Alcohol consumption protects against heart disease

[nicolasconnault]

To begin with, let me make the point that I do not believe alcohol or its consumption to be evil in nature, although I have never touched the stuff in my entire life. I think it has its place, and can even save lives in some instances. However, I have seen enough alcohol-related destruction, heartache and misery in my lifetime to have a fairly negative opinion of it.

For the last 30 or 40 years, claims have been widely made that moderate alcohol drinkers have lower rates of heart disease than abstainers. Doctors have used that as a basis for prescribing a daily glass of wine to their patients, and alcohol companies have enjoyed increased sales stemming from this popular belief.

Many reputable scientific research articles have been published supporting this view. For example, the following articles give strong support for it:

Prospective study of alcohol drinking patterns and coronary heart disease in women and men

Moderate alcohol intake and lower risk of coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of effects on lipids and haemostatic factors

There are many more such articles you can find by search on Google Scholar, some of which have full text freely available.

However, as early as 1995 it has been made rather clear that most of these studies have a serious methodological flaw which has lead researchers to the wrong conclusions regarding the overall benefits of alcohol consumption: they do not discriminate between life-long abstainers and current abstainers who used to drink heavily. This second sub-category is likely to have already incurred significant heart damage by the time they decide to abstain. Indeed, their disease is likely to have been the main cause in their decision to go "cold turkey".

This flaw, along with many other measurement issues of alcohol consumption studies, is explained in great details in this 2003 article.

I know we can't expect everyone to be able to scrutinise published medical articles, but this example should stimulate readers to be more critical of science-based claims, and to use available resources (e.g. google scholar or academic libraries that are usually open to the public) to examine the validity of the claims that are made.

For further discussion, someone mentioned in another thread (the Mormon Mommies one) that one possible benefit of social drinking was to reduce social anxiety and asociality-related depression. This seems credible but I questioned whether the benefits could be obtained only through alcohol, or whether other factors (such as good food and music) could not be substituted for alcohol and give similar benefits. I will do more research in that area.

[semlogo]

Alcohol was permissible in all dispensations but a small portion of this one. I don't think the health benefits from alcohol is at all threatening to LDS theology.

[Zakuska]

This was an eye opener. Alchohol and other foods we eat, mess with the PH levels in our blood and cause the blood cells to oxidize and stick together and stack up like coins. It causing less surface area of blood cells to be exposed so the blood doesn't transport oxygen and nutrients into the body as well as carrying wastes out of the body as efficiently. Thus you can't breath very well, and this causes the heart and many other organs to work more, and makes you feel lousy. Alchohol messes with the PH in your blood.

The answer I found, Goji berries.

This video is from a Dr. at John Hopkins University and shows how our blood looks after eating some of the foods we injest on a daily basis as well as Alchohol. It then shows how Goji juice fixes the problem, and how that same person's blood looks after drinking only an ounce of the stuff. And then under repeated uses, about a cough syrup lid full a day.

And there is a Utahs own company that sales it! Young Living at thanksgiving point!

http://www.ningxiared.com/

With more than 5 times the antioxidants than Xango juice! This stuff in phenominal! It has sure helped me! With depression issues that come with the long winter here in Utah as well as feeling more energized and full of life.

What does this have to do with Alchohol consumption? Replace the Jack Daniels in your morning shot glass with this and you'll be good to go for 120+ years!

[zelder]

i have a very strong distrust for medical research and allopathic medicine. It's a big racket.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/

As far as heart disease is concerned, IMO, Linus Pauling had the best theory. Just make sure you get plenty of Vit. C and protein and you will never have to worry about heart disease.

[krose]

Doctors have used that as a basis for prescribing a daily glass of wine to their patients...

I have seen the opposite to be the case for both researchers and GPs. They consistently cite the risk of possible addiction and the dangers of overconsumption as reasons non-drinkers should not start.

they do not discriminate between life-long abstainers and current abstainers who used to drink heavily. This second sub-category is likely to have already incurred significant heart damage by the time they decide to abstain. Indeed, their disease is likely to have been the main cause in their decision to go "cold turkey".

I haven't read the linked article yet, but do you think there are enough heavy drinkers turned abstainers in the population to skew all the studies? And why wouldn't there be at least as many heavy drinkers who have become moderate drinkers?

[Pahoran]

I have seen the opposite to be the case for both researchers and GPs. They consistently cite the risk of possible addiction and the dangers of overconsumption as reasons non-drinkers should not start.

I haven't read the linked article yet, but do you think there are enough heavy drinkers turned abstainers in the population to skew all the studies? And why wouldn't there be at least as many heavy drinkers who have become moderate drinkers?

Your questions are well worth investigating. To the first one, it seems reasonable that a society in which drinking is widely accepted, and in which there is a statistically significant group of heavy drinkers, those who stop drinking late in life would likely do so to mitigate health problems. Likewise, since sustained heavy alcohol consumption is addictive, long-term heavy drinkers are less likely to successfully become moderate drinkers than they are to successfully quit drinking altogether.

All of which simply tells us what to reasonably expect from an investigation of your questions; but again, I agree that they are worth looking into.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Walden]

To begin with, let me make the point that I do not believe alcohol or its consumption to be evil in nature, although I have never touched the stuff in my entire life. I think it has its place, and can even save lives in some instances. However, I have seen enough alcohol-related destruction, heartache and misery in my lifetime to have a fairly negative opinion of it.

For the last 30 or 40 years, claims have been widely made that moderate alcohol drinkers have lower rates of heart disease than abstainers. Doctors have used that as a basis for prescribing a daily glass of wine to their patients, and alcohol companies have enjoyed increased sales stemming from this popular belief.

Many reputable scientific research articles have been published supporting this view. For example, the following articles give strong support for it:

Prospective study of alcohol drinking patterns and coronary heart disease in women and men

Moderate alcohol intake and lower risk of coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of effects on lipids and haemostatic factors

There are many more such articles you can find by search on Google Scholar, some of which have full text freely available.

However, as early as 1995 it has been made rather clear that most of these studies have a serious methodological flaw which has lead researchers to the wrong conclusions regarding the overall benefits of alcohol consumption: they do not discriminate between life-long abstainers and current abstainers who used to drink heavily. This second sub-category is likely to have already incurred significant heart damage by the time they decide to abstain. Indeed, their disease is likely to have been the main cause in their decision to go "cold turkey".

This flaw, along with many other measurement issues of alcohol consumption studies, is explained in great details in this 2003 article.

I know we can't expect everyone to be able to scrutinise published medical articles, but this example should stimulate readers to be more critical of science-based claims, and to use available resources (e.g. google scholar or academic libraries that are usually open to the public) to examine the validity of the claims that are made.

For further discussion, someone mentioned in another thread (the Mormon Mommies one) that one possible benefit of social drinking was to reduce social anxiety and asociality-related depression. This seems credible but I questioned whether the benefits could be obtained only through alcohol, or whether other factors (such as good food and music) could not be substituted for alcohol and give similar benefits. I will do more research in that area.

You can go back and forth regarding these studies. For almost any study that you can produce, I can likely produce a study that claims the exact opposite.

Even when I was a member, I considered the Word of Wisdom to be about obedience, not health.

It's like tithing or fasting. There may be some immediate benefits received from practicing such, but these practices are in place not because god needs your cash or your hunger, but rather, your obedience.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Even when I was a member, I considered the Word of Wisdom to be about obedience, not health.

It is has a little bit more than obedience. I think in the first couple of versus in the WoW, I think teaches us quite abit about community and how we can help each other.

I am not as convinced that drinking alchole is some big evil thing. However, at times, drinking is a dangerous thing.

[Zakuska]

There is always Pauls take on WOW related issues (Yes I realize the WOW wasn't relevant back then).

1 Tim 4

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

So as long as its blessed it's OK.

But didn't I read about blessing food in the D&C so it won't be poisioned?

[todd520]

You can go back and forth regarding these studies. For almost any study that you can produce, I can likely produce a study that claims the exact opposite.

Even when I was a member, I considered the Word of Wisdom to be about obedience, not health.

It's like tithing or fasting. There may be some immediate benefits received from practicing such, but these practices are in place not because god needs your cash or your hunger, but rather, your obedience.

Well stated,

It's foolish to pretend this all about health, though benefits clearly exist from following the WoW

It's also not right to just focus on Alcohol and tobacco, where abuse shows clearly negative health impact.

If LDS broadly followed the WoW, there would be no obese mormons. Wonder what the statistical health benefits would be from that change

[Calm]

If LDS broadly followed the WoW, there would be no obese mormons.

Almost no obese mormons...there is a small fraction of people who have problems of obesity not a result of overeating (also sometimes even overeating is out of someone's control due to health issues---so speaks someone who put on 10 lbs in one week due to a new drug that turned me into a compulsive eater, stopped the drug, stopped the eating....kept the weight...sigh).

[nicolasconnault]

You can go back and forth regarding these studies. For almost any study that you can produce, I can likely produce a study that claims the exact opposite.

I disagree about your approach, it shows a complete distrust in scientific research, which is not supported by LDS doctrine (although it is prevalent in LDS culture).

When I see an article (like the ones I posted) that questions the methodology of a whole bunch of other studies, I look carefully. I never take research "findings" at face value (I rarely stop at the abstract, I usually get a copy of the full text and examine it carefully). A casual glance at scientific claims, particularly the minuscule proportion that ends up on your TV screen, will give you the impression that it is not to be trusted.

We have a brain, we have the Internet, and we have the Holy Ghost. We've also been commanded to search and study all kinds of secular topics, and for good reasons. We can be lazy and just accept/reject all scientific claims without looking into them, or we can be critical (not criticizing) and get a good picture of what the "best information" is out there. This helps us avoid making decisions based on 70-year-old data (example: doctors still using the lunar calendar to calculate women's delivery date!).

[LeSellers]

so speaks someone who put on 10 lbs in one week due to a new drug that turned me into a compulsive eater, stopped the drug, stopped the eating....kept the weight...sigh).

You might look here for the story of how I lost 50 pounds in about 6 weeks. It was healthy, it was not terribly difficult, and it worked for both my Jacquie and me.

Lehi

[Walden]

I disagree about your approach, it shows a complete distrust in scientific research, which is not supported by LDS doctrine (although it is prevalent in LDS culture).

When I see an article (like the ones I posted) that questions the methodology of a whole bunch of other studies, I look carefully. I never take research "findings" at face value (I rarely stop at the abstract, I usually get a copy of the full text and examine it carefully). A casual glance at scientific claims, particularly the minuscule proportion that ends up on your TV screen, will give you the impression that it is not to be trusted.

We have a brain, we have the Internet, and we have the Holy Ghost. We've also been commanded to search and study all kinds of secular topics, and for good reasons. We can be lazy and just accept/reject all scientific claims without looking into them, or we can be critical (not criticizing) and get a good picture of what the "best information" is out there. This helps us avoid making decisions based on 70-year-old data (example: doctors still using the lunar calendar to calculate women's delivery date!).

You disagree with my approach or the fact that I can produce a study claiming the exact opposite of almost any study that you reference? In fact, it is my trust in scientific research that played a role in my abandonment of the LDS church. So I very much respect scientific analysis.

However, IMO, the WoW is not solely a health issue, but rather, an obedience issue.

[Pahoran]

You disagree with my approach or the fact that I can produce a study claiming the exact opposite of almost any study that you reference? In fact, it is my trust in scientific research that played a role in my abandonment of the LDS church. So I very much respect scientific analysis.

IOW, you appear to have advanced your "trust in scientific research" to the level of religious devotion.

If anything, your example would tend to support a mistrust in "scientific research," although from my perspective it simply demonstrates the folly of scientism.

Regards,

Pahoran

[nicolasconnault]

You disagree with my approach or the fact that I can produce a study claiming the exact opposite of almost any study that you reference? In fact, it is my trust in scientific research that played a role in my abandonment of the LDS church. So I very much respect scientific analysis.

However, IMO, the WoW is not solely a health issue, but rather, an obedience issue.

I was hoping I could avoid this, but since you insist I will indulge.

Please provide a study that claims the exact opposite of the 2003 article I shared in the OP.

PS. I find it interesting that you claim such knowledge of the scientific method, while claiming at the same time that studies make single claims. Studies typically do not make claims, they report findings and suggest possible interpretations. They usually also include limitations of their own study, and suggestions for further studies. I fail to see how you could find the "exact opposite" of that...

[Nofear]

I disagree about your approach, it shows a complete distrust in scientific research, which is not supported by LDS doctrine (although it is prevalent in LDS culture).

When I see an article (like the ones I posted) that questions the methodology of a whole bunch of other studies, I look carefully. I never take research "findings" at face value (I rarely stop at the abstract, I usually get a copy of the full text and examine it carefully). A casual glance at scientific claims, particularly the minuscule proportion that ends up on your TV screen, will give you the impression that it is not to be trusted.

We have a brain, we have the Internet, and we have the Holy Ghost. We've also been commanded to search and study all kinds of secular topics, and for good reasons. We can be lazy and just accept/reject all scientific claims without looking into them, or we can be critical (not criticizing) and get a good picture of what the "best information" is out there. This helps us avoid making decisions based on 70-year-old data (example: doctors still using the lunar calendar to calculate women's delivery date!).

Unfortunately, the current state of medical research makes it difficult for a lay person to be fully discerning. I found this article illuminating: Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science. But then again, the article appealed to my pre-conceived biases ...

As for the alcohol thing, one has to wonder if the decreased heart risk (if correct) outweighs the known risk increase for cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, and breast.

[nicolasconnault]

Unfortunately, the current state of medical research makes it difficult for a lay person to be fully discerning. I found this article illuminating: Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science. But then again, the article appealed to my pre-conceived biases ...

This is a very good article. You are correct that the lay person is at the mercy of the scientists and academics, as well as mass media, when it comes to medical research. There is not much that can be done about it, except for the lay person to become sufficiently educated to understand basic processes such as the experimental method, research designs and publication. Most university courses with a science component (including psychology) will cover all these things in sufficient detail to help the lay person be a better consumer of research in general, even of medical research. You don't need to understand everything in a research article, you can start by looking at possible flaws in sampling and methodology, as well as unwarranted claims. A bit of grounding in statistics also helps in avoiding being misled by fancy words and graphs.

Meta-analyses are a good way to get a good idea of what research is generally finding on a specific topic, although they too can be flawed.

As for the alcohol thing, one has to wonder if the decreased heart risk (if correct) outweighs the known risk increase for cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, and breast.

These things are typically not studied concurrently. Many studies are cross-sectional (only looking at people's health and behaviour at one point in time) because these studies are much cheaper than the longitudinal approach (e.g. testing the same participants at 10, 20, 40 years intervals), but they don't allow researchers to make conclusions about causes and effects (although many still do!). The number of variables measured is also restricted by funding (either because it costs too much, or because funding is only granted if a specific set of variables is measured at the exclusion of others...).

[todd520]

These things are typically not studied concurrently. Many studies are cross-sectional (only looking at people's health and behaviour at one point in time) because these studies are much cheaper than the longitudinal approach (e.g. testing the same participants at 10, 20, 40 years intervals), but they don't allow researchers to make conclusions about causes and effects (although many still do!). The number of variables measured is also restricted by funding (either because it costs too much, or because funding is only granted if a specific set of variables is measured at the exclusion of others...).

Is there any research that compares heath or mortality stats of LDS versus the general population?

[nicolasconnault]

Is there any research that compares heath or mortality stats of LDS versus the general population?

There are many. Here is a Google search I just did for studies since 2000 using the keywords "mormon" and "health". If you extend your search to as early as 1970 you will find a host of others. The most interesting are the longitudinal studies, like this one, published in 2010:

A 17-year longitudinal study of religion and mental health in a Mormon sample

Just remember to be critical. The above study, for example, was conducted by researchers at BYU, most likely by LDS members. That doesn't mean we shouldn't discredit their research, but we should be aware that there always some biases in sampling, methodology and interpretation. No research is 100% objective.

Another interesting study:

Lifestyle and reduced mortality among active California Mormons, 1980

[zelder]

Unfortunately, the current state of medical research makes it difficult for a lay person to be fully discerning. I found this article illuminating: Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science. But then again, the article appealed to my pre-conceived biases ...

As for the alcohol thing, one has to wonder if the decreased heart risk (if correct) outweighs the known risk increase for cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, and breast.

I'm glad to know somebody enjoyed the article.

[Macabus]

A study done in Germany published in 2004 in Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, took three groups of volunteers. One was given regular beer, another alcohol with water and a third group de-alcoholized beer. The groups consuming alcohol both had the health effects of the beer negated by the alcohol. The alcohol itself held no health benefits. However,the third group did show signs of increased cardiovascular health without the negative effects of alcohol. This reminds me of the verse in Doctrine & Covenants 89 where we are instructed to consume mild drinks made from barley. Sounds like low alcohol, or practically alcohol free, beer to me.

With regards to red wine, the compounds beneficial for cardiovascular health can be consumed without alcohol and are often negated by alcohol. A nice alcohol free wine (Ariel has won awards against wines containing alcohol) could be just the thing. All the benefits, none of the drawbacks.

[nicolasconnault]

With regards to red wine, the compounds beneficial for cardiovascular health can be consumed without alcohol and are often negated by alcohol. A nice alcohol free wine (Ariel has won awards against wines containing alcohol) could be just the thing. All the benefits, none of the drawbacks.

Unless you want to get tipsy, or don't want to feel like a wimp or a misfit. I live in Australia, a huge consumer of beers and spirits, and it's very "ingrained" in people's lifestyle and way of life.

[Calm]

FYI and somewhat off topic but I find those generally interested in medical information have a reason to be interested...

For people interested in the latest medical research for a particular disorder, I have found the online support groups to be very helpful....if you have the time to become familiar with the group's dynamics, doesn't usually take too long. Look for one with large numbers and who concentrate on looking for treatments and ideas, not just emotional support....less chit chat and weird stuff to wade through.

The reason you need to learn how to 'read' the group is because of the variety of posters, you can figure out pretty quickly which ones the others take seriously or who have access to the medical journals and consistently post updates on research and those are the ones you pay attention to. With the advent of the internet, there are a lot of people out there taking the time to look through the medical research plus they have the practical experience of knowing how a particular treatment works in real life (something may look great on paper or in a clinic setting where everything is controlled, but is just too complicated or time consuming for every day usage for example). If a disorder or disease is common enough, you will likely find medical personnel as patients or caregivers which adds in my experience high quality information to the mix (the best doctor my family has ever had was one who suffered from the same disease he was treating my family for...totally different dynamics than with someone who intellectually understands the experience to someone with intimate, personal knowledge of it).

I have had several doctors ask me if I had medical training as I often knew more than they did about specific treatments, plus I had learned the medical jargon after years of research so it is possible for a layman to develop the ability, it just takes time, patience and a mixture of hope and skepticism (hope so you will be motivated to keep digging, skepticism so you take the time to evaluate what you are learning especially so you don't waste time of fruitless sidepaths). A side benefit is that most doctors take you more seriously if you know what they are talking about and are willing to work with you though a few appear to feel threaten and end up treating you worse than when you were willing to just put yourself completely in their hands (red flag---time to change doctors as I find this to be a likely sign that they aren't all that up on the literature and aren't willing to put the effort into it while refusing to accept the information from you as a shortcut either).

And now back to the topic....

[nicolasconnault]

... though a few appear to feel threaten and end up treating you worse than when you were willing to just put yourself completely in their hands (red flag---time to change doctors as I find this to be a likely sign that they aren't all that up on the literature and aren't willing to put the effort into it while refusing to accept the information from you as a shortcut either).

Very pertinent, and very true. Some doctors are resistant to change, and either have no inclination or no time to keep up with the research, trusting the methods that "have always been done that way". Hopefully young doctors are taught to incorporate research into their practice (such as the scientist-practitioner or the practitioner-scholar models in psychology).