To my knowledge the graph of "health benefits" versus alcohol is highest for people who drink the most, of course, but also has a noteworthy increase for people who drink zero. During a discussion with some sedentary behaviour researchers we speculated the lower end of the graph is less so do with the alcohol itself but rather the personalities associated with the different consumptions levels:<p>- Zero alcohol group; likely to contain above-average numbers of people who are strict on themselves, and thus more likely to be stressed often<p>- Medium alcohol group; likely to contain above-average numbers of people who enjoy relaxing<p>- High alcohol group; a high alcohol intake is bad for your health and is likely to include above-average numbers of people with a poor quality of life<p>I know of no medical evidence to specifically back up that idea, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that worrying less about things can yield improvements in health.<p>So in conclusion whilst the "eat and drink" bit of "eat, drink and be merry" might be debatable, the "be merry" bit is definitely good advice. HAPPY NEW YEAR HACKER NEWS!!!<p>:)
Note this is not based on clinical research but likely a survey of surveys. It is the least reliable form of research the point is not to come to conclusions but to question the methodology of the original study and suggest improvements. I don't have easy acess to the article at home but it is highly unlikely the article would approve of the conclusions in the article.<p>Cardiac health is just one of the possible factors increasing life span. There is no way to factor out the root cause this way. You need a control.<p>I will warn about alcohol and tylinol use together somehow this is not well known it may be very very dangerous together. Tylinol is so common it was hard to spot the combined risks.
This makes complete sense. However, something tells me this article will get about 1% the amount of press that the original "drinking makes you live longer!" story did.
I always wonder what are the causes and what are the effects in studies like this one and the ones that say drinking is healthy. Is it possible that those who lead healthier lives are therefore mentally able to resist from drinking, and not the other way around as this study shows? The same applies to the studies that say those who drink a little are healthier than those who don't. As JofArnold said in another comment here, those who don't drink at all may only be less healthy because they are the people who are likely to stress over things.<p>I'm sure the scientists conducting these studies try to eliminate these inconsistencies to as much as their ability by establishing the cause-effect relationship, but it seems impossible to do this exactly right and thus we should consider the associated problems in studies like these.
Lies, damned lies, and medical science: <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-dam...</a>
From first principles, it wouldn't make sense for alcohol itself to be beneficial. After all, the body treats it like poison, the liver filtering it from the blood stream. Drink too much poison, and the liver gets tired and shuts down, and then you have liver failure.<p>But there are some compounds in some kinds of alcoholic beverages, mostly red wine, that are thought to be beneficial. Of course, you could get the same benefits by skipping the fermentation process and just drinking grape juice.
I'd read this objection to the standard results previously - that the non-drinkers measured were former alcoholics. The following study claimed to get a similar result while controlling for this:<p>Mainstream press: <a href="http://singularityhub.com/2010/09/02/heavy-drinkers-outlive-non-drinkers-longevity-never-tasted-so-good/" rel="nofollow">http://singularityhub.com/2010/09/02/heavy-drinkers-outlive-...</a><p>Direct link to abstract: <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2010.01286.x/abstract" rel="nofollow">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2010....</a><p>I posted this to HN a few months ago...
I recall reading that the original study indicating red wine was good for the heart was based on studies of a chemical in the wine which was given to rats as part of the study. To get the same amount the rats got, and assumably the same benefit, you'd have to drink a ridiculous amount (1000's of gallons a year IIRC).
It seems for every nutrition study out there, you can find another one that will say the exact opposite. My 2011 resolution is to skip nutrition advice altogether.