Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 187
  1. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,798
    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.

  2. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,798
    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.

  3. #128
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    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.

  4. #129
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    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  


  5. #130
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    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.

  6. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ancient rascal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,482
    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 !
    You became weak loafing around in that big girly gear! -Soares

  7. #132
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    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

  8. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,798

  9. #134
    Axe
    Axe is online now
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,500
    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.

  10. #135
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    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.

  11. #136
    Axe
    Axe is online now
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,500
    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?

  12. #137
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    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?

  13. #138
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    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.

  14. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    62
    Beer. <3

  15. #140
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    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

  16. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ancient rascal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,482
    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 ?
    You became weak loafing around in that big girly gear! -Soares

  17. #142
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    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.

  18. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ancient rascal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,482

    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 !
    You became weak loafing around in that big girly gear! -Soares

  19. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ancient rascal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,482

    Ok I'll go first !

    Dude did you lose something ?
    Last edited by shiggy; 11-06-2012 at 02:08 PM. Reason: please do not quote spammer posts
    You became weak loafing around in that big girly gear! -Soares

  20. #145
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    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.

  21. #146
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,209
    reported

    Sj
    I am slow therefore I am

  22. #147
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    Quote Originally Posted by SlowerJoe View Post
    reported

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

    tl1

  23. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ancient rascal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,482

    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 !
    You became weak loafing around in that big girly gear! -Soares

  24. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,798
    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

  25. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,798
    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.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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