Is Moderate Drinking Good for You?
The majority of studies regarding the health benefits of drinking alcohol place the debate on a medical and nutritional field. But what if the alleged benefits of moderate drinking had, in fact, nothing to do with alcohol consumption but were due to a social advantage?
by Marie Dufour, RC - More than 100 studies link moderate drinking to heart health, as alcohol has been found to increase the “good” cholesterol (HDL) and to have anti-clotting effects. Based on these studies, the 2005 Dietary Guidelines state that alcohol may have beneficial effects when consumed in moderation (one to two drinks per day.) In other words, one would be better off drinking moderately than abstaining from drinking. Or, re-stated, not drinking may be a health danger. The media have taken a hold of this message and, pushed by the marketing machine of the alcohol industry, are just short of promoting moderate drinking as heart disease prevention.
It is true that observational studies have shown that abstainers, as a group, have a higher overall mortality risk than moderate drinkers. But can those two groups even be compared? Does moderate drinking make people healthy, or is moderate drinking something healthy people do? The answer, I think, lay with the populations’ socio-economic strata.
Who are the non-drinkers? Are they are people who stopped drinking because they already had heart disease or another chronic illness? People whose self-imposed restrictive diets present nutritional deficiencies and cause illnesses? Older people who have stopped drinking as they aged and whose overall mortality rate is higher? A social stratum that is economically disadvantaged, consequently with restricted access to health care and at higher risk for disease? Could it be that the non-drinkers are simply an adverse-selection population and that their higher mortality has nothing to do with alcohol consumption?
And who are the moderate drinkers? A study from the CDC found that moderate drinkers were wealthier, more educated, had better health care. They were found more likely to eat right and exercise, and even to have all of their teeth, a marker of well-being. Could it be, then, that moderate drinkers represent a socially advantaged stratum and their lower mortality has nothing to do with their alcohol consumption?
The two groups are so different that they shouldn’t be compared, and suggesting that abstaining from drinking increases one’s disease risk is a fallacy. In addition, no study has shown a cause-to effect relationship between moderate drinking and lower risk of death — only that the two often co-exist.
The most recent studies link drinking, even in moderation, to stomach and pancreatic cancers. It is unwise, therefore, to recommend non-drinkers to start drinking in order to protect their health, and moderate drinkers should weight the benefits of possibly higher HDL and anti-clotting effects against the danger of cancer and liver disease.
In that regard, why not study the benefits of eating fish and exercising daily compared to drinking alcohol daily? We might just get the same benefits without the risks.
It is true that observational studies have shown that abstainers, as a group, have a higher overall mortality risk than moderate drinkers. But can those two groups even be compared? Does moderate drinking make people healthy, or is moderate drinking something healthy people do? The answer, I think, lay with the populations’ socio-economic strata.
Who are the non-drinkers? Are they are people who stopped drinking because they already had heart disease or another chronic illness? People whose self-imposed restrictive diets present nutritional deficiencies and cause illnesses? Older people who have stopped drinking as they aged and whose overall mortality rate is higher? A social stratum that is economically disadvantaged, consequently with restricted access to health care and at higher risk for disease? Could it be that the non-drinkers are simply an adverse-selection population and that their higher mortality has nothing to do with alcohol consumption?
And who are the moderate drinkers? A study from the CDC found that moderate drinkers were wealthier, more educated, had better health care. They were found more likely to eat right and exercise, and even to have all of their teeth, a marker of well-being. Could it be, then, that moderate drinkers represent a socially advantaged stratum and their lower mortality has nothing to do with their alcohol consumption?
The two groups are so different that they shouldn’t be compared, and suggesting that abstaining from drinking increases one’s disease risk is a fallacy. In addition, no study has shown a cause-to effect relationship between moderate drinking and lower risk of death — only that the two often co-exist.
The most recent studies link drinking, even in moderation, to stomach and pancreatic cancers. It is unwise, therefore, to recommend non-drinkers to start drinking in order to protect their health, and moderate drinkers should weight the benefits of possibly higher HDL and anti-clotting effects against the danger of cancer and liver disease.
In that regard, why not study the benefits of eating fish and exercising daily compared to drinking alcohol daily? We might just get the same benefits without the risks.