|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Madigan
Joined: 15 Oct 2010
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Not beer specifically, but alcohol generally:
| Quote: |
Well, the same forces are back doing battle for the 2010 edition of the guidelines. In the intervening years, quite a bit of evidence has accumulated to take the statement of alcohol's benefits even further. The 2010 guidelines' alcohol section group is headed by epidemiologist Eric Rimm of Harvard Medical School, where he is a co-director of the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study that has tracked doctors' and nurses' health outcomes and drinking for decades. But the opposition this time around is not teetotaler Southern politicians.
According to the experts charged with creating the alcohol section, strong evidence indicates that "the lowest mortality risk for men and women [occurs] at the average level of one to two drinks per day, [and] is likely due to the protective effects of moderate alcohol consumption on CHD [coronary heart disease], diabetes and ischemic stroke as summarized in this chapter."
In other words, people who have a couple of drinks daily live the longest! Adding what for some is insult to injury, the group also noted: "Moderate evidence suggests that compared to non-drinkers, individuals who drink moderately have a slower cognitive decline with age." Moderate drinkers not only live longer, they are more alert while doing so!
Despite these proposed additions to the guidelines, the overwhelming burden of the alcohol section is to portray the negative health, psychological and addictive effects of alcohol. But this has not been enough to avoid a sharp blowback from medical, public health and addiction professionals, who have started a campaign to limit these recommendations out of a fear their impact "would likely be to encourage greater daily consumption of alcohol, discourage appropriate caution about using alcohol for health benefits, and open the door for the alcohol industry to misrepresent federal alcohol consumption guidelines to consumers." |
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/21/opinion/la-oe-peele-alcohol-20100721/2
There is a lot of debate on the pros and cons of alcohol consumption. The only thing we can say is that it needs to be studied more, and nothing seems conclusive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
legrande
Joined: 23 Nov 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Madigan wrote: |
Not beer specifically, but alcohol generally:
| Quote: |
Well, the same forces are back doing battle for the 2010 edition of the guidelines. In the intervening years, quite a bit of evidence has accumulated to take the statement of alcohol's benefits even further. The 2010 guidelines' alcohol section group is headed by epidemiologist Eric Rimm of Harvard Medical School, where he is a co-director of the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study that has tracked doctors' and nurses' health outcomes and drinking for decades. But the opposition this time around is not teetotaler Southern politicians.
According to the experts charged with creating the alcohol section, strong evidence indicates that "the lowest mortality risk for men and women [occurs] at the average level of one to two drinks per day, [and] is likely due to the protective effects of moderate alcohol consumption on CHD [coronary heart disease], diabetes and ischemic stroke as summarized in this chapter."
In other words, people who have a couple of drinks daily live the longest! Adding what for some is insult to injury, the group also noted: "Moderate evidence suggests that compared to non-drinkers, individuals who drink moderately have a slower cognitive decline with age." Moderate drinkers not only live longer, they are more alert while doing so!
Despite these proposed additions to the guidelines, the overwhelming burden of the alcohol section is to portray the negative health, psychological and addictive effects of alcohol. But this has not been enough to avoid a sharp blowback from medical, public health and addiction professionals, who have started a campaign to limit these recommendations out of a fear their impact "would likely be to encourage greater daily consumption of alcohol, discourage appropriate caution about using alcohol for health benefits, and open the door for the alcohol industry to misrepresent federal alcohol consumption guidelines to consumers." |
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/21/opinion/la-oe-peele-alcohol-20100721/2
There is a lot of debate on the pros and cons of alcohol consumption. The only thing we can say is that it needs to be studied more, and nothing seems conclusive. |
No doubt about the relative value of the beer produced by the major Korean manufacturers. Better ones could be had and enjoyed by everyone in this country, but aren't allowed to compete. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Murakano wrote: |
I see so many of these "new study suggests _____ food/drink is not safe to eat/drink".
Virtually nothing is safe to eat/drink if you believe everything you read. |
I don't mean to single you out Murakano, but almost every time one of these "new studies" comes out, I hear some version of your last statement.
Would you rather just not hear about it?
Once upon a time, few knew how bad smoking was too.
Lung cancer history
Lung cancer was the first major disease to be associated with and directly linked to smoking in the 1950's. It was not a very common illness before the 1930's and the increase in lung cancer cases coincided with an increase in tobacco use. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sector7G wrote: |
| Murakano wrote: |
I see so many of these "new study suggests _____ food/drink is not safe to eat/drink".
Virtually nothing is safe to eat/drink if you believe everything you read. |
I don't mean to single you out Murakano, but almost every time one of these "new studies" comes out, I hear some version of your last statement.
Would you rather just not hear about it?
Once upon a time, few knew how bad smoking was too.
Lung cancer history
Lung cancer was the first major disease to be associated with and directly linked to smoking in the 1950's. It was not a very common illness before the 1930's and the increase in lung cancer cases coincided with an increase in tobacco use. |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the use of motorized transportation dramatically increase during that same time period? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the use of motorized transportation dramatically increase during that same time period? |
Your point being? That there is a correlation between that and an increase in lung cancer?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madigan
Joined: 15 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Except that there is a clear and undeniable correlation between cigarettes and lung cancer. With alcohol consumption, the correlations between consumption and the alleged risks and benefits are less clear. Some studies say beer prevents heart disease while others say it may very well cause stomach cancer. It is the same with red wine. There is a growing consensus that wine may very well prevent heart disease and certain cancers while at the same time wine has a lot of easily digestible sugars that contribute to heart disease and certain cancers. I am certainly not opposed to alcohol consumption. Indeed, I like wine and beer just as much as the next guy. It's just that I am not sure about the supposed benefits (nor do I deny that they exist) of drinking a single 15cL glass of red wine per day. Although I don't think a single glass per day is detrimental to anyone's health. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Madigan wrote: |
| Except that there is a clear and undeniable correlation between cigarettes and lung cancer. With alcohol consumption, the correlations between consumption and the alleged risks and benefits are less clear. |
But that is part of my point - at first the correlation between cigarettes and cancer was not so clear - more scientific studies were required. It's probably a good idea to take notice though.
| Madigan wrote: |
| Some studies say beer prevents heart disease while others say it may very well cause stomach cancer. |
Not mutually exclusive.
Anyway, I like to drink, but the amount of my consumption varies. Actually, right now I am drinking 2-3 beers a night on average like the the study in question. Soon I will do one of "my body is a temple" phases, where I don't drink at all for about a month, just to clean out the cobwebs.
Even before this latest study I knew too much alcohol was not a good thing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madigan
Joined: 15 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sector7G wrote: |
| Madigan wrote: |
| Some studies say beer prevents heart disease while others say it may very well cause stomach cancer. |
Not mutually exclusive. |
Yeah, that's fair. The only conclusion that I feel can reasonably be drawn is that the effects of alcohol on the body, or even varying parts of the body, is something that it needs more study. Like I said, I like beer and wine too, and I'll have a glass or two of red wine most nights of the week. I don't worry about it too much. Indeed, the only thing I worry about is beer and wine's unique ability to fatten. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
