Heavy Drinkers Outlive Nondrinkers

[AaronMic22]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599201433200;_ylt=AvD8AXFcmqI31pbmrgLLks5v24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTM1czYwYWVjBGFzc2V0A3RpbWUvMjAxMDA4MzAvMDg1OTkyMDE0MzMyMDAEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM0BHBvcwM0BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDaGVhdnlkcmlua2Vy

From the article: "The most shocking part? Abstainers' mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers."

Abstainers die more often than heavy drinkers? That is shocking!

 

[godofpie]

I'm not able to view the study. Have you read it?

 

[Slimething]

I'm not able to view the study. Have you read it?

It's a pay paper. My misinterpretation of the study, based solely on the Yahoo article, is that stress kills more efficiently than alcohol.

 

[majamin]

This is the abstract of the study

From the Results section of the abstract:

Controlling only for age and gender, compared to moderate drinkers, abstainers had a more than 2 times increased mortality risk, heavy drinkers had 70% increased risk, and light drinkers had 23% increased risk

Correlation vs. causation debate anyone?

From the Time article in the OP

That said, the new study provides the strongest evidence yet that moderate drinking is not only fun but good for you.

John Cloud, the author of this article, clearly thinks it's causation. Anyone care to take a jab at it?

 

[lomiller]

Abstainers die more often than heavy drinkers? That is shocking!

Very!

I could have sworn mortality rates would be identical for each (at 100% that is)

 

[Scott Haley]

There are a lot of serious health problems, such as diabetes and heart disease, that would make a person not drink. People who take antidepressants are told not to drink. Those people would increase death rates in the non-drinking group.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I'd be interested in seeing a study of the "skeptical" reactions to this study based on culture. Americans are still pretty uptight about alcohol whereas Europeans are not. I'd say my European friends and family members would say, "Duh" while my American friends and family would find it highly suspect since we're only a few generations away from prohibition.

The abstract seems sound. They point out that studies so far show a benefit, but the studies were inadequate in regards to confounding factors. Their study addressed those factors. They pointed out that when they adjusted for confounding factors the benefits decreased significantly but still showed a significant positive effect. Their results are consistent with many other studies.

As for correlation versus causation, alcohol quite obviously has an effect on the body. Nearly every organ is affected. There have been studies showing positive effects when it comes to cardiovascular disease. Since that's a leading cause of death, then as long as the benefits are not offset by some increased risk of another deadly disease, we could see a difference in mortality rates.

Of course, nothing about quality of life is mentioned. Alcohol could have all sorts of negative effects on health that don't increase mortality rates. A study like this doesn't address that.

 

[majamin]

There are a lot of serious health problems, such as diabetes and heart disease, that would make a person not drink. People who take antidepressants are told not to drink. Those people would increase death rates in the non-drinking group.

Yes, but (from the Results section again):

A model controlling for former problem drinking status, existing health problems...

... they controlled for that.

 

[Uncayimmy]

There are a lot of serious health problems, such as diabetes and heart disease, that would make a person not drink. People who take antidepressants are told not to drink. Those people would increase death rates in the non-drinking group.

The abstract reads, "A model controlling for former problem drinking status, existing health problems, and key sociodemographic and social-behavioral factors, as well as for age and gender, substantially reduced the mortality effect for abstainers compared to moderate drinkers. However, even after adjusting for all covariates, abstainers and heavy drinkers continued to show increased mortality risks of 51 and 45%, respectively, compared to moderate drinkers."

 

[Southwind17]

Abstainers die more often than heavy drinkers? That is shocking!

I'm only planning on dying once - drink or no drink.

 

[cambion]

Sweet, I'm drunk right now. Take that Mormon upbringing!

 

[Southwind17]

Sweet, I'm drunk right now. Take that Mormon upbringing!

... and shove it where, exactly?!

 

[majamin]

As for correlation versus causation, alcohol quite obviously has an effect on the body.

General life-style benefits causing light drinking and health-beneficial choices in general, maybe.

Of course, nothing about quality of life is mentioned. Alcohol could have all sorts of negative effects on health that don't increase mortality rates. A study like this doesn't address that.

True. It did conclude that heavy drinkers and abstainers are both likely to hit the ground earlier than light drinkers, however. Presumably, heavy drinkers because of the negative effects of alcohol. I don't think that light drinkers would suffer from quality-of-life issue, IMO.

 

[AaronMic22]

I'm not able to view the study. Have you read it?

I unfortunately do not have access to the paper. What I know is that there is much room for error in these alcohol studies. They simply cannot pin down causation; and the significant amount of uncertainty in the results suggests it's more of a correlation.

Alcohol's effects on the body and much of its effects on the brain are well documented. I have yet to see any scientific evidence suggesting that starting an alcohol habit is healthier than ending one.

 

[casebro]

I'll drink to that!

Other studies also show that drinking lowers the risk of becoming diabetic.

I'm diabetic II, and I drink. Usually a large glass of wine with dinner, then take insulin later. The wine seems to lower my sugar, about 25 points.

My best reading is that the concern about diabetics and alcohol is that, should a diabetic drink enough to lower his sugars excessively, others may dismiss a hypoglycemic episode as drunkenness, and not seek treatment for the low sugar.

So, drink or insulin, not both. Be a responsible drunk.

Also, re the benefits of alcohol: fat burning and alcohol both give off acetaldehyde as a by-product. I believe this is a sign to the homeostatic systems that you have used up sugar, and to get back into balance, at which point the body does some kind of beneficial tuning up. Perhaps simultaneous bursts of sugar AND insulin to replenish cells?

 

[Southwind17]

I have yet to see any scientific evidence suggesting that starting an alcohol habit is healthier than ending one.

But to end one you have to have started one first. Adding insult to injury can't possibly make something healthier, can it?!

 

[Aepervius]

My two cent , probably the same effect as the french paradox. Drinking moderately a bit of alcohol, bring into your body other substance suspected to be positive to your health (tanin for example) I dunno if it was falsified or not. So it isn't surprising to hear healthy moderate drinker live longer in average than healthy non drinker. But it is quite surprising to hear that heavy drinker have a lower mortality than non drinker.

I think I will have to take over drinking 1 glass of alcohol per day or two .

 

[Uncayimmy]

I unfortunately do not have access to the paper. What I know is that there is much room for error in these alcohol studies. They simply cannot pin down causation; and the significant amount of uncertainty in the results suggests it's more of a correlation.

So, how do you respond to the repeated positive correlations regarding mortality and moderate alcohol consumption? It's not like the studies are all over the place. The results are consistent.

What room for errors do you know about? Are researchers unaware of them?

Alcohol's effects on the body and much of its effects on the brain are well documented. I have yet to see any scientific evidence suggesting that starting an alcohol habit is healthier than ending one.

It's interesting you should call it a habit. If we were talking about vitamin C, would you call it a habit?

Define healthier. The studies have looked at mortality. I would say that pretty much every drug on the market has some negative side effect, some of which are serious. Doctors often recommend courses of drugs that prolong life at the expense of overall health. It seems to me this discussion so far sounds very different than one about a drug with an unknown mechanism of action.

 

[Southwind17]

But it is quite surprising to hear that heavy drinker have a lower mortality than non drinker.

No such thing as "lower mortality"; we all die, sooner or later. Ah ... "later". That's the point, right!

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

*Did not join to make this post*

I don't have any statistics to hand, so there are several reasonable assumptions in what I'm about to say. If anyone has the statistics regarding how much alcohol the average person consumes, the general age range for alcohol consumption and how many people within that test were affected with health issues prohibiting alcohol consumption; I'd be grateful. I'm aware the last one is a bit of a stretch.

I think it is reasonable to say that on a weekly basis the majority of people would fall into the "moderate drinker" category. Lets throw a figure at it and call it 80% of people in any given collection of 1,000 people collected off of the street would be "moderate drinkers" or would have been moderate drinkers in the past, given "abstaining from alcohol does actually tend to increase one's risk of dying even when you exclude former drinkers" those that were drinkers and now are not did not contribute to the "non drinkers" mortality statistic.

The other two groups, the "heavy drinkers" and the "non drinkers" are an even split of the last 20%. Further assumptions incoming, I think it is reasonable to say that those who drink heavily or not at all do so under such a huge variety of conditions and for so many different reasons that its illogical/a waste of time to attempt to correlate reasoning with either stance.

Getting back to the "moderate drinkers"... moderation in all things. Without seeing the actual statistics of that study I could just as easily say "Heavy Drinkers Suicide Ratio 1:3" and you'd not be able to get back to much on it.

My point is that within reason you can't just take a group of people, segregate them based on one thing and then attribute the resulting divisions with amazing properties. For instance, people eat oranges, I take 1,000 people off of the street and ask them how many oranges do they eat a day. Dividing them up into three categories, "Monkey", "Fruit Bat" and "Carnivore" where "Monkey" is 5+ and "Carnivore" is 0. I find that almost miraculously those in the "Monkey" category can jump higher than those in the "Carnivore" category and then attribute this to their consumption of oranges. Thus, eat oranges and jump higher.

I would probably fall into the "moderate drinker" category myself and I could say that of all the moderate and heavy drinkers I know/knew, not alot of them are dead. I could say the same about the people who abstain.