message was posted to.
Maybe it's just my imagination that such a capability ever existed, but
if it did and still does, would somebody please refresh my braincells?
tanks
Doug Mauer
>>>In the Danish study, doctors analysed the drinking patterns of 13,000
>>>people and tracked them over 10 years by which time about 2,000 had died.
>>>They found that death rates were lowest in those who drank between one
>>>and six alcoholic drinks a week. By contrast, teetotallers were almost
>>>one-and-a-half times more likely to die in the ten years than moderate
>>>drinkers.
>>I wonder, if these 13,000 folks were all aged 20 to 30 after ten years the
>>oldest of them were only just reaching the age when alcoholism starts to take
>>it's toll, physically and socio-economically. I would need to know more about
>>the sampling population before I could give much credence to such statistics.
> My guess is that, considering that the findings were published in a
>reputable, peer-reviewed publication, the methodology was sound. I would
>even go out on a limb and posit that the investigators utilized random
>probability sampling in assembling their panel survey. Statistically, it
>doesn't get much sounder than that. Even if they didn't use random
>probability, they certainly didn't fall into an outrageous trap like the
>example you illustrated above.
What I'm saying is that a random sampling wouldn't include the truly
devastated part of the population (no statistical backup here) in terms of
death by alcoholism. IE: A study of those who drank and those who didn't
starting with age 35 or 40, regardless of what happened before. The possible
fact that if alcoholism is a geneotropic function, then how bout reflecting
that in the random sample. Obviously that's not possible now.
I guess I exaggerated the case, but how long did the followups go, or was it
a totally radom population even by age over the short haul..... if so they're
depending upon people reporting their drinking habits accurately, something I
don't believe is possible with a 42+ drink habit......
>>For example: It's been shown that for severe auto accidents,
where people are >>severely hurt or killed, the police don't test for
sobriety, so the actuall % >>of alcohol related accidents is lower than would
show from police records.....
> If I read this right, don't you mean that the actual % of alcohol
>related accidents is higher? (Meaning, if the police did test for sobriety
>at these accidents, they would find more drunks, which in turn would elevate
>the percentage of alcohol related accidents.)
Yes, sorry bout that. It was pointed out to me privately, I was embarrassed
somewhat then, now I don't have to carry that guilt, I've admitted it to
everyone......Step 10
>>>The report is not a drinkers' charter. Death rates were found to
>>rise for>heavy drinkers, with those taking 70 drinks a week having almost
>>twice the>risk of abstainers and nearly two-and-a-half times that of moderate
>>>drinkers.
>>Considering that anyone who takes 70 drinks a week, probably is in the stage
>>where they seldom leave the house (or gutter),
> According to the definition of "drink" in the study, 70 "drinks"
>would equal 70 half-pints of beer, which would translate into 35 pints of beer
>a week, which would average out to 5 pints a day. While this is a bit more
>than my personal intake, I can easily imagine drinking 5 pints, spread out
>across the day, (maybe one every two hours) and remaining a functional
>component in society. Hell, if these pints were something on the order of
>Regular Bitter, Bavarian Weizen or English Mild, one probably wouldn't even
>notice the alcohol intake.
> [remainer of posting deleted -- that bandwidth thang, ya know.]
>David Brockington
>Seattle, USA
>bron...@u.washington.edu
Doug Mauer
>PS: Calling all Geeks: (not a putdown, I'm in the process of romancing
> a truly wonderful one.)
>It may be my befuddled memory, but didn't there used to be a way to
>stop the crossposting of responses to messages that were crossposted
>originally? I am posting this in alt.recovery, and it is my impression
>that it will appear in all the groups the original message was posted to.
>Maybe it's just my imagination that such a capability ever existed, but
>if it did and still does, would somebody please refresh my braincells?
>tanks
>--
>Stuart Laird (sla...@prairienet.org) |
> ____ 411 W. Hill St., Champaign, IL | THIS SPACE
> \ / 61820 (217) 359-2745 (vox) | FOR RENT
> \/ -2755 (fax) |
I posted to this one and it's going only home to alt.recovery
Chris Malcolm
>dma...@vt.edu (Doug Mauer) writes:
>>>In the Danish study, doctors analysed the drinking patterns of 13,000
>>>people and tracked them over 10 years by which time about 2,000 had died.
>>>They found that death rates were lowest in those who drank between one
>>>and six alcoholic drinks a week. By contrast, teetotallers were almost
>>>one-and-a-half times more likely to die in the ten years than moderate
>>>drinkers.
> My guess is that, considering that the findings were published in a
>reputable, peer-reviewed publication, the methodology was sound.
This study has been criticised for failing to take into account that
some teetotallers have given up drink because of serious medical
problems. It is claimed that these are removed, leaving only naturally
inclined non-drinkers, that the effect disappears, apart from the
slight benefit to the heart of drinking red wine, a benefit more
powerfully available from unfermented grape joice anyway.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
"The mind reigns, but does not govern" Paul Valery.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Malcolm c...@uk.ac.ed.aifh +44 (0)31 650 3085
John Sybalsky
> My guess is that, considering that the findings were published in a
>reputable, peer-reviewed publication, the methodology was sound.
Alas, that's not a safe bet. The New England Journal of Medicine,
for example, prints some HIDEOUS "studies" on politically-sensitive
topice, where even a first-semester statistics student could find
the fallacies.
I'd urge (1) Someone post a complete reference, and (2) Check EVERYTHING
for ourselves.
--John
--
--John
Venue
I OWN the company. Of COURSE they're official opinions!
arne thormodsen
> In article <2ijirl$9...@news.u.washington.edu> bron...@u.washington.edu (David P. Brockington) writes:
> > My guess is that, considering that the findings were published in a
> >reputable, peer-reviewed publication, the methodology was sound.
> Alas, that's not a safe bet. The New England Journal of Medicine,
> for example, prints some HIDEOUS "studies" on politically-sensitive
> topice, where even a first-semester statistics student could find
> the fallacies.
Unfortunately true enough. Though I never in my entire life thought I'd
come down on the side of the tobacco companies, the EPA's "second hand
smoke" study is statistical piece of junk. The samples were
artificially selected by someone who had the desired conclusion clearly
in mind when they started. I'd have handed it back without a grade if I
were still teaching engineering.
I wish that just once we could have public policy founded on facts and
not the politics of this years "in-crowd" in Washington.
--arne
increase lifespan
There are many supplements on the market that claim to increase lifespan and improve the quality of life as we age. These supplements come in different forms, such as vitamins, minerals, herbs, and natural compounds. Some of the most popular ones include resveratrol, curcumin, omega-3 fatty acids, and green tea extract.
Resveratrol, found in red wine and grapes, has been touted for its anti-aging properties. Studies have shown that it can prolong the lifespan of animals and potentially humans. Curcumin, found in turmeric, has also been linked to longevity due to its anti-inflammatory properties and ability to improve cognitive function.
Omega-3 fatty acids are another supplement with claims of promoting longevity. They are found in fish oil and have been shown to decrease the risk of heart disease, stroke, and other age-related conditions. Green tea extract contains antioxidants that can protect cells from damage and promote healthy aging.
While the benefits of these supplements are promising, they are not a magic solution for a longer life. A healthy lifestyle that includes regular exercise, a balanced diet, and stress management is still the most effective way to promote longevity. Supplements can be a helpful addition to a healthy lifestyle, but they should not replace it.
Moreover, it is important to ensure that the supplements you choose are of high quality and safe. The supplement industry is largely unregulated, and some products may contain harmful ingredients or inaccurate labeling. It is important to research and choose reputable brands that have undergone third-party testing for purity and potency.
In summary, the desire to live a longer life is a universal human aspiration, and supplements have been marketed as a way to achieve this goal. While some supplements have demonstrated potential benefits in promoting longevity and improving quality of life, they are not a substitute for a healthy lifestyle. It is also essential to choose safe and high-quality supplements. By adopting a holistic approach to health and longevity, we can work towards living a longer, healthier life.
https://increaselifespan.net/