Re: Heavy Drinkers live longer than abstainers!

[Guest guest]

Also: this agrees with a previous post about 2-4 glasses a day:

/messages/24645?threaded=1 & m=e & var=1 & tidx=1

On 9/4/10 12:03 PM, " Francesca Skelton " <fskelton@...> wrote:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014332,00.html

Al Pater: can you post this study? Thanks in advance.

One of the most contentious issues in the vast literature about alcohol consumption has been the consistent finding that those who don't drink tend to die sooner than those who do. The standard Alcoholics Anonymous explanation for this finding is that many of those who show up as abstainers in such research are actually former hard-core drunks who had already incurred health problems associated with drinking.

But a new paper in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research suggests that — for reasons that aren't entirely clear — abstaining from alcohol does tend to increase one's risk of dying, even when you exclude former problem drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers' mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers.

Moderate drinking, which is defined as one to three drinks per day, is associated with the lowest mortality rates in alcohol studies. Moderate alcohol use (especially when the beverage of choice is red wine) is thought to improve heart health, circulation and sociability, which can be important because people who are isolated don't have as many family members and friends who can notice and help treat health problems.

But why would abstaining from alcohol lead to a shorter life? It's true that those who abstain from alcohol tend to be from lower socioeconomic classes, since drinking can be expensive. And people of lower socioeconomic status have more life stressors — job and child-care worries that might not only keep them from the bottle but also cause stress-related illnesses over long periods. (They also don't get the stress-reducing benefits of a drink or two after work.)

But even after controlling for nearly all imaginable variables — socioeconomic status, level of physical activity, number of close friends, quality of social support and so on — the researchers (a six-member team led by psychologist Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin) found that over a 20-year period, mortality rates were highest for those who were not current drinkers, regardless of whether they used to be alcoholics, second highest for heavy drinkers and lowest for moderate drinkers.

The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the abstainers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.

These are remarkable statistics. Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than those who don't drink, even if they never had a problem with alcohol. One important reason is that alcohol lubricates so many social interactions, and social interactions are vital for maintaining mental and physical health. Nondrinkers show greater signs of depression than those who allow themselves to join the party.

The authors of the new paper are careful to note that even if drinking is associated with longer life, it can be dangerous: it can impair your memory severely and it can lead to nonlethal falls and other mishaps (like, say, cheating on your spouse in a drunken haze) that can screw up your life. There's also the dependency issue: if you become addicted to alcohol, you may spend a long time trying to get off the bottle.

That said, the new study provides the strongest evidence yet that moderate drinking is not only fun but good for you. So make mine a double.

The original version of this article misidentified abstainers (people in the study who were not current drinkers, regardless of their past drinking status) as people who had never drunk. The article has been edited to reflect the correction.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014332,00.html#ixzz0yZpTh9pD

[Guest guest]

This is a pretty old discussion... alcohol increases HDL which is arguably good for heart health. I like the old school explanation where you observe that the worm in the bottom of the tequila bottle is dead so obviously alcohol kills worms!. Actually I recall one study where consumption of alcohol with tainted (red tide) seafood meals reduced rate of infection. Stronger mixed drinks were prophylactic, beer not so much. Seriously, the population fraction who become alcohol involved and abuse alcohol can damage their liver and generally ruin their personal lives. For the rest of us, alcohol in moderation is generally harmless.Broad population studies as usual need to be used carefully. I look forward to a future when we can inspect our individual programming so we can answer such questions on a case by case basis. Of course this opens up another can of worms about how this genetic information will be used in a brave new world. I guess we need to drink mas tequila to kill those worms. JR On Sep 4, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

Also: this agrees with a previous post about 2-4 glasses a day:

/messages/24645?threaded=1 & m=e & var=1 & tidx=1

On 9/4/10 12:03 PM, "Francesca Skelton" <fskelton@...> wrote:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014332,00.html

Al Pater: can you post this study? Thanks in advance.

One of the most contentious issues in the vast literature about alcohol consumption has been the consistent finding that those who don't drink tend to die sooner than those who do. The standard Alcoholics Anonymous explanation for this finding is that many of those who show up as abstainers in such research are actually former hard-core drunks who had already incurred health problems associated with drinking.

But a new paper in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research suggests that — for reasons that aren't entirely clear — abstaining from alcohol does tend to increase one's risk of dying, even when you exclude former problem drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers' mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers.

Moderate drinking, which is defined as one to three drinks per day, is associated with the lowest mortality rates in alcohol studies. Moderate alcohol use (especially when the beverage of choice is red wine) is thought to improve heart health, circulation and sociability, which can be important because people who are isolated don't have as many family members and friends who can notice and help treat health problems.

But why would abstaining from alcohol lead to a shorter life? It's true that those who abstain from alcohol tend to be from lower socioeconomic classes, since drinking can be expensive. And people of lower socioeconomic status have more life stressors — job and child-care worries that might not only keep them from the bottle but also cause stress-related illnesses over long periods. (They also don't get the stress-reducing benefits of a drink or two after work.)

But even after controlling for nearly all imaginable variables — socioeconomic status, level of physical activity, number of close friends, quality of social support and so on — the researchers (a six-member team led by psychologist Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin) found that over a 20-year period, mortality rates were highest for those who were not current drinkers, regardless of whether they used to be alcoholics, second highest for heavy drinkers and lowest for moderate drinkers.

The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the abstainers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.

These are remarkable statistics. Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than those who don't drink, even if they never had a problem with alcohol. One important reason is that alcohol lubricates so many social interactions, and social interactions are vital for maintaining mental and physical health. Nondrinkers show greater signs of depression than those who allow themselves to join the party.

The authors of the new paper are careful to note that even if drinking is associated with longer life, it can be dangerous: it can impair your memory severely and it can lead to nonlethal falls and other mishaps (like, say, cheating on your spouse in a drunken haze) that can screw up your life. There's also the dependency issue: if you become addicted to alcohol, you may spend a long time trying to get off the bottle.

That said, the new study provides the strongest evidence yet that moderate drinking is not only fun but good for you. So make mine a double.

The original version of this article misidentified abstainers (people in the study who were not current drinkers, regardless of their past drinking status) as people who had never drunk. The article has been edited to reflect the correction.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014332,00.html#ixzz0yZpTh9pD

[Guest guest]

Not exactly IMHO. The fact that heavy drinkers live longer than teetotalers is quite surprising.

There’s a cluster of centegenerians in Loma , CA, a group of 7th day adventists. Their longevity has been attributed to non-smoking, non-drinking, vegetarian diets and being active. We already know that vegetarianism is not necessarily the healthiest way to go. But now we may have to rethink the non-drinking thing.

http://www.llu.edu/info/legacy/appendixc/

In any case, I’ll keep having my 1-2 wine glasses a day without any guilt.

On 9/4/10 12:23 PM, " john roberts " <robertsjohnh@...> wrote:

This is a pretty old discussion... alcohol increases HDL which is arguably good for heart health. I like the old school explanation where you observe that the worm in the bottom of the tequila bottle is dead so obviously alcohol kills worms!. Actually I recall one study where consumption of alcohol with tainted (red tide) seafood meals reduced rate of infection. Stronger mixed drinks were prophylactic, beer not so much.

Seriously, the population fraction who become alcohol involved and abuse alcohol can damage their liver and generally ruin their personal lives. For the rest of us, alcohol in moderation is generally harmless.

Broad population studies as usual need to be used carefully. I look forward to a future when we can inspect our individual programming so we can answer such questions on a case by case basis. Of course this opens up another can of worms about how this genetic information will be used in a brave new world. I guess we need to drink mas tequila to kill those worms.

JR

On Sep 4, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

Also: this agrees with a previous post about 2-4 glasses a day:

/messages/24645?threaded=1 & m=e & var=1 & tidx=1 < /messages/24645?threaded=1 & amp;m=e & amp;var=1 & amp;tidx=1>

On 9/4/10 12:03 PM, " Francesca Skelton " <fskelton@...> wrote:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014332,00.html

Al Pater: can you post this study? Thanks in advance.

One of the most contentious issues in the vast literature about alcohol consumption has been the consistent finding that those who don't drink tend to die sooner than those who do. The standard Alcoholics Anonymous explanation for this finding is that many of those who show up as abstainers in such research are actually former hard-core drunks who had already incurred health problems associated with drinking.

But a new paper in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research suggests that — for reasons that aren't entirely clear — abstaining from alcohol does tend to increase one's risk of dying, even when you exclude former problem drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers' mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers.

Moderate drinking, which is defined as one to three drinks per day, is associated with the lowest mortality rates in alcohol studies. Moderate alcohol use (especially when the beverage of choice is red wine) is thought to improve heart health, circulation and sociability, which can be important because people who are isolated don't have as many family members and friends who can notice and help treat health problems.

But why would abstaining from alcohol lead to a shorter life? It's true that those who abstain from alcohol tend to be from lower socioeconomic classes, since drinking can be expensive. And people of lower socioeconomic status have more life stressors — job and child-care worries that might not only keep them from the bottle but also cause stress-related illnesses over long periods. (They also don't get the stress-reducing benefits of a drink or two after work.)

But even after controlling for nearly all imaginable variables — socioeconomic status, level of physical activity, number of close friends, quality of social support and so on — the researchers (a six-member team led by psychologist Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin) found that over a 20-year period, mortality rates were highest for those who were not current drinkers, regardless of whether they used to be alcoholics, second highest for heavy drinkers and lowest for moderate drinkers.

The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the abstainers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.

These are remarkable statistics. Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than those who don't drink, even if they never had a problem with alcohol. One important reason is that alcohol lubricates so many social interactions, and social interactions are vital for maintaining mental and physical health. Nondrinkers show greater signs of depression than those who allow themselves to join the party.

The authors of the new paper are careful to note that even if drinking is associated with longer life, it can be dangerous: it can impair your memory severely and it can lead to nonlethal falls and other mishaps (like, say, cheating on your spouse in a drunken haze) that can screw up your life. There's also the dependency issue: if you become addicted to alcohol, you may spend a long time trying to get off the bottle.

That said, the new study provides the strongest evidence yet that moderate drinking is not only fun but good for you. So make mine a double.

The original version of this article misidentified abstainers (people in the study who were not current drinkers, regardless of their past drinking status) as people who had never drunk. The article has been edited to reflect the correction.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014332,00.html#ixzz0yZpTh9pD

[Guest guest]

I've seen the report that even heavy alcohol use continued to delver heart health benefits reported as a "surprise" years ago. To some extent this kind of statistical analysis needs to be weighted against what generally kills people within the sample group. These days heart disease is preemptively managed by cholesterol medication so I suspect the numbers may lose some of their power in future decades. But this is pure speculation on my part. I brew my own "health" beer and take my medicine regularly, but I don't expect any longevity benefit from it. My benefits are shorter term... it tastes good. Time for another good now/no bad now study on coffee drinking. :-)JROn Sep 4, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

Not exactly IMHO. The fact that heavy drinkers live longer than teetotalers is quite surprising.

There’s a cluster of centegenerians in Loma , CA, a group of 7th day adventists. Their longevity has been attributed to non-smoking, non-drinking, vegetarian diets and being active. We already know that vegetarianism is not necessarily the healthiest way to go. But now we may have to rethink the non-drinking thing.

http://www.llu.edu/info/legacy/appendixc/

In any case, I’ll keep having my 1-2 wine glasses a day without any guilt.

On 9/4/10 12:23 PM, "john roberts" <robertsjohnh@...> wrote:

This is a pretty old discussion... alcohol increases HDL which is arguably good for heart health. I like the old school explanation where you observe that the worm in the bottom of the tequila bottle is dead so obviously alcohol kills worms!. Actually I recall one study where consumption of alcohol with tainted (red tide) seafood meals reduced rate of infection. Stronger mixed drinks were prophylactic, beer not so much.

Seriously, the population fraction who become alcohol involved and abuse alcohol can damage their liver and generally ruin their personal lives. For the rest of us, alcohol in moderation is generally harmless.

Broad population studies as usual need to be used carefully. I look forward to a future when we can inspect our individual programming so we can answer such questions on a case by case basis. Of course this opens up another can of worms about how this genetic information will be used in a brave new world. I guess we need to drink mas tequila to kill those worms.

JR

On Sep 4, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

Also: this agrees with a previous post about 2-4 glasses a day:

/messages/24645?threaded=1 & m=e & var=1 & tidx=1 < /messages/24645?threaded=1 & amp;m=e & amp;var=1 & amp;tidx=1>

On 9/4/10 12:03 PM, "Francesca Skelton" <fskelton@...> wrote:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014332,00.html

Al Pater: can you post this study? Thanks in advance.

One of the most contentious issues in the vast literature about alcohol consumption has been the consistent finding that those who don't drink tend to die sooner than those who do. The standard Alcoholics Anonymous explanation for this finding is that many of those who show up as abstainers in such research are actually former hard-core drunks who had already incurred health problems associated with drinking.

But a new paper in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research suggests that — for reasons that aren't entirely clear — abstaining from alcohol does tend to increase one's risk of dying, even when you exclude former problem drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers' mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers.

Moderate drinking, which is defined as one to three drinks per day, is associated with the lowest mortality rates in alcohol studies. Moderate alcohol use (especially when the beverage of choice is red wine) is thought to improve heart health, circulation and sociability, which can be important because people who are isolated don't have as many family members and friends who can notice and help treat health problems.

But why would abstaining from alcohol lead to a shorter life? It's true that those who abstain from alcohol tend to be from lower socioeconomic classes, since drinking can be expensive. And people of lower socioeconomic status have more life stressors — job and child-care worries that might not only keep them from the bottle but also cause stress-related illnesses over long periods. (They also don't get the stress-reducing benefits of a drink or two after work.)

But even after controlling for nearly all imaginable variables — socioeconomic status, level of physical activity, number of close friends, quality of social support and so on — the researchers (a six-member team led by psychologist Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin) found that over a 20-year period, mortality rates were highest for those who were not current drinkers, regardless of whether they used to be alcoholics, second highest for heavy drinkers and lowest for moderate drinkers.

The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the abstainers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.

These are remarkable statistics. Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than those who don't drink, even if they never had a problem with alcohol. One important reason is that alcohol lubricates so many social interactions, and social interactions are vital for maintaining mental and physical health. Nondrinkers show greater signs of depression than those who allow themselves to join the party.

The authors of the new paper are careful to note that even if drinking is associated with longer life, it can be dangerous: it can impair your memory severely and it can lead to nonlethal falls and other mishaps (like, say, cheating on your spouse in a drunken haze) that can screw up your life. There's also the dependency issue: if you become addicted to alcohol, you may spend a long time trying to get off the bottle.

That said, the new study provides the strongest evidence yet that moderate drinking is not only fun but good for you. So make mine a double.

The original version of this article misidentified abstainers (people in the study who were not current drinkers, regardless of their past drinking status) as people who had never drunk. The article has been edited to reflect the correction.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014332,00.html#ixzz0yZpTh9pD

[Guest guest]

You got the free full-texts paper:

Late-Life Alcohol Consumption and 20-Year Mortality.Holahan CJ, Schutte KK, Brennan PL, Holahan CK, Moos BS, Moos RH.Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2010 Aug 24. [Epub ahead of print]PMID: 20735372http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2010.01286.x/fullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2010.01286.x/pdf

Abstract

Background: Growing epidemiological evidence indicates that moderate alcohol consumption is associated with reduced total mortality among middle-aged and older adults. However, the salutary effect of moderate drinking may be overestimated owing to confounding factors. Abstainers may include former problem drinkers with existing health problems and may be atypical compared to drinkers in terms of sociodemographic and social-behavioral factors. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between alcohol consumption and all-cause mortality over 20 years among 1,824 older adults, controlling for a wide range of potential confounding factors associated with abstention.

Methods: The sample at baseline included 1,824 individuals between the ages of 55 and 65. The database at baseline included information on daily alcohol consumption, sociodemographic factors, former problem drinking status, health factors, and social-behavioral factors. Abstention was defined as abstaining from alcohol at baseline. Death across a 20-year follow-up period was confirmed primarily by death certificate.

Results: Controlling only for age and gender, compared to moderate drinkers, abstainers had a more than 2 times increased mortality risk, heavy drinkers had 70% increased risk, and light drinkers had 23% increased risk. A model controlling for former problem drinking status, existing health problems, and key sociodemographic and social-behavioral factors, as well as for age and gender, substantially reduced the mortality effect for abstainers compared to moderate drinkers. However, even after adjusting for all covariates, abstainers and heavy drinkers continued to show increased mortality risks of 51 and 45%, respectively, compared to moderate drinkers.

Conclusions: Findings are consistent with an interpretation that the survival effect for moderate drinking compared to abstention among older adults reflects 2 processes. First, the effect of confounding factors associated with alcohol abstention is considerable. However, even after taking account of traditional and nontraditional covariates, moderate alcohol consumption continued to show a beneficial effect in predicting mortality risk. -- Aalt Pater

From: Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...>support group < >Sent: Sat, September 4, 2010 9:03:27 AMSubject: [ ] Heavy Drinkers live longer than abstainers!

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014332,00.htmlAl Pater: can you post this study? Thanks in advance.One of the most contentious issues in the vast literature about alcohol consumption has been the consistent finding that those who don't drink tend to die sooner than those who do. The standard Alcoholics Anonymous explanation for this finding is that many of those who show up as abstainers in such research are actually former hard-core drunks who had already incurred health problems associated with drinking.But a new paper in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research suggests that — for reasons that aren't entirely clear — abstaining from alcohol does tend to increase one's risk of dying, even when

you exclude former problem drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers' mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers.Moderate drinking, which is defined as one to three drinks per day, is associated with the lowest mortality rates in alcohol studies. Moderate alcohol use (especially when the beverage of choice is red wine) is thought to improve heart health, circulation and sociability, which can be important because people who are isolated don't have as many family members and friends who can notice and help treat health problems.But why would abstaining from alcohol lead to a shorter life? It's true that those who abstain from alcohol tend to be from lower socioeconomic classes, since drinking can be expensive. And people of lower socioeconomic status have more life stressors — job and child-care worries that might not only keep them from the bottle but also cause stress-related

illnesses over long periods. (They also don't get the stress-reducing benefits of a drink or two after work.)But even after controlling for nearly all imaginable variables — socioeconomic status, level of physical activity, number of close friends, quality of social support and so on — the researchers (a six-member team led by psychologist Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin) found that over a 20-year period, mortality rates were highest for those who were not current drinkers, regardless of whether they used to be alcoholics, second highest for heavy drinkers and lowest for moderate drinkers.The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the

abstainers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.These are remarkable statistics. Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than those who don't drink, even if they never had a problem with alcohol. One important reason is that alcohol lubricates so many social interactions, and social interactions are vital for maintaining mental and physical health. Nondrinkers show greater signs of depression than those who allow themselves to join the party.The authors of the new paper are careful to note that even if drinking is associated with longer life, it can be dangerous: it can impair your memory severely and it can lead to nonlethal falls and other mishaps (like, say, cheating on your spouse in a drunken haze) that can screw up your life.

There's also the dependency issue: if you become addicted to alcohol, you may spend a long time trying to get off the bottle.That said, the new study provides the strongest evidence yet that moderate drinking is not only fun but good for you. So make mine a double.The original version of this article misidentified abstainers (people in the study who were not current drinkers, regardless of their past drinking status) as people who had never drunk. The article has been edited to reflect the correction.Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014332,00.html#ixzz0yZpTh9pD