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.""
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Things radically change (Score:5, Funny)
For starters, you wake up in bed with a stranger not knowing how either got there...
Offtopic, but amusing (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:Things radically change (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Legal age (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legal age (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Legal age (Score:5, Insightful)
How does it count as "freedom" if you restrict the the things that people are allowed to make light of?
Parent
Re:Legal age (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Legal age (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Legal age (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Legal age (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Parent
Re:Legal age (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Legal age (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Parent
Re:Legal age (Score:5, Informative)
States basically have the choice of discriminating against 18-20 year old adults and going bankrupt.
LK
Parent
Re:Legal age (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:military & drinking (Score:5, Funny)
Fair enough. In the Philippines, American soldiers do not check the age of Philippino girls...
Parent
Re:Legal age (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Legal age (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Legal age (Score:5, Funny)
and the bartender said "Whoa, whoa, whoa. You gotta show some id to prove you're 21, and you can't all use the same one!"
Parent
Four drinks a day? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because I don't hink I'd consider four drinks every day to be "moderate" drinking.
Re:Four drinks a day? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Four drinks a day? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:Four drinks a day? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Four drinks a day? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Can't drink (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
The things i do (Score:5, Funny)
Makes me happy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Makes me happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
The old correlation--causation confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
But unfortunately the correlation may not imply causation. i.e. people who live longer drink more, but not vice-versa.
Lotsa possible ways to spoil things.
Backwoods Cough Medicine.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Obligatory Simpsons quote (Score:5, Funny)
Stats 101... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stats 101... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Polyphenols and wine (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:Make up your mind (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Define "drink" (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Define "drink" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Define "drink" (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Define "drink" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Define "drink" (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Define "drink" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Define "drink" (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:Define "drink" (Score:5, Funny)
Either that or you finally got xinerama working.
Parent
Re:Define "drink" (Score:5, Funny)
Right. So it's technically correct to take a sip of 12 year old single malt and say, 'That's good shit.'
Parent
Re:Define "drink" (Score:4, Funny)
If you want obscure, my calculations say that the limit comes out to about one third of a firkin of ale per fortnight.
Cheers!
Parent
Re:Define "drink" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Define "drink" (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:waste of a study (Score:5, Funny)
Parent