Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 187 of 187
  1. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    The JAMA article had no graph, it was just the same topic. Whether these lifestyle choices are or aren't "actual causes or not was the point. The JAMA article says they are. And I did post an article regarding a meta-analytical study about light drinking and cancer. Perhaps you chose to ignore it?
    I apologise, I missed the link you posted Light alcohol drinking and cancer: a meta-analysis.

    I just scanned through the article. In essence they conclude that light drinkers from East Asia have increased rates of oesophageal and mouth cancer. That actually makes sense, as many East Asians lack the ability to metabolize alcohol as the rest of the world does. Light drinking in those individuals is the equivalent to heavy drinking for the rest of us.

    One point of interest in the article is that they did find a tiny increase in rates of breast cancer. A meta-analysis has many limitations, and they did a good job of listing and admitting to the limitations of their analysis, such as not accounting for smoking, or drinking patterns. So that may warrant further investigation.

  2. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    The JAMA article had no graph, it was just the same topic. Whether these lifestyle choices are or aren't "actual causes or not was the point. The JAMA article says they are. And I did post an article regarding a meta-analytical study about light drinking and cancer. Perhaps you chose to ignore it?
    Almost forgot, about the JAMA abstract. They simply list alcohol as cause of death without mentioning quantity. We know chronic alcoholism and binge drinking kills.

  3. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    This study pegs the optimal median alcohol consumption for health at half a drink a day.

    Abstract

    Objective To estimate the impact of achieving alternative average population alcohol consumption levels on chronic disease mortality in England.

    Design A macro-simulation model was built to simultaneously estimate the number of deaths from coronary heart disease, stroke, hypertensive disease, diabetes, liver cirrhosis, epilepsy and five cancers that would be averted or delayed annually as a result of changes in alcohol consumption among English adults. Counterfactual scenarios assessed the impact on alcohol-related mortalities of changing (1) the median alcohol consumption of drinkers and (2) the percentage of non-drinkers.

    Data sources Risk relationships were drawn from published meta-analyses. Age- and sex-specific distributions of alcohol consumption (grams per day) for the English population in 2006 were drawn from the General Household Survey 2006, and age-, sex- and cause-specific mortality data for 2006 were provided by the Office for National Statistics.


    Results The optimum median consumption level for drinkers in the model was 5 g/day (about half a unit), which would avert or delay 4579 (2544 to 6590) deaths per year. Approximately equal numbers of deaths from cancers and liver disease would be delayed or averted (∼2800 for each), while there was a small increase in cardiovascular mortality. The model showed no benefit in terms of reduced mortality when the proportion of non-drinkers in the population was increased.

    Conclusions Current government recommendations for alcohol consumption are well above the level likely to minimise chronic disease. Public health targets should aim for a reduction in population alcohol consumption in order to reduce chronic disease mortality.



    ]
    She did a meta-analysis of meta-analyses. That's like taking a picture of a picture of a picture, all detail is lost. A single meta-analysis is bad enough in terms of data quality, but to then filter the filtered data again is not good science. No wonder her findings are not in line with results found in direct prospective studies.

  4. #104
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    So now 1 or 2 is ok? I sense a subtle shift in position.

    Why quibble over one beer? I haven't shifted personally, I still drink one a day and 2-3 on special occasions but I do take anti-alcohol supplements before drinking. You're right though, it should have read "one unit" of alcohol per day for optimal health. That's the best recommendation we have now.

  5. #105
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitabrew View Post
    She did a meta-analysis of meta-analyses. That's like taking a picture of a picture of a picture, all detail is lost. A single
    meta-analysis is bad enough in terms of data quality, but to then filter the filtered data again is not good science. No wonder her findings are not in line with results found in direct prospective studies.
    She? You mean the one women and three guys involved? If you quibble with the studies I have cited do what you prefer according to the evidence you like better then. Far be it from me to tell you what to think or do.
    What is the optimal level of population alcohol consumption for chronic disease prevention in England? Modelling the impact of changes in average consumption levels -- Nichols et al. 2 (3) -- BMJ Open


    1. Melanie Nichols1,2,
    2. Peter Scarborough2,
    3. Steven Allender1,2,
    4. Mike Rayner

  6. #106
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by ancient rascal View Post
    My post is not as much beer and cancer as it is ... beer and "pancreatic cancer" The doctor is an expert in the specialty of Pancreatic, etc. Not in all forms of cancer. We still don't know if this study/survey she did holds water. OK ... the beer and cancer title was a bit of a hook ... I admit it. The curiosity about it for me is genuine. -AR

    Alcohol isn't just related to pancreatic cancer, though your post may be. It's known to be strongly linked to oral, esophagus, and larynx cancer and less strongly linked to stomach, breast, colon and other cancers.

  7. #107
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by debaucherous View Post
    Logic problems everywhere.
    It must be true if you posted a cartoon about it.

  8. #108
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitabrew View Post
    I apologise, I missed the link you posted Light alcohol drinking and cancer: a meta-analysis.

    I just scanned through the article. In essence they conclude that light drinkers from East Asia have increased rates of oesophageal and mouth cancer. That actually makes sense, as many East Asians lack the ability to metabolize alcohol as the rest of the world does. Light drinking in those individuals is the equivalent to heavy drinking for the rest of us.

    One point of interest in the article is that they did find a tiny increase in rates of breast cancer. A meta-analysis has many limitations, and they did a good job of listing and admitting to the limitations of their analysis, such as not accounting for smoking, or drinking patterns. So that may warrant further investigation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitabrew View Post
    Almost forgot, about the JAMA abstract. They simply list alcohol as cause of death without mentioning quantity. We know chronic alcoholism and binge drinking kills.
    Understood on both counts. One thing related and not studied here is the obsessive power of alcohol in many people which also may be genetic. Some people (we probably all know a few) can not ever have just one or two drinks. Once started they are going to have 10 or 15 drinks or pass out or drive into a utility pole, whatever comes first.

  9. #109
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,696
    either I am drunk and getting double vision or tl1 is talking to himself
    I will drink to that

    Sj
    I am slow therefore I am

  10. #110
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,097
    Quote Originally Posted by SlowerJoe View Post
    either I am drunk and getting double vision or tl1 is talking to himself
    I will drink to that

    Sj
    I do believe both,
    "Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself

  11. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    She? You mean the one women and three guys involved? If you quibble with the studies I have cited do what you prefer according to the evidence you like better then. Far be it from me to tell you what to think or do.

    The main author is a female, so I wrote she. If you prefer I will edit the post to say they, but that's not important.

    Thousands & thousands of medical articles are written. Some are done well, some are done poorly, and many fall in between. I feel it is important to see how the information in the article was obtained. I am not trying to argue with you, really I am not. I am just pointing out that the way the information for this article was obtained is not considered an accurate way to find a answer to the question they pose. It is a relatively quick & easy way to rehash data that has already been rehashed by others. That's why I do not have confidence in their findings / recommendations. I admit though that for such a study to be done well would be very expensive, take many years, and be very difficult.

  12. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    Understood on both counts. One thing related and not studied here is the obsessive power of alcohol in many people which also may be genetic. Some people (we probably all know a few) can not ever have just one or two drinks. Once started they are going to have 10 or 15 drinks or pass out or drive into a utility pole, whatever comes first.
    Yes, the tragic truth we can all agree on.

  13. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16
    Here is an example of a well done study. It's not a meta-analysis, it a prospective cohort study. That means that rather than try to analyse data from multiple studies which were done for multiple reasons to achieve an answer, instead they started a new study and geared it specifically for the task in hand. They got over 89,000 subjects and followed them for over 5 years while accounting for specific health related variables that may influence the results. Does the study have limitations? Yes, all studies have their limitations, this study only included men physicians. Therefore the results would be irrelevant for a female coal miner.

    American College of Cardiology Foundation | Journal of the American College of Cardiology | Light-to-moderate alcohol consumption and mortality in the physicians

    If anyone is truly interested I recommend reading the full article, not just the abstract (abstracts usually leave out very important details), you can download a PDF to the full article from the above link.

  14. #114
    Hi.
    Reputation: jtmartino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitabrew View Post
    Here is an example of a well done study. It's not a meta-analysis, it a prospective cohort study. That means that rather than try to analyse data from multiple studies which were done for multiple reasons to achieve an answer, instead they started a new study and geared it specifically for the task in hand. They got over 89,000 subjects and followed them for over 5 years while accounting for specific health related variables that may influence the results. Does the study have limitations? Yes, all studies have their limitations, this study only included men physicians. Therefore the results would be irrelevant for a female coal miner.

    American College of Cardiology Foundation | Journal of the American College of Cardiology | Light-to-moderate alcohol consumption and mortality in the physicians

    If anyone is truly interested I recommend reading the full article, not just the abstract (abstracts usually leave out very important details), you can download a PDF to the full article from the above link.
    That's the best study I've seen yet, and far better-designed than any other posted in this thread. Thanks for sharing.

  15. #115
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitabrew View Post
    Here is an example of a well done study. It's not a meta-analysis, it a prospective cohort study. That means that rather than try to analyse data from multiple studies which were done for multiple reasons to achieve an answer, instead they started a new study and geared it specifically for the task in hand. They got over 89,000 subjects and followed them for over 5 years while accounting for specific health related variables that may influence the results. Does the study have limitations? Yes, all studies have their limitations, this study only included men physicians. Therefore the results would be irrelevant for a female coal miner.

    American College of Cardiology Foundation | Journal of the American College of Cardiology | Light-to-moderate alcohol consumption and mortality in the physicians

    If anyone is truly interested I recommend reading the full article, not just the abstract (abstracts usually leave out very important details), you can download a PDF to the full article from the above link.
    That looks like a good study. It's been a long travel day and haven't read and digested it all yet but I did give it a quick once over. The lowest relative risk of mortality vs. alcohol consumption in the "Table 3RR of Total Mortality According to Level of Alcohol Consumption" chart appears to be at the one drink per week level. For CVD mortality 1 drink per day looks to be the low risk leader but risk climbs quickly from there. The folks at only 1-3 drinks a month need to pour one a week to loosen their neckties and clamped sphincters and also reduce their CVD risk too because they're at the greatest CVD risk!

    That cancer risk, the original thread topic...kinda, is way ahead for the 2+ a day drinkers and way down for the 1 drink a week crowd. I haven't read yet why they didn't differentiate anything beyond 2 drinks a day as there could be much risk difference between 2 and 12 drinks a day. I suppose it could be that licensed physicians are reluctant to report any heavy drinking to anyone.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Beer and cancer ?-alcohol-risk.gif  

    Last edited by tl1; 10-23-2012 at 09:33 PM.

  16. #116
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,097
    pssst, did anyone else stop reading a long time ago?
    "Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself

  17. #117
    Paper Mill Aleworks
    Reputation: JFryauff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,484
    Quote Originally Posted by Guerdonian View Post
    pssst, did anyone else stop reading a long time ago?
    Reading what?



    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. - Winston Churchill

  18. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ancient rascal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Guerdonian View Post
    pssst, did anyone else stop reading a long time ago?
    Just don't stop riding eh? Here's my Ti guy Guerdonian. 26' Ridgeline SS ... Uphill cheater bike ! Nice job on all the research guy's! Beer and cancer ?-photo.jpg
    Suicide by single speed. Work in progress.

  19. #119
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by JFryauff View Post
    Reading what?



    No one has stopped reading this thread because they want to know how much the risk really is, and who really wants to get cancer from a beer pastime/hobby?

  20. #120
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    I'm kind of curious why a 28% increase in "other" cancers is "nonsignificant" for those consuming ≥2 drinks per day.

    Compared with rarely/never drinkers, consumers of 1, 2 to 4 and 5 to 6 drinks per week and 1 drink per day had significant reductions in risk of death (multivariate relative risks [RRs] of 0.74, 0.77, 0.78 and 0.82, respectively) with no overall benefit or harm detected at the ≥2 drinks per day level (RR = 0.95; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.79 to 1.14). The relationship with CVD mortality was inverse or L-shaped with apparent risk reductions even in the highest category of ≥2 drinks per day (RR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.01). We found no clear harm or benefit for total or common site-specific cancers. For remaining other cancers, there was a nonsignificant 28% increased risk for those consuming ≥2 drinks per day.

    CONCLUSIONS These data support a U-shaped relation between alcohol and total mortality among light-to-moderate drinking men. The U-shaped curve may reflect an inverse association for CVD mortality, no association for common site-specific cancers and a possible positive association for less common cancers.

  21. #121
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Curmy View Post
    You know who will die of cancer? People who are too righteous.
    You mean like Mormons? Keep that in mind the next few weeks. Southern Baptists are also against any drinking of alcohol at all apparently.
    Southern Baptist Jerry Falwell died at 73 from cardiac arrest before he got cancer though.

  22. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ancient rascal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,062

    That'L do it !

    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    You mean like Mormons? Keep that in mind the next few weeks. Southern Baptists are also against any drinking of alcohol at all apparently.
    Southern Baptist Jerry Falwell died at 73 from cardiac arrest before he got cancer though.
    Wow ... now it turns into the thread that never died ! I still remember the Hustler magazine parody "Jerry talks about his first time " And this new can of worms tl1 ... is "epic" Oh the humanity! Looks like Larry is still up to his old tricks eh? What is Mitt Romney Hiding? Reward…
    September 10th, 2012
    Larry Flynt and HUSTLER Magazine announce a cash offer of up to $1 Million for information about Mitt Romney’s unreleased tax returns and/or details of his offshore assets, bank accounts, and business partnerships. What is he hiding?

    See details in the ad published in The Washington Post, USA Today, Bermuda Sun and Handelszeitung:
    Last edited by ancient rascal; 10-24-2012 at 11:10 AM.
    Suicide by single speed. Work in progress.

  23. #123
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,097
    Quote Originally Posted by ancient rascal View Post
    Just don't stop riding eh? Here's my Ti guy Guerdonian. 26' Ridgeline SS ... Uphill cheater bike ! Nice job on all the research guy's!
    Purdy, i like me some titanium, especially when beer is involved
    "Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself

  24. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ancient rascal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Guerdonian View Post
    Purdy, i like me some titanium, especially when beer is involved
    Beer and Aluminum involvement is OK TOO ! 2nd Annual Dogmeat No Dab Challenge!!! It's on! - Page 8 - Mtbr Forums
    Suicide by single speed. Work in progress.

  25. #125
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Guerdonian View Post
    Tl1 has an response for it all... and this thread is gaining speed.

    Grab a drink boys this has potential..
    Well dude, I do abide by knowing that I don't know everything. It turns out though that if you know you only know an estimated .0001% of any given subject that you usually know more than an estimated 99.9999% of the people that are positive they know everything about it.

  26. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    I'm kind of curious why a 28% increase in "other" cancers is "nonsignificant" for those consuming ≥2 drinks per day.
    It just means the sample size wasn't big enough to have a confidence greater than the threshhold defined to consider it significant (.05 chosen for this study).

    In other words, out of the people who died, there was 28% greater probability that a drinker of 2+ died of cancer, but the total number was to small to say with 95% confidence that this result was not just random chance. Bigger samples give better confidence. Smaller sample sizes need more dramatic differences in populations to draw conclusions of significance.

  27. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    I haven't read yet why they didn't differentiate anything beyond 2 drinks a day as there could be much risk difference between 2 and 12 drinks a day. I suppose it could be that licensed physicians are reluctant to report any heavy drinking to anyone.
    Only 3% of the study population reported more than 2 drinks per day. Not enough heavy drinkers to draw conclusions about anything over 2.

  28. #128
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    Only 3% of the study population reported more than 2 drinks per day. Not enough heavy drinkers to draw conclusions about anything over 2.
    Thus they did not have any categories designated above 2 drinks per day. They listed that as one of the study's potential limitations. I guess what that says the most is that doctors in general, even back in the 1980s and 1990s when this study was done, knew enough to avoid slamming the drinks down at an unhealthy daily rate. Or alternatively, that even medical doctors involved in an important study about the health effects of alcohol would not reliably self report heavy daily use of alcohol.

    Possible limitations

    Several potential limitations of this study are worth discussion. First, this study relied on self-reported data. If there were a systematic underestimation of alcohol consumption, this may artificially shift the reported associations towards lower drinking categories and lead to underestimation of the nadir of the alcohol-mortality relationship. However, studies, including those of health professionals, have found self-reporting to be reliable for general classification of drinking habits (46- 48). Second, our study used a single measure of alcohol consumption at one point in time. Since intake may change over time, this could also lead to some misclassification; however, drinking patterns among middle-aged and older individuals tend to be stable over time (49). Third, our study requested information on average intake; thus, we were unable to explore relationships by drinking pattern. The risks and benefits may be quite different for the individual who has 1 drink per day with dinner and the person who has seven drinks on Friday night, despite the two individuals sharing the same average daily intake. Fourth, the questionnaire used did not allow us to identify heavy drinkers. The highest drinking category was ≥2 drinks per day. While we feel that the number of heavy drinkers was likely to be low given the overall distribution of drinking in this cohort, it would have been preferable to exclude heavy drinkers from this drinking category. It remains possible that some of the apparent excess risk observed in this highest category may have been confined to heavier drinkers.

  29. #129
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitabrew View Post
    Here is an example of a well done study. It's not a meta-analysis, it a prospective cohort study. That means that rather than try to analyse data from multiple studies which were done for multiple reasons to achieve an answer, instead they started a new study and geared it specifically for the task in hand. They got over 89,000 subjects and followed them for over 5 years while accounting for specific health related variables that may influence the results. Does the study have limitations? Yes, all studies have their limitations, this study only included men physicians. Therefore the results would be irrelevant for a female coal miner.

    American College of Cardiology Foundation | Journal of the American College of Cardiology | Light-to-moderate alcohol consumption and mortality in the physicians

    If anyone is truly interested I recommend reading the full article, not just the abstract (abstracts usually leave out very important details), you can download a PDF to the full article from the above link.
    Here's another cohort study of the association between alcohol intake and cancer of the upper digestive tract and it's not looking good for the people drinking at or above the 22 drinks a week and up (3.14 and up drinks a day) crowd. Risks are best for the non drinkers and the 1-6 drinks a week guys but not terribly higher for those under that 21 drinks a week level though. The good news here is that wine is less risky to drink than other forms of alcohol due to the resveratrol in it. Happy nightcap all!

    Anticarcinogenic properties of wine

    Our findings on the relation between wine and upper digestive tract cancer are strongly supported by the recent experimental studies showing that resveratrol, one of several anticarcinogenic compounds in wine, inhibits the initiation, promotion, and progression of tumours. 7 22
    Population based cohort study of the association between alcohol intake and cancer of the upper digestive tract | BMJ
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Beer and cancer ?-drinkingthecancer.jpg  


  30. #130
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by ancient rascal View Post
    Wow ... now it turns into the thread that never died ! I still remember the Hustler magazine parody "Jerry talks about his first time " And this new can of worms tl1 ... is "epic" Oh the humanity! Looks like Larry is still up to his old tricks eh? What is Mitt Romney Hiding? Reward…
    September 10th, 2012
    Larry Flynt and HUSTLER Magazine announce a cash offer of up to $1 Million for information about Mitt Romney’s unreleased tax returns and/or details of his offshore assets, bank accounts, and business partnerships. What is he hiding?

    See details in the ad published in The Washington Post, USA Today, Bermuda Sun and Handelszeitung:
    Reading the article above reveals that Mitten's tax returns are the least serious of his secrets that may hit the big-time media and make people realize what he really is. Which is a non beer and alcohol drinking, non coffee drinking religious dingbat that sold the remaining shreds of his shriveled, mom-jeans wearing, chameleon-like and robotic soul to the Mormon Church. We've already established by scientific means that never drinking a beer or alcoholic drink ever is an uninformed and poor life choice for one's health. If you ask me, doing so at the order of a gaggle of non-scientific superstitious nuts is even worse.

  31. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ancient rascal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,062
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    Reading the article above reveals that Mitten's tax returns are the least serious of his secrets that may hit the big-time media and make people realize what he really is. Which is a non beer and alcohol drinking, non coffee drinking religious dingbat that sold the remaining shreds of his shriveled, mom-jeans wearing, chameleon-like and robotic soul to the Mormon Church. We've already established by scientific means that never drinking a beer or alcoholic drink ever is an uninformed and poor life choice for one's health. If you ask me, doing so at the order of a gaggle of non-scientific superstitious nuts is even worse.
    +1 I'm sure we would have nothing to worry about should he win ... when he starts appointing hand picked Justices to the Supreme court as 4 or more could retire during his term. Try living the next 20 years with those appointments. OK ... Guess I pulled the lid completely off your can of worms now ! It won't die ... it can only be dispatched !
    Suicide by single speed. Work in progress.

  32. #132
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Holy cow! Now it turns out smoking tobacco really is bad for you and it's not just some "granny state" or "big brother" propaganda designed to remove your God-Given American freedoms. Whatever you do, don't mix it with excessive alcohol drinking too. One good thing about beer is that second hand beer isn't a large health problem.

    Smoking in the UK– Between 1996 and 2001 the Million Women Study started following more than one million women aged 50 to 65 years of age. In a report published in the Lancet, trial investigators, including renowned epidemiologist Richard Peto, found that 12-year mortality was significantly higher in women with a history of smoking compared to women who never smoked (rate ratio 2.76, CI 2.71-2.81). Smokers, the authors calculated, lose 10 years of life. The good news is that stopping smoking before the age of 40 reduces the excess mortality by 90%.

    Smoking in Japan– The Life Span Study, published in BMJ, was started in 1950 and has followed more than 65,000 men and women in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The results were consistent with the Million Women Study in the UK: the rate ratio for mortality was more than doubled for smokers compared to nonsmokers both for men (2.21, CI 1.97-2.48) and for women (2.61, CI 1.98-3.44). The investigators also reported that stopping smoking before age 35 eliminated almost all of the risk associated with smoking.

    Smoke-free legislation meta-analysis– Smoking is not just a personal decision that has individual health effects. A new meta-analysis published in Circulation found that smoke-free legislation results in immediate reductions in hospital admissions or deaths for coronary events (RR .848, CI .816-.881), other heart disease (RR .610, CI .440-.847), cerebrovascular accidents (RR .840, CI .753-.936) and respiratory disease (RR .760, CI .682-.846). The authors, Crystal Tan and Stanton Glatz, also report that the biggest reductions in events were associated with the most stringent smoke-free laws.

    The Research Agrees: Smoking Is Really Bad For You - Forbes

  33. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613

  34. #134
    Axe
    Axe is online now
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,174
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    Holy cow! Now it turns out smoking tobacco really is bad for you and it's not just some "granny state" or "big brother" propaganda designed to remove your God-Given American freedoms. Whatever you do, don't mix it with excessive alcohol drinking too. One good thing about beer is that second hand beer isn't a large health problem.
    Second hand beer is a large problem. When that second hand is driving.

    What you do not seem to understand is that the fact that something is bad for you does not imply that it should be regulated in any form or shape. Smoking nowadays is an informed choice. And yes, it is a God given right to kill yourself in any way you see fit. For example, by racing bicycles downhill. Or playing Russian roulette.

    It is not a God given right to kill others - that is the only reason that smoking regulations, or DUI laws are justified.

  35. #135
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Second hand beer is a large problem. When that second hand is driving.

    What you do not seem to understand is that the fact that something is bad for you does not imply that it should be regulated in any form or shape. Smoking nowadays is an informed choice. And yes, it is a God given right to kill yourself in any way you see fit. For example, by racing bicycles downhill. Or playing Russian roulette.

    It is not a God given right to kill others - that is the only reason that smoking regulations, or DUI laws are justified.
    Can I axe you a question? Did you hurt yourself making that stretch from second hand smoke to second hand beer and DUI. Yeah I believed that crazy Ayn Rand stuff too when I was in my early twenties. Then I woke up and discovered she was an atheist.

  36. #136
    Axe
    Axe is online now
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,174
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    Can I axe you a question? Did you hurt yourself making that stretch from second hand smoke to second hand beer and DUI. Yeah I believed that crazy Ayn Rand stuff too when I was in my early twenties. Then I woke up and discovered she was an atheist.
    Are you a smug blowhard in real life, or is it an online persona special?

  37. #137
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Are you a smug blowhard in real life, or is it an online persona special?
    No, I'm not a smug blowhard at any time, a mildly humorous blowhard perhaps at times. Do you go right to calling people names when you're frustrated and have nothing better to offer in the way of discourse?

  38. #138
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    Do you go right to calling people names when you're frustrated and have nothing better to offer in the way of discourse?
    Apparently you do go right to calling people names if the neg rep you left is an indication of your intellectual capabilities. Brilliant response.

    You are an idiot. Axe.

  39. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    71
    Beer. <3

  40. #140
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    More on the health effects of moderate drinking for those that care. Others should look away now.

    DALLAS, Nov. 5, 2012 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Alcohol consumption is more socially acceptable than ever before. In fact, 17.6 million people abuse alcohol or have an alcohol dependency.[1] Yet many do not realize there are health problems associated with drinking alcohol in moderation. According to Caron Treatment Centers, a nationally recognized non-profit provider of alcohol and drug addiction treatment, alcohol should be regarded as a substance with serious health risks.

    "There is a misconception regarding moderate alcohol use because of how it's glamorized in the media," said Stephen Garrison MD, Medical Director of Caron Texas. "The public, and many doctors, regard alcoholism as a life-threatening disease when in fact, drinking in moderation can increase an individual's chances of developing a number of deadly diseases. It is imperative the medical community and the public are better educated about the perils of this drug."

    According to medical studies, risk factors of alcohol consumption may include:

    Cancer: Alcohol is a human carcinogen. Consuming just one drink per day can increase an individual's risk for breast cancer by 4%.[2] Additional studies demonstrate links to colon, liver, esophagus, throat and mouth cancer with ongoing alcohol consumption.
    Liver Disease: The most common cause of liver disease is alcohol abuse. Cirrhosis is among the 15 leading causes of death in the U.S.[3] Some mild damage can occur even after a single binge drinking episode.[4]
    Cardiovascular Diseases: Moderate alcohol intake can be associated with an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation in individuals with cardiovascular disease or diabetes.[5]
    Pancreatitis: Heavy alcohol abuse leads to chronic pancreatitis and occurs mostly in men between 30-40.[6]
    Lung Disease: Alcohol abuse can increase acute respiratory distress syndrome by three to four fold often leading to death.[7]Chronic alcohol abuse can cause severe reductions in white blood cells, which increases the risk for community-acquired pneumonia.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines moderate drinking as consuming up to two drinks per day for men and up to one drink per day for women.Moderate Alcohol Consumption Can Lead To Life-Threatening Diseases - PR Newswire - The Sacramento Bee
    Heavy alcoholic beverage consumption, defined as three or more drinks per day, was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer by 40 to 50%. This means that up to 5 percent of breast cancer cases are attributed to alcolhol consumption in Northern European and North America. Worldwide, it causes 50,000 cases of breast cancer.
    Light alcoholic beverage consumption alone was responsible for up to 1–2% of the total of breast cancer cases in Europe and North America.

    Helmut K. Seitz of University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany and colleagues searched major databases for epidemiological studies published by Nov 2011 and meta-analyzed the data on light alcohol drinking and incidence of breast cancer.

    They found intake of up to one alcoholic drink per day, which is considered light alcoholic beverage consumption, was associated with 4 percent increased risk for breast cancer.
    What alcoholic beverage does is increase serum levels of estrogen,
    (explains a lot of the precious, sensitive attitudes around here-tl1) which promotes breast cancer by exerting its carcinogenic effect on breast tissue either through the estrogen receptors or directly.

    Alcohol can also promote breast cancer through its metabolites like acetaldehyde, which is highly toxic, oxidative stress, epigenetic changes due to a disturbed methyl transfer. Alcohol can also decrease retinoic acid associated with an altered cell cycle. foodconsumer.org - Alcoholic beverage raises breast cancer risk

  41. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ancient rascal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,062
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    More on the health effects of moderate drinking for those that care. Others should look away now.
    Ha ha tl1 ! Just forwarded this one to the wifey ! Major wine consumption going on there. Signed for a case of it through UPS a few days ago. You need an "off camber thread" or something else on the beer forum! What do you guys say ?
    Suicide by single speed. Work in progress.

  42. #142
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by ancient rascal View Post
    Ha ha tl1 ! Just forwarded this one to the wifey ! Major wine consumption going on there. Signed for a case of it through UPS a few days ago. You need an "off camber thread" or something else on the beer forum! What do you guys say ?
    Tell her to just get the pink breast cancer awareness wine and everything will be okey-dokey.

    Even the wine world goes pink.


    Sutter Home was one of the first wine companies to make a commitment to breast cancer awareness. And I recently spoke with Wendy Nyberg, senior marketing director for Trinchero Family Estates, which owns Sutter Home.
    She explained that The Sutter Home for Hope program was launched in 2001, after one of the founders, Vera Trinchero Torres, was diagnosed with breast cancer.


    "For every top quality seal from any Sutter Home bottle of wine that Sutter Home receives from consumers, we will donate $1 towards breast cancer research, treatment and education, up to $100,000 to our beneficiary charity - the City of Hope," says Nyberg. The program runs through December 31, 2012, so you've got time.


    Pink wine for Breast Cancer Awareness Month | Fox News


    Sutter Home for hope
    There is some thinking that red wine may have less of a breast cancer impact because of naturally occurring aromatase inhibitors in it that inhibit estrogen conversion from androgen. Then again others say that red wine does not lower breast cancer risk.

  43. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ancient rascal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,062

    Your in for it now !

    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    Tell her to just get the pink breast cancer awareness wine and everything will be okey-dokey.

    There is some thinking that red wine may have less of a breast cancer impact because of naturally occurring aromatase inhibitors in it that inhibit estrogen conversion from androgen. Then again others say that red wine does not lower breast cancer risk.
    I'm gonna catch her when she's had a few then let her get on here to let you have it !
    Suicide by single speed. Work in progress.

  44. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ancient rascal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,062

    Ok I'll go first !

    Dude did you lose something ?
    Last edited by shiggy; 11-06-2012 at 03:08 PM. Reason: please do not quote spammer posts
    Suicide by single speed. Work in progress.

  45. #145
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Cases of mouth cancer rise by 40% in 10 years, as disease hits more of the under-40s

    So, what’s going on?

    Well, growing alcohol consumption has been pinpointed as a major factor – exceeding the recommended limits can more than treble the risk of mouth cancer.

    Unfortunately, alcohol also aids the absorption of tobacco into the mouth, so those who smoke and drink to excess are up to 30 times more likely to develop the disease.

    Cases of mouth cancer rise by 40% in 10 years, as disease hits more of the under-40s - Health News - News - WalesOnline
    It's mainly the alcohol folks.

  46. #146
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,696
    reported

    Sj
    I am slow therefore I am

  47. #147
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by SlowerJoe View Post
    reported

    Sj
    You can only rent the beer, but the cancer you get to keep.

    tl1

  48. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ancient rascal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,062

    Is this what was missing?

    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    The original study I used in starting this thread was not real specific. Maybe this latest finding related to "carcinogenic nitrosamines" could be involved in the higher beer drinkers pancreatic cancer numbers. Good find on that article tl1 !
    Suicide by single speed. Work in progress.

  49. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    As I said before, why not look at all cause mortality instead of cancer risk? If total risk goes down, then isn't that the bottom line?

    For example, if you are at risk for heart disease, you are much better off being a moderate drinker than abstaining:

    Long-term alcohol consumption in relation to all-cause and cardiovascular mortality among survivors of myocardial infarction: the Health Professionals Follow-up Study

  50. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    In this meta analysis, risk for all cause mortality is significantly decreased by about 16% at 2 drinks per day, is about the same as non-drinkers at 4 drinks per day, and is 37% higher than non-drinkers at 6 drinks per day.

    Meta-analysis of alcohol and all-cause mortality:... [Med J Aust. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI

    Conclusion for me: Quit worrying about moderate drinking, and cut back if you drink excessively.

  51. #151
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    As I said before, why not look at all cause mortality instead of cancer risk? If total risk goes down, then isn't that the bottom line?

    For example, if you are at risk for heart disease, you are much better off being a moderate drinker than abstaining:

    Long-term alcohol consumption in relation to all-cause and cardiovascular mortality among survivors of myocardial infarction: the Health Professionals Follow-up Study
    As I posted previously in the thread the beneficial cardiovascular effects of alcohol are complex and not likely to apply to everyone. So it's not a given that they may apply to you or any other individual reading this. I do wonder if HDL measurements with and without alcohol would tell you if its beneficial or not. The other health effects are serious too and generally the health risks rise quickly from the more than one drink a week level. Total mortality in Physicians’ Health Study was lowest for the one drink a week people. Two drinks a day is a lot better for one's health than 6 drinks a day though.


    Cumulative effects

    Alcohol consumption has been associated with a range of diseases that may cause death and adverse effects that reduce quality of life. Among these are:

    Cardiovascular disease — high blood pressure, arrhythmias, shortness of breath, some types of cardiac failure, haemorrhagic stroke and other circulatory problems.
    Cancers — alcohol is carcinogenic to humans, being causally related to cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, oesophagus, liver, colorectum and female breast.
    Diabetes — the relationship between alcohol consumption, insulin sensitivity, and type 2 diabetes mellitus is not clear. However, alcohol affects the management of diabetes in a number of ways.
    Nutrition-related conditions — alcohol consumption is linked to malnutrition, Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, folate deficiency, Vitamin A depletion and pellagra.
    Overweight and obesity — alcohol adds kilojoules to the normal diet and may increase energy intake and fat storage further by increasing appetite and displacing fat and carbohydrate oxidation.
    Risks to unborn babies — alcohol enters the bloodstream of the fetus when the mother drinks and can cause a range of birth defects and growth and developmental problems, comprising Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), which may persist into adulthood. Alcohol also enters the breast milk.
    Liver diseases — alcohol consumption is the most common cause of cirrhosis of the liver, and drinking alcohol over many years can cause cirrhosis in the absence of other causes.
    Mental health conditions — there is growing evidence that alcohol increases the risk of highly prevalent mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety in some people, and may affect the efficacy of antidepressant medication.
    Tolerance — the immediate effects of alcohol on the brain are often less apparent in people who drink regularly, as they acquire a degree of tolerance. Despite this tolerance, the long-term effects remain damaging, particularly as the drinkers who have greater tolerance for alcohol are likely to be those who experience higher blood alcohol levels more frequently.
    Dependence — alcohol is an addictive drug and regular use can result in alcohol dependence.
    Long-term cognitive impairment — drinkers who consume alcohol at harmful levels exhibit negative structural and metabolic brain changes, and have an increased risk of dementia.
    Self-harm — harmful drinking is a major risk factor for suicide and suicidal behaviour in both males and females across the lifespan.

    Alcohol and health in Australia | National Health and Medical Research Council

  52. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    As I posted previously in the thread the beneficial cardiovascular effects of alcohol are complex and not likely to apply to everyone. So it's not a given that they may apply to you or any other individual reading this. I do wonder if HDL measurements with and without alcohol would tell you if its beneficial or not. The other health effects are serious too and generally the health risks rise quickly from the more than one drink a week level. Total mortality in Physicians’ Health Study was lowest for the one drink a week people. Two drinks a day is a lot better for one's health than 6 drinks a day though.
    The total mortality studies I post are just as credible as the cancer studies you post. Your gobbldy goop about how cardiovascular benefits are complex is complete nonsense. Everything about biochemistry is complex. If you don't believe peer reviewed medical studies then quit posting about them. You can't pick and choose what you want to believe. I think the evidence is clear that total mortality is improved by moderate drinking. This may burst your little fear mongering party you have been enjoying, but that's the truth.

  53. #153
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by ancient rascal View Post
    The original study I used in starting this thread was not real specific. Maybe this latest finding related to "carcinogenic nitrosamines" could be involved in the higher beer drinkers pancreatic cancer numbers. Good find on that article tl1 !
    Don't know but a quick look at the info. on nitrosamines implies that they can't be helping anything. The good news is that beer has only 2% of them that it used to and vitamin C inhibits the production of them in food.

    About 1970 it was discovered that ascorbic acid inhibits nitrosamine formation. Consequently, the addition of 550 ppm of ascorbic acid is now required in the manufacture of cured meat in the U.S. Actually, most cured meat manufacturers add erythorbic acid (an isomer of ascorbic acid) rather than ascorbic acid. Although erythorbic acid has reduced vitamin C activity, it is as effective as ascorbic acid in inhibiting nitrosamine formation and is also cheaper than vitamin C. Another antioxidant, alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E), is added to some cured meats to inhibit nitrosamine formation. As a result of these strategies, there are now significantly lower levels of nitrosamines in fried bacon and other cured meats than there were some years ago. Ascorbic acid, erythorbic acid, and alpha-tocopherol inhibit nitrosamine formation due to their oxidation-reduction properties. For example, when ascorbic acid is oxidized to dehydroascorbic acid, nitrous anhydride, a potent nitrosating agent formed from sodium nitrite, is reduced to nitric oxide, which is not a nitrosating agent. The discovery that ascorbic acid can inhibit nitrosamine formation was serendipitous.

    In the late 1960s researchers at the University of Nebraska Medical Center were studying nitrosamine formation from a drug called aminopyrine. Mysteriously, when they used a new batch of aminopyrine, no nitrosamines were formed. Further investigation revealed that the new batch of aminopyrine was formulated with ascorbic acid as a preservative, whereas the original batch that readily formed nitrosamines was not. Sometimes unexpected negative results can be very informative!

    In 1980, several European scientists detected dimethylnitrosamine in beer. The nitrosamine was not formed during the brewing process--it was formed by direct-fire drying of barley malt, an ingredient used in making beer. By converting the process from direct-fire drying to indirect-fire drying, the nitrosating agents and the formation of dimethylnitrosamine were markedly reduced. Beer now contains only 2% of the amount of dimethylnitrosamine that was present 20 years ago.Nitrosamines and Cancer

  54. #154
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,097
    Why is this still going....

    This thread needs some love...
    "Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself

  55. #155
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    The total mortality studies I post are just as credible as the cancer studies you post. Your gobbldy goop about how cardiovascular benefits are complex is complete nonsense. Everything about biochemistry is complex. If you don't believe peer reviewed medical studies then quit posting about them. You can't pick and choose what you want to believe. I think the evidence is clear that total mortality is improved by moderate drinking. This may burst your little fear mongering party you have been enjoying, but that's the truth.
    I'm not hosting a fear mongering party but I have to wonder if you're hosting a denial party. The evidence is far from solid that every human enjoys CVD protection from drinking alcohol and it is pretty solid that the other health risks may eclipse whatever CVD benefits alcohol brings.

  56. #156
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Guerdonian View Post
    Why is this still going....

    This thread needs some love...
    Or maybe some unicorns and cats.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Beer and cancer ?-nyan_cat_vs_robot_unicorn_by_monjava-d3kj52x.jpg  


  57. #157
    i'm schralping yer thread
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    I'm not hosting a fear mongering party but I have to wonder if you're hosting a denial party.
    Being human is pretty much hosting a denial party.

    Let's go for 500 posts on this f'ing thread!! Beer Forum rulez, biyotches!!


  58. #158
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by GeePhroh View Post
    Being human is pretty much hosting a denial party.

    Let's go for 500 posts on this f'ing thread!! Beer Forum rulez, biyotches!!

    No denying that not all rainbows are the robot unicorns and pop-tart cats kind. This one is an oil spill on the ocean.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  59. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    I'm not hosting a fear mongering party but I have to wonder if you're hosting a denial party. The evidence is far from solid that every human enjoys CVD protection from drinking alcohol and it is pretty solid that the other health risks may eclipse whatever CVD benefits alcohol brings.
    It seems you don't undertand the basic concept of controlled studies on population samples. No study, including the cancer evidence you are so attached to, applies to every human. It only deals in probabilities. If alcohol increases the probability of getting cancer, the data can not be used to predict that any individual will get cancer. So it goes with cardiovascular risk as well.

    There is no difference between the cardiovascular data, the cancer data, or the total mortality data, in the sense that they all look at large samples, and individuals in the samples have different outcomes, but the population as a whole shows a trend.

    it is pretty solid that the other health risks may eclipse whatever CVD benefits alcohol brings.
    Again, you are having a problem with the concept of all cause mortality. Your statement makes no sense, because "the other health risks" are not excluded from the overall outcomes of the study. The data shows that the overall health "risk", is that you will live longer.

    In your previous post, you also conflate the health risks of alcohol abuse and addiction with moderate consumption in order to further your point.

  60. #160
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,097
    "Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself

  61. #161
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,097
    "Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself

  62. #162
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,097
    "Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself

  63. #163
    i'm schralping yer thread
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    897
    Let's try to keep things on topic here, fercrissakes.








  64. #164
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    It seems you don't undertand the basic concept of controlled studies on population samples. No study, including the cancer evidence you are so attached to, applies to every human. It only deals in probabilities. If alcohol increases the probability of getting cancer, the data can not be used to predict that any individual will get cancer. So it goes with cardiovascular risk as well.

    There is no difference between the cardiovascular data, the cancer data, or the total mortality data, in the sense that they all look at large samples, and individuals in the samples have different outcomes, but the population as a whole shows a trend.



    Again, you are having a problem with the concept of all cause mortality. Your statement makes no sense, because "the other health risks" are not excluded from the overall outcomes of the study. The data shows that the overall health "risk", is that you will live longer.

    In your previous post, you also conflate the health risks of alcohol abuse and addiction with moderate consumption in order to further your point.
    The subject was beer and cancer not mortality from all other causes and I'm quite aware that "the data can not be used to predict that any individual will get cancer". Did I say anything different?

    I'm not sure which part of the following you're having problems comprehending. While there is an overall trend for reducing CVD mortality overall in people that drink up to two drinks a day, it doesn't apply to everyone. In the physician's health study the best CVD mortality risk level was seen at one drink per day anyway but cancer mortality was a different story. The lowest relative risk of cancer mortality there was seen at one drink per week.

    ABSTRACT

    Most, but not all, epidemiological studies suggest a cardioprotective association for low to moderate average alcohol consumption. The objective was to quantify the dose–response relationship between average alcohol consumption and ischaemic heart disease (IHD) stratified by sex and IHD end-point (mortality versus morbidity).

    Methods A systematic search of published studies using electronic databases (1980–2010) identified 44 observational studies (case–control or cohort) reporting a relative risk measure for average alcohol intake in relation to IHD risk. Generalized least-squares trend models were used to derive the best-fitting dose–response curves in stratified continuous meta-analyses. Categorical meta-analyses were used to verify uncertainty for low to moderate levels of consumption in comparison to long-term abstainers.

    Results The analyses used 38 627 IHD events (mortality or morbidity) among 957 684 participants. Differential risk curves were found by sex and end-point. Although some form of a cardioprotective association was confirmed in all strata, substantial heterogeneity across studies remained unexplained and confidence intervals were relatively wide, in particular for average consumption of one to two drinks/day.

    Conclusions A cardioprotective association between alcohol use and ischaemic heart disease cannot be assumed for all drinkers, even at low levels of intake. More evidence on the overall benefit–risk ratio of average alcohol consumption in relation to ischaemic heart disease and other diseases is needed in order to inform the general public or physicians about safe or low-risk drinking levels.
    Physician's health study.


  65. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    The subject was beer and cancer not mortality from all other causes and I'm quite aware that "the data can not be used to predict that any individual will get cancer". Did I say anything different?
    In fact you did. You said that CVD risk improvement doesn't apply to everyone. Implying that the cancer risk does. When in fact, the data on each applies equally well or not, to any individual. And although the original topic was cancer, bringing up all cause mortality is relevent because you are insinuating a risk to overall health that does not exist.
    I'm not sure which part of the following you're having problems comprehending. While there is an overall trend for reducing CVD mortality overall in people that drink up to two drinks a day, it doesn't apply to everyone.
    You don't comprehend that no data applies to everyone. Do you expect that if the data says that cancer risk decreases by any particular behavior, I have a gaurantee that my risk decreases? Tell me right now that any study you have psoted applies to everyone.....


    In the physician's health study the best CVD mortality risk level was seen at one drink per day anyway but cancer mortality was a different story. The lowest relative risk of cancer mortality there was seen at one drink per week.
    It is apparent that your goal is to mislead rather than look at facts. Again, it is only you talking about CVD risk while I am talking about all cause mortality, and I keep bringing up all cause mortality is because it is the bottom line of whether moderate drinking is a risk or a benefit, and it is a benefit.

    Risk for CVD mortality and total mortality is lower than for non-drinkers even at 2+ drinks per day. Thats the data you posted; maybe you should look at it with an open mind.

    If you need me to explain how cancer risk can be higher while overall risk decreases, let me know and I'll go into it further. But try to think of it this way; if you are losing pennies but gaining nickels, are you ahead or behind?

    Or how about this; if you jump off the empire state building today, your risk of cancer will go down but your risk of all cause mortality will go up. Will you jump?

  66. #166
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post

    It is apparent that your goal is to mislead rather than look at facts. Again, it is only you talking about CVD risk while I am talking about all cause mortality, and I keep bringing up all cause mortality is because it is the bottom line of whether moderate drinking is a risk or a benefit, and it is a benefit.

    Risk for CVD mortality and total mortality is lower than for non-drinkers even at 2+ drinks per day. Thats the data you posted; maybe you should look at it with an open mind.

    If you need me to explain how cancer risk can be higher while overall risk decreases, let me know and I'll go into it further. But try to think of it this way; if you are losing pennies but gaining nickels, are you ahead or behind?

    Or how about this; if you jump off the empire state building today, your risk of cancer will go down but your risk of all cause mortality will go up. Will you jump?
    Dude...you're all over the map here. First off you can kiss my @ss for saying that I'm trying to mislead anyone. I'm not. The info. I posted clearly showed a lowering of mortality risk for CVD at the one drink per day level and a increase in cancer and overall mortality at higher levels of consumption. I have no idea what you're really talking about. I don't know how anyone can look at all the facts regarding alcohol and health and come to the conclusion you have come to unless you're seriously deluded and/or in denial.

    The facts are that alcohol is mutagenic, cancerogenic and teratogenic in people and the more you drink alcohol the higher your cancer risk gets. You seem to be saying that drinking alcohol lowers your overall risk of dying (mortality). Sure the folks drinking one drink per week have the lowest total mortality risk, not the people abstaining or at 1-2 or more drinks per day. Cancer however is not always fatal (mortality) but if you get it you will probably really wish you hadn't. I'm going to enjoy my Sierra Nevada Kellerweis now and then go to sleep.


  67. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    AHhhh, this thread makes me feel better about some of the threads I've argued in.

  68. #168
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,097
    "Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself

  69. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    23
    no way

  70. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    Dude...you're all over the map here. First off you can kiss my @ss for saying that I'm trying to mislead anyone. I'm not. The info. I posted clearly showed a lowering of mortality risk for CVD at the one drink per day level and a increase in cancer and overall mortality at higher levels of consumption.
    Well, your statement is completely wrong, so are you misleading or do you not know how to read a graph?
    FYI: A number less than 1 means lower relative risk. 1 is the assigned risk for non-drinkers. .76 is the RR for CVD at 2+ drinks/day and .95 is the RR for total mortality of those who drank 2+ drinks per day.
    Can it get any clearer? Reduced risk.

    I have no idea what you're really talking about.
    Yes, we can agree on that.


    I don't know how anyone can look at all the facts regarding alcohol and health and come to the conclusion you have come to unless you're seriously deluded and/or in denial.
    Then all the MD's, PhD's and other researchers in all the data already posted must be as deluded and in denial as I am.

    My conclusion is the conclusion of the study you posted:

    consumers of 1, 2 to 4 and 5 to 6 drinks per week and 1 drink per day had significant reductions in risk of death (multivariate relative risks [RRs] of 0.74, 0.77, 0.78 and 0.82, respectively) with no overall benefit or harm detected at the ≥2 drinks per day level (RR = 0.95; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.79 to 1.14).
    And of the Health professionals follow up study I posted on page 6 of this thread:

    Long-term moderate alcohol consumption is inversely associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality among men who survived a first MI.
    And of the meta analysis I also posted on page 6:

    Relative risk of all-cause mortality in male drinkers compared with abstainers fell to 0.84 at 1.0-1.9 standard drinks per day, returned to 1.01 by 3.0-3.9 drinks, and increased to 1.37 at six or more drinks.
    And of the University of Hannover study I posted on page 2:

    Moderate alcohol consumption improves the lipid profile as well as the insulin sensitivity and reduces the risk of cardiovascular events, diabetes mellitus type 2 and gall stones. Further, total mortality is decreased.
    Should I define total mortality for you one more time?


    You seem to be saying that drinking alcohol lowers your overall risk of dying (mortality).
    I seem to be saying that? Boy you are sharp! I think you are starting to catch on. I AM saying it, and so is the data!

    Sure the folks drinking one drink per week have the lowest total mortality risk, not the people abstaining or at 1-2 or more drinks per day.
    Lowest risk was at 1/wk, but risk is still reduced up to 2 per day. Remember, 1 is the risk of non-drinkers, and drinkers up to 2+ had a relative risk < 1.

    Cancer however is not always fatal (mortality) but if you get it you will probably really wish you hadn't. I'm going to enjoy my Sierra Nevada Kellerweis now and then go to sleep.
    Sweet dreams. This no longer an interesting discussion, it is me stating and restating the obvious. If you still don't understand, no matter. I'm sure everyone else reading understands. Moderate drinking is not risky, it actually decreases risk.

  71. #171
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,097
    THIS THREAD:
    "Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself

  72. #172
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    Sweet dreams. This no longer an interesting discussion, it is me stating and restating the obvious. If you still don't understand, no matter. I'm sure everyone else reading understands. Moderate drinking is not risky, it actually decreases risk.
    Yeah I guess so because the original topic of "beer and cancer" never was interesting to you since you never admitted that your risks of getting cancer are correspondingly higher the more alcohol you drink, even w/o any "mortality" involved. You're the one continually steering the conversation towards mortality even though it's clear that any benefits of reduced mortality are gone above the one drink per day level and that's consistent with all informed and recent alcohol use guidelines of drinking no more than one unit of alcohol per day for men and a half unit for women. I'd rather not develop any cancer and go through any of the extremely expensive and life disturbing treatments for the condition myself if at all possible.

  73. #173
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Get some soon!
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  74. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1

    Beer and cancer ?

    People who drink two to three beers a day for many years have a 75 percent increased risk of gastric cancer, and those who have the gene variant called rs1230025 but aren't heavy drinkers have a 30 percent higher risk of gastric cancer, compared with people who drank less than a beer daily, the study showed.

  75. #175
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,097
    jackseoexp, your a little late to this party, You and TL1 can have fun skipping along together.
    "Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself

  76. #176
    i'm schralping yer thread
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    897
    Unicorn sayz, "I declare this thread extinguished..."


  77. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ancient rascal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,062
    Quote Originally Posted by GeePhroh View Post
    Unicorn sayz, "I declare this thread extinguished..."

    +1 Give ur pancreas a quick hug then turn out the lights on this crazy thread. Let's get out there and ride !
    Suicide by single speed. Work in progress.

  78. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation: danorano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by StumpyH View Post

    Moderate drinking can lower heart attack risk and blood pressure and increase good cholesterol....

    Bombs away!!!
    Don't forget about it having an anti-inflammatory effect on your cells. So you will age slower.

  79. #179
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by GeePhroh View Post
    Unicorn sayz, "I declare this thread extinguished..."

    You can bet he hasn't been drinking a lot of alcohol with a pure sparkly rainbow stream like that.

    Bottom lining it here: beer (and all ethanol containing beverages) raise your risk for developing many kinds of cancers (and many other serious health conditions) in proportion to the amount consumed. What many of us previously thought of as moderate drinking is actually not so moderate. However, one (or two if you're stubbornly holding on to old info.) standard units of alcohol per day (8-14 grams of pure alcohol depending on who you ask) for men and half that for women benefit human health, particularly cardiovascular health. Beyond that amount of consumption you're flirting with Mister C and a lot of other undesirables. The CDC defines heavy drinking as:
    Heavy drinking is defined as consuming

    For women, more than 1 drink per day on average.
    For men, more than 2 drinks per day on average.

  80. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    201
    If you were born, you have a 100% of death. Try to beat that one!!!!!!!! I WIN!!!!!!!!!!!! Where is my 10 million dollar grant!!

    Tired of these useless studies being funded via my tax dollars.

  81. #181
    Hi.
    Reputation: jtmartino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,868
    Quote Originally Posted by JRS73 View Post

    Tired of these useless studies being funded via my tax dollars.
    Damn, you are the worst troll yet. Congratulations.

  82. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by jtmartino View Post
    Damn, you are the worst troll yet. Congratulations.
    ????

  83. #183
    Hi.
    Reputation: jtmartino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,868
    Quote Originally Posted by JRS73 View Post
    ????
    You have to be a "special" kind of person to not support cancer research.


  84. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ancient rascal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,062
    Quote Originally Posted by jtmartino View Post
    You have to be a "special" kind of person to not support cancer research.

    Or to not believe in Unicorns. North Korea: We found a unicorn lair | Watch XFINITY Videos Online | News | Comcast
    Suicide by single speed. Work in progress.

  85. #185
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,097
    This thread is still going................ and going............ and going.............
    "Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself

  86. #186
    i'm schralping yer thread
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by ancient rascal View Post
    Oh damn...you beat me to it!

  87. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ancient rascal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,062

    Jimmy digs beer!

    Quote Originally Posted by tymntumma View Post
    上着 人気のある しんしふく 良い品質の 素晴らしい新品種類 信用できる 飾り ファッション 人気新品入荷 日本 jimmychoojpsalekutu com/]ルブタン スニーカー 人気の高級老舗 ナイロン 上質 紳士服 韓国 効果的な 足取り 柔らか あなた 紫色 ぜいたく 一过性 jimmychoojpsalekutu com/]ルブタン ブーツ 耐久性のある ラウンドネック きれい 簡潔なデザイン ワールドワイド 収縮率 人気新品入荷 豪華 革の靴 優れた の良い品質の ような 低価格 人気沸騰する チョコレート 最優良級の商店 高揚感に満たされる 妖艶さ しんしふく 特別価格にて販売中 ブート 奇蹟 品質100%保証 卸売り価格 超美品 人気商品 信用 新品 ピュア ギフトを 超人気 jimmychoosaifusale com/ジミーチュウ-バッグ激安-outlet-2 html]ジミーチュウ 通販 ダウンーパーカ スーツ 天然の革製品 著名 衣類 有名な 世界的に 価格も非常に安い 魅力 最人気 シンプル 海外通販 一番 通販 広告 専売店舗 品質保証 パンツ jimmychoosaifusale com/]ジミーチュウ ブーツ 素敵 せびろ ファッションの 素晴らしい新品種類 高級感 斬新 良いもの 最適 細かい感覚 快適で ピュア 簡潔なデザイン 適合 超越 新色 愛用 激安 優れ 平民の価格 大変 まねく ことのついで とっしゅつ まぐろ まなじり スーパー パワー かくしゃく わきおこる みずうみ うりょうけい レーズン jimmychoojpsalekutu com/]ルブタン 靴 しょうねんば ジャスティフィケーション ぐんぐん くちさがない キャラメル ざいこひん じつは つきめ しょうばいがら ぐれる へいほうこん きんうるし しょする わきみち マーケット jimmychoosaifusale com/]ジミーチュウ バッグ きしょうがく こぼればなし べってんち よってきたる りそうてき とうぼう てれかくし ごうぞく ぎゃくよう なごやか ぶんごう あらす じゅんぱく すごもんく こぎよせる ふゆば どうはん ふかんしょう しょうせん
    English/Cancer ... not so much!
    Suicide by single speed. Work in progress.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Members who have read this thread: 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •