Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Drinking Alcohol May Extend Your Life

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wed Dec 20, 2006 04:11 PM
from the chug-chug-chug dept.
Adolytsi writes "MSNBC has an interesting article on an Italian study on alcoholism. While the obvious notion of overconsumption of alcohol being detrimental to one's health is supported, apparently drinking it in moderation can actually extend your lifespan. A study on over 1 million drinkers and 94,000 deaths yielded the results: "According to the data, drinking a moderate amount of alcohol — up to four drinks per day in men and two drinks per day in women — reduces the risk of death from any cause by roughly 18 percent, the team reports in the Archives of Internal Medicine. However, "things radically change" when consumption goes beyond these levels, study leader Dr. Augusto Di Castelnuovo, from Catholic University of Campobasso, said in a statement. Men who have more than four drinks per day and women who have more than two drinks per day not only lose the protection that alcohol affords, but they increase their risk of death, the data indicates.""
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: Toyota Creating In-Vehicle Alcohol Detection System 507 comments
srizah writes "Toyota is developing an Alcohol Detection System that can detect drunken drivers and would immobilize the car when it detects excessive alcohol consumption. From the article: 'Cars fitted with the detection system will not start if sweat sensors in the driving wheel detect high levels of alcohol in the driver's bloodstream, according to a report carried by the mass-circulation daily, Asahi Shimbun. The system could also kick in if the sensors detect abnormal steering, or if a special camera shows that the driver's pupils are not in focus. The car is then slowed to a halt, the report said.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by MECC (8478) * on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:13PM (#17317528)
    FTA: However, "things radically change" when consumption goes beyond these levels

    For starters, you wake up in bed with a stranger not knowing how either got there...

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:39PM (#17318020)
      Once lived in a dorm that was co-ed by door, and was awakened one night by a drunken female staggering in my door and flopping down next to me in bed...She'd gotten off on the wrong floor from the elevator, and had mistaken my room for her room. I don't know who the hell she thought I was...Anyway...Being a chivalrous geek, I just rolled over and went back to sleep...I assumed that she would understand the nature of her mistake upon awakening, and maybe, I don't know, invite me to breakfast or something.

      Three hours later I was standing in the hall with no shirt, after being thrown out of my own room by a still-drunk girl who was convinced that I'd sneaked into her room in the night! One of my floormates called campus security (probably for their own amusement), and the whole thing ended up being written up (in garbled form) as a security report in the campus paper.

      Not only did I not get breakfast, poor girl was so humiliated by the whole incident that she avoided me until I transferred 18 months later.

      I think the moral is either: Don't drink the punch, or Let sleeping geeks lie.
  • Legal age (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kelz (611260) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:13PM (#17317530)
    I still find it interesting that at 18 you're allowed join the military and die but you're not allowed to drink alcohol.
    • by Sciros (986030) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:17PM (#17317606) Journal
      The military should have its soldiers drink 2-4 drinks per day. Casualties will drop by 18% and morale will rise.
        • Re:Legal age (Score:5, Insightful)

          by notwrong (620413) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @06:20PM (#17319482)

          To make light of those that serve with honor is the greatest abuse of the freedoms you enjoy as a result of thier sacrifice.

          How does it count as "freedom" if you restrict the the things that people are allowed to make light of?

        • Re:Legal age (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Dun Malg (230075) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @09:17PM (#17321002) Homepage

          A big fuck you to whomever modded this as funny. There is nothing funny about those that lose thier lives in service of thier country. The current world circumstances are especially sad when a command in chief is as clueless as the idiot in the White House. As a veteran, it brings tears to my eyes when I hear about the lose of life in Iraq. To make light of those that serve with honor is the greatest abuse of the freedoms you enjoy as a result of thier sacrifice.
          WTF are you talking about? There's nothing wrong with the humor there. It's not insulting to people in uniform. You need to chill, man. Not long ago I came back from 2 years in Afghanistan with the good ol' US Army. I can't say how it might affect casualties, but I can assure you that a couple drinks a day there would definitely have improved my morale.
    • Re:Legal age (Score:5, Interesting)

      by faloi (738831) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:17PM (#17317610)
      I still find it interesting that at 18 you're allowed join the military and die but you're not allowed to drink alcohol.

      To be fair, though, bars around military bases tended to not pay a lot of attention to specific details like age when shown a military ID (at least back when I was in). That doesn't make it any more legal, but at least we could still show up to morning PT drunk. Believe it or not, it's an even worse idea than it sounds.
    • Re:Legal age (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HappySqurriel (1010623) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:21PM (#17317690)
      I still find it interesting that at 18 you're allowed join the military and die but you're not allowed to drink alcohol. ... in the United States of America

      Anyways, the problem with the age limit on alcohol consumption is that it gives teens/young adults the impression that drinking excessively is a mature thing to do; most people I have met who have drank from a young age tend to see excessive drinking in a completely different light than those who get to drink when they're 18-21.
        • Re:Legal age (Score:5, Informative)

          by Baki (72515) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @05:32PM (#17318902)
          Most countries do not have a "drinking age". In most of europe it is forbidden to sell alcohol to minors below 16 (18 for stronger drinks above 30% alcohol) but any parent may allow his children to drink (with moderation). I used to drink some wine at dinner from age 10. I've been drunk 2 times in my life (I'm about 40 now).

          I think the US is the only country in the world with such a strict view on drinking, and it does not help. There is no less drinking amongst the youth in the US as in europe, and I just cannot understand where this phobia comes from. Maybe some after effect of the prohibition in the 1930s?
          • Re:Legal age (Score:5, Insightful)

            by adrianmonk (890071) on Thursday December 21 2006, @12:47AM (#17322220)
            I think the US is the only country in the world with such a strict view on drinking, and it does not help. There is no less drinking amongst the youth in the US as in europe, and I just cannot understand where this phobia comes from.

            I'll assume that you don't know the answer to that since you're apparently not from the US and thus probably didn't have to take multiple years of US History in school at every level. Basically, 500 years ago, Europe wasn't so hot in the religious freedom department. So all the various groups that believed slightly differently (and I really mean only slightly differently in the grand scheme of things -- we are talking about 100 different flavors of Christianity here) couldn't practice freely, or at least not as freely as they wanted to. Consequences ranged from annoyance level to death. So there was all this land over here in the Americas, and not a hell of a lot of established bureaucracy to regulate it, and about a zillion separate groups decided, "Hey, let's go over there where we can do what we please, and we'll build a new, ideal society! We've thought about this a lot, and we think we have the correct interpretation of the Bible and that nobody else does, so once we run things according to the real Godly principles we've discovered, everything will be totally schweet and kick ass." So they did. Net result? Not only were the real religious zealots (the ones who not only took religion seriously, but so seriously that the established variation of Christianity wasn't good enough) siphoned out of Europe, but they got together and established entire (small) societies based on fairly extreme principles. So they were extreme to start with, and then they put themselves in a situation that encouraged extremeness.

            Now, all of these Utopian religious societies really didn't last. As Bruce Cockburn said, "Let's hear a laugh for the man of the world / Who thinks he can make things work / Tried to build a New Jerusalem / And ended up with New York." However, although the societies didn't work and people ended up going more mainstream, they still had a major, lasting effect, because American life continued to be pretty seriously religious even after the initial influx of religiously-motivated colonizers. First there was The Great Awakening, basically a series of revivals which swept the nation and pretty much permanently altered society. It was, if I remember right, a global event, but it pretty much centered on the US. As if that wasn't enough, there was a Second Great Awakening 100-ish years later.

            The net result of it these days is that American Christianity is somewhat of its separate thing, in the same sense that Catholicism is different from the Eastern Orthodox Church. Obviously, they all basically believe in the same things, but they don't think about it in just the same way. For example, American Christianity has tended to have a strong current of evangelicalism. It also has tended to be a little bit anti-intellectual, which has largely as a result of a reaction against The Enlightenment.

            So yeah, it's related to Prohibition. But only in the sense that both are part of a much larger trend. I have in my desk drawer a pencil with an American flag design on it and the words "LOYAL TEMPERANCE LEGION / We Stand for Total Abstinence". I got it from my grandmother's house, and I believe my grandparents got it from my grandfather's mother, who was very active in the temperance movement. It was at one time a very mainstream thing to do. And it's not completely nonexistent either -- they, in fact, still exist and have a web site [wctu.org].

            So basically, Puritanism is still alive and well in the culture in the US. There are plenty of people with more moderate views, but there is a certain balance, and both have influence.

    • Re:Legal age (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lord Kano (13027) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:22PM (#17317714) Homepage Journal
      Where's the ACLU when they could actually be doing something helpful.

      There's no reason why 21 should be the drinking age when 18 is the age of majority.

      People always spout some bullshit about responsibility, but the studies show that people starting to drink at 21 is more harmful than people drinking earlier. When people are younger, they have more parental supervision. They learn how to drink responsibly. When someone is 21 and out on their own, they have no parents to answer to and can do pretty much what they want.

      LK
        • Re:Legal age (Score:5, Informative)

          by Lord Kano (13027) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:56PM (#17318320) Homepage Journal
          Federal highway funds are linked to the drinking age. If a state sets their drinking age below 21, they lose millions upon millions of dollars in federal highway funds.

          States basically have the choice of discriminating against 18-20 year old adults and going bankrupt.

          LK
    • by biocute (936687) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:24PM (#17317744) Homepage
      Well, in certain countries, you're allowed to have (consent) sex at the tender age of 16, but you're not allowed to smoke/drink until you are 18, and not allowed to gamble until 21.

      I guess it makes sense too, first you have sex, got (someone) pregnant, then you drink and smoke to numb your pain in making such a stupid mistake, and finally at 21, you resort to gambling to satisfy the needs for cigaratte, alcohol and your kid's school fees.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Drinking is a privileged. Dying is a right. Either way, you still get taxed.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:26PM (#17317806)
        In the Philippines, bartenders [do not] check the age of American soldiers.

        Fair enough. In the Philippines, American soldiers do not check the age of Philippino girls...
  • Four drinks a day? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kelson (129150) * on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:15PM (#17317554) Homepage Journal
    Is that four drinks every day? Or is that up to four drinks in a given 24-hour period, from time to time? - i.e. four drinks on Saturday night, then several more scattered throughout the week

    Because I don't hink I'd consider four drinks every day to be "moderate" drinking.
    • by Funkcikle (630170) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:18PM (#17317622)
      Perhaps I am just a lightweight, but if I were drinking four drinks a day I would expect my chances of dying in a variety of ways to decrease, simply due to the fact that I was spending most of my time either singing "Brown Eyed Girl" or hugging people - both known to prolong life, generate vitality and fight discombobulation of the spleen.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        What do you drink, Jack Daniels by the pint? Most people I know, even lightweights, can handle an aperitif or two, a couple of glasses of wine with a meal, maybe a brandy or whisky after, without being particularly drunk. So I guess it depends what you count as one drink, and how fast you're chucking them down.
          • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @05:38PM (#17319006)

            But if it's a work day, you don't have very much time to get all those drinks down.

            Wait, you don't drink at work? Insane. Our office manager picked up a couple cases of microbrew just today and stuck them in the fridge for us. We used to have to stock the fridge ourselves at my last employer. Man I love the computer industry.

    • by pclminion (145572) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:20PM (#17317680)

      Shotgunning four drinks one after the other (binging, basically) is one thing. Drinking four drinks over the course of a six hour evening is something else. I'm kind of surprised at the number as well. Wikipedia's page on cirrhosis states that "There is great variability in the amount of alcohol needed to cause cirrhosis (as little as 3-4 drinks a day in some men and 2-3 in some women)." This seems to put 3-4 drinks as a LOWER bound on the danger zone. There may be people (quite a few people in fact) who can tolerate more than that.

    • by hchaos (683337) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:26PM (#17317786)
      Because I don't hink I'd consider four drinks every day to be "moderate" drinking.
      Yeah, I barely consider four drinks every day to be drinking at all!
  • Can't drink (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Terminal Saint (668751) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:15PM (#17317558)
    I wondered if they remembered to take into account people who don't drink because of pre-existing health conditions that result in shorter life spans. That's a variable they tend to forget in these studies...
    • I wondered if they remembered to take into account people who don't drink because of pre-existing health conditions that result in shorter life spans.

      Yes. Well, sort of. They normalized for dietary habits, physical activity, and general health as they correlate to drinking and it resulted in a positive correlation, but it is unclear from the summary I read if that is the number reported or a smaller positive correlation. I suspect the latter. This article about the study also left out the difference bet

  • by Programmer_In_Traini (566499) <eniac0 AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:15PM (#17317560)
    The things I do for my health ... *hic*
  • by WhatsAProGingrass (726851) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:16PM (#17317576) Homepage
    Good moods will help prevent a cold and alcohol will extend my lifespan. Good thing alcohol puts me in a good mood.
    • Re:Makes me happy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The-Bus (138060) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:46PM (#17318136) Homepage
      You're probably not far off. I know some wines have health benefits, but I'm guessing the biggest benefit from moderate drinking is that the drinker is more relaxed: stress is certainly no friend to health.
  • by Ancient_Hacker (751168) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:26PM (#17317792)
    Well, that would be *excellent*, I love a glass of wine or three a day. A beer or two on a hot day is just heavenly.

    But unfortunately the correlation may not imply causation. i.e. people who live longer drink more, but not vice-versa.

    • Maybe really sick people don't drink as much.
    • Maybe the people that have four drinks a day have to be quite healthy to keep that up day after day after day.
    • Maybe drinking keeps them off the streets, or out of other dangerous places.
    • Maybe all the 4-drink-a-day people have died already and were not around for a survey.

    Lotsa possible ways to spoil things.

  • by vmfedor (586158) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:28PM (#17317846)
    Where I live, people still make their own moonshine in their basement. My manager told me that when she starts feeling a cold coming on, she'll take a shot or two of that nasty stuff at night and then wake up feeling great. But I guess when you're drinking stuff that is used for sterilization it's not surprising. :) However, I'm curious as to whether or not the "healing effects" are lessened if you don't manage to drink every day, sort of like when you stop taking antibiotics prematurely. Chock one up to good old fashioned redneck ingenuity. :P
  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:29PM (#17317868) Homepage Journal
    Homer: "To alcohol, the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems"
  • Stats 101... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dzimas (547818) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:30PM (#17317880)
    Correlation does not imply causation. All we can say is that "people who drink a bit of alcohol tend to live longer," not that alcohol prolongs their lives. It could be that these individuals take the time to socialize and de-stress, which causes them to live longer. Or perhaps there are financial factors at play: someone who can afford to drink three or four bottles of wine a week is not likely to be living in abject poverty. Of course, it could also be that anti-oxidant properties of the beverages have a positive effect as well.
    • Re:Stats 101... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @05:25PM (#17318792)

      Correlation does not imply causation.

      Actually, correlation frequently implies causation. Much of science is looking at correlations and testing to find corresponding causations. Correlation does not necessarily imply a given causation. You are correct in so much as this study does not provide any proof that drinking will cause you to live longer. It was, however, normalized for several other strong correlations, such as medical conditions and dietary habits. If you're looking to live longer, drinking a few drinks a day may help or it may not. I think it's worth a shot, but I was going to do it anyway.

  • by o'reor (581921) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:53PM (#17318264) Journal
    A few studies mentioned in this Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] tend to demonstrate that there could be a benefit in drinking red wine because of polyphenols [wikipedia.org]. These studies have been wildly popular on "zis side of ze pond" particularly among wine traders and farmers. And doctors, too. My father, who has a heart disease, has been prescribed at least half a glass of red wine a day (which pisses him off, because he hates red wine !).

    Finding out who paid for these studies and the publicizing of their results, is another story... With alcohol and wine lobbies strongly rooted in the french political life, and recently getting into academic funding, you should always follow the money before you make your mind about these studies...

    • by farlcow (671869) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:24PM (#17317752)
      1 pan-galactic gargle blaster
    • Re:Define "drink" (Score:5, Informative)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @04:38PM (#17317998)

      They defined a drink as 10 grams of ethanol, which would make the appropriate amount for americans something like 1 tumbler of scotch, I believe (assuming 120 proof). If someone cares to do a more scientific conversion, rather than the half-assed one I just put together, we're looking for what content of scotch contains 30 grams of ethanol.

      • Re:Define "drink" (Score:5, Informative)

        by Waffle Iron (339739) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @05:12PM (#17318560)
        I didn't see them mention the amount of ethanol per drink in the article, but 10g does match the Italian definition of a standard drink [wikipedia.org], which is also about the amount in a 1-oz shot of 80-proof liquor. Most people in the USA, however, probably think of a single drink as more like the US standard, which is 14g. This corresponds to a 12-oz non-light beer or 5 oz of most wines. So Americans should probably interpret the limit as *3* drinks per day for men.
        • Re:Define "drink" (Score:5, Informative)

          by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @05:19PM (#17318688)

          So Americans should probably interpret the limit as *3* drinks per day for men.

          Actually, from the somewhat better article on this study that I read, they found a difference between European and American drinking that placed 3, 10g drinks as the high end cutoff for Americans and 6 as the cutoff for Europeans. They theorized this was due to the differences in the way Americans and Europeans drink, specifically if you were drinking small amounts with meals all day, or drinking all of it at once without food.

          So you should probably change that to "2" drinks per day, for men, unless you're drinking them more dispersed over the course of the day and with food.

        • by Hucko (998827) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @07:16PM (#17320036)
          Damn! For Aussies, this means we can only have a sip!
      • Re:Define "drink" (Score:5, Informative)

        by AeroIllini (726211) <aeroillini&gmail,com> on Wednesday December 20 2006, @05:36PM (#17318972)
        If someone cares to do a more scientific conversion, rather than the half-assed one I just put together, we're looking for what content of scotch contains 30 grams of ethanol.
        Ok.

        A standard "drink", as defined in the US, is 0.6 oz of ethenol [wikipedia.org]. We will assume 43% alcohol by volume (the content of my favorite Scotch, Glenmorangie 18 year).

        At 43% ABV, a "standard drink" of Glenmorangie would be 0.6/0.43 = 1.40 oz, or slightly less than a shot (1.5 oz). 0.6 oz of ethanol weighs about 14g, assuming a specific gravity of 0.789 for ethanol [wikipedia.org]. Calculations below:

        (0.6 oz) * (29.57 ml/oz) * (0.789 g/cm^3) * (1 ml/cm^3) = 14.0 grams

        So with a drink allowance of 4 drinks at 10g of ethanol each would allow you to have *almost* three Scotches, by American drink size standards. In the UK, where a standard drink is only 10 ml of ethanol, you could have five drinks. Whether this amount is more or less than what you actually pour for yourself is left as an exercise for the reader.
          • by StarvingSE (875139) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @05:15PM (#17318614)
            I'm no expert on the subject, but alcohol is the waste product of micro organisms as they ferment (wheat, barley, fruit, etc). There wouldn't be anything in your body to ferment and hence, no reaction.

            btw, when I start to see 2 slashdot homepages on my screen at the same time, thats when my body tells me I have the perfect amount of alcohol.
      • Re:Define "drink" (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jc42 (318812) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @05:59PM (#17319262) Homepage Journal
        There are plenty of studies which reach this conclusion - a bit of red whine is actually good for your health. IMO, what they miss is that it has to be real red wine, ...

        Actually, studies like this go back at least 30 years, and their results are a bit more complex.

        The first big one I remember reading about was in the mid 70's, in the UK. It was a massive "data dredging" study of medical records, looking for things correlated (negatively or positively) with long life.

        They reported that the strongest correlation was with "moderate alcohol consumption", which was about the same as in this study - 3 or 4 drinks per day, where "drink" was somewhat fuzzily defined as whatever the records listed as a "glass". They reported that drunkards didn't do so well, but teetotalers didn't do a lot better, and the ones who lived longest were those who regularly consumed moderate amounts of alcohol.

        They did have a few more details. Those who drank only distilled booze didn't benefit as much as those who drank beer or wine (but they did benefit). They had weak data showing that red wines and dark beers were somewhat better for health than the lighter-colored varieties. They said that drinking with meals was better for you than just drinking, and they didn't recommend having all four of your drinks all at once.

        Since then, quite a lot of research has given us a lot more information. Recently, studies have uncovered some of the reasons for the benefits of red wines, including the fact that not all red wines show the benefits. But again, further research is needed.

        My wife works with medical data a lot, and is constantly finding more studies of the effects of alcohol. She rather likes telling people about the latest benefits that have been discovered. And she comments that we just don't drink enough around our house. A few years back, she worked with a researcher who liked to tell people that his studies had been unable to find an upper bound to the amount of alcohol that was beneficial. He would add that he was just studying the effect of ethanol on the circulatory system, which is apparently not at all damaged by heavy drinking. He would also say that he couldn't comment on the effect on other parts of the body such as the liver; that was other people's research.

        Anyway, it's a complex subject, biologically, and the research isn't nearly done. But there have been a lot of studies, and we can fairly firmly recommend a glass or two of beer or wine with every meal. Well, maybe not with breakfast, as you might just decide to go back to sleep, so have that one later in the evening instead. Dark wines and beers are somewhat better than light, but if you don't like them, drink something you do like and don't worry about it.

      • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Wednesday December 20 2006, @06:07PM (#17319370)

        ...and 12-14 oz of beer

        I always thought this was bizarre. A 12 oz beer just does not look right in a pint glass. It's like hot dogs coming 6 to a pack and buns 8 to a pack. Madness.