Posted on 01/30/2006 1:47:10 PM PST by jjm2111
Boffetta and Mia Hashibe, who reviewed research into the link between alcohol and cancer, found the more alcohol consumed, the higher the risk of developing cancer.
But they advised people to drink moderately, rather than give up alcohol completely, because of its protective benefits against cardiovascular disease.
"Total avoidance of alcohol, although optimum for cancer control, cannot be recommended in terms of broad perspective of public health, in particular in countries with high incidence of cardiovascular disease," Boffetta said in a report in The Lancet Oncology journal.
Instead, the scientists said men and women should limit how much alcohol they drink to reap the benefits but avoid the dangers.
"The most recent version of the European code against cancer recommends keeping daily consumption to two drinks for men and one for women," Boffetta noted.
So the actual recommendation of the researchers you refer to in order to support your position is, "DON'T quit consuming alcoholic beverages - consume, in moderation!"
Sorry, not even close. I am not, and never have been associated with any religious group that prohibits alcohol.
* You were raised in a family that regarded alcoholic beverages, in any quantity, as "evil."
Nope, parents were both garden variety "social drinkers", who always drank alcohol at parties where they were expected to, and kept a modest liquor cabinet for use when they entertained guests.
* Your exposure to information about alcoholic beverages has been heavily weighted by the writings of prohibitionists.
Wrong again. I've read smatterings of the writings of 19th century prohibitionists, but not much and it was a long time ago. Most of my "exposure to information about alcoholic beverages" comes from news articles and medical research studies. I also went to college once upon a time, and later to law school. Saw lots of mindless drinking, several people getting their start on a life of alcoholism, and lots of young adults using alcohol to avoid learning how to deal with reality.
* You have personally experienced, or somebody close to you as experienced, something traumatic as a victim of somebody who abused alcohol.
My mother's biological father was an alcoholic. Her mother left him when she was 4, and he died (from the effects of alcohol) when she was around 12. It didn't have any direct impact on me, though it wasn't fun having a mother whose head was messed up in part (but only in part) because of her early experiences with her alcoholic father. I had a fairly close childhood friend whose mother was a full blown alcoholic, but I didn't even know about it until we were in our 30s and had a long "catching up" phone call after being out of touch for 15 years or more.
* You personally have a history of alcohol abuse and/or alcoholism.
Can't help you there either. Had a few drinks in high school and college (could probably count the total on my fingers), found it didn't enhance my life in any way at all, and saw it having a negative effect on a lot of people, in most cases simply that they never learned to enjoy themselves or the company of their friends without alcohol.
Rational thought and observation of the world around me led me to the conclusion that alcohol is one of the great destroyers of human society, running neck and neck with socialism. So I opted out of it. Wish I could opt out of socialism too, but the government keeps stealing money from my paycheck without my consent.
These researchers, like most people, have been brainwashed into thinking that giving up alcohol is simply unthinkable. So they squirm around the obvious conclusion, with tortured logic like: "Total avoidance of alcohol, although optimum for cancer control, cannot be recommended . . ." and gloss over the fact that "countries with high incidence of cardiovascular disease" are also countries with high incidence of excessive drinking, and of the accompanying lack of self-control that leads to, among other things, overeating and not exercising enough, and of deaths from alcohol poisoning and alcohol related medical problems. So we're to believe that one of the causative factors of all this harm, can somehow simultaneously be a partial cure.
The bottom line is, if you don't stuff your face (and that will be a lot easier to accomplish if you don't drink), you will be healthier and live longer if you don't drink alcohol. And if you do stuff your face, you can improve your health and longevity prospects a lot more by breaking that habit, than by using the habit as an excuse to drink alcohol "in moderation".
LMAO!!!!!!
Oddly, I've traveled pretty much the opposite direction.
I was religiously indoctrinated against any kind of alcohol consumption, and have relatives strongly opposed to the slightest consumption, and my early reading on the subject was mostly prohibitionist literature. And although I wasn't very much personally affected by it, I had a close family member who at one time had an alcohol problem.
Over the years, I've concluded that religious teetotalism doesn't wash, moderate consumption is healthful, and our teetotal-or-get-drunk attitude is very unhealthy for a variety of reasons.
Wish I could opt out of socialism too, but the government keeps stealing money from my paycheck without my consent.
Now there's something we can definitely agree on...
That's easy for you to say, being an airline pilot.
I don't think so, and here's why:
I've seen probably dozens of research studies listing the healthful benefits of moderate alcohol consumption. And almost without exception, until recently, they've said, "In spite of what the research says, we can't recommend that people consume alcoholic beverages."
In other words, BY FAR, the trend has been, until recently, to negate the findings by giving advice contrary to what the research actually finds.
So it's NOT that researchers are prejudiced against teetotalling - historically, they've been highly prejudiced TOWARDS teetotalling.
It's more of the teetotal-or-get-drunk mindset. And it seems to me that only lately is this changing. You can only list so many health benefits to a practice before you stop recommending that people don't do it. And it seems to me that the positive evidence has reached the point of being rather overwhelming.
gloss over the fact that "countries with high incidence of cardiovascular disease" are also countries with high incidence of excessive drinking, and of the accompanying lack of self-control that leads to, among other things, overeating and not exercising enough, and of deaths from alcohol poisoning and alcohol related medical problems
Let's suppose all of what you say here is true. I don't buy it, but let's suppose for a moment it is.
It STILL doesn't change the facts:
Teetotallers: moderate death rate.
Moderate consumers: LOWER death rate.
High consumers: higher death rate.
There's simply no way around the facts.
The bottom line is, if you don't stuff your face (and that will be a lot easier to accomplish if you don't drink), you will be healthier and live longer if you don't drink alcohol.
There's still NO way around the FACTS - UNLESS you assume that teetotallers stuff their faces with food more than moderate consumers, or fail to exercise, or some such. Could be, but certainly no such link has yet been demonstrated to my knowledge.
And if you do stuff your face, you can improve your health and longevity prospects a lot more by breaking that habit, than by using the habit as an excuse to drink alcohol "in moderation".
Or, you could do BOTH and likely improve your health MORE.
BTW, the studies DEFINE what IN MODERATION means. You talk as if there's no such thing. But there is.
Personally, I view alcoholic beverages much as I view other food items, and I believe this is the proper view.
I limit the amount of chocolate cake I eat, and I limit the amount of alcohol I consume. It's rather simple.
In fact, there might actually be a lifestyle reason why moderate consumers have healthier hearts: I suppose it takes a healthy, moderate attitude towards alcoholic beverages to be a moderate consumer. And perhaps that attitude is transferred to other lifestyle areas as well.
Still, there has to be a significant enough difference to show up against the teetotallers. And one could say that not consuming represents discipline as well. But still, moderate consumers have lower incidence of cardiac disease than teetotallers.
LOL Now, I can't party 8 hours straight. Working for 8 hours straight? Not without a nap at lunchtime. Those wild fun days are all behind me.
Funny you should say that. Naps are IN. I take a nap every afternoon.
It took me awhile but I finally realized that them Mexicans were onto something with their siestas.
Regards,
LH
I doubt it. Even if it were 10 drinks in 4 hours, it's still 10 drinks. 10 drinks isn't 4 drinks. I know people who can put away a whole case, but it is always over an 8-12 hour period and they are falling down drunk at the end of it. .165 is drunk. A 300lb man or a functioning alchoholic may not be feeling the effects, but an ordinary man would.
" Do you really expect some bystander to go hand-to-hand five on one?"
I've done it myself. I just can't stand allowing scum to have there way with innocent victims. That includes when they're armed and I'm not.
Sure you have. Were they all under 12 years of age and armed with rubber band guns?
I guess we differ on the exhausted definition. Yes I do know what you mean.
This incident occured after the bars closed, which looks like 4AM. I'm sure the guy was out to do some drinking, so he was at it for ~8 hrs. My comment about the breath site was correct. Their calculator understates BAC. That's from experience. 0.12-0.14 is impaired, but not effectively drunk. Drunk to the point of the behavior in this story is over 0.2. The cause of the cop's incoherency was the beating, not the drinks.
The cop was required to have his gun and be fit for duty at all times. I couldn't get their current patrol manual. Giuliani's anticorruption task force recommended that NY's driver limits(0.1), be what defines "fit for duty." It's unreasonable to expect fit for duty at all times. A cop's got to sleep and he's got to let loose sometimes. The fact that he did not drive, and went out with his sister shows he's not an alcoholic.
" Sure you have. Were they all under 12 years of age and armed with rubber band guns?"
No, they were adults, and there's no way I would be considered fit for duty at 0.1. One girl is alive today, because she was rescued from 6 knife wielding Latin King rapists. An off duty State trooper is gratful, that I jumped in after the bar patrons decided to beat him after they found out he was a cop.
Some years later he repayed the favor by disciplining 3 of his rookies, after they decided to get their kicks by dumping as many bogus tickets on me that they could when the bike broke down on the hwy. I stopped at the first place off hte hwy to use the restroom. They were all there with the sgt having lunch. I walked by the table and nodded hi to the sgt. As I continued on to the john, I heard, "WHAT DID YOU DO!" The people of that State are better off now that those 3 cops were taught a lesson.
I don't count jumping in on incidents like this, because it's only kids with pipes and stuff. I realize most folks can't jump in. When I say I will, it means just that.
But you were probably a little lethargic, a little less attentive, and a little slower than usual (although no proud 24 year old would dare admit to such! LOL). I would argue that a police officer's higher duty of care, and need to be exceedingly alert for split-second life-and-death decision-making, would clearly show that to be an improper approach.
Now, most cops I know have a 4-on, 3-off schedule, so his "off-duty" status could've meant that he had 2 days to recover, in which case I'd say that the binging was not a problem.
You may have frightened away a few drunks being a little too insistent with a girl, but I don't believe that you got into a knife fight with 6 Latin Kings intent on doing you harm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.