I peered into my liquor/wine cabinet
today and gave its contents a quick assessment. I hadn’t opened it in all of
September. I am not a teetotaler (though I was for about a decade following a spate
of excess in my 20s), but simply hadn’t had occasion to open the cabinet in the
past month. I don’t have a routine of a daily wine glass or cocktail, but will
join with company and participate in toasts and so on; there just didn’t happen
to be that sort of company at my house in September. Some months are like that.
Anyway, I don’t keep an opened bottle of spirits more than six months (a year
if only a shot or two has been poured from it) since the exposure to oxygen
spoils the taste. Unopened bottles have unlimited shelf life if not exposed to
excess light or heat. So, I occasionally check to see what, if anything, should
be removed and replaced. Lately I’ve considered deliberately upping my
consumption. Yes, really.
A study published in The Lancet has gotten much play lately in the popular press. The study, a meta-analysis of global studies on alcohol, purports to debunk the notion that there are health benefits to moderate consumption of alcohol. The authors conclude that there is no safe level of consumption. Any amount is associated with negative health consequences. But what of multiple studies over decades that show light to moderate consumption is associated with better cardio health and reduced risk of strokes? Are they simply wrong? Well, no. The Lancet study and the others are measuring different things. The Lancet is looking at all risks ranging from accidents to breast cancer to TB to the development of alcohol dependency. A single drink per day is associated with a 0.5% increased risk of developing one of 23 health problems, and the risk increases nonlinearly with each additional drink. The Lancet study also employs global data rather than just national data. The older studies examined specific health issues in specific populations.
This difference gives some researchers pause about The Lancet study’s conclusions. Harvard professor of epidemiology and nutrition Walter Willett, for one, told Time that data supporting particular benefits of moderate drinking are well established. He added, “Our decisions about drinking in the United States shouldn’t be influenced by what alcohol does to tuberculosis.” He acknowledged, as does everyone, that heavy drinking and binge drinking are serious health problems. What are the established particular benefits to moderate consumption? The results of a new 2023 study that included more than 50,000 people was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and it confirms older studies. The Harvard Gazette reported the findings: “The researchers found that light/moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a substantial reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease events.” Of those for whom CAT or PET scans were available, the researchers found “the brain imaging showed reduced stress signaling in the amygdala, the brain region associated with stress responses, in individuals who were light to moderate drinkers compared to those who abstained from alcohol or who drank little.” Correlation doesn’t prove causation, but it is easy to speculate that stress reduction may have something to do with the better cardiological results.
Nonetheless, senior author of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology study Ahmed Tawakol warns, “We are not advocating the use of alcohol to reduce the risk of heart attacks or strokes because of other concerning effects of alcohol on health.” This is surely a wise disclaimer. Alcohol abuse (including but not limited to outright alcoholism) is responsible for 88,000 deaths in the US per year due to health effects (e.g. liver disease) and accidents. According to a CDC press release, “1 in 3 adults is an excessive drinker, and most of them binge drink, usually on multiple occasions. In contrast, about 1 in 30 adults is classified as alcohol dependent.” Other studies, however, define alcohol dependence less stringently and so give much higher numbers for it. A study published in JAMA Psychiatry as reported in The Washington Post, for example, said 1 in 8 adult Americans meet the criteria for alcoholism. It depends on where you draw the line, but we can acknowledge that alcohol abuse is bad for oneself and others whether or not it meets some specific definitional standard for alcohol dependency or alcoholism. Obviously, there are no health benefits for alcohol abusers.
The contents of my cabinet remain unchanged after my inspection, by the way, at least with regard to hard spirits. (I removed one bottle of wine, but not to drink it; it will marinate a roast.) I have just one bottle each of several spirits types: bourbon, scotch, Irish whiskey, rye, Tennessee whiskey, Canadian whisky (everyone outside of the US and Ireland spells “whisk(e)y” without the “e”), vodka, rum, gin, and tequila. All are mid-shelf brands (none as much as $50, some under $30) since I’m not enough of a connoisseur to warrant spending more, while on the other hand I see no point in stocking rotgut. For now, those are enough. I do not stock the various flavored whiskeys that have become popular in recent years (honey, cinnamon, apple, etc.) since they do not appeal to me at all.
A study published in The Lancet has gotten much play lately in the popular press. The study, a meta-analysis of global studies on alcohol, purports to debunk the notion that there are health benefits to moderate consumption of alcohol. The authors conclude that there is no safe level of consumption. Any amount is associated with negative health consequences. But what of multiple studies over decades that show light to moderate consumption is associated with better cardio health and reduced risk of strokes? Are they simply wrong? Well, no. The Lancet study and the others are measuring different things. The Lancet is looking at all risks ranging from accidents to breast cancer to TB to the development of alcohol dependency. A single drink per day is associated with a 0.5% increased risk of developing one of 23 health problems, and the risk increases nonlinearly with each additional drink. The Lancet study also employs global data rather than just national data. The older studies examined specific health issues in specific populations.
This difference gives some researchers pause about The Lancet study’s conclusions. Harvard professor of epidemiology and nutrition Walter Willett, for one, told Time that data supporting particular benefits of moderate drinking are well established. He added, “Our decisions about drinking in the United States shouldn’t be influenced by what alcohol does to tuberculosis.” He acknowledged, as does everyone, that heavy drinking and binge drinking are serious health problems. What are the established particular benefits to moderate consumption? The results of a new 2023 study that included more than 50,000 people was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and it confirms older studies. The Harvard Gazette reported the findings: “The researchers found that light/moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a substantial reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease events.” Of those for whom CAT or PET scans were available, the researchers found “the brain imaging showed reduced stress signaling in the amygdala, the brain region associated with stress responses, in individuals who were light to moderate drinkers compared to those who abstained from alcohol or who drank little.” Correlation doesn’t prove causation, but it is easy to speculate that stress reduction may have something to do with the better cardiological results.
Nonetheless, senior author of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology study Ahmed Tawakol warns, “We are not advocating the use of alcohol to reduce the risk of heart attacks or strokes because of other concerning effects of alcohol on health.” This is surely a wise disclaimer. Alcohol abuse (including but not limited to outright alcoholism) is responsible for 88,000 deaths in the US per year due to health effects (e.g. liver disease) and accidents. According to a CDC press release, “1 in 3 adults is an excessive drinker, and most of them binge drink, usually on multiple occasions. In contrast, about 1 in 30 adults is classified as alcohol dependent.” Other studies, however, define alcohol dependence less stringently and so give much higher numbers for it. A study published in JAMA Psychiatry as reported in The Washington Post, for example, said 1 in 8 adult Americans meet the criteria for alcoholism. It depends on where you draw the line, but we can acknowledge that alcohol abuse is bad for oneself and others whether or not it meets some specific definitional standard for alcohol dependency or alcoholism. Obviously, there are no health benefits for alcohol abusers.
The contents of my cabinet remain unchanged after my inspection, by the way, at least with regard to hard spirits. (I removed one bottle of wine, but not to drink it; it will marinate a roast.) I have just one bottle each of several spirits types: bourbon, scotch, Irish whiskey, rye, Tennessee whiskey, Canadian whisky (everyone outside of the US and Ireland spells “whisk(e)y” without the “e”), vodka, rum, gin, and tequila. All are mid-shelf brands (none as much as $50, some under $30) since I’m not enough of a connoisseur to warrant spending more, while on the other hand I see no point in stocking rotgut. For now, those are enough. I do not stock the various flavored whiskeys that have become popular in recent years (honey, cinnamon, apple, etc.) since they do not appeal to me at all.
 |
| The only Jacks in my cabinet are an Old No. 7 and a Rye (not pictured) |
What is “moderate” consumption? Though the CDC has indicated it may revisit its guidance in light of the Lancet paper, its current definition of moderate is no more than 14 drinks per week (one US “drink” being 1.5 ounces [44.36 ml] of 80 proof [40% ABV] liquor or its equivalent) for a man and no more than 7 for a woman. On any one day consumption should not exceed 4. I don’t think there has been a week in the past ten years when I’ve come close to 14, nor has there been a day when I’ve exceeded 4.
At this point in my life (any impulse toward excess being long past) the cardio benefits of moderate consumption may well counterbalance or exceed any other risks. My amygdala might thank me. On the other hand, I recall Frank Sinatra’s remark that he feels sorry for people who don’t drink because “when they wake up in the morning that is as good as they are going to feel all day.” That is not really as encouraging as he might have intended.
David
Allan Coe – Jack Daniel's, If You Please
No comments:
Post a Comment