Talk:Long-term effects of alcohol/Archive 1

Questionable Study Cited

Under the section of Cognition, there is listed a study which says that those who drank MORE THAN 30 drinks a week performed better, cognitively, than those who abstained from drinking in the past week!!! Or, at least, that they were less likely to suffer from cognitive deficits. That means the consumption of almost 5 or more beers (let's say) a day! Which would mean that these subjects would have to be practically intoxicated while being studied...hmmm. Is ONE study really sufficient to make such a bold claim? There are many studies out there that contradict one another, not to mention that are indirectly funded by industry.... Djayjp (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've linked to the studies cited in this section and quoted them directly. The relevant study says "… Of people who reported drinking alcohol in the past year, those who consumed at least one drink in the past week, compared with those who did not, were significantly less likely to have poor cognitive function. The beneficial effect extended to those drinking more than 240 g per week (approximately 30 drinks). …" … "Of people who reported drinking alcohol in the past year, those who consumed at least one drink in the past week, compared with those who did not, were significantly less likely to have poor cognitive function. … However, the relations were weakened when social position was added to the model. The authors concluded that for middle-aged subjects, increasing levels of alcohol consumption were associated with better function regarding some aspects of cognition. Nonetheless, it is not proposed that these findings be used to encourage increased alcohol consumption." As you say there may be many other studies that come to different conclusions. Spiro Keats (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

MERGE!!

THIS ARTICLE MUST BE MERGED WITH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_alcohol_on_the_body

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article is questionable

Many studies used as sources do not disclose or consider proxy variables (unapparent variables that significantly affect the outcome than the

claimed causative variables of the study), so many of the "facts" are incorrect. For example, many studies put ex-drinkers and lifetime

abstainers into one group, which makes the "abstainer" group less healthy overall.

In addition, sources and facts from this article have been removed by unregistered people. One source in particular is

Alcohol -- Health Benefit or Hazard?. -Usernamefortonyd

In reality, research began addressing this problem years ago and the results remain the same. In addition, many of the mechanisms whereby alcohol

reduces cardiovascular disease, the major cause of death, are clearly understood. So not only is it an established fact that alcohol in

moderation reduces cardiovascular disease, but we know how it reduces them. There is consensus about this in the medical research community.

Medical Man 18:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Too bad the negative health effects of alcohol (notably brain damage and liver sclerosis) outweigh the positive (lower LDL cholesterol),

especially since there are safer ways to lower LDL cholesterol (exercise, a diet moderate in animal fat and calories)

[1]. -Usernamefortonyd

Fortinyd relies heavily on the views of a Ben Best, who reports that throughout much of his life he was a "professional student", taxi-driver,

Teamster, computer operator and "whatever other work I could find" [2].

Best is a self-described "raw foodist" and his daily exercise and diet regimens are described in detail on his website. The exact daily

content, weight and calculated caloric value of two months of his diet are also archived there [3].

Best writes that he "aggressively participated" in EST and various other human potential movements. He describes many of his activities as

designed to help him overcome fear of women and various anxieties. [4]

[5].

Currently, he operates a cryogenics company that stores dead bodies of people ("patients") he expects will be thawed back to life in the future

Given his lack of scientific background, Best's mischaracterizations of the research literature are understandable. Unfortunately, he's not

exposing truth but spreading misinformation.CRANdieter 18:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)— CRANdieter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You don't have to resort to insulting the person just because you don't like how he exposes the truth. Research is research, and his sources

stand for themselves. If you can find a way to prove he's just spreading misinformation without using his sources, be my guest.

And as for your deletion of my source-backed edits, I'm not the alcohol truth police, and I don't care enough to revert the page back 1,000

times, so you guys win. +1 point for corruption. -Usernamefortonyd

It is not an established fact that alcohol use in moderation leads to improved cardiac health, though indeed the bulk of the research suggests

such a fact. Recent meta-analyses indicates at least the possibility that much of the prospective research has a systematic inclusion error (see

Fillmore et al in Addiction Research Theory 4/06). The theoretical mechanisms through which such use leads to improvement in health is

counterbalanced by mechanisms through which such use would lead to increased morbidity and mortality. The verdict on this is not yet in, but

given the extensive morbidity and mortality from alcohol intake, doctors are playing it safe for the better health of their patients. Do no harm.

Drgitlow 20:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The current edit reads, "In earlier historical periods, the quantity of alcohol necessary to reduce heart disease was largely produced by these

microorganisms[citation needed], but in the modern world humans tend to consume far larger quantities of fat and cholesterol than in Paleolithic

times. Therefore it might be necessary to drink a moderate quantity of alcohol to achieve the same benefit.[citation needed]" I find this to be

completely fallacious as there is consensus that heart disease is a lifestyle_disease and therefore could not have been a prevalent cause of

death in the Paleolithic era. No matter what the current research and epidemiology says (and I concur with the mainstream view that alcohol

consumption is epidemiologically linked to longevity) the notion that alchohol is some sort of *essential nutrient* flies in the face of

mainstream conceptions of human nutrition. In particular, no *essential* biological role (i.e., a function of ethanol that could not be provided

by endogenous activities) has been discovered. Ethanol may have medicinal value, and may extend longevity, but the theory stated above is poorly

founded, uncited, and probably not advanced by an experimentalist. In the absence of a peer reviewed citation, the above statement should be

stricken completely. I'll do so in a few days, in the absence of a coherent rebuttal. rmbh 20:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The theory behind why alcohol might help longevity is based not upon nutritional issues but partially upon changes in cholesterol and HDL

levels that result. I wouldn't yet go so far as to say that mainstream thinking is that alcohol truly helps longevity as there are substantive

and evidence-based studies that show this not to be true (Fillmore is just one, albeit an important one). I suspect the verdict isn't yet in. The

Paleolithic era argument is unlikely for a variety of reasons, the main one being that lifespan was probably far briefer than would have been

necessary for cardiac disease to play a significant role in longevity at all. Drgitlow 02:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, so there's some agreement regarding the 'Paleolithic' theory being unsubstantiated, which is transparent. Drgitlow, I agree that there are studies refuting the position that regular, moderate alcohol use is detrimental to health. I also agree that a putative mechanism involves modulation of cholesterol and HDL (this would be what I meant by medicinal value; such effects are also observed with statins, for example). I disagree with your argument regarding 'mainstream positions.' The presence of a refuting study does not automatically change (or establish) a mainstream position. Statements from medical associations, such as the AMA, are evidence of a mainstream position. An excellent refutation of the mainstream position is not, in itself, a position. To satisfy NPOV, I would ask for a demonstration that tetotaling is advocated by an association of medical professionals (in a published press statement), or as the principal conclusion of a peer-reviewed review article (not a primary finding). rmbh 20:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a very reasonable position. The AMA does not currently have policy on the subject and I'll check to see if the American Society of Addiction Medicine does. Various cardiac specialty organizations may have positions as well that we should explore. I think you're right that the mainstream position in the public eye is pretty clear, but I don't know that there is a stated mainstream position among physicians. I could be wrong though...I'm not a cardiologist and they may well have a public position on the matter. Drgitlow

05:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

An editorial in the JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE [Abdulla S (1997). "Is alcohol really good for you?" (PDF). JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE. 90 (12): 151. PMID 9496287.] might give some guideline toward official physician policy, at least in some professional medical organizations. The editorial commented on a symposium of the

Novartis Foundation and a one-day seminar of the Royal Society of Medicine in which the "J-shaped alcohol-consumption/coronary-heart-disease-risk curve" was questioned. All at the symposium concurred that "recommmendations such as '1-3 drinks per day are good for you' are not only meaningless but also irresponsible." The editorial also quoted from Dr. Peter Anderson of the World Health Organization, who said "to talk about alcohol as though it were some new prophylactic drug is ridiculous and dangerous." Letters to the editor of the Journal in response to the editorial were supportive [Cheng TO (1998). [http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/picrender.fcgi? artid=1296581&blobtype=pdf "Is alcohol really good for you?"] (PDF). JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE. 91 (3): 173. PMID 9659338. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help); line feed character in |url= at position 45 (help)] and [Ditzler TF, Kellar MA (1998). "Is alcohol really good for you?" (PDF). JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE. 91 (4): 234. PMID 9659318.]. --Ben Best 10:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What difference does it make how long we live now, Ben Best? You promote freezing us at death and then thawing us back to life later on!

CRANdieter 13:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)— CRANdieter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ben Best, editorials exists to facilitate debate of this type (your citations comprise a single documented debate); the existence and tone of the editorial demonstrates my point, that the mainstream view (pro-drinkers) is being contested by a minority body of scientists/physicians (pro-tetotalers). If this position were actual mainstream, and well-evidenced, then one could use a) multiple epidemiological studies on differing populations b) experimental studies on model organisms or tissues, and c) review articles that summarize the consensus position. Nine years after the publication of this editorial, has the Royal Society of Medicine reached a consensus recommendation? I mean, the American

physicians aren't completely in the pocket of industry (for example, they still advocate for marijuana and against tobacco, fairly consistently, which is probably fairly labeled anti-establishment) but I haven't seen a growing consensus that is consistent with your personal view. rmbh 03:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Better title for page, "Moderate drinking controversy" -> "Alcohol consumption and health"

I suggest a different name for this page. Controversy shouldn't be part of the title. The title should describe the information in this page.

Controversy is inherent in the description of all sides of the issue. Here are some options for a name change:

• Health benefits of alcohol

* Benefits and risks of alcohol

• Moderate consumption of alcohol

Some of these titles require modifying the information on this page to contain more information about, say, the risks of alcohol. User:nereocystis 06:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC).

I like the third choice. I will move the page if there are no objections in the next few days.

Acegikmo1 23:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After thinking about this a bit further, I suggest that this page change direction slightly and discuss all health aspects of alcohol consumption, regardless of the quantity. It would mention a few items:

1. Health benefits and risks of moderate consumption of alcohol, as it is today.

1. Health risks of higher consumption, including any benefits of high consumption.

1. Health risks of low alcohol consumption.

The reason I want to move in this direction is that the range of moderate consumption to high consumption is a continuum, not an absolute separation with, say, 2 drinks being moderate consumption with an entirely different set of risks for high consumption which is 3 drinks or more.

I want to include cirrhosis, and drunk driving, even though the risk is lower with moderate consumption. Perhaps the title could be "health and alcohol consumption".Nereocystis 06:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This seems quite reasonable. I think the title you propose is appropriate. Would you like to move the page there?

Acegikmo1 05:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll give it a few more days for comments, then move it if there aren't any objects. However, I'll give one last variation "Alcohol consumption and health", to give alcohol the first reference. Nereocystis 22:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. "Moderate drinking controversy" moved to "Alcohol consumption and health". Nereocystis 01:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Moderate drinking"

I find it bizarre that consuming 30g/day of alcohol can be considered "moderate drinking". I rarely drink that much in a month! Still, good news for the brewers... wonder which one funded the research?

There's a difference between taking 30g/day and taking 210g in one weekend.

Exactly what constitutes moderate (or sensible) drinking) varies widely from country to country.

What is Moderate Drinking or Alcohol Consumption?

In addition, it depends on who is asked. A member of the WCTU would say that any consumption is excessive, whereas an alcohol-dependent person would likely say that consuming a quart of 80 proof whiskey each day is moderate. And yes, the pattern of consumption is important.

Since when has any liquid been measured in grams?, please use milli-litres or any other liquid measure.

Grams are a measurement of mass. (Trumpy 06:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

NPOV

I added an NPOV tag to this article since I found this at the external link section: [6]

There's been quite some research recently testing the claims about moderate drinking, and the Center for Disease Control's findings need to be mentioned. Namely, the CDC claims that the existing findings were corrupted by massive supressed variable biases, such as much higher incidence of poverty amongst nondrinkers, and that these things could explain the measured positive effect. Scott Ritchie 04:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

More on NPOV

Hi Scott- I think the CDC suggests that the relationship between moderate drinking and health benefits *may* have been influenced by uncontrolled variables and that therefore the benefits of moderate drinking may have been exaggerated. This hypothesis (which is a very reasonable one) was first proposed by Shaper in 1988. However, at an international conference a few years ago, he acknowledged, as I recall, that his hypothesis had not been supported by subsequent research that addressed the issue. Since then, the evidence against his hypothesis has continued to grow.

Nevertheless,

"Some controversy persists about the apparent higher CAD (Coronary Artery Disease) risk among abstainers. For example, a much publicized hypothesis (Shaper et al. 1988) suggests that the group of abstainers studied may have included persons with pre-existing alcohol-related health problems who were already at high CAD risk (i.e., "sick quitters"). However, studies that differentiate between lifelong abstainers and past drinkers suggest that both of these types of nondrinkers are at higher risk of CAD than are current drinkers (Renaud et al. 1993; Maclure 1993; Klatsky 1994). In addition, a prospective Kaiser Permanente study of alcohol habits and CAD hospitalizations (Klatsky et al. 1986b) showed that former drinkers and infrequent drinkers (i.e., those who consumed less than one drink per month) were at similar CAD risk as lifelong abstainers.

All other subjects had a lower CAD risk independent of a number of potential indirect explanations (i.e., confounders), including beverage choice (see the section, "The Role of Beverage Choice," p. 19) and baseline CAD risk (i.e., pre-existing CAD risk as evaluated at the patient's initial examination).

In a prospective study of total CVD mortality (Klatsky et al. 1990a), former drinkers had higher age-adjusted CAD and overall CVD mortality risk than lifelong abstainers, but the difference disappeared when adjusted for other traits. Among current drinkers, lighter drinkers had the lowest risk for both total CVD deaths and CAD deaths, yielding U-shaped mortality curves with lowest risk at one to two drinks per day and at three to five drinks per day, respectively. Mortality curves were not influenced by differences in patients' baseline CAD risk or by the occurrence of pre- existing CAD."(“Moderate drinking reduced risk of heart disease,” Alcohol Research & Health, 1999).

Since this article was published, other research has found that lifelong abstainers and heavy drinkers both have higher mortality rates than do moderate drinkers. Such studies include:

Cleophas TJ. Wine, beer and spirits and the risk of myocardial infarction: a systematic review. Biomed Pharmacother 1999;53:417–23.

Dawson, D. A. Alcohol consumption, alcohol dependence, and all-cause mortality. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 2000, 24, 72-81.

Green, C. A.., and Polen, M. P. the health behaviors of people who do not drink alcohol. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2001, 21(4), 298-305.

Klatsky, A. L., et al. Wine, liquor, beer, and mortality. American Journal of Epidemiology, 2003, 158, 585-595.

Paoletti R, Klatsky AL, Poli A, Zakhari S (eds). Moderate Alcohol Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.

Poikolainen, K., et al. Alcohol and coronary heart disease -- is there an unknown confounder? Addiction, 2005, 100(8), 1150-1157.

Theobald, H., et al. A moderte intake of wine is associated with reduced total mortality and reduced mortality from cardiovascular disease, 2001, 61, 652-656.

The consensus among medical researchers today is that moderate drinking is associated with better health and greater longevity than is either abstaining or heavy drinking. That consensus is based not only on epidemiological evidence but also on the biological and chemical mechanisms whereby alcohol improves cardiovascular health.David Justin 03:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The date on the CDC study is not 1988, it is April 19, 2005. That's more recent than most of that stuff. Scott Ritchie

05:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott- Looks like we both misspoke. The CDC is making no assertions regarding the relationship between moderate alcohol consumption and health. One of the many studies it funds each year has called into question the validity of that relationship. A summary of the study in question follows:

____________________________________________________________________

Article: Naimi TS, Brown DW, Brewer RD, Giles WH, Mensah G, Serdula MK, Mokdad AH, Hungerford DW, Lando J, Naimi S,

Stroup DF. Cardiovascular risk factors and confounders among nondrinking and moderate-drinking U.S. adults. Am J Prev Med 2005;28:369-373.

Summary: The authors state that studies suggest that moderate drinkers have lower cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality than nondrinkers and heavy drinkers, but there have been no randomized trials on this topic. Although most observational studies control for major cardiac risk factors, CVD is independently associated with other factors that could explain the CVD benefits ascribed to moderate drinking

The authors used data from the 2003 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a population–based telephone survey of U.S. adults, to assess the prevalence of CVD risk factors and potential confounders among moderate drinkers and nondrinkers. Moderate drinkers were defined as men who drank an average of two drinks per day or fewer, or women who drank one drink or fewer per day. After adjusting for age and gender, nondrinkers were more likely to have characteristics associated with increased CVD mortality in terms of demographic factors, social factors, behavioral factors, access to health care, and health-related conditions. Of the 30 CVD-associated factors or groups of factors assessed, 27 (90%) were significantly more prevalent among nondrinkers. Among factors with multiple categories (e.g., body weight), those in higher-risk groups were progressively more likely to be nondrinkers. Removing those with poor health status or a history of CVD did not affect the results.

The authors conclude that their findings suggest that some or all of the apparent protective effect of moderate alcohol consumption on CVD may be due to residual or unmeasured confounding. Given their limitations, nonrandomized studies about the health effects of moderate drinking should be interpreted with caution, particularly since excessive alcohol consumption is a leading health hazard in the United States.

Comments: Epidemiologists are only too aware of confounding in interpreting their results of observational studies among humans. It has long been known that social status, education, income, and many other factors modify the relation of alcohol to health and disease outcomes, and there is methodology available (and still being developed) to help adjust for confounding and to judge the impact of residual confounding in a study.

None of this is discussed in the present paper. Using the best available techniques to adjust for confounding, almost every epidemiologic paper published has found that for a given age, gender, race, educational and smoking status, etc., moderate drinkers are less likely to die from coronary disease. Further, interventional studies in humans and extensive animal studies show dramatic reductions in most cardiovascular risk factors when alcohol is given in an experimental situation; this is also not commented upon by the authors.

Overall, this paper does not add any real insight into potentially confounding variables that we all deal with daily. Further, the risk of some of the factors they list such as diabetes and even obesity have now been shown in animal studies and limited interventional studies in humans to be reduced by moderate intake of alcohol. Hence, it would be expected that such risk factors would be more common among nondrinkers, as some of them (perhaps even a more favorable “general health status”) may be the result of alcohol intake. The implication of this paper that previous studies showing protection against CVD from moderate alcohol consumption have largely ignored many such factors is erroneous.

A number of statements throughout the paper cannot be supported by data. For example, by stating that “moderate drinking has a relatively small effect size relative to other risk factors,” the authors ignore a large amount of recent data showing much greater effects on HDL-cholesterol from alcohol than for any other lifestyle factor, more decrease in platelet aggregation from alcohol than other factors, much greater effects from moderate alcohol use on risk of death from CVD among diabetics than from other approaches for lowering risk. There are also a number of problems in the analyses done for this paper. Simply giving each factor one point and adding the number of factors together to get a “CVD Risk Score” is naïve, as very detailed equations have been worked out by the Framingham Heart Study and others that give proper weight for each component of a risk score. In fact, the authors of this paper do not even discuss the degree of impact on heart disease risk of the factors they list.

The authors end by stating that we should not consider alcohol use as a way of reducing heart disease risk as “there are safe and effective strategies to decrease CVD mortality.” They do not comment, however, on how often individuals are successful in losing weight and keeping it off, on the great difficulties many addicted smokers have in trying to stop smoking, or on the cost and potential side effects of the medications they suggest as alternative ways to reduce CVD risk.

No one is urging individuals to drink more (as very small amounts on a regular basis are not only the safest but most effective way of reducing cardiovascular risk), and no one is urging everyone to drink alcohol, as there are many conditions (previous problems with abuse, certain health conditions, against religious or ethical beliefs, etc.) that serve as contraindications to alcohol intake. Nevertheless, it is incumbent among all of us to provide balanced and scientifically sound information for physicians to use in advising individual patients about alcohol use or non-use. A paper such as the present one does not help in getting balanced information across to the public or the health profession.

Lay Summary: This paper points out that nondrinkers in the U.S. tend to have many unhealthy lifestyle and physiologic factors that may increase their risk of heart disease. The authors suggest that some of the purported reduction in risk of heart disease from alcohol intake may be due to these factors. Epidemiologists always strive to adjust for those factors that can be measured and comment upon those that cannot be measured or adjusted for when evaluating the effects of alcohol intake on heart disease risk. The current paper does not add much to our understanding of this ongoing challenge.

 					R. Curtis Ellison, MD

Best regardsDavid Justin 19:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's an older article I just found, discussing what may have been a much better paper in the British Medical Journal:

BBC link

They explained that earlier studies may have shown improved health among moderate drinkers simply through a statistical quirk. Many of the previous studies had shown results in the form of a U graph, with moderate drinkers having the lowest death rates, while heavy and non-drinkers had the highest. However, such figures could be skewed because sick people are more likely to be non-drinkers - they do not drink because they are ill, rather than being ill because they do not drink.

As it stands, the current article isn't terribly complete, since it doesn't really convey the controversy that this has gone through in the literature over the years. I'm too lazy to edit it myself, though. Scott Ritchie 07:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Article is NPOV

I think that Article gives misleading picture of the discussion. It is definitely not true that all the studies show that alcohol is beneficial.

See the following article for example: [7] --128.214.200.176 10:01, 6 March

2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that all studies demonstrate health benefits of drinking sensibly. I don't know of any area of medical research in which

• all* studies report the same or consistent findings. However, as this article says, there is *consensus* among medical researchers regarding the

relationship. That's not a point of view but a fact.

No study can prove a health benefits of drinking. It can show (or not) that moderate drinkers live longer or are healthier than non drinkers. -

-Spacey 20:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

International Study Questions Health Benefits Of Moderate Drinking

There is a Metastudy by Kaye Fillmore et al of the University of California saying the majority of studies suggesting that "moderate" drinking

helps prevent heart disease may be flawed.

[8] "Our research suggests light drinking is a sign of good health, not necessarily

its cause." --Spacey 20:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

S.o. has taken the Fillmore Reference from the article, her metastudy questioning many studies.

• Kaye M. Fillmore (University of California, San Francisco) et al. Does moderate drinking prevent heart disease? A meta-analysis and re-

estimation of alcohol-caused mortality in Australia. Addiction Research and Theory, Mai 2006 ([9])

Other Ref.s [10]. --Spacey 11:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear what an "alcohol unit" is

Please see Alcoholic beverages — recommended maximum intake

This article and Effects of alcohol on the body

27 May 2006: There seems to be a lot of overlap between this article and Effects of alcohol on the body, which takes a broader view. If this

is to remain a separate article, we need to work out what the demarcation between the two is.

Bias in "Comparison with health benefits of exercise and diet" section

The whole section is biased. It tries to make eating moderately and exercising seem like a very hard thing. Weasel words, like "demanding" and "diet", are used. It also attempts to argue that eating moderately and exercising is a complicated process by increasing the number of things one can do in their contrived list of things to do ("eating a very low-fat diet, vigorously exercising regularly, eliminating salt from the diet, and losing weight") by adding unneccesary statments - "eliminating salt from the diet" and "losing weight". The "eliminating salt" statement is not factual because sodium is a vital mineral required for vital bodily functions [11].

The "losing weight" statement is obviously there to make their list seem longer - losing weight is a result of exercising and does not need to be stated. In addition, "Vigorously exercising" and "very low-fat" are weasel statements.

This section should be removed. This kind of misleading content does not belong in an encylopedia. You alcohol-industry beneficiaries need to take your propoganda elsewhere.

-Usernamefortonyd

What kind of "authority" is this?!

Your "authority" is a Ben Best, who reports that throughout much of his life he was a "professional student", taxi-driver, Teamster, computer operator and "whatever other work I could find" [12].

Best is a self-described "raw foodist" and his daily exercise and diet regimens are described in detail on his website. The exact daily content, weight and calculated caloric value of two months of his diet are also archived there [13].

He writes that he "aggressively participated" in EST and various other human potential movements. He describes many of his activities as designed to help him overcome fear of women and various anxieties. [14]

[15].

Currently, he operates a cryogenics company that stores dead bodies of people ("patients") he expects will be thawed back to life in the future.

CRANdieter 03:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)— CRANdieter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You don't have to resort to insulting the person just because you don't like how he exposes the truth. Research is research, and his sources stand for themselves. If you can find a way to prove he's just spreading misinformation without using his sources, be my guest.

And as for your deletion of my source-backed edits, I'm not the alcohol truth police, and I don't care enough to revert the page back 1,000 times, so you guys win. +1 point for corruption. -Usernamefortonyd

I've not insulted Mr. Best but simply reported what he says about himself. Given his lack of scientific background, his mischaracterizations of the research literature are understandable. Unfortunately, he's not exposing truth but spreading misinformation. My dedication is to truth and accuracy, about which I care deeply and am highly committed.CRANdieter 18:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)— CRANdieter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm not quite sure how pointing out problems with the article in the DISCUSSION page is adding to "corruption." (Thus, I agree with you, CRANdieter.)

Flame me as you please.--24.12.238.46 00:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Many-Headed Hydra of Dwayne McGee's sock puppets

Those following the comments of CRANdieter above

(Talk:Alcohol_consumption_and_health#What_kind_of_.22authority.22_is_this.3F.21) and the edits of Dwayne McGee might

find this reference to be of interest: Talk:Ben_Best#The_Many-Headed_Hydra_of_Freezer_Man.27s_sock_puppets. If

24.12.238.46 is another sock puppet, he evidently lives in the Lincolnwood, IL area [http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?

GetLocation]. --Ben Best 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

After following the wiki procedure, CRANdieter and related sock puppet accounts have been blocked: [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock

puppets/CRANdieter]] Nunquam Dormio 06:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Confused

I guess I fall into the category of non drinking heavy exerciser,now I must admit I have no true medical or nutritinoal (al least not enough) knowledge as to affirm or discuss,but at least folk-lore wise,many members of my family have had unusually long lifespans(rangingh from 86 to even 104) and most of them were either non drinkers or extremely light ones.

Now I admit that many of the people's longevity was influenced by their mountain life,but many others who lived in more common urban environments also achieved unusual long periods of life being light to null drinkers.

In a more completely unscientific level,probably more than half of the moderate to heavy drinkers I know sport negative physical effects of alcohol such as the proverbial beer gut or what I call the "duck arse"

Furthermore,many medics I ve consulted from time to time about training did say alcohol facilitated weight gain.I was surprised to find many elements in favor of alcohol consumption,but it seems still like a great controversy,and it is not uncommon of men to support their lifestyles with arguments i na way that could somehow possibly ease their minds about it and casually enough,roughly 90% of the world population consumes alcoholic beverages in one form or other.

No I'm not saying the "positive effects" faction or the "negative effects" one are right or are wrong,since I would easily be overcomed with well written well documented corrections.

It just seems strange to me that a decisive conclusion about a subject so familiar hasnt been reached yet in the scientific community

El Gostro 02:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The current article is incomplete and reflects its origins as an article entitled "Moderate drinking controversy". The

[http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/ardi/Report.aspx?T=AAM&P=9d3057a6-5cda-416d-ba10-41e7b8ebd521&R=c22869f8-a1d3-48a8-8095-9142c6de5baf&M=1d04dc84-f775-

4032-9ab3-75bc10221b2b&L=&F=AAMCauseGenderNew&D=A Alcohol-Attributable Deaths Report, United States 2001] shows that a net 59180 deaths are attributable to alcohol. For medium and high consumption, the figure is 75754 deaths. So, broadly, low consumption has some beneficial effects whilst higher levels have none. Nunquam Dormio 09:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting,thanks for the info!

For now I ll keep being and almost null drinker.El Gostro 00:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Inaccessible Jargon

I just noted some untranslated medical jargon in the section "Cognition", specifically near the end, the line, "although a number of studies have

noted a measurable diminution in neuropsychologic parameters in habitual consumers of moderate amounts of ethanol, others have not found such

changes." Does anyone know what is meant by "neuropsychologic parameters"?

GBMorris 01:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Number One on Google

[16] ranks #1 on Google for "Alcohol consumption and health'NumberOneGoogle 18:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Not anywhere in the first five result pages. There are many better links than this vanity site. Nunquam Dormio 12:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Moderate consumption and episodic heavy drinking

Current revision references Room, R. Alcohol and health. The Lancet, 2005, 365, 519-530. Correct name of the article seems to be Alcohol and public health, but the real problem is that it doesn't address drinking patterns and their outcomes, so the reference is incorrect here. However, the article in question has a reference to another article by Room and others, The relationship of average volume of alcohol consumption and patterns of drinking to burden of disease: an overview. Unfortunately, it isn't available on-line, and the abstract isn't clear on how precisely drinking patterns affect health. Until someone with access to that article confirms (or denies) the assumption about episodic heavy drinking, the reference should be removed. Roponor 14:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Garbled references

Hi Spiro Keats- I replaced the statement that “various studies have examined the health effects of different degrees of alcoholic beverage consumption ([2][3] Rimm et al., Trevisan et al.)” with five bulleted paragraphs that describe the nature of that research as well as methodological concerns with which researchers are concerned.

• The first bulleted paragraph addresses concerns that research findings might apply only to specific gender, ethnic, or age categories.
• The second paragraph addresses concerns that research results might reflect lifestyle rather than alcohol consumption. The research cited is methodologically much stronger than that possible in epidemiological studies.
• The third and fourth paragraphs address the issue of time sequence, a matter of great importance in any possible causal relationship.
• The final bulleted paragraph explains the importance of research on the now well-understood mechanisms underlying some of the relationships.

I also added important research information to the “Mortality” section. Specifically, in addition to adding information on Australia, I added and expanded research information on net, rather than gross, effects of alcohol consumption on mortality.

Your edit summary states that you reverted “garbled references.” Please help me understand your logic in reverting important additions rather than simply calling attention to any references that may have been garbled. Thanks,David Justin 20:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

When he reverted my edits, Spiro Keats did not follow Wikipedia policy: “If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.”

In his edit summary, Spiro Keats reported that he reverted garbled references to which I responded “Please help me understand your logic in reverting important additions rather than simply calling attention to any references that may have been garbled. Thanks,David Justin 20:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)”

In the absence of any explanation, I have returned the article to its ante-reversion state. David Justin 02:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the References section as you left it and you'll see what you did. Spiro Keats 10:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed and readded. Λυδαcιτγ 20:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Audacity- Thank you very much for straightening out the mess that I had made with references.David Justin 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol and mental health

Just wondering if someone who knows more than me could add a section about the effects of acute and chronic alcohol consumption on mental illnesses such as depression, anxiety disorders, developmental disorders and psychotic disorders. Also it would be very good if the effects of both acute and chronic alcohol consumption on brain chemistry (eg: neurotransmitter systems and the level of expression of their receptors) could be included. These changes would make this article much more comprehensive.

FAS and other serious concerns

Hello. I am not a physician. I am also not familiar with the techniques required to edit Wikipedia articles. But even I can see some GLARING problems with this article that need to be addressed.

1. This article does not even mention Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS). This is a serious health concern that is directly correlated with alcohol consumption, and therefore should, without exception, be included in an article called "Alcohol consumption and health".

2. This article talks too little about "heavy drinking". There is a very small section at the end of the article titled "heavy drinking", but this should be put in a more prominent location and expanded. For example, there is ONLY ONE sentence that says, "Alcohol is said to be a factor in about 50% of deaths in car accidents, 50% of homicides and 25% of suicides." And ONLY ONE citation for this sentence (citation #2). In comparison, there exists literally more citations than I can count for the positive effects of "moderate alcohol consumption". This is OBVIOUSLY in violation of Wikipedia's standard of neutral point of view (NPOV).

3.In addition, I would suggest an improved structure for the various sections. For example...

1. Background 2. Positive affects of alcohol 3. Negative affects of alcohol 4. Issues 5. Summary 6. See also 7. References 8. External links

(I am a native English speaker yet I can't remember if it is affects or effects in this situation :P)

A structure like this is not only more concise, but also more accessible and more in line with a NPOV.

Although I would like to commend the author of this article for his/her numerous citations, after noticing the pervasive neglect of NPOV, I would suggest a physician knowledgeable in this subject to review the aforementioned citations.

Finally, I would like to apologize for not making these changes myself, but as I mentioned earlier, I struggle with article editing.

Sincerely, Grouphug Grouphug 02:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Datum and data

"Data" is the plural of "datum." Hence, the proper usage is "datum has" and "data have." Thanks.David Justin 15:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Layout garbled

This revision: [17] seems to be the latest which has the references properly formatted. I don't know what the intention of the subsequent edit was, but it trashed the layout of the references apparently. I don't really know how to fix this.

Just a missing </ref> tag. Fixed. Λυδαcιτγ 20:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Double Referencing

Why is there double referencing in this article? Statements are followed by footnote(s) and then with a parenthesised last name.199.126.28.20 05:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Minutes off life per drink

I remember health teachers often quoting a statistic that (paraphrasing) "every cigarette smoked takes 8 minutes off your life". I would imagine this was calculated simply by taking the difference between the average smoker's lifespan and the average non-smoker's lifespan and dividing by the average number of cigarettes consumed by a smoker. My question, is there a similar statistic for alcohol? Minutes lost per drink consumed? D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 18:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sole statements

I'll explain why I removed this section from the article:

On the other hand, Dr. R. Curtis Ellison, a physician and leading medical researcher, says that adults should have a drink a day, unless contraindicated. “The bottom line is, never go more than 24 hours without a drink” says Dr. Ellison, who is chief of preventive medicine and epidemiology at Boston University School of Medicine. Dr. Ellison recommends that other doctors prescribe a drink a day to their patients to promote better health and greater longevity. Similarly, a well-known medical talk show host Dean Edell, M.D., asserts that “you would have to be living on another planet not to know that alcohol -- in moderation -- is good for your health.”

The reason is that they are not a scientific proven fact, like testing a drink per day on 1000 people and comparing effects with other people who haven't received it. Rather they are sole statements, and are contradictory to the governments' guidances above, which are more reliable. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A rose by any other name...

So, I completely rewrote this article, and deleted some rather large sections, and renamed it, and changed its topic. I guess I should say a few words about that.

This article was in serious disarray; the biggest problem, I came to realize, was that it didn't know what it was about. Was it about the short-term or long-term effects? Was it about pharmacodynamics or pharmacokinetics? Was it biological or social? Was it meant for publication in a medical journal or on Wikipedia?

So, I decided.

It made no mention of any short-term impacts, and there was already a short-term article but no long-term article. The vast majority spoke of the biological impacts of alcohol, and this seemed to be the implication of its title, so I deleted the few bits of information. I recommend that someone create a "Alcohol and Society" article (and, while I'm at it, a "Psychological Effects of Alcohol" article). I deleted the brief paragraph which explained how alcohol works at a neurochemical level, because this relates to a short-term effects of alcohol article or to the alcohol article. Lastly, I deleted the methodological arguments for and against the studies undertaken -- that stuff about "moderate alcohol drinkers are rich, and heavy drinkers are poor, and that's why the results are wrong." This doesn't belong here.

I could go on, but I think most of what I've done is pretty self-explanatory, and the rationale self-evident. So I'll end with some advice for those who continue to add to this article:

Don't copy-and-paste: summarize. As an admirer of acadæmia, I appreciated the scientific methodology with which the article was written; but that's for medical textbooks and peer-reviewed journals, not encyclopedia articles. Statements like, "in the study of 500 adult male participants, 33% demonstrated..." should be used with extreme discretion. Don't recite the study, evaluate it ("One study indicated that most people..."). If there are twenty studies don't list them all: summarize them.

Anyways, I'm gone; perhaps ne'er to return. But probably I'll return. --Xiaphias (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely recommended amounts could be clearer!

Under the heading "Quantity Recommended", the article says:

"The U.S. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) has completed an extensive review of current scientific knowledge about the health effects of moderate alcohol consumption. It found that the lowest death rate from all causes occurs at the level of one to two drinks per day. That is, moderate drinkers have the greatest longevity.[13][14]"

Surely "one to two drinks" per day could be made much clearer (by someone who is familiar with these studies). Both the size of a "drink" and the alcoholic content of a "drink" are vague.

Toss in the added vagueness of the factor of 2 between "one" and "two" drinks, and you have a recommendation that's almost meaningless.

Would some knowledgeable person please a) mention the volume of alcohol (ethanol) that one "drink" is supposed to mean, on average . . . and b) give a few examples of daily drinking totals that are in the "recommended" range. (E.g., how many ounces or shots of Scotch, how many ounces of Irish Cream Liqueur, how many 12-ounce cans of beer.)Daqu (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Aging

I've heard that chronic consumption of alcohol can cause you to look older earlier. Any evidence of this? Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is biased to an embarrassing degree

Almost the entirety of this page is devoted to the purported benefits of moderate alcohol consumption. However its title is "long-term effects of alcohol" which covers a much broader range of topics.

Furthermore, the parts which discuss the benefits are significantly more detailed, both in terms of content and references, than those which discuss the problems caused by drinking.

There is no mention of the millions of deaths, illnesses and injuries attributable to alcohol that occur every year. For example, a 2003 study showed that in England and Wales there are:

- at least six times as many people are dependent on alcohol than on Class A drugs.

- three times as many deaths caused by alcohol misuse as drug misuse each year.

- 13 people die every day in England and Wales alone as a direct result of alcohol misuse.

- in total, 3.8m people were thought to be dependent on alcohol in England and Wales - three million men and 800,000 women (out of a total population of approx. 50m).

(Source: British Medical Association Wales)

Almost unbelievably, there is also next to no mention of the long-term effects of alcohol consumption on the liver. This is confined to half a sentence (uncited) under "digestive system and weight gain".

Not to include such issues, or to reduce them to mere footnotes, in a discussion of the "long-term effects of alcohol" seems highly irresponsible.Rjhughson (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This article started life as "Moderate drinking controversy" (see discussion above "Better title for page, "Moderate drinking controversy" -> "Alcohol consumption and health") and still heavily reflects its origin. It needs to be expanded. Spiro Keats (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

New drinking

http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(07)01192-8/abstract - starting to drink in moderation in middle ages reduces risk of cardiovascular disease but without a mortality benefit. JFW | T@lk 17:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please fix sentence:

Much evidence is not simply correlated, or time sequenced in nature.

Not easy to understand, can probably be stated more clearly? Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)