If you’re a drinker and you’ve been clutching onto the research that says there are health benefits to moderate drinking, keep watching because you may be crying into your glass of wine after this.
I’m Kevin O’Hara for alcoholmastery.com
There are so many studies that have said that alcohol, when taken in moderation, can be beneficial for fighting against heart disease and cancer. I’ve always be very skeptical of this. Although I was never a moderate drinker, no matter which way you look at it, even from a young age, I couldn’t see the relation between health and drinking a neurotoxin like alcohol. A poison is a poison. The previous research has insisted that moderate drinkers lived a longer life than abstainers.
Now for me, the only reason that drinking alcohol in moderation could possibly have health benefits would be in mitigating some of our other lifestyle choices like eating saturated fat. For a person who is at risk of heart attack through furring up of the arterial wall, causing blockages, alcohol would make a pretty good degreaser, right! It’s used as a cleaner after all. So it might be able to melt away some of that built up arterial plaque. The problem is – at what cost? I have made a lot of videos on the dangers of drinking alcohol. About the amount of people who are killed every year through drinking alcohol – about 3.5 million, and the 200 plus conditions – some of them deadly – that are caused by alcohol consumption. So what is the cost of this de-greasing process? Wouldn’t it be much better to change lifestyle, eat better, avoid the crap that is causing the heart attacks in the first place?
As I said, much of the previous research has focused on comparing people who drink moderately – very moderately – and those who abstain. Now, new research has uncovered a big flaw in the data. Many of the people who were included in these studies should have been excluded. A psychology professor from the University of Victoria in Canada, Tim Stockwell, has reviewed 87 of these previous studies and he found that when you exclude these people from the data, those who shouldn’t have been included in the first place, the findings were actually reversed and showed no such health benefits from drinking.
Now I’m very skeptical about any scientific study of the benefits of alcohol in the first place. I think that most of it is conducted under the auspices, or at the very least with the use of the many Big Alcohol bulging wallets, and is therefore fraudulent. These studies construct the studies under the conditions that are conducive to a favorable outcome. Then the data that comes in is further manipulated to get an even more favorable outcome. And finally, when any reporting is done, any contradictory finding will be left out or lost. That’s my opinion and I’ve read enough so-called scientific studies to be able to have just cause.
Most of these previous studies have examined data from about 4 million users and a third of a million deaths. They purported to show that anyone who drank one or two drinks a day were less likely to die than those who didn’t drink. They couldn’t prove that moderate drinking led to a longer life, they only suggested it as one possible outcome, always saying that moderation MAY contribute to a healthier life. Stockwell said “A fundamental question is, who are these moderate drinkers being compared against?” What Stockwell’s review reveals is that many of the people who were chosen as part of the ‘abstainers’ group, were abstaining on medical grounds. Many of them were giving up because of a health condition that they already had. So some of the people were abstaining because they had already done damage and were told to quit. He further argues that the studies should have been done by comparing moderate drinkers with life abstainers, those who have never drank. He also said that before he made the corrections, the people who were getting the supposed health benefits were drinking less that one alcoholic drink per week and that this amount was very unlikely to be the cause of their longevity.
In fact, out of the 87 studies that were review, 13 of them did separate out the lifelong abstainers from the ones who had quit. These 13 studies found no advantage in the health of those who drank very moderately over those who abstained.
Stockwell says that “Alcohol has played such a central part of many people’s lives and is embedded in various occasions and relationships, so there is a lot of interest on this topic.
Understanding this question is important as we shape alcohol policy.”
He ends by saying, “My advice: Drink for the enjoyment, sure, but just don’t kid yourself that you are doing it for your health.”
That’s been my argument all along. Anyone who likes a drink, who really likes a drink, is not going to moderate, at least not to the levels which are considered healthy. But when you start dipping into the data, finding out how that data has been fudged, you realise that even beneficial moderate drinking is a joke. If you only drink a glass of wine once a week, you are not going to cause yourself any damage, not any serious damage at any rate. But it’s not going to give you an advantage either. You can get an advantage in life by actively pursuing three things, good quality nutrition, good quality movement and rest, and reducing stress while looking for inner happiness. That’s my recipe. That’s the one I’m trying to follow. And I can tell you it tastes really good.
REAL EYES, REALIZE, REAL LIES!
Until next time…
Onwards and Upwards!
You May Also Enjoy…
On Your Quit Drinking Journey Are You Giving Away Your Power?
What Story Do You Tell Yourself About Your Alcohol Drinking?
Why Do We Feel Pain or Discomfort While Drinking or Quitting Booze?
Your Alcohol Problem is Not That Bad | You’re Not Out of Control