Good news, everyone! Two pints a day keep heart problems at bay Moderate drinking is good for you, a BMJ-published study has found, directly contradicting the advice of the UK government's "Chief Medical Officer", who advised last year there was "no safe level" of drinking. A daily pint reduces risk of a heart attack and angina by a third, a big data study of Brit adults has found, while …
"Svagdricka is readily available from supermarkets in Sweden."
Svag being "weak". Very necessary in countries with very strict drink driving laws.
In olden times small beer was drunk by children - as the brewing process rendered it safer than the usual household water supplies.
IIRC the tourist books for Sweden warned that ordering a "soft drink" meant a tall cocktail which contained alcohol - like a Tom Collins.
In olden times small beer was drunk by childrenAnd the women of the household. While Brande's early 19th C figure is 1.28% alcohol by volume, second washings I've made have been ~3–3.5% so much small beer could have been 2–3 times as strong. For comparison Brande's numbers had London porter at 4.2%, the more expensive “stout” porter was 6.8% , and the famously powerful Burton ale was 8.88%.
Interestingly, the chap who lent me the money to go to university in 1969 was a Methodist and therefore teetotal. However, he and his family drank copious quantities of homemade ginger beer and were often noticeably tiddly by bed-time.
You're clearly too drunk to read the article properly: with "moderate" defined as around three pints of beer a day for men, and two glasses of wine for women (as recently as the 1960s, official health advice suggested that a bottle of wine a day was fine).
I'd say that was about moderate for my student days. I barely manage three pints a week now that I work full time. Not counting the whisky chasers...
There is only one definition of heavy drinking I agree with - and that's if you drink more than your doctor.
"You're clearly too drunk to read the article properly: with "moderate" defined as around three pints of beer a day for men, and two glasses of wine for women (as recently as the 1960s, official health advice suggested that a bottle of wine a day was fine)."
Depends on the article. The original BMJ article seems to say it's 3 units per day, approximate 1-1.5 pints.
No, I'm sober enough to read the actual BMJ press release - and the end of Orlowski's article, where he defines moderate as 20g/day (which is probably a mistake for 20ml/day), or a tad over 2 units (or probably intended to be 2 units), which is a pint, not two pints.
Also, the BMJ press release defines it as 14 units a week.
Most of the "health benefits of alcohol" studies are from countries which drink wine, not beer. In fact, the studies on benefits of beer are very ambivalent and most of the studies waved by opponents of alcohol are from beer drinking countries.
So more like two glasses of red at dinner, not 2 pints.
Interesting side note regarding level of alcohol in wines...
I recently started drinking varying bottles of Chateauneuf Du Pape rather than the usual Wolfblass/Jacobs poison.
Despite the fact it is around 13.5-14, I feel less affected in the morning than if I had drank from the hallowed prison isle usual suspects.
There is something in this more expensive wine makarky. I thoroughly recommend it.
Obviously I am not IR35 fodder as we would be talking Chateau Margaux and I would expect to wake up the next day in the arms of Venus as a result.
"There is something in this more expensive wine makarky. I thoroughly recommend it."
I think you mean there's something missing from the expensive wine,... Sulfites. They are added as an anti-oxidant and preservative, and sweeter wines need more, so the fruity Australians probably have a higher content than your CNdP, which tastes like a pair of old leather sandals.
"Guinness is Good for You"
It was quite common a few decades ago for people to be told by their doctor to drink milk stout when recuperating from an illness. Bernard Miles was the face of Mackeson's tv advertising with the catchphrase "It looks good, tastes good and, by golly, it does you good".
@AC Mackeson's ad
""It looks good, tastes good and, by golly, it does you good"."
I seem to recall that in more recent times they had to change that to "It looks good, tastes good and, by golly, it IS good". - weren't allowed to claim medicinal properties or something. (like all those old cigarette ads that claimed they were good for your throat!)
Mmm, according to some research, moderate alcohol consumption lowers the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) partly at least through effects on high-density lipoproteins (the bad ones). The mechanism for that? Not sure, but they're working on it.
"There is strong evidence to support that ethanol, the main constituent in alcoholic beverages, is causally related to lower risk of CHD through changes in lipids and haemostatic factors. ... The effect of alcohol on high density lipoprotein levels accounts for the majority of the reduction in risk of CHD, however, the mechanisms by which alcohol exerts its protective effect on the cardiovascular system are very complex and not completely understood." Reffie -- there's a nice chart halfway through the article, diagramming possible cardiovascular effects of alcohol.
What is the cause/mechanism that gives 'never drinkers' a worse outcome than moderate drinkers?
I've seen other studies that relate it to your social situation. Moderate drinkers tend to drink in company, enjoying time with friends, and it's that social relaxation that's good for you.
A friend of mine is a cardiologist. He did a paper a few years ago following up on the french paradox. My contribution was to hold a wine tasting at Brighton hospital (I worked in the wine trade at the time).
Stats at the time showed that morbidity of drinkers only exceeded that of abstainers once above 30 units per week. That is 30 units per week is just as good as not drinking at all.
It's a good question. I think from a biochemical position the definition of "no safe limit" is sound: alcohol has profound and extremely variable effects on the body, some good, some not so good and some downright nasty. And not everyone can cope with alcohol as well – the Japanese are famous for a low tolerance – but other groups of people have similar issues at different parts of the cycle.
But we're more than just biochemistry: the rest of the diet should be considered along with the amount of exercise which sort of makes a mockery of any single issue study.
"What is the cause/mechanism that gives 'never drinkers' a worse outcome than moderate drinkers?"
it has things to do with arteriol sclerosis last I checked. Apparently small amounts of alcohol have a cleaning effect, like occasionally pouring some drain cleaner down the sink.
(taking niacin, using aspirin, and things like that are probably similar)
So do the combo - take niacin and aspirin every day as vitamin supplements, and then have a couple of beers in the evening to wash away the daily stress.
Here’s the final word on nutrition and health. It’s a relief to know the truth after all those conflicting medical studies.
1. The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
3. The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans
4. The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
5. The Germans drink a lot of beers and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.
CONCLUSION: Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills you.
One of my favourite scientific subjects is what's known as the French paradox.
Simplest explanation is the idea that they're actually really terrible at attributing death in their statistics.
If you look at single-outcome deaths you can make all sorts of claims about all sorts of things; problem is when you look at all causes. That lower heart risk might also associate with higher risk from liver disease or cancer or aortic dissection or gangrene. This is all a roundabout way of saying I like coffee.
Many years ago I worked in a sadly defunct off licence. One of the first reports that found that a glass or so of red wine was good for you was published.
We had a couple who every morning as soon as we opened bought a litre bottle of whisky. That morning they came in jubilantly stating it was on doctors orders.
If the views in this article do become accepted widely there will be incredible arguments about what moderate is. Why do this always do it in units? Given that a pint is 660ml (give or take) and 5% of that is 33ml why not state that 120ml of alcohol is moderate - assuming three pints is what we are after.
finally - shirly there is an el reg measure
"Given that a pint is 660ml (give or take) and 5% of that is 33ml why not state that 120ml of alcohol is moderate [...]"
Wine can come in at about 11%. If a beer is 5% - then you would be allowed the equivalent by drinking near enough a bottle of wine per day.
When the nurse did the computer health tick boxes - one question was how much did you drink a month. The answer elicited raised eyebrows until it was clarified that it was one bottle of wine rather than spirits.
Better to think a bit after someone corrects your English and you decide to hit back by criticising their comprehension skills... You really should have said "since-defunct" (though I'm not 100% sold on the need for the hyphen here). I didn't downvote you, by the way.
I'm the person who made the joke- personally, I assumed Roger was saying *he* should have double-checked his own comment before posting rather than intending any criticism towards me?
I'm not that bothered either way anyway- I knew what he meant but chose to misunderstand for comic effect. (^_^)
If (for example) you see a story like "study shows that chocolate may be good for the health of your thumb", and it goes on to explain that the study involved eating a single, small block of unsweetened high-quality chocolate with 85% cocoa solids- or whatever!- once a week... then you know damn well that all most people are going to remember is they heard something about chocolate being good for them, so it's okay to eat half the family-size Dairy Milk they got on offer at WH Smith on the bus home.
I mean, I like Dairy Milk and all that, but I don't use some misremembered "health" claims to justify eating it!
And the other problem with health and nutrition stories in the news in general is that you're always more likely to hear about the ones that make the best headlines- and that's assuming that the story is accurately reported, complete with boring but important details and qualifiers that make it less interesting.
Eeeh, bah eck, I remember t' old off-licence. It were between t' carriage-lamp shop and t' wireless repairer. But then them infernal supermarketty places done opened, and started selling booze. Now all t' old shops 'uv gone, and now instead here's a phone shop, a vape shop (whatever that be) an' a Greggs.
Ah, bring back the good old 1990s.
After fairly depressingly sad stuff here in the UK today, finally a story that warms the heart. I've not upvoted as many comments in an el reg story for many years. My message to meddling puritan vegetable folk : bugger off and mind your own business. Vegetables are for fermenting : Never forget that. Next, please confirm that post-pub restorative food (as documented by the still missed Lester back in the golden age of el reg) is also good for you. Cheers all!
"Heavy drinking (exceeding recommended limits) conferred an increased risk of first presenting with a range of such diseases, including heart failure, cardiac arrest and ischaemic stroke compared with moderate drinking"
"Heavy" in this context is therefore anything over 3 units a day for men.
But this sentence makes the blood run cold - "Heavy drinkers had an increased risk of their initial presentation of cardiovascular disease being _unheralded coronary death_ " (my emphasis) ie no warning before it happens.
On the bright side "Suggestive differences included that the lower risk of myocardial infarction in heavy drinkers was attenuated in current smokers" - so that's Farage nailed.
link to actual article
http://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.j909
"Suggestive differences included that the lower risk of myocardial infarction in heavy drinkers was attenuated in current smokers"
so let's add some stats that include smoking as a factor, and see where THAT leads...
FYI niacin, vitamin B3, which is needed for proper nerve function and can help deplete excess cholesterol, is "nicotinic acid". However, nicotene from tobacco tends to plaque things out in your arteries (maybe because it's a similar yet distinct-enough chemical). So yeah, it's a factor that would very likely affect the benefits of alcohol for cardiovascular disease studies.
Now, I want a beer.
This post has been deleted by its author
While it's true that there are issues with reproduction of results in general, this is not really a good place to bring it up, since this is a reproduction of previous studies. Not drinking being less healthy than moderate drinking is something that has been seen over and over again for years, as was noted in the article. There have been various theories about how this might be due to something other than the drinking itself, teetotallers often having stopped drinking due to some health condition for example, but as studies like this one show, even taking that into account it seems to be less healthy not to drink at all. Complaining that studies on other subjects haven't been replicated is all very well, but not particularly relevant to one that has been replicated over and over again.
This post has been deleted by its author
Isn't it a Cochrane synthesis?
If so, the whole point is that the one study that disagrees with the other four can be regarded as less statistically significant, if not discarded altogether.
Ben Goldacre's written some fascinating books on this stuff.
"What this is here is not "a reproduction of previous studies". It's a regurgitation of previous studies. A metastudy does not reproduce the results of previous studies. It does no new research."
Well firstly, you clearly didn't actually look at the study, or even read the article properly. The study the article refers to absolutely is a new study that has just been published. In your desperation to find something to complain about, you've apparently got confused by the fact that the article also briefly refers to an entirely different metastudy published nearly a decade ago. In any case, while whining about metastudies is common when people don't like the results, simply saying something is a metastudy is in no way a valid reason to dismiss it.
"If the original studies are shit, guess what, so is the metastudy."
The key word there being "studies". As in plural. You originally complained that the problem was a lack of replication. Now it's been pointed out that there actually are lots of studies replicating the same results in this case you've moved the goalposts to complain that some of those multiple studies might not have been good ones. While that is also true, it's both irrelevant to your original point and entirely unsupported by any evidence. If you can point to actual problems with any of these studies, feel free to do so, but bringing up red herrings to divert from the original claim isn't going to help your case. Ironically, if you'd bothered to actually read the article properly and checked your sources, you'd have noticed that the link referring to the metastudy in question was actually a rather critical Reg article pointing to numerous potential issues with it. Not enough to dismiss it out of hand, but certainly enough that it probably should not, and indeed clearly has not, be taken as a final authoritative answer.
"So, one out of five didn't. Why's that then?"
Because that's how science works. Not all studies will always agree with each other in every respect, for a huge variety of reasons ranging from experimental error to biological variability to simple chance. That's precisely why replication is so important, which was supposed to be the thing you were worried about in the first place. We look at the same thing over and over again, hopefully in a variety of different ways, and then come to a conclusion based on the balance of evidence. As things stand, that balance currently suggests that moderate drinking has health benefits over not drinking at all. Jumping around from complaining that the results haven't been replicated to complaining that many replications over the course of decades hasn't given a perfectly proven unanimous result is just silly, and rather suggests an unwillingness to accept the result rather than any actual issue with the method of getting there.
@Symon - "According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments."
So have they repeated the survey with the same results?
It's turtles, all the way down.
This post has been deleted by its author
Pharmacology graduate here. One lecture was on alcohol interactions and metabolism.
Lecturer informed us impressionable students that unless you have a particular genetic mutation you can basically drink as much as you like and you'll never get cirrhosis.
Although you'd never know until it was too late.
And all similar studies have been proven to be so too. Sorry to be a party pooper :(
Non-drinkers and Ex-drinkers usually have another reason not to drink - another health condition or lifestyle which isn't compatible with boozing. This group are therefore skewed towards having health issues than any of the other groups; If you're in fine fettle you can be a heavy drinker and you'll be fine, if you're shot and dying of cancer and on a cocktail of sensitive drugs, you're not going to be drinking at all.
Basically a glass of wine a day is fine ..because it doesn't do anything. Drink heavily you're more likely to get some kind of problem. don't drink at all or have given up drink?? There's probably a damn good reason.
Health issues is not going to be that large a reason not to drink (plenty of people with health issues still drink, often a s a treat / minor pleasure to make the nastiness of their bad health a bit more bearable)
Worth noting that plenty of people do not drink for religious reasons (and don't just think Islam etc, plenty of Christian sects e.g. lots of joyless Methodist groups in the UK, and plenty of happy clappy evangelicals eschew booze as so full of the joy of the Lord they would explode if they had any more pleasure)
Matt,
good point. I don't drink wine much because most of it is bitter stuff. Gold medals are usually a warning sign IMHO. Main reason is simply my flying is affected for 24 hours after one glass of wine the night before. Less mental resilience, more prone to airsickness, heartburn and (I think) less cognitive competency. Other soaring pilots seem unaffected and fly further faster etc. None of my drinking behaviour is ideological, but I note health freak relatives who eat oh so carefully seem to be more stressed and less healthy, as in they seem to get bad colds and so on. Perhaps I am just running close to my mental capacity too and don't have spare CPU cycles.
I don't drink wine much because most of it is bitter stuff. Gold medals are usually a warning sign IMHO.Actually, very little wine is bitter; Amarone is deliberately bitter, but most wine is made from other grapes. If the white you're drinking is bitter, it's likely oxidised because of a faulty closure.
Gold medals are awarded for the best in class at wine shows. They are not intended to be an absolute guide. There are ever so many different classes at any given wine show, so it's possible to obtain a gold medal merely by being the only wine entered into a particular class. It's also possible for a bronze medal winner in one class to be ever so much better than a gold medal winner in a different class.
Basically, the medal system is a marketing tool unless you can be bothered to understand which class the particular wine was awarded its gong. Far better IMHO to have a good working relationship with your supplier. Mine allows me to drink two bottles from a case and if I don't like the wine, return the case for a full refund. His "sales droids" also know my tastes and phone me when a favourite is about to cease to be available. The discount on the last few dozen tends to be 50% or more. I do love those "sales droids" ;-)
I like the taste of some alcoholic drinks - but not the effects of the alcohol content. Unfortunately it appears that it is the alcohol component that adds to the taste. De-alcoholised wines tend to be bland or too sweet.
People's palates vary. In recent years there have been several occasions when friends have offered me a white wine that they find exceptionally tasty - and to me there is almost no taste. On the other hand "oaked" wines always have a bitter kick in the throat.
On the other hand "oaked" wines always have a bitter kick in the throat.That's because you're committing infanticide. The tannin from oaking is not there to add a bitter taste, it's there as a preservative while the wine matures. Over time, the tannin deposits itself in the bottom of the bottle and when that's (almost) complete, the wine is at its peak.
Well, more like Richard Grant. He's famously unable to metabolize alcohol, thereby rendering him by necessity a life-long teetotaler.
Anyway I looked through the linked article, they say it's an observational study so no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding cause & effect.
So, the Reg has blown this out of proportion. Click bait article. Fake news, even!
Personally I don't drink, I don't even care about alcohol. The only reason I'm participating at all is to point out, yeah the actual report doesn't conclude what the Reg says.
Sorry, the study as quoted here and elsewhere I've encountered only addresses correlation. No suggestion that drinking is actually good for you (causation). It leaves open alternative hypotheses, like the teetotallers sampled including disproportionately many who where teetotal precisely because they were (already) too ill to drink.
Unless someone knows more than has been reported?
So many people desperate to believe that the way they've always behaved is just fine, and that those idiot so-called "scientists" don't know what they're talking about. It's like the Daily Mail. letters column.
FWIW I've been on Selincro for nearly 6 months, I'm down to a pint a day with a wee nightcap, and feel healthier, happier, better rested and clearer headed than I have for thirty years. It's expansive (£120 / month) but I'm saving more than I spend, too.
And I still like to have a big Friday or Saturday night out once or twice a month; the difference is that it's a shock to the system to find I've lost the following morning, again. And I think to myself, christ, I used to wake up feeling like this *every day*...
Taking all those results together, the "former drinker" has the highest risk of all - even higher than heavy drinker!
So apparently the lesson is:
1) if you don't drink, you should start drinking
2) if you already drink, keep drinking
3) if you quit drinking, start drinking again
but, but.. but I get tiddly on just three shots of whisky, don;t reckon I could cope with a couple of pints. I'm such a lightweight! :-)
-and for no reason other than that it amuses me mildy, a recital of a pome wot someone else wrote wot I like:
'There are many good reasons for drinking, and one has just entered my head - if a girl can't drink whilst she's living, how the hell can she drink when she's dead?!'
Right - I've had me fruit and veg smoothie for vitamins, now for the whisky chasers for extra healthfulness...
They never smoked, exercised religiously,walked or cycled instead of using a car, avoided drugs,, drank/didn't drink; booze, coffee, water, milk, Kombucha, wheat grass, green tea etc , ate/didn't eat; their 5 a day, red meat, white meat, fish, protein , carbs, glutens chocolate etc; did yoga, tai chi, meditation, practiced mindfulness etc ; used handsfree mobiles ; had full medicals every six months ; colonic irrigation; massage
If I sound cynical - mum died 12 years ago today - all the women in her family died of various cancers of the gut (stomach, pancreas, liver, colon etc etc) - so she did everything recommended to prevent it - and firetrucking leukaemia got her !
DNA replication is an error-prone process. Although there are a number of things people can do to "provoke" cancer, some people are just unlucky.
There was an interesting paper that came out recently showing that even in the first division of the recently fertilised egg there are mutations that are detectable for ever. Paper & press release for the people who aren't genomics geeks
Many years ago it was common for bookshops to sell poems on small cards like drinks coasters. One took my fancy and still sits on my bathroom shelf as a daily reminder. It has a picture of a man in "convict" striped pyjamas - his mouth foaming from energetic teeth brushing.
"Bars" by Bridget Rees
"
Here stands the prisoner of routine,
Wears pyjamas, likes jokes clean,
Scrubs his teeth, is ne'er a rover
Goes to work and gets run over.
"
On e of my own sayings is "If you can see the bars of your life's cage - then you can choose when to break them".
As noted, information as to why people stopped drinking or didn't start would be good.
Also any chronic health conditions, level of obesity, level of exercise.
Intrigued because the traditional "beer belly" is associated with all sorts of medical issues.
I may be completely wrong but I don't think you get a wine belly (apart from the associated munchies).
Perhaps the Mediterranean Diet isn't about what you eat but what you drink.
A diet of strong beer is bad for you?
Bugger!
But what about the strain on the liver combined with our sometimes unhealthy diets, what about coming in the way of quality sleep or just the fact that you're consuming a daily dose of a potent depressant? I'm not trying to preach and the bants is great but I wish they'd also do this kind of research on substances that are made illegal with little scientific backing as well.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
