General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

French Paradox wine panacea is [censored]

Started by TC · · Last activity · 12 posts · 316 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
31 March 2006
Last activity
3 April 2006
Original author
TC
Posts
12
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
316
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–12 of 12
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060331.HALCOHOL31/TPStory/

    A wee dram for the heart not quite a proven tonic
    ANDRÉ PICARD

    PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTER

    Don't uncork that Chateau Mouton Rothschild 1987 Bordeaux and raise a
    glass to your good health quite yet.

    Much of the research demonstrating that moderate drinking helps prevent
    heart disease -- and that health-conscious baby boomers have so
    heartily embraced -- is fundamentally flawed, according to a new
    international study.

    The problem is that almost all the studies lump together life-long
    abstainers with non-drinkers, who are generally drinkers who quit for
    health reasons or because of alcoholism.

    As a result of this "systematic classification error," the people who
    did not drink were routinely shown to have a much higher rate of heart
    disease than moderate drinkers.

    In fact, when figures from the research were recalculated, life-long
    teetotallers were healthiest, while moderate drinkers and
    "non-drinkers" had similar outcomes. The health of heavy drinkers also
    turned out to be much worse than previously believed.

    "This reopens the debate about the validity of the findings of a
    protective effect for moderate drinkers," said Kaye Fillmore, a
    sociologist at the University of California at San Francisco's school
    of nursing and lead author of the study.

    She was careful to add, however, that research has not proved or
    disproved the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption.

    Rather, the new study has shown that methodology can be much better.

    Tim Stockwell, director of the Centre for Addictions Research in
    British Columbia and co-author of the paper, said he suspects that,
    ultimately, moderate alcohol consumption will be shown to have some
    beneficial effect, but it will probably be much more modest than the
    flawed studies demonstrated.

    "I'm still going to have a glass of wine with my dinner because it's an
    enjoyable, very low risk behaviour," he said.

    Dr. Stockwell said his concern is that a lot of public policy and
    personal behaviour have been shaped by the notion that moderate
    drinking is good for the heart and for health in general, even though
    the science behind those conclusions is poor.

    "This demonstrates that we're really hungry for information about
    what's good for our health," he said.

    To conduct the new research, published in today's edition of the
    journal Addiction Research and Theory, the team of alcohol researchers
    from the United States, Canada and Australia reviewed 54 previously
    published studies examining the relationship between moderate drinking
    and health. Of that total, only seven did not inappropriately mingle
    abstainers and former drinkers.

    None of those seven studies showed any significant benefit of moderate
    drinking. Just as importantly, Dr. Stockwell said, when the figures
    were recalculated compounding the two groups, they showed a health
    benefit to moderate drinking -- just like the 47 flawed studies.

    This is not the first study to caution about drawing conclusions on the
    benefits or risks of alcohol based on limited data. Several other
    socioeconomic factors -- poverty, lack of employment, precarious
    housing -- have a much greater impact on health than does alcohol
    consumption.

    A study published last year in the American Journal of Preventive
    Medicine showed, for example, that moderate drinkers tend to be
    wealthier, better educated, more active and better nourished than
    non-drinkers and heavy drinkers, and said that these characteristics,
    rather than the nightly glass of wine, explain their better health.

    In other words, light drinking is a sign of good health rather than its
    cause.

    *******

    It isn't the wine that protects the french from cvds on a high fat
    diet. It is the high fat diet itself that protects them from cvds.

    TC

  2. My how TC loves to complain, so!

    Could be because TC doesn't know how to do anything else. 🙁

    You suck, TC.

    Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂

  3. ....

    TC said:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060331.HALCOHOL31/TPStory/

    A wee dram for the heart not quite a proven tonic
    ANDRÉ PICARD

    PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTER

    Don't uncork that Chateau Mouton Rothschild 1987 Bordeaux and raise a
    glass to your good health quite yet.

    Much of the research demonstrating that moderate drinking helps prevent
    heart disease -- and that health-conscious baby boomers have so
    heartily embraced -- is fundamentally flawed, according to a new
    international study.

    The problem is that almost all the studies lump together life-long
    abstainers with non-drinkers, who are generally drinkers who quit for
    health reasons or because of alcoholism.

    As a result of this "systematic classification error," the people who
    did not drink were routinely shown to have a much higher rate of heart
    disease than moderate drinkers.

    In fact, when figures from the research were recalculated, life-long
    teetotallers were healthiest, while moderate drinkers and
    "non-drinkers" had similar outcomes. The health of heavy drinkers also
    turned out to be much worse than previously believed.

    "This reopens the debate about the validity of the findings of a
    protective effect for moderate drinkers," said Kaye Fillmore, a
    sociologist at the University of California at San Francisco's school
    of nursing and lead author of the study.

    She was careful to add, however, that research has not proved or
    disproved the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption.

    Rather, the new study has shown that methodology can be much better.

    Tim Stockwell, director of the Centre for Addictions Research in
    British Columbia and co-author of the paper, said he suspects that,
    ultimately, moderate alcohol consumption will be shown to have some
    beneficial effect, but it will probably be much more modest than the
    flawed studies demonstrated.

    "I'm still going to have a glass of wine with my dinner because it's an
    enjoyable, very low risk behaviour," he said.

    Dr. Stockwell said his concern is that a lot of public policy and
    personal behaviour have been shaped by the notion that moderate
    drinking is good for the heart and for health in general, even though
    the science behind those conclusions is poor.

    "This demonstrates that we're really hungry for information about
    what's good for our health," he said.

    To conduct the new research, published in today's edition of the
    journal Addiction Research and Theory, the team of alcohol researchers
    from the United States, Canada and Australia reviewed 54 previously
    published studies examining the relationship between moderate drinking
    and health. Of that total, only seven did not inappropriately mingle
    abstainers and former drinkers.

    None of those seven studies showed any significant benefit of moderate
    drinking. Just as importantly, Dr. Stockwell said, when the figures
    were recalculated compounding the two groups, they showed a health
    benefit to moderate drinking -- just like the 47 flawed studies.

    This is not the first study to caution about drawing conclusions on the
    benefits or risks of alcohol based on limited data. Several other
    socioeconomic factors -- poverty, lack of employment, precarious
    housing -- have a much greater impact on health than does alcohol
    consumption.

    A study published last year in the American Journal of Preventive
    Medicine showed, for example, that moderate drinkers tend to be
    wealthier, better educated, more active and better nourished than
    non-drinkers and heavy drinkers, and said that these characteristics,
    rather than the nightly glass of wine, explain their better health.

    In other words, light drinking is a sign of good health rather than its
    cause.

    *******

    It isn't the wine that protects the french from cvds on a high fat
    diet. It is the high fat diet itself that protects them from cvds.

    TC

  4. Quoted message said:

    My how TC loves to complain, so!

    Could be because TC doesn't know how to do anything else. 🙁

    You suck, TC.

    Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂

  5. This study seems highly questionable to me. For one thing, no one ever
    claimed that wine or alcohol was a "panacea." And there are
    undoubtedly other factors involved in French mortality. The question
    is whether moderate alcohol consumption is beneficial in itself.

    Previous studies that reported a benefit did corect for confounding
    factors. So the criticism that moderate drinkers "tend to be
    wealthier, better educated, more active and better nourished than
    non-drinkers and heavy drinkers" is not valid. They also reported a
    definite dose effect; i.e., cardiac mortality decreased with dose even
    above one or two drinks a day (but other mortality started to
    increase). That sort of dose response argues for a real effect.

    Considering the large amount of previous evidence for a beneficial
    effect, I'd say that it's this report that needs confirming.

  6. Do you believe that wine is the main factor that protects the French
    from cvds on their supposedly unhealthy high fat diet?

    TC

    John Graeme said:

    This study seems highly questionable to me. For one thing, no one ever
    claimed that wine or alcohol was a "panacea." And there are
    undoubtedly other factors involved in French mortality. The question
    is whether moderate alcohol consumption is beneficial in itself.

    Previous studies that reported a benefit did corect for confounding
    factors. So the criticism that moderate drinkers "tend to be
    wealthier, better educated, more active and better nourished than
    non-drinkers and heavy drinkers" is not valid. They also reported a
    definite dose effect; i.e., cardiac mortality decreased with dose even
    above one or two drinks a day (but other mortality started to
    increase). That sort of dose response argues for a real effect.

    Considering the large amount of previous evidence for a beneficial
    effect, I'd say that it's this report that needs confirming.

  7. TC said:

    Do you believe that wine is the main factor that protects the French
    from cvds on their supposedly unhealthy high fat diet?

    IMHO it probably is a factor; whether it's the "main factor" is
    impossible to say. There are a number of other differences in the
    French diet. The main thing that makes me think that moderate alcohol
    consumption has a beneficial effect is the evidence I cited in the
    previous post--plus the experimental studies showing a positive effect
    on certain blood parameters (eg, phenol level and antioxidant
    capacity). There have even been some more recent studies showing
    beneficial effects in related diseases like diabetes and the risk of
    Alzheimer's disease (eg, Ruitenberg A et al. Alcohol consumption and
    risk of dementia: the Rotterdam Study. Lancet 2002 Jan
    26;359(9303):281-6 )

    Quoted message said:
    John Graeme said:

    This study seems highly questionable to me. For one thing, no one ever
    claimed that wine or alcohol was a "panacea." And there are
    undoubtedly other factors involved in French mortality. The question
    is whether moderate alcohol consumption is beneficial in itself.

    Previous studies that reported a benefit did corect for confounding
    factors. So the criticism that moderate drinkers "tend to be
    wealthier, better educated, more active and better nourished than
    non-drinkers and heavy drinkers" is not valid. They also reported a
    definite dose effect; i.e., cardiac mortality decreased with dose even
    above one or two drinks a day (but other mortality started to
    increase). That sort of dose response argues for a real effect.

    Considering the large amount of previous evidence for a beneficial
    effect, I'd say that it's this report that needs confirming.

  8. TC said:

    Do you believe that wine is the main factor that protects the French
    from cvds on their supposedly unhealthy high fat diet?

    Have you noticed the persistent use of sloppy and imprecise language in
    all of the posts written by this Kook?

    I certainly have!!!

    If you cannot be more precise than this garbage, kindly get off and
    stay off the science ngs; Kook!

    Just my opinion, but I am NEVER wrong.

  9. The antioxidants in red wine do have potency, so that, in conjunction
    with a higher intake of saturated fatty acids (in percentage terms),
    and overall lower intake of calories, means that the French diet is
    much less oxidizing than the "typical" American one. It's as simple as
    that, and the molecular level evidence is there, right on pubmed.com,
    for all to see. Moreover, even AHA spokesman, Dr. Richard Stein, said
    several months ago that only OXIDIZED cholesterol is dangerous, and red
    wine will help to some degree in this context (along with less
    unsaturated fat in the diet). Sherry, however, might be a wiser choice
    for those who take my advice and stay away from major sources of
    unsaturated fat and oxidized cholesterol. Coconut oil is your best
    bet, and the demographic data makes that clear, even if you really
    don't understand the molecular level evidence. Read Bruce Fife's book,
    "Saturated fat may save your life." It's good for those without much
    of a scientific background, though he thinks that omega 3s and 6s are
    "essential," and some other things that make no sense scientifically.
    However, he does talk about how dangerous they are, and since this is
    the best book for the "non-expert," I would suggest starting with it,
    as well as searching this group for montgram and reading my old posts.

  10. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    The antioxidants in red wine do have potency, so that, in conjunction
    with a higher intake of saturated fatty acids (in percentage terms),
    and overall lower intake of calories, means that the French diet is
    much less oxidizing than the "typical" American one.

    No, fuel is not oxidizing. On the contrary, fuel combines with oxidizing
    agents. So if in fact the French do have a lower intake of calories than the
    Americans, then the French diet should not be less oxidizing due to that
    reason.

    Alcohol is a hydrocarbon fuel and through numerous metabolic steps it is
    ultimately ridded from the body mainly as CO2 and water. The first step in
    that chain of metabolic processes is the oxidation of ethanol to
    acetaldehyde. So ethanol and its breakdown products are antioxidants. And
    since wine is an alcoholic beverage, well you can fill in the blanks about
    the French diet in that respect.

    The more caloric fuel that is consumed, the more caloric burning
    (oxidizing) that must occur, otherwise there will be weight gain. However,
    unless the body is in a state of ketosis, dietary PUFAs will become stored
    and therefore place a greater burden on the body for dietary antioxidants.
    If those antioxidant requirements are not met, then disease occurs.

    The French are getting a better ratio of physical exercise to caloric intake
    than suburban sprawling Americans, because they walk more while consuming
    fewer calories. Consequently Americans are putting on weight at a greater
    rate than the French. This is the primary health difference between the two
    countries, which is has nothing to do with wine consumption. Secondarily,
    Americans also consume more PUFAs and less MUFAs than the French, so
    Americans' stored body fats require more antioxidants. Here again the French
    have the advantage because on average they are generally getting more
    resveratrol and alcohol (antioxidants in wine) in their daily diet.

  11. Knack needs to grow a brain and stop leaping sloppily to conclusions.

    Please contemplate the main damages issue of oxidation in cellular metabolism
    is the production of free radicals. Until you are up to speed about that, please
    keep your keyboard silent.

    Chypho...

    "Knack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    The antioxidants in red wine do have potency, so that, in conjunction
    with a higher intake of saturated fatty acids (in percentage terms),
    and overall lower intake of calories, means that the French diet is
    much less oxidizing than the "typical" American one.

    No, fuel is not oxidizing. On the contrary, fuel combines with oxidizing
    agents. So if in fact the French do have a lower intake of calories than the
    Americans, then the French diet should not be less oxidizing due to that
    reason.

    Alcohol is a hydrocarbon fuel and through numerous metabolic steps it is
    ultimately ridded from the body mainly as CO2 and water. The first step in
    that chain of metabolic processes is the oxidation of ethanol to
    acetaldehyde. So ethanol and its breakdown products are antioxidants. And
    since wine is an alcoholic beverage, well you can fill in the blanks about
    the French diet in that respect.

    The more caloric fuel that is consumed, the more caloric burning
    (oxidizing) that must occur, otherwise there will be weight gain. However,
    unless the body is in a state of ketosis, dietary PUFAs will become stored
    and therefore place a greater burden on the body for dietary antioxidants.
    If those antioxidant requirements are not met, then disease occurs.

    The French are getting a better ratio of physical exercise to caloric intake
    than suburban sprawling Americans, because they walk more while consuming
    fewer calories. Consequently Americans are putting on weight at a greater
    rate than the French. This is the primary health difference between the two
    countries, which is has nothing to do with wine consumption. Secondarily,
    Americans also consume more PUFAs and less MUFAs than the French, so
    Americans' stored body fats require more antioxidants. Here again the French
    have the advantage because on average they are generally getting more
    resveratrol and alcohol (antioxidants in wine) in their daily diet.

  12. John Graeme said:
    TC said:

    Do you believe that wine is the main factor that protects the French
    from cvds on their supposedly unhealthy high fat diet?

    IMHO it probably is a factor; whether it's the "main factor" is
    impossible to say. There are a number of other differences in the
    French diet. The main thing that makes me think that moderate alcohol
    consumption has a beneficial effect is the evidence I cited in the
    previous post--plus the experimental studies showing a positive effect
    on certain blood parameters (eg, phenol level and antioxidant
    capacity). There have even been some more recent studies showing
    beneficial effects in related diseases like diabetes and the risk of
    Alzheimer's disease (eg, Ruitenberg A et al. Alcohol consumption and
    risk of dementia: the Rotterdam Study. Lancet 2002 Jan
    26;359(9303):281-6 )

    The French insist on the freshest produce and the tastiest and best
    raised meats, with the fat playing a very important role in the taste
    and texture of the dishes . They use copious amounts of fresh milk,
    cream and butter with minimal processing. Real lard and real tallow.
    Real French cuisine would never substitute margarine for butter, or
    shortening for lard. The produce is picked that morning and sold fresh.
    They farm differently in that they rely less on fertilizers and
    pesticides and herbicides. What we call organic they call normal
    everyday food.

    Compare that to the Western world where all dairy products are cooked,
    pasteurized and homogenized and ends up in storage, in shipment or on
    the shelf for as long as several weeks, many times in plastic
    containers that expose the milk to light. Then the produce is put
    through a similar storage and shipping process. None of these products
    are fresh in any sense of the word. They lose all their nutrition
    before they hit your table.

    Then realize how much more sugar and hfcs we consume here in the west.
    How many foods are processed and refined and sold in boxes. In France
    they get their food daily from the farmers market whole, we get ours
    cut, processed, and or frozen, and in plastic wrap or in boxes with
    flashy graphics. The French eat real foods for breakfast, we eat RTE
    cereals which contain zero nutrients. They eat real meats and real
    fresh produce, we feed our kids mac and cheese from a friggin' box.
    They eat animal fats, we eat vegetable fats.

    It ain't in the wine. It is in the food. And the good stuff is the
    animal sourced stuff and the fresh produce.

    TC

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.