Jump to content

Mike41

Member
  • Posts

    607
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mike41

  1. Hi McCoy,

    your right two drinks is too much. Just go with the good science. It’s a slam dunk that light amounts of quality red wine with a meal is a good habit. YEAH ETHANOL IS A TOXIN. BUT THE POISON IS IN THE DOSE AND THE CONTEXT!!! LOTS OF POISONS IN THE PLANT WORLD ARE AMAZING SUBSTANCES FOR HEALTH IN THE PROPER SETTING, DOSE AND CONTEXT. THE HEADLINES ARE ABOUT ETHANOL. THEY DONT BOTHER DIGGING HARD INTO THE FACTS. SO NOW WE HAVE THIS EVIDENCE ABOUT ETHANOL AND JUST SAY NO TO ANY SOURCE, DOSE OR CONTEXT. TOTALLY MORONIC, BUT ITS THE EASY, LAZY WAY TO JUST MAKE  THE MESSAGE STICK! 
     

    ALCHOHOL IS BAD FOR YOU END OF STORY. TOO COMPLEX TO SAY WHAT IS ACTUALLY TRUE. STUDIES LOOK AT DRINKERS AND MANY ARE BINGING OCCASIONALLY AND CLAIMING A DRINK A DAY ETC. WELL WHATS A DRINK?? ITS A MESS. THE LINK OF WINE WITH CANCER IS AGAIN ABOUT HOW MUCH. THE EVIDENCE IS LESS CANCER IF AMOUNTS ARE LIGHT. 

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2023.1197745/full

     

  2. On 2/22/2024 at 1:16 AM, Ron Put said:

    As noted before, red wine studies are almost always influenced by the wine industry. Neither the Okinawans nor the Adventists drink red wine, yet they are (or were, in the case of the Okinawas) the longest-living groups in the world.

    I used to believe the headlines when younger, then started paying attention to details in the studies, and the final push to almost stop drinking was the tracker data staring me in the face the morning after I had a glass or two. The data after drinking a glass or two of wine basically mirrors the data after eating a couple of slices of rich cake.

    I still do both occasionally, but I no longer have illusions that either is beneficial to my health.

    I agree Ron that industry influence is a concern, but the evidence for red wine is overwhelming and quite a few solid studies measuring physiology are not industry funded. Red wine is a very unique substance when aged and made properly.

  3. On 7/14/2016 at 12:51 PM, Dean Pomerleau said:

    Todd,

     

     

     

    The choline:

     

     

    EqzIQYo.png

     

     

    Having high TMAO in the bloodstream as a result of feeding your gut bacteria lots of (phosphatidy)choline, found mostly in eggs and other animal products, doubles your 5-year risk of all-cause mortality, as discussed on the thread pointed to above and in PMID 27287696.

     

    In PMID 27281307 (discussed here), they looked at the association between dietary choline and all-cause mortality. Compared to the lowest quintile intake of choline, people who ate the most choline had a 25% increase in all-cause mortality. That may not seem like much, but in diabetics the mortality risk associated with eating a lot of choline was 66% higher. As I'm sure you know Todd, SBMA is often accompanied by diabetes (PMID: 15376484), and with your relatively elevated fasting glucose, I'd personally think seriously about this, especially since your daily consumption of three eggs alone (not including any other choline sources in your diet) already puts your choline intake above the intake of the highest quintile in this study (360mg from your three eggs vs 325mg total for Q5). The Q5 folks in this study ate 0.7 eggs/day on average, vs your 3 eggs per day, and vs. 0.1 eggs per day on average for the low-mortality folks in Q1. See a pattern?

     

    Once again Todd, your 5-year risk of mortality might be high enough so this doesn't matter. Heck, eggs, as a good source of protein, might be a net win for you due to your condition, as you've suggested. But I strongly doubt it. It seems to me you could find other sources of protein that wouldn't have the high levels of choline. For example, you never really explained why you cut out all legumes on that other thread.

     

    It seems to me Todd that those chickens you care for and love so much may be getting back at you for stealing their eggs and eventually wringing their necks...

     

    And for those of us who are relatively healthy, eggs aren't a good option either, independent of their cholesterol content, ignoring the cruelty, and regardless of what Whole Paycheck, or the USDA for that matter, says about them.

     

    --Dean

    https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/S0735-1097(22)02448-2
     

  4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6478559/

    In summary, our studies reveal that the red wines, particularly mature wines (#1 and #3), dramatically decrease the rates of human cancer cell growth and colony formation, while diluted ethanol at same concentration boosts cell growth. The red wines also cause death of the grew up cancer cells and inhibit Pol III gene transcription. It implies that the red wine may contain some bioactive components and function potential to repress cancer development. Thus, identifying the bioactive components in red wine and enhancing their yielding ratio during producing processes will enhance the quality of red wine, which will benefit people with red wine consumption

  5. On 1/25/2024 at 7:21 AM, Dean Pomerleau said:

    Nice video and great summary @drewab!

    Regarding Dr Greger's faulty math. He says studies show ~90 minutes of exercise per day is optimal. At a brisk walking pace of 3.5mph, that 90min would be about 5.25 miles of walking. At about 2200 steps per mile, that would be about 11.5k steps per day, not 30k.

    Thanks Dean! That is reassuring. I can’t imagine do 30,000 steps a day. I’d be exhausted to say the least. Personally I shoot for 8000 steps as walking exercise including a bit of jogging and brisk hill climbing. Add that to my regular activities and I’m sure I meet the 11,000 threshold.

  6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10274991/
     

    this recent, not yet peer reviewed, study was very long term and used twins. Conclusion: exercise may be confounded with good health and healthier lifestyle! I personally have doubts about this because exercise in and of itself improves so many physiological factors. But the research appears to be well done except that none of these kinds of studies control well for so many variables. This one may be better than others, but I’m still skeptical.

  7. On 12/14/2023 at 5:12 PM, mccoy said:

    Mike, have you understood from that article what exactly is a low alcohol intake?

    Of course no more than a drink a day. The fact that low to moderate ALCOHOL is, for the most part, beneficial is all the more reason to drink red wine. Also underreporting is an extreme problem in these studies. Especially occasional, very harmful, binge drinking which is rarely included. People tend to report what they drink “normally”, but do not include occasional binges which can wreak a lot of damage. This indicates that the levels are if anything lower than they should be as to harmful effects. But to me the critical point is that Red Wine has been well established as a healthier carrier of alcohol. It modifies its negative effects and has many verified benefits beyond the alcohol content. That makes this research all the more supportive of a daily 5 oz glass of wine with a meal. Powerful medicine indeed! It should be noted that red wine does not have some of the cancer effects of alcohol in other forms like spirits and beer based on substantial research.

  8. On 12/15/2023 at 11:44 AM, Ron Put said:

    Thanks Mike. I'd actually already heard this, but listened to much of it again, just in case. I fail to see how the Patrick interview addresses any of my concerns or observations.

    She essentially rehashes all the studies favorable to Omega-3 supplementation, without even bringing up any research that either fails to replicate the purported benefits, or shows potential detrimental effects, such as increase in LDL cholesterol. She did disclose that she is also working for Bill Harris nowadays, who built a large business around Omega-3 testing and has a strong vested interest in creating a "crisis" of supposed Omega-3 insufficiency in the population.

    Since most of the claims of benefits are not confirmed by large meta studies, some of which are linked above, I take them with a grain of salt.

    In addition, virtually all of the claims of benefits are based on metabolically unhealthy populations -- The egg industry uses a similar trick to show that there is no significant cholesterol increase in populations who have already high plasma cholesterol saturation. Substitution of more harmful fats also appears to have a role in many of the Omega-3 studies (similar to many olive oil industry studies). And very importantly, I am not aware of any Blue Zone population that consumes high amounts of Omega-3s -- the Okinawans consumed far less Omega-3 that the rest of Japan, and vegan Seventh Day Adventists live longer than pescatarian ones.

    Ron I tend to agree that it’s hard to make sense of it all. It’s like vitamin D where you have all kinds of conflicting views on how much is enough and how much is too much. Same can be said for red wine. Although I figure 4 or 5 ounces with a meal would be a plus for most people. But of course the case against any alcohol in any form is certainly out there. My approach to omega 3 is going in the direction of a couple cans of sardines per week and some walnuts.

  9. On 10/25/2023 at 2:10 PM, IgorF said:

    And here lies the problem - there is no _strong_ evidence of benefits at all, there are rather manipulative practices to persuade us that there are benefits. It is not possible to prove that benefits do exist for a simple reason - the wine is a compound of multiple molecules and to cut out all the possible confounders the design study that could bring a proof will be impractical (giving there exist just one "wine" that is obviously not true).

    For the things that are really working the common practice looks like this - controlled studies executed in large groups (hundreds or thousands of participants) consequently reproduce the effect which with data accumulation usually becomes less and less significant but does not disappear completely (it often disappears and thus the studied thing is marked as just not working and makes no sense to loose money on further studies).

    While I was a drinker for many years and loved it I came to conclusion that all this "wine in moderation" stuff makes no sense at all, there is just no way for it to work from the probabilistic point of view. The most reactive things we know are neural toxines - these are effective in very small doses due to their very specific affinity. All other things are less specific and they are either do have some affinity to some receptors - in this case the effect is visible and dose-reactive or they are passing-through due to minuscule chances to do any effect at all. This last thing seems true not only for wine but for a long list of other things being promoted for decades (or centuries) as beneficial, almost all really working things starts to become unwanted or even toxic with dose increase. So, cutting out alcohol from red wine to have a potent tool (concentration of something beneficial in it) without undesired alcohol effect is too easy to be done and probably was done thousands of times to see if there are really some working molecules there that has to become much more visible in their effect. This tiny experiment does not even require modern scientific method to discover an effect and sell one more elixir to all who is a potential customer of such a tool. So far this brought to us no "dry wine" that is a useful thing, probably because it is not a driver to sell more wine and also because people just do enjoy wine as it is without "scientific" support for it.

    IMHO offcourse.

    Br,

    Igor

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7920262/

    These effects were improved with non alcoholic wine. So your point wrt alchohol is supported by this research. 

    Nonetheless the effect on humans were quite evident of physiological changes that affect longevity genes with red wine. Small study, but well controlled.

  10. On 10/20/2023 at 1:39 AM, IgorF said:

    Maybe I don't understand the things right but the probability of the molecules in such studies to ever get in proximity (not to guarantee the interaction reported) to a cancer cell in the body is in negligible parts of a percent. The simple check is - anticancer cocktails and solid tumors - the whole decades of real world experience gained by clinicians (described by Sid Mukherjee in a great popsci book on cancer). Usually the active component is being used in several orders of magnitudes comparing to anyhow reachable from food sources and at the close to the fatal doses to have _some_ effect.

    So such studies are useful (no idea if efficient) from the perspective of new molecules search but from the dietary perspective they seems exist just to drive the sales process strategically.

    Maybe I am wrong with this but I am just thinking about it intuitively, I would be happy to see somebody describing the things more quantitatively.

    Br,

    Igor

    Well the evidence strongly suggest only beneficial effects from moderate red wine consumption. The detrimental effects of other alcoholic drinks are not seen with red wine. Red wine cannot be lumped in with beer and spirits. It has complexity that inhibits and in fact enhances the alcoholic content. Key is of course moderate consumption 

  11. On 3/9/2023 at 12:47 AM, Ron Put said:

    Based on what I have read, if there is any benefit it is mostly due to the alcohol, not to any magic in red wine specifically, no matter what the industry and the exporters, or studies they fund, claim. This would at least make some sense based on population studies. I get the hormesis idea, but like with cold exposure, on balance things may not be so clear. Alcohol appears to increase inflammation, and my understanding is the less inflammation triggers, the better.

    I am not sure if this has been posted before:

    Risk thresholds for alcohol consumption: combined analysis of individual-participant data for 599 912 current drinkers in 83 prospective studies

    In the 599 912 current drinkers included in the analysis, we recorded 40 310 deaths and 39 018 incident cardiovascular disease events during 5·4 million person-years of follow-up. For all-cause mortality, we recorded a positive and curvilinear association with the level of alcohol consumption, with the minimum mortality risk around or below 100 g per week. Alcohol consumption was roughly linearly associated with a higher risk of stroke (HR per 100 g per week higher consumption 1·14, 95% CI, 1·10–1·17), coronary disease excluding myocardial infarction (1·06, 1·00–1·11), heart failure (1·09, 1·03–1·15), fatal hypertensive disease (1·24, 1·15–1·33); and fatal aortic aneurysm (1·15, 1·03–1·28). By contrast, increased alcohol consumption was log-linearly associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction (HR 0·94, 0·91–0·97). In comparison to those who reported drinking >0–≤100 g per week, those who reported drinking >100–≤200 g per week, >200–≤350 g per week, or >350 g per week had lower life expectancy at age 40 years of approximately 6 months, 1–2 years, or 4–5 years, respectively.

    Ron see articles just posted

  12. RED WINE IN MODERATION HAS NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS!!!
    UNLIKE OTHER FORMS OF ALCOHOL 
    https://assets.cureus.com/uploads/review_article/pdf/191941/20231010-27025-131s294.pdf


    This review is not intended to encourage red wine consumption for health outcomes but rather to avoid discouraging moderate red wine consumption based on misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the red wine data due to the reporting of pooled data across all types of alcohol

     

    From this systematic review of the literature, there is no evidence of an association between moderate red wine consumption and negative health outcomes. Across the various outcomes assessed, a beneficial effect of moderate red wine consumption was consistently seen for mortality and dementia, along with certain cancers (e.g., non-Hodgkin lymphoma) and cardiovascular conditions (e.g., metabolic syndrome). For other health outcomes, the association was neutral, i.e., neither harmful nor beneficial.

    As my Italian Grandma insisted Wine is the best medicine. She died at 98. Drank it every day.

    Ron Putt are you reading this?

  13. 53 minutes ago, mccoy said:

    Very interesting article, although all the results have been obtained in vitro, whereas we would prefer some in vivo replicas.

    Strangely, the authors do not mention the presence of Acutissimin-A, a powerful anticarcinogenetic compound found in red wine aged in oak barrels, which was cited in this forum a few years ago.

    No it did not. personally I drink Robert Mondavi oak barrel wine Cabernet Sauvignon. 
     

    For what it’s worth Mondavi died at 94. His son now runs the winery

×
×
  • Create New...