Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Update on the "Glass of Wine is Good for You" Thing...


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Sure. Because the other factors of the lifestyle are there. That's not the point of this type of research though. The claims are always "X glasses of red wine a day is good for you".

I don’t disagree with you. 

12 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

What the jama research shows is that excluding the alcohol, a healthier lifestyle results in a generally healthier life, and that any alcohol intake just counteracts that.

But to do so the research ignores that alcohol for whatever reason is part of that healthy lifestyle. For example there is no safe level of driving. Every mile driven increases your risk of death. But driving is part of how people seek entertainment, employment and meaningful relationships outside of dense urban centers. So removing driving would reduce their risk but have other negative effects. The fact remains that for whatever reason those who do not imbibe (and I am very close to this level) are “significantly”* less healthy than light to moderate drinkers. 

 

*as in statistically significant

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The level of consumption that minimises an individual's risk is 0 g of ethanol per week

I can completely get behind this but people don’t live their lives with the goal of “minimizing risk”. Otherwise we would leave our homes much less. People certainly wouldn’t go hiking, mountain biking, or skiing. Driving? Forget about it. Own a gun? No way. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don’t disagree with you. 

But to do so the research ignores that alcohol for whatever reason is part of that healthy lifestyle. For example there is no safe level of driving. Every mile driven increases your risk of death. But driving is part of how people seek entertainment, employment and meaningful relationships outside of dense urban centers. So removing driving would reduce their risk but have other negative effects. The fact remains that for whatever reason those who do not imbibe (and I am very close to this level) are “significantly”* less healthy than light to moderate drinkers. 

*as in statistically significant

Do you have citations for this ("those who do not imbibe (and I am very close to this level) are 'significantly'* less healthy than light to moderate drinkers.")?  I'd like to review any literature available.

Also, I am curious as to your thoughts about whose those "whatever reason{s}" might be.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you have citations for this ("those who do not imbibe (and I am very close to this level) are 'significantly'* less healthy than light to moderate drinkers.")?  I'd like to review any literature available.

The quote is directly from Calm’s study a few posts up. The one that resurrected the thread. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

The level of consumption that minimises an individual's risk is 0 g of ethanol per week

I can completely get behind this but people don’t live their lives with the goal of “minimizing risk”.

Not as an end unto itself, no.  But measurings risks versus rewards is a regular exercise.

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Otherwise we would leave our homes much less. People certainly wouldn’t go hiking, mountain biking, or skiing. Driving? Forget about it. Own a gun? No way. 

Hiking has a pretty substantial reward.  Good exercise.  Beautiful scenery.  Calming.  And inherent risks can be overwhelmingly mitigated/reduced.  The rewards vastly outweigh the risks.  Can the same be said about the consumption of alcohol?  I think not.

Driving is, for many, a necessity.  Pretty low on the pyramid of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, as transportation is necessary to work, to have and spend money on food, clothing, shelter, etc.  And many folks these days can and are mitigating the risks by working remotely.  The necessity sort of makes the "risk" part of living.  Can the same be said about the consumption of alcohol?  I don't think so.  Social/cultural pressures aside, there is no "necessity" to drink.

As for guns, "45,222 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S." in 2020, as compared to around 95,000 alcohol-related fatalities.  I would be interested in data showing how many gun-related deaths involve the death of an individual by a firearm he owns.  From the first link:

Quote

54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (24,292), while 43% were murders (19,384), according to the CDC. The remaining gun deaths that year were unintentional (535), involved law enforcement (611) or had undetermined circumstances (400).

The association between gun ownership and suicide (and homicide) is a big issue here:

Quote

Owning a handgun is associated with a dramatically elevated risk of suicide, according to new Stanford research that followed 26 million California residents over a 12-year period.

The higher suicide risk was driven by higher rates of suicide by firearm, the study found.

Men who owned handguns were eight times more likely than men who didn’t to die of self-inflicted gunshot wounds. Women who owned handguns were more than 35 times more likely than women who didn't to kill themselves with a gun.

And here:

Quote

The investigators identified handgun acquisitions among California residents on the state’s voter rolls, developing a cohort of more than 26 million people who had no record of handgun ownership. Over an average of 6.9 years of follow-up, 2.6% of the cohort obtained at least one new handgun; approximately 18,000 suicides were observed, with nearly 40% completed with firearms. The finding of an association between firearm ownership and death by suicide is not surprising. Analyses conducted over decades have shown that access to a firearm is an independent risk factor for death by suicide, driven by the lethality of attempts with guns.

And here:

Quote

Guns can kill you in three ways: homicide, suicide, and by accident. Owning a gun or having one readily accessible makes all three more likely. One meta-analysis ”found strong evidence for increased odds of suicide among persons with access to firearms compared with those without access and moderate evidence for an attenuated increased odds of homicide victimization when persons with and without access to firearms were compared.” The latter finding is stronger for women, a reminder that guns are also a risk factor for domestic violence.

The same thing is true for accidents. States with more guns see more accidental deaths from firearms, and children ages 5 to 14 are 11 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the US compared to other developed countries, where gun ownership is much less common. About half of gun accident fatalities happen to people under 25, and some recent analyses suggest that the official count of gun accident deaths among children is understated.

”When 34 injury prevention experts were asked to prioritize home injury hazards for young children, based on frequency, severity, and preventability of the injury, the experts rated access to firearms in the home as the most significant hazard,” Harvard gun expert David Hemenway writes. The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that “the absence of guns from children’s homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents.”

Of course, gun can be, and are, used to save lives:

Quote

I checked online and found some fascinating numbers. A good website with footnotes and references to authoritative sources is GunFacts.info. There I learned the following:

  • Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
  • Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
  • 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. 
  • Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
  • Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

If you doubt the objectivity of the site above, it’s worth pointing out that the Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be even higher—as many as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day.

See also here.

So there is very clearly a robust "risk v. reward" analysis to be had as pertaining to guns.  Can the same be said about the consumption of alcohol?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Can the same be said about the consumption of alcohol?  

Are you saying that people derive no benefit from alcohol? Really? Your own bias is showing. You could start here:

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=160850
 

“Researchers found that drinking moderate amounts of alcohol in a group setting boosts people's emotions and enhances social bonding.

The study also found that moderate consumption of alcohol can minimize negative emotions -- or at least reduce displays such as being silent in a group or making faces with wrinkled noses or pursed lips.”

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

 

Quote

 

But to do so the research ignores that alcohol for whatever reason is part of that healthy lifestyle. For example there is no safe level of driving. Every mile driven increases your risk of death. But driving is part of how people seek entertainment, employment and meaningful relationships outside of dense urban centers. So removing driving would reduce their risk but have other negative effects. The fact remains that for whatever reason those who do not imbibe (and I am very close to this level) are “significantly”* less healthy than light to moderate drinkers. 

*as in statistically significant

 

Do you have citations for this ("those who do not imbibe (and I am very close to this level) are 'significantly'* less healthy than light to moderate drinkers.")?  I'd like to review any literature available.

 

The quote is directly from Calm’s study a few posts up. The one that resurrected the thread. 

From that article:

Quote

First, the reported cardioprotective effects of light to moderate alcohol consumption may be the product of confounding lifestyle factors. Consistent with prior studies, we found J- and U-shaped epidemiologic curves for the association of alcohol intake with cardiovascular disease, but we also found that light to moderate alcohol consumers exhibited healthier lifestyles than abstainers.10,11 Adjusting for only a few lifestyle factors ascertained by the UK Biobank, we observed attenuation in the apparent protective associations between modest alcohol intake and cardiovascular risk, suggesting that adjustments for yet unmeasured or unknown factors may further attenuate—if not, eliminate—the residual, cardioprotective associations observed among light drinkers.

I guess I don't understand the "for whatever reason" statement you have made.  That article states the "reason{s}" as "healthier lifestyle behaviors" in terms of "lower rates of smoking, lower BMI, higher physical activity, and higher vegetable intake."  The article then states that, when these "lifestyle factors" are taken into account, the "cardioprotective associations with modest alcohol intake" are "attenuated" (that is, "lessened or weakened (as in amount, force, or magnitude)").  Not much mystery here.  "Healthier lifestyle behaviors," rather than drinking, appear to account for "reported cardioprotective effects" seen in the lives of drinkers.

While there appears to be some correlation ("individuals in the light and moderate consumption group had healthier lifestyle behaviors than abstainers"), I'm not seeing evidence of causation (that is, that "modest alcohol intake" is causally related to "cardioprotective" effects. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

Can the same be said about the consumption of alcohol?  

Are you saying that people derive no benefit from alcohol? Really?

No.  If there were "no benefit{s} from alcohol," drinking would not be nearly as popular as it is.

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Your own bias is showing. You could start here:

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=160850

“Researchers found that drinking moderate amounts of alcohol in a group setting boosts people's emotions and enhances social bonding.

The study also found that moderate consumption of alcohol can minimize negative emotions -- or at least reduce displays such as being silent in a group or making faces with wrinkled noses or pursed lips.”

I acknowledge this.  My comments were based on a "risk v. reward" analysis.

There are clearly social and emotional benefits that accrue from drinking.  The question is whether those benefits ("rewards") outweigh the various risks and drawbacks inherent in drinking.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From that article:

I guess I don't understand the "for whatever reason" statement you have made.  That article states the "reason{s}" as "healthier lifestyle behaviors" in terms of "lower rates of smoking, lower BMI, higher physical activity, and higher vegetable intake."  The article then states that, when these "lifestyle factors" are taken into account, the "cardioprotective associations with modest alcohol intake" are "attenuated" (that is, "lessened or weakened (as in amount, force, or magnitude)").

So while there appears to be some correlation ("individuals in the light and moderate consumption group had healthier lifestyle behaviors than abstainers"), I'm not seeing evidence of causation (that is, that "modest alcohol intake" is causally related to "cardioprotective" effects.

Thanks,

-Smac

It was never my intent to claim causation. But yes they are very highly correlated. So correlated that until recently it was thought that light alcoholic consumption (alcohol being a literal poison) was advantageous to health. This also indicates that the negative health impacts from light to moderate alcohol consumption are very slight. 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess I don't understand the "for whatever reason" statement you have made.  That article states the "reason{s}" as "healthier lifestyle behaviors" in terms of "lower rates of smoking, lower BMI, higher physical activity, and higher vegetable intake."

Sure people who don’t drink on average have a higher bmi lower physical activity and eat crappier. Why? What’s the reason? I don’t know. So, “for whatever reason” they are less healthy. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

I guess I don't understand the "for whatever reason" statement you have made.  That article states the "reason{s}" as "healthier lifestyle behaviors" in terms of "lower rates of smoking, lower BMI, higher physical activity, and higher vegetable intake."

Sure people who don’t drink on average have a higher bmi lower physical activity and eat crappier. Why? What’s the reason? I don’t know. So, “for whatever reason” they are less healthy. 

But it's not "for whatever reason."  Drinkers are healthier because of "healthier lifestyle behaviors," not because of alcohol.

In other words, you are pointing to a correlative, not causative, link between health and consumption of alcohol.  I don't think that works.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But it's not "for whatever reason."  Drinkers are healthier because of "healthier lifestyle behaviors," not because of alcohol.

In other words, you are pointing to a correlative, not causative, link between health and consumption of alcohol.  I don't think that works.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree with this.  If someone who drinks alcohol moderately decides to stop for health reasons, they are not likely to stop eating vegetables as much and become less active, etc. as a causative result.  

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It was never my intent to claim causation. But yes they are very highly correlated. So correlated that until recently it was thought that light alcoholic consumption (alcohol being a literal poison) was advantageous to health.

I agree with this.

26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This also indicates that the negative health impacts from light to moderate alcohol consumption are very slight. 

I'm not sure about this part.  See here:

Quote

A new study shows light to moderate alcohol consumption could carry risks to the brain, including a reduction in brain volume.  

Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania analyzed data from more than 36,000 adults and found the link between alcohol use and aging was scaled depending on the level of consumption. Adults aged 50 and over who consumed two units (a pint of beer or a glass of wine) per day showed brain changes equivalent to two years of aging.  
...
 

Researchers said viewing 36,000 MRI scans from the U.K. Biobank, which holds genetic and medical information from half a million British middle-aged and older adults, enabled them to calculate gray and white matter in various regions of the brain.  

“Having this dataset is like having a microscope or a telescope with a more powerful lens,” Gideon Nave, a researcher from Penn’s Wharton School, said. “You get a better resolution and start seeing patterns and associations you couldn’t before.” 

The group controlled for age, height, handedness, sex, smoking status, socioeconomic status, genetic ancestry, and location, while also adjusting brain volume data for the size of a person’s head.  

Volunteer participants from the biobank answered a range of survey questions to gauge their alcohol consumption from zero to four units per day. When grouped based on consumption, researchers noticed a corresponding reduction in brain matter with the amount of alcohol a person drank each day.  

“It’s not linear,” study co-author Remi Daviet said. “It gets worse the more you drink.” 

Researchers found the difference between consuming zero and four drinks was equivalent to more than 10 years of aging. 

“There is some evidence that the effect of drinking on the brain is exponential,” Daviet said. “So, one additional drink in a day could have more of an impact than any of the previous drinks that day. That means that cutting back on that final drink of the night might have a big effect in terms of brain aging.” 

Of course, there are many factors in play.  Most people could get by just fine without chocolate and other sweets, but we allow ourselves some because it is enjoyable.

It appears that there is no dispute that "excessive" consumption of alcohol is pretty much across-the-board bad.

It also appears that "light to moderate" drinking may have benefits, but not enough to to say it is "better" than not drinking at all.  See here:

Quote

Are there benefits of alcohol?

While the list of health risks related to excessive alcohol consumption is long, there may also be health benefits associated with moderate drinking. There’s the psychological or social impact of alcohol. Having a drink while getting together with family or friends can be helpful to relieve stress and promote a sense of well-being. Alcohol has long been considered a "social lubricant" because drinking may encourage social interaction. These benefits are hard to measure.

In addition, studies suggest that moderate drinking (as discussed below) may be linked with a lower risk of:

  • heart attack
  • the most common type of stroke
  • death due to cardiovascular disease
  • diabetes
  • gallstones.

Despite these potential health benefits, most doctors don’t recommend that someone who doesn’t drink start drinking, or for a moderate drinker to drink more. That’s because these are only correlations (which does not necessarily mean causation). Many of these benefits are quite small, and it’s hard to predict who will actually benefit and who may be harmed more than helped by alcohol consumption.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I can completely get behind this but people don’t live their lives with the goal of “minimizing risk”. Otherwise we would leave our homes much less. People certainly wouldn’t go hiking, mountain biking, or skiing. Driving? Forget about it. Own a gun? No way. 

Everybody has a different personal risk tolerance level.  While we don't try to completely eliminate risk, most do try to minimize it within a tolerable personal level.  We try to practice protective safety measures while, driving, hiking, skiing, etc.  These measures don't eliminate the risk, but they do minimize it.     

If the benefit is worth the risk to the individual, they will engage in the behavior.  The most important thing is to be honest and aware of the potential risk in the first place.  That includes being careful not assuming that drinking moderately is safe because it is correlated with healthy lifestyles like eating more vegetables, etc.  The conclusion is that 

This study actually confirms the results of another previous, and much larger (and not limited to one country), study from 2018:

Quote

In estimating the weighted relative risk curve, we found that consuming zero (95% UI 0·0–0·8) standard drinks daily minimised the overall risk of all health loss (figure 5). The risk rose monotonically with increasing amounts of daily drinking. This weighted relative risk curve took into account the protective effects of alcohol use associated with ischaemic heart disease and diabetes in females. However, these protective effects were offset by the risks associated with cancers, which increased monotonically with consumption. In a sensitivity analysis, where we explored how the weighted relative risk curve changed on the basis of the choice of weights for various health outcomes, the curve changed significantly only in settings where diabetes and ischaemic heart disease comprised more than 60% of total deaths in a population...

...Alcohol use is a leading risk factor for disease burden worldwide, accounting for nearly 10% of global deaths among populations aged 15–49 years, and poses dire ramifications for future population health in the absence of policy action today. The widely held view of the health benefits of alcohol needs revising, particularly as improved methods and analyses continue to show how much alcohol use contributes to global death and disability. Our results show that the safest level of drinking is none. This level is in conflict with most health guidelines, which espouse health benefits associated with consuming up to two drinks per day. Alcohol use contributes to health loss from many causes and exacts its toll across the lifespan, particularly among men. Policies that focus on reducing population-level consumption will be most effective in reducing the health loss from alcohol use.


https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31310-2/fulltext?code=lancet-site

 

 

I think this information is really important for people who do want to maximize personal health through diet.  For so long we have been taught that moderate alcohol is actually healthy, but the data is starting to show that there is increased risk with any level of alcohol consumption.   This is important to weigh against the perceived benefits that is afforded people through alcohol consumption.  In terms of overall health, I think it is increasingly difficult to argue that any alcohol has a greater over-all health benefit.  People may have other personal and social reasons for consuming alcohol where they feel the risk is worth it, and that is their personal decision, I just think it is important that they are honest and clear about the risks, and do their best to minimize it if they do choose to consume alcohol by limiting frequency and quantity of intake.  Instead of talking frequency in terms of days or weeks, maybe it might be beneficial for people should start thinking in terms of months...or less - reserved for special social occasions, or better yet, decide to abstain all together.  

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
On 1/21/2022 at 9:33 AM, smac97 said:

Here:

I agree that this notion is "widespread," so much so that I think I - a teetotaler - had subconsciously bought into it.

Living in Utah County, and being surrounded mostly by family and friends who are - like me - teetotalers, it has been a while since I have personally observed the alcohol-as-social-lubricant thing.  It was most acutely obvious to me when I was in the Army.  A fair number of my friends seemed more or less incapable of enjoying themselves in an informal social setting without alcohol as a part of it.  And this often led to contests, party tricks, etc. that involved even more alcohol consumption.

Huh.  I hadn't really thought of these claims as possibly deriving from "the alcohol industry."  I'd like to see if there is evidence of that.

*****

That said, according to WHO "at least 2.8 million people {are} dying each year as a result of being overweight or obese."  We Latter-day Saints have a pretty big beam in our own eye.

"Any level of alcohol consumption can lead to loss of healthy life."

"Any."

Three cheers for teetotaling!

Huh.  Time to relegate this one to the "Urban Legend" dustbin, I guess.

I think this is the only feasible approach to take.  We can't ban alcohol, as we've seen how that goes.  We can impose some constraints (not driving while intoxicated, etc.), but otherwise we can only present data and then let individuals choose for themselves.

That said, I think there is much to be said for teetotaling.  

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

For what it's worth, you are right. The one thing that was supposed to be good about wine - resveratrol - has fallen through as well. The Harvard researcher, Dr David Sinclair, has found no benefit to resveratrol - at least not at the dose in a glass of wine. If anything, it has a detrimental effect on longevity. Alcohol certainly does -  in any amount - because it is a toxin. I think excuses are made for it, because there is an industry for it and because people want to drink it. I will say this, however. Probably most of the ancient diseases of the world were a result of bad water. Bad water is still a major problem in the world. I would rather drink wine or beer than potentially bad water. In ancient times before refrigeration, and when traveling, beer or wine was a "safe" drink - one which was not going to make you sick. So, it had an actual purpose. Now, it is nothing more than a social drink, which can be easily abused, and which will shorten life. Wine, beer nor any other alcoholic drink should not be viewed as a health drink - because they are not. They are an option in the event of suspicious water. They are a social drink. In fact there is not much healthy to drink besides water. Fruit juices are unhealthy, and drinking them will also shorten your life. I don't drink tea or coffee. For one thing I don't like these drinks without being sweetened. The sugar necessary to do this is simply not healthy. I also will drink coconut milk - but anymore on a daily basis that is about it. The common soda might be worse for your health than wine or beer. Picking on just one thing when so much is wrong with the SAD is...... well...... kinda narrow minded. If Yeshua were sitting here, what do you think He would say about all the sodas members drink? Yeah, I think He would say it is not good. Yet, it has replaced the beverages at school I grew up with, and.... the kids are much more obese than I remember. I am now convinced that the food pyramid I grew up with was virtually upside down....but I am digressing. When it comes to a healthy diet, there is much to be addressed here in America.... certainly not just beer and wine. And yes, the same could be said for tobacco. So yes, the WOW is correct, but it could be definitely expanded upon in modern America.

Link to comment
On 5/2/2022 at 10:12 AM, Tacenda said:

How about coffee and black tea? Just read this article, I'm scared to death of getting Alz just like my mom at the early age of early 60's like she did. I turned 60 in December. But I wonder if my habit of Diet Dr. Pepper would suffice. I tried coffee but it's too hard to change from my diet drink. https://www.alzheimers.net/5-4-15-coffee-prevent-alzheimers

There are different kinds of Alzheimer's but I am coming to believe that most suffer from a type where the brain actually becomes insulin resistant. That is why a ketogenic diet helps them. It provides some energy the cells/neurons are being deprived of.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

For what it's worth, you are right. The one thing that was supposed to be good about wine - resveratrol - has fallen through as well. The Harvard researcher, Dr David Sinclair, has found no benefit to resveratrol - at least not at the dose in a glass of wine. If anything, it has a detrimental effect on longevity. Alcohol certainly does -  in any amount - because it is a toxin. I think excuses are made for it, because there is an industry for it and because people want to drink it. I will say this, however. Probably most of the ancient diseases of the world were a result of bad water. Bad water is still a major problem in the world. I would rather drink wine or beer than potentially bad water. In ancient times before refrigeration, and when traveling, beer or wine was a "safe" drink - one which was not going to make you sick. So, it had an actual purpose. Now, it is nothing more than a social drink, which can be easily abused, and which will shorten life. Wine, beer nor any other alcoholic drink should not be viewed as a health drink - because they are not. They are an option in the event of suspicious water. They are a social drink. In fact there is not much healthy to drink besides water. Fruit juices are unhealthy, and drinking them will also shorten your life. I don't drink tea or coffee. For one thing I don't like these drinks without being sweetened. The sugar necessary to do this is simply not healthy. I also will drink coconut milk - but anymore on a daily basis that is about it. The common soda might be worse for your health than wine or beer. Picking on just one thing when so much is wrong with the SAD is...... well...... kinda narrow minded. If Yeshua were sitting here, what do you think He would say about all the sodas members drink? Yeah, I think He would say it is not good. Yet, it has replaced the beverages at school I grew up with, and.... the kids are much more obese than I remember. I am now convinced that the food pyramid I grew up with was virtually upside down....but I am digressing. When it comes to a healthy diet, there is much to be addressed here in America.... certainly not just beer and wine. And yes, the same could be said for tobacco. So yes, the WOW is correct, but it could be definitely expanded upon in modern America.

I like much of what you say here. But I also think that coffee and tea, and even alcoholic beverages to some extent, do serve a purpose of creating what the Danes call hygge. I've lived in a northern climates which are grey most of the year and I think that warming drinks can improve the sense of well-being. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I like much of what you say here. But I also think that coffee and tea, and even alcoholic beverages to some extent, do serve a purpose of creating what the Danes call hygge. I've lived in a northern climates which are grey most of the year and I think that warming drinks can improve the sense of well-being. 

I have taken to adding a choc protein powder to my coconut milk. I will also add a choc collagen powder - both are sweetened  with erithrytol, stevia and/or monk fruit. It is like the chocolate milk I grew up with, and feels "naughty" when I drink it. It does have more of a powdery residue, but otherwise sometimes just hits the spot. If warmed, it would be like having a hot cocoa. As a supressant, I would think any alcoholic drink would not be a good choice for this. Other than being against the word of wisdom I see nothing wrong with an occasional cup of coffee -even with butter in it - but I wouldn't like it  without some kind of sweetener, and on a daily basis I believe the  constant cortisol stimulation is not healthy.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I have taken to adding a choc protein powder to my coconut milk. I will also add a choc collagen powder - both are sweetened  with erithrytol, stevia and/or monk fruit. It is like the chocolate milk I grew up with, and feels "naughty" when I drink it. It does have more of a powdery residue, but otherwise sometimes just hits the spot. If warmed, it would be like having a hot cocoa. As a supressant, I would think any alcoholic drink would not be a good choice for this. Other than being against the word of wisdom I see nothing wrong with an occasional cup of coffee -even with butter in it - but I wouldn't like it  without some kind of sweetener, and on a daily basis I believe the  constant cortisol stimulation is not healthy.

My dad was a coffee drinker for his back pain, and I would pour a cup before high school started, made me a super fast in typewriting class, yes I'm that old. But I only did that for a short time.

Now when I try it, for health reasons, and that I'm a habitual Diet Dr. Pepper drinker, I hate it. Yesterday my husband bought me LINDOR chocolates and there's some flavors I don't care for and the thought occurred to me I could plop them in a cup of coffee and I bet it would be like hot chocolate! Trying to quit my pop habit and thought this could work.

Still not sure I'll go through with drinking coffee yet but desperate to avoid getting Alz like my mother did at a very young age. Soon going to go to the hospital for a PET scan to see if there's plaque/signs of it. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

My dad was a coffee drinker for his back pain, and I would pour a cup before high school started, made me a super fast in typewriting class, yes I'm that old. But I only did that for a short time.

Now when I try it, for health reasons, and that I'm a habitual Diet Dr. Pepper drinker, I hate it. Yesterday my husband bought me LINDOR chocolates and there's some flavors I don't care for and the thought occurred to me I could plop them in a cup of coffee and I bet it would be like hot chocolate! Trying to quit my pop habit and thought this could work.

Still not sure I'll go through with drinking coffee yet but desperate to avoid getting Alz like my mother did at a very young age. Soon going to go to the hospital for a PET scan to see if there's plaque/signs of it. 

I was a heavy diet dr. pepper drinker for years.  I use to drink two 44 oz glasses per day, and sometimes more.  I finally switched to tea.  I like a Cinnamon blend from Harney and Sons.  I drink one to two cups in the morning and that's it. It was enough for me to cut out all soft drinks without any problem.  I feel much more healthy now.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

I was a heavy diet dr. pepper drinker for years.  I use to drink two 44 oz glasses per day, and sometimes more.  I finally switched to tea.  I like a Cinnamon blend from Harney and Sons.  I drink one to two cups in the morning and that's it. It was enough for me to cut out all soft drinks without any problem.  I feel much more healthy now.

Good to know, I've give it a try!

 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/9/2022 at 9:57 AM, Tacenda said:

My dad was a coffee drinker for his back pain, and I would pour a cup before high school started, made me a super fast in typewriting class, yes I'm that old. But I only did that for a short time.

Now when I try it, for health reasons, and that I'm a habitual Diet Dr. Pepper drinker, I hate it. Yesterday my husband bought me LINDOR chocolates and there's some flavors I don't care for and the thought occurred to me I could plop them in a cup of coffee and I bet it would be like hot chocolate! Trying to quit my pop habit and thought this could work.

Still not sure I'll go through with drinking coffee yet but desperate to avoid getting Alz like my mother did at a very young age. Soon going to go to the hospital for a PET scan to see if there's plaque/signs of it. 

The thing about coffee is that it has lots of caffeine - that's why people drink it. Constant caffeine will constantly stimulate cortisol. In turn cortisol increases insulin resistance - something you don't want if you are concerned about alzheimer's. Many are starting to look at alzheimer's as a metabolic disease. I brought this up previously. The issue is that the brain becomes insulin resistant, and can't get enough glucose - these are the cases where ketones help brain function. Diet Dr Pepper at least does not have sugar, but I have yet to find an acceptable artificial sweetener. Aspartame is known to break down into formaldehyde in the body. https://thebeet.com/heres-what-happens-in-your-body-when-you-drink-a-diet-coke/#:~:text=Aspartame breaks down into the,has been linked to cancer.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I have yet to find an acceptable artificial sweetener.

Monk fruit isn’t a bad substitute as far as I can tell so far.  Overly sweet especially now I have had to cut out sugar, but good when I need some sweetness. The artificial stuff just tastes bad anyway imo (aftertaste).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...