Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook      Sign In   
  • Create Account       

Photo

Alcohol


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 paulgfoster

paulgfoster
  • Member
  • 27 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 01:50 AM

Hello ,I have a question regarding alcohol , in specific red wine.
I have read Hungarian Pinot Noir is best for reservatrol but i drink an Austraian red as its easier living here.
I appreciate people follow Cr in there own way but would really like to know how much wine others that drink actually consume ?
I am drinking 120 mls day and wonder if this is too much? I would appreciate some opinions. Incidentally i have been on Cr since last year and my health and blood levels have shown vast improvement. :)

#2 Guigcam

Guigcam
  • Member
  • 2 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 08:50 PM

1 or 2 glasses of wine a day is the recommended amount for a male. Studies show that those who drink regularly but in small amounts live longer than those who abuse alcohol or not drink at all. Regarding resveratrol, no wine has therapeutic amounts anyway (i.e. 250mg per day) so just drink the one you like most. Besides, new evidence questions the benefits of resveratrol:

http://www.fightagin...r-revisited.php

Hope that helps

#3 Guest_boomdog_*

Guest_boomdog_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2012 - 12:05 PM

The health benefits of resveratrol in humans are increasingly questioned, but something in red wine is helping. Better to stick with the good stuff (real red).

I think the maximum in the survival curve is around one 'standard US drink', or 14 g of alcohol. This is around 5 fl oz. of many wines; you should calculate it based on the ABV (alcohol by volume) printed on the bottle. My favorite wines are all entered into cronometer so I can easily get the right amount.

boomdog

1 or 2 glasses of wine a day is the recommended amount for a male. Studies show that those who drink regularly but in small amounts live longer than those who abuse alcohol or not drink at all. Regarding resveratrol, no wine has therapeutic amounts anyway (i.e. 250mg per day) so just drink the one you like most. Besides, new evidence questions the benefits of resveratrol:

http://www.fightagin...r-revisited.php

Hope that helps



#4 Michael R

Michael R
  • Moderator
  • 564 posts
  • Website URL:http://www.sens.org/

Posted 28 June 2012 - 07:05 AM

I have read Hungarian Pinot Noir is best for reservatrol but i drink an Austraian red as its easier living here.

As others have already noted, the idea that even mega-dose resveratrol is a "CR mimetic" is discredited; the amounts in a glass of wine are trivial by comparison.It does seem that some non-alcohol component of wine contributes to an apparently greater health benefit relative to other alcohol sources; the small amounts of resveratrol might be one of them, but so could any number of other polyphenols.

And, really, the amounts of resveratrol in different wines vary too much to worry about terroir or varietal.

I appreciate people follow Cr in there own way but would really like to know how much wine others that drink actually consume ?
I am drinking 120 mls day and wonder if this is too much?


No, that's probably just about optimal, from this meta-analysis(1):

Posted Image
Figure 1. Relative risk of total mortality (95% confidence interval) and alcohol intake in men (left) and women (right). Etracted from 56 curves using fixed- and random-effects models. From (1); cf eg (2) for similar findings in wine specifically.

As you can see, the lowest mortality is at about 5 g/d of alcohol, which is ~50 mL, but is essentially the same up to 10 g alcohol/100 mL wine. I myself consume 90 mL.

Incidentally i have been on Cr since last year and my health and blood levels have shown vast improvement. :)

Congrats!

References

1. Di Castelnuovo A, Costanzo S, Bagnardi V, Donati MB, Iacoviello L, de Gaetano G. Alcohol dosing and total mortality in men and women: an updated meta-analysisof 34 prospective studies. Arch Intern Med. 2006 Dec 11-25;166(22):2437-45. PubMed PMID: 17159008.

2. Streppel MT, Ocké MC, Boshuizen HC, Kok FJ, Kromhout D. Long-term wine consumption is related tocardiovascular mortality and life expectancy independently of moderate alcohol intake: the Zutphen Study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009 Jul;63(7):534-40. PubMed PMID: 19406740.

#5 DanRMorris

DanRMorris
  • Member
  • 1 posts
  • Website URL:http://www.benefits-of-resveratrol.com

Posted 31 July 2012 - 11:08 PM

Resveratrol is an antioxidant created by plants to protect them from disease. Grapes happen to be one of those plants (both light and dark grapes). The grapes that produce the highest amount of resveratrol are those that fight problems the most. For instance the Hungarian wines you speak of are grown in a climate that must protect itself from both summer heat and winter cold. Were the grapes to have grown organically, they would also have to fight bugs and disease.

The healthiest wines, and those with the highest levels of resveratrol, are the ones made with those grapes. Since much of the resveratrol manifests in the skin of the grape, you can cut the number of healthy wines in half by eliminating the white wines. Light skinned grape skins are removed for much of the fermentation process. That leaves you with grapes grown in northern regions, whose plantations used little to no chemicals.

Aside from northern, mountainous organic wines - traditionally the healthiest wines are:

  • The Cannonau Grapes from The Nuoro Province in Sardinia
  • Malbec Grapes from Argentina
  • Nebbiolo Grapes from the Lombardy region of Italy
  • Tannat Grapes from the Madiran Region of France
  • Sagratino Grapes from Tuscany, Italy
  • Cabarnet Sauvignon Grapes from the Chile or Argentina
  • Dark Muscadine Grapes from North Carolina
-http://www.benefits-of-resveratrol.com/the-healthiest-wines.html

I hope that helps.

Dan


Hello ,I have a question regarding alcohol , in specific red wine.
I have read Hungarian Pinot Noir is best for reservatrol but i drink an Austraian red as its easier living here.
I appreciate people follow Cr in there own way but would really like to know how much wine others that drink actually consume ?
I am drinking 120 mls day and wonder if this is too much? I would appreciate some opinions. Incidentally i have been on Cr since last year and my health and blood levels have shown vast improvement. :)



#6 paulgfoster

paulgfoster
  • Member
  • 27 posts

Posted 03 August 2012 - 02:18 AM

Thanks so much for the informative replies. Due to living in Australia and the difficulty obtaining specific European wines and a change in my financial circumstances i am currently drinking a red blend which is local from the Margaret river region, a blend of cabernet and merlot and completely organic/preservative free.
The problem of how much to drink has been answered for me as i now need to follow a budget and only drink 50 mls a day which i still enjoy.
Whether or not i get any reservatrol in that small amount is questionable but thats ok , ill stick with it anyway.
Paul

#7 mccoy

mccoy
  • Member
  • 1,115 posts

Posted 05 April 2018 - 04:37 AM

Upping this one as well


"Data speak for themselves" -Reverend Thomas Bayes 1702-1761
P(Ai|E)=(P(E|Ai)P(Ai))/P(E)


#8 Gordo

Gordo
  • Member
  • 539 posts
  • Website URL:http://gordosoft.com

Posted 06 April 2018 - 09:08 AM

Another decent new vid on this subject:



#9 mikeccolella

mikeccolella
  • Supporting
  • 264 posts

Posted 06 April 2018 - 10:28 AM

I dont like this guy. He always has an agenda to push. He cherry picks. I have tried and tried to figure this out to my satisfaction and simply gave up and decided I will just go with my 3.5 oz cannonau wine with lunch and Michael Rae’s most recent conclusions that yes wine 3-5 oz is a positive health wise. I like Michael because he never has any agenda. For him its pure as the driven snow! What is the truth or at least the best evidence!

Edited by mikeccolella, 06 April 2018 - 10:32 AM.


#10 Sibiriak

Sibiriak
  • Member
  • 340 posts

Posted 06 April 2018 - 12:31 PM

Another highly misleading, deceptive, and ultimately dishonest video from Greger.


Hoka hey! Today is a good day to fight! Today is a good day to die!


#11 TomBAvoider

TomBAvoider
  • Member
  • 511 posts

Posted 06 April 2018 - 01:49 PM

Whenver I see controversies such as these "is there a health benefit/risk to X", I always ask - does it matter based on the *size* of the effect? I mean, take smoking tobacco. There is very little controversy, and we didn't need many studies to show that overwhelmingly it's a terrible negative (edge cases like possible parkinsons benefits excepted). After decades of further examination, there is still overwhelming consensus that it's terribly negative. Why? Because the effect is so strong. But if you can have contradictory studies going *both* ways for literally decades and decades, then odds are that the effect is quite small. Because if it was big, it would become as clear cut as smoking - there are NO studies showing benefits to smoking (again edge cases like parkinsons excepted). And if the effect is small, then why should I worry about it one way or the other?

 

So it is with light/moderate drinking. The effect doesn't appear to be large - maybe it slightly raises cancer risks, maybe it slightly cuts CV risks, it all comes out as a wash. Drink if you want, don't if you don't, it's not a big clear-cut effect like smoking.



#12 mccoy

mccoy
  • Member
  • 1,115 posts

Posted 07 April 2018 - 09:19 AM

Except maybe for ladies. Maybe for them it's justified as a cautionary principle not to drink at all. Or  just hormetic amounts, like 10 cc's red wine.


"Data speak for themselves" -Reverend Thomas Bayes 1702-1761
P(Ai|E)=(P(E|Ai)P(Ai))/P(E)


#13 mccoy

mccoy
  • Member
  • 1,115 posts

Posted 07 April 2018 - 09:21 AM

The cannonau has a good fame but quality at the end probably governs. The one I found in the supermarket shelves did not taste like rich in polys.

 

And how much is 'rich'? Concentrations?

 

I'm starting to talk to manufacturers to have a hint about that.


"Data speak for themselves" -Reverend Thomas Bayes 1702-1761
P(Ai|E)=(P(E|Ai)P(Ai))/P(E)


#14 mikeccolella

mikeccolella
  • Supporting
  • 264 posts

Posted 08 April 2018 - 06:31 AM

In response to Tom’s point on effect I would say the effect wrt heart disease is worth considering if one, like myself, has a very strong family history of heart disease. The study should be large, account for former drinkers, consider the confounding and control for drug use like statins, hbp meds etc and I think the biggest problem is self reporting and the tendency is to under report which most likely softens the effect of moderate drinking such that it is most likely a more profound effect than what the studies report especially if aggregation is applied to former drinkers. And one such study did just that using about 2 million people. The effect on cardio was impressive imo and yes A small glass of wine seems like a very good bet!

https://www.bmj.com/...nt/356/bmj.j909

#15 mccoy

mccoy
  • Member
  • 1,115 posts

Posted 08 April 2018 - 02:52 PM

Good article, data seem to contradict heavily Dr. Greger's statements.

Also, if there really is a bias in the self-reported drinking habits (quantities are reported as less than they really are), the moderate drinkers, who appear to reap the most benefit from alcohol would actually tend to be occasional drinkers, and this would mean that alcohol has actually an hormetic effect. 

If the above is true, it may even be that the optimum is in between a 'moderate'  and occasional consumption, for example 0.5 to 1 drinks per day.


Edited by mccoy, 08 April 2018 - 02:56 PM.

"Data speak for themselves" -Reverend Thomas Bayes 1702-1761
P(Ai|E)=(P(E|Ai)P(Ai))/P(E)


#16 Michael R

Michael R
  • Moderator
  • 564 posts
  • Website URL:http://www.sens.org/

Posted 08 April 2018 - 03:58 PM

Good article, data seem to contradict heavily Dr. Greger's statements.


Surprise ;)xyz
 

Also, if there really is a bias in the self-reported drinking habits (quantities are reported as less than they really are), the moderate drinkers, who appear to reap the most benefit from alcohol would actually tend to be occasional drinkers, and this would mean that alcohol has actually an hormetic effect. 
If the above is true, it may even be that the optimum is in between a 'moderate'  and occasional consumption, for example 0.5 to 1 drinks per day.


No: like Mechanism, you're thinking about this backward. If people systematically underreport how much they're drinking, then people who report 'moderate' drinking are likely to be drinking more than this, not less (and similarly, the 'excessive' drinkers are more excessive than they say they are). As I note above, the meta-analysis finds "the lowest mortality is at about 5 g/d of alcohol [as wine], which is ~50 mL, but is essentially the same up to 10 g alcohol/100 mL wine." The implication of underreporting is that this really means teh sweet spot is slightly higher — say, 100-150.

 

Doubtless, however, there's a skew: I expect that the more one is drinking, the more one is inclined to underreport, both consciously (for reasons of stigma) and unconsciously (because it's easier to mistakenly forget a third drink than it is to forget having drunk anything at all, and because people who frequently engage in any behavior take less note of specific occasions, and because large quantities of alcohol ain't so good for the memory even in the short term).



#17 mccoy

mccoy
  • Member
  • 1,115 posts

Posted 09 April 2018 - 05:24 AM

Heck, Michael, yes, I went the other direction, thanks for pointing that out.

 

But then qualitatively the consequence would be that the most benefit (visually attributable to the moderate drinkers from the HR plots) would go in reality to the heavy drinkers, which sounds scientifically unreasonable. So that casts some doubt on the conclusion of the Bell et al. study from BMJ. Again, the doubt is that if there is some bias, then more than moderate alcohol consumption would consitute the optimum. Such a bottomlilne begs further checks for sure.

 

Whereas the plot you previously posted seems to be totally reasonable from the standpoint of the a priori knowledge and empirical observation.

 

The optimum being within a range of about 1/3 to 2/3 drink per day for men (as you comment, it doesn't change much because the curve has not a pronounced slope). This is very well within the quantities usually assumed to be very moderate.

 

For our own convenience, I'll sum it up like follows, considering that the density of alcohol is 789 kgm-3:

  • Optimum consumption about 5 g/d: about 6 ml alcohol considering a 0.79 g/cm-3 = 0.79 g/mL alcohol density.
  • Beneficial range about 2 to 12 g/d: about 2.5 to 15 ml alcohol considering a 0.79 g/cm-3 alcohol density.

100 ml of a 15% alcohol wine would seem to be the upper bound of the interval according the study you posted and this agrees with your quick estimates.

 

Underreporting would stretch that optimum range, as you say, more in  the direction of the suggested USDA 2 drinks/d upper bound. 


Edited by mccoy, 09 April 2018 - 07:00 AM.

"Data speak for themselves" -Reverend Thomas Bayes 1702-1761
P(Ai|E)=(P(E|Ai)P(Ai))/P(E)


#18 Mechanism

Mechanism
  • Supporting
  • 447 posts

Posted 09 April 2018 - 09:11 AM

Hi Michael... I agree with your point 100% for alcohol ( I couldn’t have said it better myself). You communicate with a precision and clarity that is regrettably uncommon in published manuscripts lest of all public discourse.

For our thread you refer to above, there is another concern, although obviously I could have done a better job expressing it and drawing attention to it in my lengthy post. In that vein, I have just summarized my persistent concern there, which I hope helps.

Best regards,

Mechanism

Edited by Mechanism, 09 April 2018 - 09:38 AM.


#19 Thomas G

Thomas G
  • Member
  • 127 posts

Posted 09 April 2018 - 10:30 AM

People really, really, really want to believe that moderate drinking is healthy. I would include myself in this category. And there is an entire industry backing studies designed to tell us what we want to hear.

 

I find this study persuasive that the balance of evidence suggest moderate drinking increaces the risk for cancer: https://onlinelibrar....1111/add.13477

 

But what if I am wrong about this? I'm I really giving up some significant health benefit by giving up one glass of red wine a day? It doesn't seem like I'm losing anything I can't get more effectively by other methods.



#20 TomBAvoider

TomBAvoider
  • Member
  • 511 posts

Posted 09 April 2018 - 12:44 PM

Well, that's the thing, isn't it, the decision about alcohol has to be individualized. If you are particularly vulnerable to cancer, then perhaps avoiding alcohol is the way to go. If you have no family history of cancer and your SNPs line up to show you'll benefit from alcohol and you have some CV concerns, it might make sense to imbibe. The studies are always population based, but the future is personalized medicine.