Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 187
  1. #151
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    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

  2. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    7,149
    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.

  3. #153
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    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

  4. #154
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,209
    Why is this still going....

    This thread needs some love...
    My Bike: FORM Cycles Titanium Prevail 29er

    "Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself

  5. #155
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    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.

  6. #156
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    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  


  7. #157
    i'm schralping yer thread
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    690
    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!!


  8. #158
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    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  

  9. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    7,149
    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.

  10. #160
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,209
    My Bike: FORM Cycles Titanium Prevail 29er

    "Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself

  11. #161
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,209
    My Bike: FORM Cycles Titanium Prevail 29er

    "Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself

  12. #162
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,209
    My Bike: FORM Cycles Titanium Prevail 29er

    "Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself

  13. #163
    i'm schralping yer thread
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    690
    Let's try to keep things on topic here, fercrissakes.








  14. #164
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    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.


  15. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    7,149
    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?

  16. #166
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    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.


  17. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,856
    AHhhh, this thread makes me feel better about some of the threads I've argued in.

  18. #168
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,209
    My Bike: FORM Cycles Titanium Prevail 29er

    "Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself

  19. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    23
    no way

  20. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    7,149
    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.

  21. #171
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,209
    THIS THREAD:
    My Bike: FORM Cycles Titanium Prevail 29er

    "Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself

  22. #172
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    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.

  23. #173
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    Get some soon!
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  24. #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.

  25. #175
    Beer Me!
    Reputation: Guerdonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,209
    jackseoexp, your a little late to this party, You and TL1 can have fun skipping along together.
    My Bike: FORM Cycles Titanium Prevail 29er

    "Any wheel size is better than sitting at a computer all day." -Myself

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 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
  •