Moderate Drinking May Improve Cognitive Health for Older Adults, Study Says (cnn.com) 129
"A new study found low to moderate drinking may improve cognitive function for White middle-aged or older adults," reports CNN:
The findings support prior research which found that, generally, one standard drink a day for women and two a day for men -- which is the US guidance -- appears to offer some cognitive benefits... "There is now a lot of observational evidence showing that light to moderate alcohol drinking is associated with better cognitive function and a lower risk of dementia compared with alcohol abstaining," said senior principal research scientist Kaarin Anstey, a director of the NHMRC Dementia Centre for Research Collaboration in Australia, who was not involved in the study...
The new study, published Monday in JAMA Network Open, analyzed data on nearly 20,000 participants from the University of Michigan's Health and Retirement Study, a longitudinal panel study that surveys a representative sample of Americans on a variety of health issues. Study participants, who were predominately white, female and a mean age of 62, were given cognitive tests starting in 1996 through 2008, and were surveyed every other year for approximately nine years. When compared with those who said they never drank, low to moderate drinking was associated with significantly higher cognition scores for mental status, word recall and vocabulary over time, as well as with lower rates of decline in each of those areas.
But before you get too excited, CNN has a "However..." paragraph: However, a major global study released last year found that no amount of liquor, wine or beer is safe for your overall health. It found that alcohol was the leading risk factor for disease and premature death in men and women between the ages of 15 and 49 worldwide in 2016, accounting for nearly one in 10 deaths... "What we know for sure is that drinking too much alcohol definitely harms the brain in a major way. What is less clear is whether or not low to moderate intake may be protective in certain people, or if total abstinence is the most sound advice," said neurologist Dr. Richard Isaacson, founder of the Alzheimer's Prevention Clinic at NewYork-Presbyterian and Weill Cornell Medical Center. "Based on conflicting studies, I don't think at this time we can know for sure whether none versus low to moderate consumption is best in each individual person..."
The new study, published Monday in JAMA Network Open, analyzed data on nearly 20,000 participants from the University of Michigan's Health and Retirement Study, a longitudinal panel study that surveys a representative sample of Americans on a variety of health issues. Study participants, who were predominately white, female and a mean age of 62, were given cognitive tests starting in 1996 through 2008, and were surveyed every other year for approximately nine years. When compared with those who said they never drank, low to moderate drinking was associated with significantly higher cognition scores for mental status, word recall and vocabulary over time, as well as with lower rates of decline in each of those areas.
But before you get too excited, CNN has a "However..." paragraph: However, a major global study released last year found that no amount of liquor, wine or beer is safe for your overall health. It found that alcohol was the leading risk factor for disease and premature death in men and women between the ages of 15 and 49 worldwide in 2016, accounting for nearly one in 10 deaths... "What we know for sure is that drinking too much alcohol definitely harms the brain in a major way. What is less clear is whether or not low to moderate intake may be protective in certain people, or if total abstinence is the most sound advice," said neurologist Dr. Richard Isaacson, founder of the Alzheimer's Prevention Clinic at NewYork-Presbyterian and Weill Cornell Medical Center. "Based on conflicting studies, I don't think at this time we can know for sure whether none versus low to moderate consumption is best in each individual person..."
Older adults (Score:5, Insightful)
"premature death in men and women between the ages of 15 and 49"
Well, those young whippersnappers shouldn't drink and drive, we old farts drink at home.
Chicken and Egg (Score:1)
Re: Chicken and Egg (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the smarter you are, the more you see the epic failures society around you achieves, all day, every day.
And the more helpless you feel too, unless you're a psycho.
Because there ain't no convincing the dumbfucks, even if it's obvious.
Think about it: All day Idiocracy? Wouldn't you drink?
Re: (Score:3)
I drink to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said. Cheers!
P.S.: Fun fact: I don't drink, except when I go ou (Score:2)
I just choose to not go out, or be among humans in general, except for the rare oasis of sanity I've found over the years.
I just go into nature, or stay at home,
It's better than just being drunk all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, moderately, which was my first thought. It might be correlated in general to an overall Epicurean outlook.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps people who drink foolishly die earlier, whether cause or effect need not be certain.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe smart people just like to drink more.
With the sad state this messed up world is in, I find that exceptionally plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
Cognitive health doesn't relate to smarts. We have seen many smart people fall victim to dementia and alstimers.
After reading this I think it may be due to the relaxing nature of alcohol. A person that has a drink a day may reduce mental stress. That over time could wear down the mind.
Homeric wisdom (Score:3)
"Alcohol -- the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems."
-- Homer Simpson
Re:Homeric wisdom (Score:5, Funny)
Alcohol is no solution.
Fuck, what do they teach in chemistry these days? It's a distillate.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought it was a solvent.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a distillate that can be used as a solvent. Jeez 93!
Re: (Score:1)
Alcohol is no solution.
Fuck, what do they teach in chemistry these days? It's a distillate.
If it's not part of the solution then it must be the precipitate?
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the alcohol industry already tried this (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be careful with that "research"...
This was the exact mantra that the alcohol industry always repeated. "One drink a day is okay.". ... coincidence ...
What a convenient
And so easily swallowed too...
I'm drinking a bottle of beer while writing this, by the way. I don't pretend it's healthy though.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were a bottle of Champagne, maybe you would. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Given that the alcohol industry already tried (Score:2)
Except we know 1-2 units a day is healthy.
Not from the beer industry, but from independent researchers studying longevity in Ikaria.
We also know why. Gut health improves substantially.
NIH, WHO and NG are not major beer producers.
Re: Given that the alcohol industry already tried (Score:2)
"independent researchers"
You have no freaking clue whatsoever if they are independent.
You were being told. Might be true, might not.
You did not check. And even if you did, you lack the competence to find out. (No offence. This is true for nearly all of us.)
You can still assume it. But don't act like it is any more than a belief of what you want to ne true.
One drink a day (Score:2)
It's /. so of course I barely skimmed the summary, but If I have a really, really big glass, I could probably put a handle or so of cheap vodka or whisky in one drink. Just sip for hours and hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Inconsistency... but publicity is more important (Score:5, Interesting)
'However, a major global study released last year found that no amount of liquor, wine or beer is safe for your overall health. It found that alcohol was the leading risk factor for disease and premature death in men and women between the ages of 15 and 49 worldwide in 2016, accounting for nearly one in 10 deaths... "What we know for sure is that drinking too much alcohol definitely harms the brain in a major way. What is less clear is whether or not low to moderate intake may be protective in certain people, or if total abstinence is the most sound advice," said neurologist Dr. Richard Isaacson...'
I do love accurate, honest reporting.
1. "...no amount of liquor, wine or beer is safe for your overall health".
2. "What is less clear is whether or not low to moderate intake may be protective in certain people..."
How can this study have established for certain that "alcohol was the leading risk factor for disease and premature death in men and women between the ages of 15 and 49 worldwide in 2016, accounting for nearly one in 10 deaths..."? Is it really possible to get rid of all confounding factors? I don't see how that could be done.
I actually started drinking every evening quite a few years ago, mainly for my health (although also because I like wine and whisky). I avoid beer because it is full of carbohydrate and probably is very fattening. The drier (less sweet) the drink, the better.
If anyone is seriously interested in the facts, I suggest reading the very well documented "The Good News About Booze" by Tony Edwards.
Re: (Score:2)
And there are thousands of studies which say the opposite, e.g. 2 or 3 glasses of red wine are extending your life by 10 - 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Inconsistency... but publicity is more importan (Score:4, Informative)
How do you reconcile the difference between studies that show opposite things? Choose the conclusion that you like better?
Tempting as that is, the better way is to analyze the way the studies were done and find (if you can) how they may not be watertight. Often, despite protestations to the contrary, confounding factors are not excluded. For example, it is quite likely that people who drink a lot of alcohol may also do (or neglect) other things that might make them unhealthy. (Such as smoking). Also many studies rely on questionnaires which ask subjects to say how much they drink (or whatever) - which is completely hopeless.
I strongly recommend "Doctoring Data: How to Sort Out Medical Advice from Medical Nonsense" by Dr Malcolm Kendrick, a sceptical and down-to-earth Scot.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you reconcile the difference between studies that show opposite things? Choose the conclusion that you like better?
You do a meta-study.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's still essential to check the methods used in every study. If some of the studies give grossly misleading conclusions because they were done wrongly, a metastudy will just lock in those mistakes like flies in amber.
https://journals.plos.org/plos... [plos.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is usually no single reason.
People on Sardinia get old. The drink wine.
But they also eat healthy and many simply work till they die, mostly outdoors.
Just an example.
Japanese get very old, don't really drink red wine, but sake - and even those that work indoors get old.
Opposite, many ppl in other studies simply live unhealthy lives. They die, but is "moderate drinking" a factor?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Inconsistency... but publicity is more importa (Score:2)
I go by results. 2-3 is perhaps a little high, but 1-2 is considered convincing.
I don't care about the studies that claim otherwise because, for the most part, they don't show otherwise. They are poorly designed, aimed at a conclusion and don't show what they claim.
I go for the research into those who are healthy and study why. Very different question.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care about the studies that claim otherwise because, for the most part, they don't show otherwise.
Sounds like you are suffering from a confirmation bias. Spend more time attacking studies you agree with, and less time attacking studies you don't agree with, which will help you get over your bias.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No. It's an alcohol. It's metabolized, but in no way like a carbohydrate. It is technically a hydrate, with carbon - but doesn't fit the rest of the definition.
No causality, but simplistic correlation (Score:4, Interesting)
Years after years, even digging up old studies that are already known, such as stirring an already cooled sauce to bring out its scents, is more mercantile manipulation than science.
After decades, telling us that moderate alcohol consumption would have health benefits, that there is no verification of casualness with concrete elements, makes me at best angry to be taken for a moron, and even more so here on Slashdot which originally dealt with technical and scientific subjects with much more critical thinking.
There's really none of it left here, not even a trace of it.
Re: (Score:2)
> hat there is no verification of casualness
Doesn't the casualness depend on who paid for the drinks? If it's for work discussion, I keep the receipts and put it on my daily expenses.
Re: No causality, but simplistic correlation (Score:2)
Yes there is.
Red wine drinkers show a 15-20% improvement in gut flora.
How concrete do you want? Short of adding in cement dust, we have a definite, provable, cause and effect where the effect is known to impact general and cognitive health.
Alcohol (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Mushrooms go well with wine.
Not the hallucinogenic ones-- reality is disturbing enough, I don't need things to get stranger.
Re: Alcohol (Score:2)
Because alcohol in low doses improves brain function, whereas mushrooms poison the brain and destroy cognitive ability.
I prefer the better mind.
Cognitive health? (Score:1)
What the hell is cognitive health? How is that truly measured? A sand lizard is as dumb as a doorknob, yet free from neurological conditions many would consider the average sand lizard cognitively healthy. So ok, lets say IQ is cognitive health. You can have a high IQ and be depressed, thatâ(TM)s not cognitively healthy. Alright, so let us make happiness the cognitive health definition. You can be happy as a hog in shit, but dumb as one too. So then happiness is out as a definition of cognitive health.
Re: (Score:1)
o Old
o Registered as Republican
o Fervently supports Donald Trump
Then it's very likely their cognitive health is poor.
</sarcastic_humor>
In all seriousness, though, you can think of it as someone 'not being sharp' anymore, being very susceptible to being fooled (e.g., falling for scammers that you'd think anyone else wouldn't be fooled by at all), 'being confused' often, failing memory, etc, then that's poor cognitive health. The sad thing is that someone who is suffering from th
Re: (Score:2)
As is the case with many definitions, it requires a fair amount of careful thinking to define "cognitive health". It's necessary to identify the right thing and eliminate blatant errors. Try this for a starting point:
Cognitive health is quickly evaluating evidence and acting accordingly.
Unstated but inherent upon consideration is that greater cognitive health can handle more complex evidence.
Because definitions should be concise, I do not include in the definition that people who through disability are unab
How about moderate cocaine use? (Score:4, Insightful)
Got a DUI 7 months ago (just failed even though I waited some time before driving) but seems the beers were 9% at the pub. Anyways so I switched over to hookers and blow on Fridays instead of alcohol.
Re: (Score:2)
I got a medical Marijuana card. Much more pleasant than drinking, should have started ages ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm around weed all day but don't like the high so don't smoke, same with alcohol I can't drink during the day it wears me out and makes me lazy.
High ABV [Re:How about moderate cocaine use?] (Score:2)
Got a DUI 7 months ago (just failed even though I waited some time before driving) but seems the beers were 9% at the pub.
Yeah, I hate those high-alcohol beers.
Damn it, I like beer. Why do those craft breweries think it's cool to start making beer where I'm not able to drink more than a snifter full? And I don't ever want to be in the position of not realizing it's a 10% alcohol been, drinking one and then when I stand up realizing "oh, shit, I drove here. How do I get home?"
I can attest to this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many years ago, I played league darts, and it was a common belief. I'll also mention that during my coding days in the late 90s, my office mate and I would occasionally work from home, and both came to the conclusion that we were more productive (creative) after a beer or two. More than that certainly has the opposite effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the alcohol talking, for sure. Any perceived "boost" you gets immediately counteracted because that's what GABA does. It down-regulates excitation and if you believe your cognition is sharper when "down-regulated", be glad lions and tigers aren't a real threat to your existence.
Yes, that's demonstrated by the fact that alcohol has no effect on people, and the word "drunk" is purely psychological.
Oh, wait, there are known effects of alcohol on cognition? Then your statement is apparently inaccurate: GABA in fact does not immediately counteract the effect of alcohol.
Or were you saying that it's a selective effect, it cancels good effects immediately, but does nothing to bad effects, even when they're the same effect?
Re: I can attest to this (Score:2)
You've not met many autistic people, have you?
I'd be far better equipt to handle lions, tigers and bears after a half glass of red wine.
correlation or causation? (Score:2)
Probably both but I can't figure out if the statistics there are just correlation? There is a term "alcohol-attributable" used but I not sure it's in mathematical context of statistic and a medical narration?
Re: correlation or causation? (Score:2)
Causation. We know that alcohol impacts gut flora. Specifically, it kills off those that tend to be detrimental and causes the rest to increase in variation.
Gut flora generate chemicals that alter brain function and the immune system.
The greater the variation, the healthier both brain and immune system operate.
And that is why you get the boosted longevity and better cognition.
Cognition may be dampened temporarily but the changes to the gut outlast the effects of alcohol. The rest of the time, the brain impr
There is no practical conflict between the studies (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: There is no practical conflict between the stu (Score:2)
Ikaria shows that light alcohol drinkers who live 100-120 years are generally sharper than teetotalers and heavy drinkers in the west at 50.
Blood plasma (Score:1)
This cannot be true (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Long term use or long term abuse? The effects are going to be different with lower use.
Correlation != causation (Score:3)
The study in question found that moderate drinking is "associated" with good cognitive health. Slashdot editorializes this to "offers benefits". Confusing correlation with causation.
Previously we've had studies showing that drinking wine is associated with good health. The usual interpretation of those studies is that wine drinkers are usually rich people, who are healthier on average for reasons unrelated to wine. I imagine something similar is the case here, with moderate drinking probably being a social practice among groups that are healthier for other reasons - perhaps they are more social than people in general.
CNN is the source of all truth. (Score:1)
- Drink more while at home and at work.
- Wear you masks if you do go out.
- HCQ will kill you.
- Russians control the president.
- Orange man bad.
- America is racist and must be destoryed
- Protesters are peaceful. They would never kill, rob and destroy. Just ignore those fires in the background.
- Antifa doesn't exist.
- Up is down, down is up.
- GO BACK TO SLEEP!!!
Nuts! (Score:2, Funny)
Correlative, not causative (Score:1)
FASD ? (Score:2)
I'll stick with my usual habits (Score:1)
Well, my wife ... (Score:2)
... has rejected this argument.
Beer nazi.
A more important result (Score:2)
It's true (Score:2)
You have to be stupid to take part in mental studies while being sober.
And this is why we can't have nice things (Score:1)
Yet another one of those pro-alcohol news articles (Score:1)
Was the Study Wrong (Score:2)
I've read through all of the posts here, and seen much whining but little to point to where the study is inaccurate. Show us what mistakes they made, and I'm not talking about giving us contrary studies as evidence. I'm also not talking about some of the issues people brought up that really are not pertinent, such as drinking while pregnant.
Mandatory XKCD (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course not. Your "races" are "White (native)" (86.9%), "White (immigrants)" and "White (immigrant descendents)". And most of the immigrants are also from Europe.
Your land area, if you were a US state, would place you 40th out of 51 (between West Virgina and Maryland) in total area, and your entire population is less than two-thirds of New York City.
However, on smugness and hubris, you are indeed a match for Donald J. Trump. :)
Re: In Denmark (Score:2)
Ah, that must explain all the native American DNA in Denmark. Or are you saying they're white, too?
And, no, 1200 AD isn't recent.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, that must explain all the native American DNA in Denmark. Or are you saying they're white, too?
And, no, 1200 AD isn't recent.
What? Who? Where?
Sorry, I was quoting statistics from a Danish organization. You got problems with the numbers (or how they're presented), talk to them.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm going to "Godwin" myself here. The reason the Dutch didn't suffer the extremes of the Holocaust was because they led the Jews to the border and said "buh-buy!, don't bother to write". It was one of the more peaceful pogroms, but make no mistake, they all *left*. They left peacefully because the government "let" them buy their way out, leaving nearly all their wealth in Denmark. Why do you think the Germans invaded? They needed the money left behind by frightened Jews fleeing Europe!
Re: (Score:2)
Merely quoting widely available sources for the facts, unless you can contradict them?
As for the smugness and hubris, that's from *meeting* people from Denmark, who much like vegans, can't wait to tell you how great they are-- You know, like posting on a thread about alcohol, that Denmark has no racial problems.
I will apologize for the comparison to Trump. I usually wouldn't even insult the coronavirus by comparing it to Trump.
Denmark part of slave trade 1671-1803 (Score:2)
We don't have all the racial problems of the US.
No, you kidnapped and enslaved people in Africa and sold them to other nations, for over a century, but you did not take them home.
Re: (Score:1)
We Dutch and our country is so much better than you Americans!
Here in America we call that "low quality bait" and it identifies you as a untalented internet troll.
Oh and by the way I'm one-third Dutch and one-third German so I'll say whatever I want about you and your country if you're going to bash mine.
At least the United States isn't dependent on pumps to keep the whole place from going underwater, and our bicycles don't all weigh 50 pounds each.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have all the racial problems of the US.
But suddenly, unexpectedly you have a problem with certain newly arrived refugee cultures which are not used to Scandinavian exceptionalism, nor to many other aspects of your culture.
Re: (Score:1)
As a Dane, have you ever met a black person? Just asking?
Historically Danes met many black people, enslaved them in Africa and sold them to other nations for over a century. Denmark was a participant in the trans-Atlantic slave trade,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You been drinking early today?
race is just a grouping outside taxonomic ranks (Score:1)
As long as you still believe there is such a thing as "races", like it's before 1920, there's no point in even discussing this with you. Read a biology book, for once in your life.
Perhaps in your drunken stupor you got race and taxonomic rankings confused.
A "race" is just a grouping outside of taxonomic ranks, often as much a social distinction as a biological distinction. While we have often made failed definitions of a grouping, the concept of a grouping, a "race" is a valid one. Its really a matter for the basis of a group.
Re: race is just a grouping outside taxonomic rank (Score:2)
The point is that it is an unscientific ideology that has been debunked literally in the 1920s, due to the genetic differences inside "races" being bigger, than between them.
In simpler words for you drooling Ameritards:
It is a made-up distinction with no basis whatsoever in reality!! It only exists for racist reasons, and none other!
This is seriously a "2+2=4 in a 2+2=5" situation with you insanely stupid fuckin Americans!
Hell, you're so dumb, you still believe in magical deities up in the sky above a flat
Re: (Score:1)
A race is what would be called a subspecies or a variety in any other look at biology. There are heritable properties such as skin color, facial features, propensity to certain diseases, and intelligence, that correlate with these varieties, and breeding between human subspecies produces outcomes by the same mechanisms that breeding different plant subspecies or different animal subspecies do.
Perhaps this would be clearer to you if you considered golden retrievers and standard poodles as different races of
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps this would be clearer to you if you considered golden retrievers and standard poodles as different races of the species "dog."
The evidence is visible, wearing blinders does not enhance your ability to understand the world"
But no one considers those two breeds as "different races" because they are not, despite their differences in appearance. It is you that fails to see the reality in your own example.
Race with regards to humans has a specific meaning and it was used properly. Everyone responding i
Re: (Score:3)
Black people are stupid and unhealthy
That isn't what he said. Get out of here with your fabricated outrage.
at least have the courage to do it out in the open so everyone knows what you're really about
Says the AC.
Re: (Score:1)
This is a new one. "I can't be racist because I don't believe in race! That means you're the real racists!"
Don't expect that to gain much traction outside your little circle of hate.
Re: (Score:2)
Denying that races exists is pretty damned hateful. Most people probably don't want their race/culture to be simply expunged like that.
Re: (Score:1)
There are races.
It is a bullshit modern political correctness idea that there are no (human) races.
If there are no human races, why do we have cat, dog, cow, horse races etc. ?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean yeah, there's the Kentucky Derby, the Boston Marathon, the Indy 500.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nearly like saying tere's no such thing as the color red because light comes in a continuous spectrum.
Nazis got mod points? (Score:2)
Or are Americans seriously that uneducated?
What I said is a fact. SERIOUSLY, GO READ A BIOLOGY BOOK!