Alcohol and health

Post by **DRT** » 22:31 Sat 30 May 2015

jdaw1 wrote:BBC: First Minister Peter Robinson blames lifestyle for heart attack.

Except that the video doesn’t mention VP, nor even alcohol. It does mention working late.

Should we move the start time of our off-lines to 16:30?

Post by **PhilW** » 13:01 Mon 22 Jun 2015

The Independent, in an article titled [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-discover-how-red-wine-miracle-ingredient-resveratrol-helps-us-stay-young-9940742.html]Scientists discover how red wine 'miracle ingredient' resveratrol helps us stay young[/url] wrote:Resveratrol: The "elixir" of youth
Various studies have indicated that resveratrol may be beneficial to health by possessing anti-oxidative, anti-carcinogenic or anti-tumour properties. The full scientific name is trans-3,5,4-trihydroxystilbene and it is found in the vines, roots, seeds and stalks of vine plants, but it becomes particularly concentrated in the skins of grapes, possibly as a defence against fungal attack. Red wine typically contains more resveratrol than white wine because of the habit of leaving grape skins for longer during fermentation. Other foods that contain resveratrol include peanuts and soy.

Post by **PhilW** » 13:24 Mon 22 Jun 2015

The Telegraph goes one better, in an article titled [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11689799/Revealed-How-to-lose-weight-drink-plenty-of-red-wine.html]Revealed: How to lose weight - drink plenty of red wine[/url] wrote:Research shows that resveratrol, an ingredient fround in grapes, berries and red wine can help turn flab into calorie-burning 'brown' fat.

Good old 'brown' fat, eh!

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 00:27 Tue 23 Jun 2015

WebMD [url=http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/news/20140512/resveratrol-in-red-wine-may-not-be-such-a-health-booster-after-all]puts the kibosh on the resveratrol hype[/url] wrote:Substance doesn't seem to protect people from heart disease, cancer, study says.

Post by **DRT** » 07:43 Sat 11 Jul 2015

Posted by a friend on Facebook today...

: Screen Shot 2015-07-11 at 08.38.52.png (204.99 KiB) Viewed 23662 times

Post by **PhilW** » 08:09 Sat 11 Jul 2015

DRT wrote:Posted by a friend on Facebook today...

Like

Post by **jdaw1** » 14:30 Mon 13 Jul 2015

BBC: Doctors call for 20% sugary drink tax.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 16:36 Mon 13 Jul 2015

jdaw1 wrote:BBC: Doctors call for 20% sugary drink tax.

Will Port count as a "sugary drink"?

Post by **jdaw1** » 06:35 Fri 17 Jul 2015

The BBC, in an article entitled [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33551501]Scientific experts: Sugar intake 'should be halved'[/url], wrote:A committee of scientific experts is expected to urge the government to halve the recommended daily intake of sugar, in final guidance on Friday.

Government advisers in England are set to recommend that no more than 5% of daily calories should come from added sugar - about seven level teaspoons.

The guidelines are in line with new World Health Organization proposals.

Presumably health-aware Port drinkers will switch from Graham to Dow.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 07:37 Fri 17 Jul 2015

jdaw1 wrote:
The BBC, in an article entitled [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33551501]Scientific experts: Sugar intake 'should be halved'[/url], wrote:A committee of scientific experts is expected to urge the government to halve the recommended daily intake of sugar, in final guidance on Friday.

Government advisers in England are set to recommend that no more than 5% of daily calories should come from added sugar - about seven level teaspoons.

The guidelines are in line with new World Health Organization proposals.
Presumably health-aware Port drinkers will switch from Graham to Dow.

Is much refined sugar added to port?

Post by **jdaw1** » 08:05 Fri 17 Jul 2015

LGTrotter wrote:Is much refined sugar added to port?

My understanding is that the killjoys have their knickers in a twist about all sugars, not just refined.

Post by **DRT** » 08:37 Fri 17 Jul 2015

jdaw1 wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:Is much refined sugar added to port?
My understanding is that the killjoys have their knickers in a twist about all sugars, not just refined.

So presumably we should cut all fruit from our "Five-a-Day"?

Post by **jdaw1** » 09:47 Wed 19 Aug 2015

The BBC, in an article entitled [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33975946]Cancer risk 'even from light drinking'[/url], wrote:Even light and moderate drinking - up to one drink a day for women and two drinks a day for men - could increase the risk of cancer, say researchers.

The work in the British Medical Journal looked at two large US studies involving more than 100,000 adults.

The clearest link was for breast cancer.

Experts say the findings reinforce the health message that people should limit how much they drink and have some alcohol-free days.

There is no guaranteed safe level of drinking, but if you drink within the recommended daily limits, the risks of harming your health are low, they say.

The risks
Alcohol is linked to an increased risk of mouth, throat, gullet, bowel, liver and breast cancer

Smoking and drinking together further increases cancer risk

All types of alcohol increase cancer risk

The more you drink, the higher the risk

Cutting down on alcohol can reduce cancer risk
The NHS recommends that men should not regularly drink more than three to four units (two cans of 4.5% lager) a day and women two to three units (two small glasses of 12% wine) a day - although these drinking guidelines are currently under review and so could change.

In the American studies, light to moderate drinking was defined as up to 15g alcohol (a small glass of wine) per day for women and up to 30g alcohol (two 355ml bottles of beer) per day for men.

For women, the researchers observed, the risk of alcohol-related cancers - mainly breast cancer - increased even after one alcoholic drink a day.

No significant link was found in men who had never smoked, but among men who were current or ex-smokers, light or moderate drinking appeared to increase the risk of certain cancers.

NB: “No significant link was found in men who had never smoked”.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 13:12 Wed 19 Aug 2015

That is a large loophole. But I think double coronas probably count as smoking.

Post by **jdaw1** » 20:00 Wed 19 Aug 2015

djewesbury wrote:That is a large loophole. But I think double coronas probably count as smoking.

One or two a month is definitely not ‘smoking’.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 21:31 Wed 19 Aug 2015

jdaw1 wrote:
djewesbury wrote:That is a large loophole. But I think double coronas probably count as smoking.
One or two a month is definitely not ‘smoking’.

One or two two-hour smokes a month is smoking.

Post by **jdaw1** » 21:49 Wed 19 Aug 2015

djewesbury wrote:One or two two-hour smokes a month is smoking.

A terrible and manifestly unwise precedent. Next you’ll be claiming — foolish boy — that a double-magnum, even though only one cork, counts for more than one unit of alcohol. Foolish boy

There is helpful medical precedent. The ‘five a day’ only count if different. Five apples is only one of the five. Therefore one double-magnum is only one drink. Therefore one smoke, whether great or small, is only one smoke.

Post by **jdaw1** » 19:57 Fri 28 Aug 2015

The Food Standards Agency, aka The Nanny State, is proposing new guidelines that would allow for restaurants to serve burgers rare.

Post by **jdaw1** » 11:02 Sat 29 Aug 2015

The BBC, in an article entitled [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34072712]Drinking water doesn't prevent a hangover, study says[/url], wrote:Raiding the fridge or downing glasses of water after a night of heavy drinking won't improve your sore head the next day, Dutch research suggests.

Instead, a study concluded, the only way to prevent a hangover is to drink less alcohol.

More than 800 students were asked how they tried to relieve hangover symptoms, but neither food nor water was found to have any positive effect.

After is too late. Drink water before and during.

Post by **DRT** » 17:38 Sun 30 Aug 2015

jdaw1 wrote:a study concluded, the only way to prevent a hangover is to drink less alcohol.

That is quite the most stunning revelation I have ever read. Money well spent on the education of those Dutch students if you ask me

Post by **jdaw1** » 09:30 Sun 20 Sep 2015

The Sunday Times reports, in effect, that doctors say that vegetables aren’t healthy and that we shouldn’t bother.

Post by **jdaw1** » 11:12 Thu 24 Sep 2015

The PLoS, in a paper entitled [url=http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001878]Changes in Intake of Fruits and Vegetables and Weight Change in United States Men and Women Followed for Up to 24 Years: Analysis from Three Prospective Cohort Studies[/url], wrote:increased intake of starchy vegetables, including corn, peas, and potatoes, was associated with weight gain.

Those desirous of a more dramatic interpretation might wish to read the report in Yahoo! Health.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 08:21 Sat 10 Oct 2015

Drink a bottle of wine a day.

Post by **DRT** » 18:47 Tue 05 Jan 2016

In [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34575975]this article[/url] the BBC wrote:The World Health Organization advises that between 30% and 35% of our calories should come from fat arguing there is "no probable or convincing evidence" that the total amount of fat in our diet is altering the risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease.

I might have an extra sausage with breakfast tomorrow

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 23:26 Tue 05 Jan 2016

I was hoping for a comment on the much trailed new alcohol limits for men, supposedly being reduced in line with the limit for women, ie 21 units a week with 2 days off a week to boot. I am sure that we can all respect that.

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 16:21 Wed 06 Jan 2016

LGTrotter wrote:21 units a week with 2 days off a week to boot. I am sure that we can all respect that.

Shouldn't be a problem.

Post by **jdaw1** » 12:43 Sun 10 Jan 2016

The BBC, in a misleading titled article entitled Michael Mosley: The truth about alcohol, denies that there is a truth.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 17:25 Sun 10 Jan 2016

jdaw1 wrote:The BBC, in a misleading titled article entitled Michael Mosley: The truth about alcohol, denies that there is a truth.

Michael Mosley, quoting a Canadian wonk in the story above, wrote:A man drinking three to four units a day increases his risk of developing prostate cancer by 23%.

That's the sort of statistic I simply don't believe is true. I can't understand how it possibly could be. A 23% increase in risk is a concept that's surely incalculable, without quantifying what each individual's risk was beforehand. Even if it's true, it's meaningless. If my risk before a drink is calculated as 0.034%, I'll be perfectly happy with a 23% increase in that risk. This is such an irresponsible and underhand use of statistics that the 'expert' in question should be cashiered and made to work cleaning the toilets in a pub.

The other thing that rankles is the state now telling me that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption. This begs so many questions it's hard to know where to start... There's no 'safe' level of living, if by 'safe' you mean 'guaranteed not to cause or contribute to causing mortality'.

Bah!

Post by **DRT** » 17:50 Sun 10 Jan 2016

I agree with Daniel, and that is not something I ever admit to easily.

It is the blatant misuse of statistics that I 110% disagree with.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 17:52 Sun 10 Jan 2016

DRT wrote:I agree with Daniel, and that is not something I ever admit to easily.

Nonsense. You always agree with me.

*Normal service resumed*

Post by **jdaw1** » 18:16 Sun 10 Jan 2016

It’s six of one or half a dozen of the other. If you drink lots, you die soon enough that your cellar lasts your whole life. And if you don’t drink, your cellar lasts your whole life. Why the fuss?

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 18:47 Sun 10 Jan 2016

As I understand it in the general population the incidence is 137/100,000 and if you are a drinker of more than 4 units per day the incidence would be 23% higher. This equates to about 31/100,000. (Why have I done this I know nothing about maths). In percentage terms it isn't that much higher but is statistically significant. We need to get over the fact that what we do does have significant health implications. I have made the choice to drink alcohol and will have to live with this.

However there are simple steps to self examination which given the age and alcohol consumption on this forum might be worth considering. Form an orderly queue gentlemen.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 18:52 Sun 10 Jan 2016

I should add that prostate self examination usually requires the support of a partner. I suggest we team up in pairs.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 19:53 Sun 10 Jan 2016

You were doing so well...

Post by **DRT** » 22:42 Sun 10 Jan 2016

Is that what happened to the missing bottle of Dow 1908?

Post by **jdaw1** » 22:44 Sun 10 Jan 2016

LGTrotter wrote:but is statistically significant.

How do you know? As a general rule of thumb, reliable measurement of causes of diseases can be done if the relative risk is at least five-fold. E.g., smoking and lung cancer (the Richard Doll study had difficulty only because back then there were so few non-smokers). If the alleged factor is 1.23, it is unlikely to be much more than a hunch.

Or, as medical statistician Ken MacRae used to say, “if you torture the data enough it will say anything you want”.

Post by **DRT** » 22:50 Sun 10 Jan 2016

jdaw1 wrote:Or, as medical statistician Ken MacRae used to say, “if you torture the data enough it will say anything you want”.

Indeed.

137/100000 is a 0.00137% chance of dying.

168/100000 is a 0.00168% chance of dying.

That doesn't feel like a statistically valid increase in risk. If rounded to two decimal places both are 0.00%

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 23:10 Sun 10 Jan 2016

Am I dying or not? The statistical likelihood of that happening appears not to have changed.

Cheers.

Post by **jdaw1** » 23:24 Sun 10 Jan 2016

DRT wrote:137/100000 is a 0.00137% chance of dying.

168/100000 is a 0.00168% chance of dying.

That doesn't feel like a statistically valid increase in risk. If rounded to two decimal places both are 0.00%

You have quietly slipped two decimal places. Hush—nobody noticed.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 23:26 Sun 10 Jan 2016

djewesbury wrote:Am I dying or not? The statistical likelihood of that happening appears not to have changed.

Cheers.

Apparently not. Julian and Derek have just run the numbers and it turns out they understand stuff better than the medical establishment, who after all have been proved time and time again to have been hysterical fools.

Or a bunch of lads who drink more than is good for them might want to think about prostate cancer and the pretty irrefutable link which has been made. You decide.

Post by **jdaw1** » 23:32 Sun 10 Jan 2016

Lots of people, perhaps disproportionately drinkers, die with prostate cancer. Few die of it.

Also see Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 23:34 Sun 10 Jan 2016

The medical profession is sticking up for itself and ganging up against us.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 00:09 Mon 11 Jan 2016

jdaw1 wrote:Few die of it.

About 10,000 per year in the UK.

Post by **DRT** » 00:46 Mon 11 Jan 2016

Seriously?

2% of deaths in the UK are caused by prostate cancer?

Really?

What I mean is - REALLY?

I think you've got that wrong.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 01:05 Mon 11 Jan 2016

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health- ... ading-Zero

Those reckless fools at cancer research UK just hyping the results to get the cash out of us I suppose.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 01:11 Mon 11 Jan 2016

Anyway, I am certainly going to be having too many glasses of port. I just don't think we should kid ourselves. Not all the time anyway.

Everybody should get back to mocking government stats, now that I've sucked all the fun out of this one. And what could be more fun than putting on rubber gloves and exploring the bung hole.

Post by **DRT** » 01:19 Mon 11 Jan 2016

"The crude mortality rate shows that there are 35 prostate cancer deaths for every 100,000 males in the UK."

That is not 2%. It is 0.035%. Am I missing something?

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 01:21 Mon 11 Jan 2016

There is also a number. It is the wrong side of 10,000. Sorry an' all.

LGTrotter · Post by **LGTrotter** » 01:24 Mon 11 Jan 2016

I should hastily add that despite my banging on about this I have no expertise in epidemiology or cancer.

Post by **DRT** » 01:26 Mon 11 Jan 2016

I come from a very large family with interconnections to and friendly relationships with lots of other very large families, mostly Scottish and Irish. I have not known anyone who has died of prostate cancer in my near 51 years on this Earth.

Hearties? Loads, all male. Old age? Loads, mixed sex. Rampant cancer in various organs? Loads, all female. Prostate cancer, none.

Put your gloves away, Owen, there is nothing to prod here...