Alcohol, bummer.

steross

X
Patreon Supporter
It appears that contrary to the popular belief that mild to moderate drinking is not bad and maybe even good from a heart-protection standpoint that actually any alcohol is bad but the effects worsen in a dose dependent but non-linear fashion. I'm going to post two articles. The first is about a new Mendelian Randomization study (basically using genetic traits to "randomize" large groups of people to show causation instead of the typical correlation found with epidiemiology) that shows increased risk of high blood pressure and heart disease with any amount of drinking. So much for the long held idea that a couple of drinks a day are OK.

The second article goes into some of the conflicts of interest from the government scientists that have been advancing the theory that a small amount is healthy.

I'm not preaching or telling anyone what to do. Heck, we all do some things that are not good for our health. But, if any of you are drinking thinking a small amount is healthy, unfortunately that appears to be a false correlation.

 
Last edited:

Reassessing the relationship between alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease risk​

Mendelian randomization offers clearer insights than epidemiology or randomized trials to date​

PETER ATTIABy: Erin Donahue, Kathryn Birkenbach, Peter Attia
read time 5 minutes

Excess alcohol consumption is widely accepted to cause an increase in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. However, there has been some debate as to whether low to moderate alcohol intake is actually beneficial to cardiovascular health, as has been reported in past studies. Individuals who consume low and moderate levels of alcohol have been shown in observational studies to have characteristics associated with lower cardiovascular disease risk, yet many have argued that this apparent benefit of alcohol is really the result of other lifestyle factors that covary with low or moderate alcohol consumption and are themselves related to better health. While observational studies often attempt to adjust for some of these factors, no study can ever correct for every possible relevant variable, leaving the door open for misleading effects from confounders.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) allow more control over confounding variables associated with alcohol consumption, but these trials are difficult to conduct for alcohol consumption. First, the effects of low and moderate alcohol intake compared to abstinence on cardiovascular disease risk may be small enough that they would take many years to demonstrate significant divergence between groups, requiring decades-long studies which would be prohibitively expensive. Second, RCTs studying alcohol use would likely broach significant ethical concerns, given the health risks associated with alcohol consumption. With unreliable observational data and insurmountable logistical challenges to RCTs, what can we believe regarding the relationship between low or moderate alcohol intake and CVD risk? A study published last year in JAMA Cardiology addressed this question with the elegant solution of Mendelian randomization.

What is Mendelian randomization?​

Mendelian randomization (MR) is a method used to overcome the pitfalls of observational research, including the effect of confounding variables, to better allow causal inference without conducting an RCT. MR uses gene variants that are linked to a given exposure (in this case, alcohol consumption) as a proxy measure for that exposure. Gene variants are randomly distributed in the population, so using these variants in the place of alcohol consumption essentially constitutes a “natural” randomized trial and eliminates confounding due to other lifestyle or environmental factors. (More details on MR methodology can be found here in an excellent review.)

About the Study​

The study by Biddinger et al. employed MR to assess the relationship between alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease risk. The investigators used data from 371,436 individuals from the UK Biobank, and followed these individuals over a ten-year period to determine future CVD incidence. CVD outcomes assessed included hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD, defined as self-reported or registered hospitalization/death for myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting or angioplasty, or triple heart bypass), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.
The genetic proxy used in the MR for this analysis utilized nine gene variants associated with alcohol use disorder. Several of these, including variants in ALDH1B and ALDH1C (alcohol dehydrogenase 1B and 1C), directly impact the processing of alcohol and thus affect alcohol consumption by altering the magnitude of aversive side effects, while others, such as variants in DRD2 (dopamine receptor 2), are associated with the behavioral pathways implicated in alcohol addiction. The authors conducted statistical tests to ensure that necessary assumptions for MR were met – for instance, by determining that the genetic variants were not themselves related to CVD independently of alcohol use. Likewise, they confirmed that the variants used were indeed associated with alcohol exposure by monitoring levels of gamma glutamyl transferase, a blood-based biomarker for alcohol use, and by collecting self-reported alcohol intake data. Alcohol intake levels were stratified as light (>0-8.4 drinks/week), moderate (>8.4-15.4 drinks/week), heavy (>15.4-24.5 drinks/week), and abusive (>24.5 drinks/week).

What did the study find?​

In contrast to the findings of many earlier observational studies, Biddinger et al. found that all levels of alcohol exposure were associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. In a linear analysis of the relationship, the authors observed that each standard deviation increase in genetically predicted alcohol consumption was associated with a 30% higher risk of hypertension (OR=1.3; 95% CI: 1.2-1.4; P<0.001) over the ten-year follow-up, and a 40% higher risk of CAD (OR=1.4; 95% CI: 1.1-1.8; P=0.006). (The trend toward increased risk persisted for MI, stroke, and heart failure, but these did not reach statistical significance.) Even among the light drinking group, every one-drink per day increase in alcohol consumption was found to significantly raise risk of hypertension by 30% (OR=1.3; 95%CI: 1.1-1.5; P=0.003) and CAD by 70% (OR=1.7; 95%CI: 1.2-2.4; P<0.001). These results seem to refute the theory that low levels of alcohol consumption are beneficial for cardiovascular health and demonstrate that quite the opposite is true – even low intake is detrimental.
But the story didn’t end there. The authors next conducted tests for nonlinearity in the relationship between alcohol use and CVD risk and discovered that increases in intake did not affect the risk equally across drinking groups (light, moderate, heavy, and abusive). Specifically, while every one-drink per day increase in alcohol consumption among light drinkers increased the odds of hypertension and CAD respectively by 30% and 70% as described above, the same incremental increase in genetically predicted consumption raises the odds of hypertension and CAD in moderatedrinkers by 70% and 80%, respectively. In the abusive drinking group (>24.5 drinks/week), a one-drink daily increase elevated hypertension risk by 160% (OR=2.6; 95% CI: 1.6-4.2; P<0.001) and CAD risk by a whopping 470% (OR=5.7; 95% CI: 2.4-13.5; P<0.001). The continuous representation of this relationship is shown in the figure below, which clearly demonstrates how CVD risk increases monotonically and not linearly but exponentially with progressive levels of alcohol consumption.
1701665664596.png
Figure 1: The nonlinear association between alcohol consumption and risk of (A) hypertension and (B) CAD shows that low-level consumption is associated with a very slight increase in risk for these diseases, but that increasing levels of intake are associated with significant elevation in disease risk. From Biddinger et al. 2022.

Implications for Health​

Contrary to many epidemiological studies, Biddinger et al.’s results indicate that no level of alcohol intake – however small – is good for cardiovascular health, but the nonlinearity of the relationship between genetically determined drinking level and CVD risk has two important implications. Firstly, it tells us that people who consume alcohol at low levels indeed have elevated CVD risk relative to abstainers, but that this increase is fairly small and may be mitigated or offset by other factors, as we will discuss in greater detail in an upcoming premium newsletter. Secondly, the fact that risk increases exponentially with progressively greater alcohol consumption means that the inverse is also true: risk decreases exponentially with progressively lower alcohol consumption.
This second observation may seem obvious, but it ought to be encouraging to anyone hoping to cut back on alcohol intake because it indicates that meaningful reduction in CVD risk does not require complete abstinence from alcohol. For those who drink heavily, even small reductions in intake can have enormous effects in lessening risk of hypertension and CAD. For instance, according to Biddinger et al.’s results, a person who drinks, say, three glasses of wine per day (21 drinks per week) can reduce their CAD risk by over two-thirds just by shifting to two glasses per day (14 drinks per week) – a change that seems trivial in comparison to cutting out alcohol altogether, which many find difficult or even impossible.
So overall, the findings from this study offer a note of caution and a note of encouragement. Although no level of alcohol consumption is good for cardiovascular health, the risks at low levels of intake are small, and the benefits of reducing intake by even a modest amount can be substantial.
 
Last edited:

Scientists in Discredited Alcohol Study Will Not Advise U.S. on Drinking Guidelines​

Two researchers with ties to beer and liquor companies had been named to a panel that will review the health evidence on alcohol consumption. But after a New York Times story was published, the panel’s organizers decided to drop them.

By Roni Caryn Rabin
Dec. 1, 2023
Five years ago, the National Institutes of Health abruptly pulled the plug on an ambitious study about the health effects of moderate drinking. The reason: The trial’s principal scientist and officials from the federal agency’s own alcohol division had solicited $60 million for the research from alcohol manufacturers, a conflict of interest and a violation of federal policy.
Recently, that scientist and another colleague from the aborted study with alcohol industry ties were named to a committee preparing a report on alcohol and health that will be used to update the federal government’s guidelines on alcohol consumption.
The appointments of the two men, Dr. Kenneth Mukamal and Dr. Eric Rimm, both of Harvard, have not been finalized yet, Megan Lowry, a spokeswoman for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, whose food and nutrition board formed the committee, said this week in response to an inquiry from The New York Times. Members of the public can submit comments on the tentative appointments through Wednesday, Dec. 6.
Less than an hour after this article was published, Ms. Lowry emailed to say the academies had decided not to include Dr. Mukamal and Dr. Rimm on the panel.

“After considering public comments the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have received on provisional appointees to a committee that will review the evidence of the effects of alcohol on health, Eric B. Rimm and Kenneth J. Mukamal are no longer being considered for service on the committee,” Ms. Lowry wrote.

Dr. Rimm, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who has said in various financial disclosures that he has accepted money from the alcohol industry, had been nominated to chair the committee.

Many public health researchers were outraged at the prospect of the men influencing a process that will result in official guidance on drinking.


“It’s like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse,” said Dr. Michael Siegel, a public health researcher and visiting professor at Tufts University School of Medicine.

The N.I.H, the nation’s top medical research agency, had halted the $100 million study, which was to be a decade-long international clinical trial of moderate drinking, after learning that officials from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism had lobbied beer and liquor companies to fund the trial and that Dr. Mukamal had gone to industry meetings where he described the proposed trial and indicated that the results would support moderate drinking. Dr. Mukamal denied any wrongdoing at the time and said he had never received funding from the industry.
An internal N.I.H. investigation into the affair suggested the trial had been designed in a way that biased the study in favor of showing a beneficial effect from moderate drinking.

Dr. Rimm has long voiced the view that moderate drinking protects against heart disease. Just last month, he said on a science and nutrition podcast that people could cut their risk of heart disease by changing their behaviors and eating a healthy diet that includes “a little bit of alcohol.”

Asked to comment, Dr. Rimm said it was premature because the appointments were not final. Dr. Mukamal did not respond to a request for comment.


Image
A portrait of Dr. Kenneth Mukamal, who wears a dark patterned tie and white button-down shirt and is photographed against a white wall near a window.

Dr. Kenneth Mukamal, professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School.Credit...Kayana Szymczak for The New York Times


The new panel will review evidence about the relationship between drinking and a range of health issues, including obesity, cancer, heart disease, cognitive health and all-cause mortality. It will also examine the effects of drinking while breastfeeding, including the impact on postpartum weight loss; milk composition and quantity; and infant development.
Eventually, the Department of Health and Human Services will oversee the updating of the federal nutritional guidelines for both food and alcohol. But the legislation that allocated the funds says that the secretary of agriculture is responsible for ensuring that “the process is fully transparent and includes a balanced representation of individuals who are unbiased and free from conflicts of interest.”

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which is a part of H.H.S., will consider the committee’s report when it makes its recommendations about how much alcohol American adults should drink, in the next edition of the dietary guidelines, according to Joellen Leavelle, a spokeswoman for the H.H.S. division of health promotion and communication.
 
I've basically come to terms w/ the fact that I'm drinking mild poison. I had a dry spell from Labor day-Thanksgiving. Try to limit myself to two drinks on Friday night and two drinks on Saturday night and no drinking on the weekdays.

Don't always follow those rules though...
 
I've basically come to terms w/ the fact that I'm drinking mild poison. I had a dry spell from Labor day-Thanksgiving. Try to limit myself to two drinks on Friday night and two drinks on Saturday night and no drinking on the weekdays.

Don't always follow those rules though...
Pretty much where I am.

I posted this because the wife and I would fairly frequently have a glass of wine or two (or beer ) with dinner and I was telling myself it was healthy. But, that isn't reality so we have mostly cut that out. But, I'm not ready to never drink again as I think the benefits are pretty marginal against minimal use.
 
Prediction: In the next 24 months, we will see a study that indicates mild alcohol consumption has health benefits.
 
Prediction: In the next 24 months, we will see a study that indicates mild alcohol consumption has health benefits.
Absolutely.

But, it will be a use survey that is statistically manipulated to attempt to remove confounders. It won't be a 371,000 person randomized long term trial.

I really hate the media loving to cover studies and the researchers creating press conferences and all that BS. What gets covered is the most tantalizing result, not the best science.
 
Pretty much where I am.

I posted this because the wife and I would fairly frequently have a glass of wine or two (or beer ) with dinner and I was telling myself it was healthy. But, that isn't reality so we have mostly cut that out. But, I'm not ready to never drink again as I think the benefits are pretty marginal against minimal use.
Over the last decade or so there are only a few exceptions where I can say..."You know I really shouldn't have had that much to drink last night." For the most part I enjoy drinking and it's not hurting anyone. I've had "dry periods from 1-3 months and I don't feel like my life was any better. But I'm not going to kid myself and say that it's good for me.
 
It appears that contrary to the popular belief that mild to moderate drinking is not bad and maybe even good from a heart-protection standpoint that actually any alcohol is bad but the effects worsen in a dose dependent but non-linear fashion. I'm going to post two articles. The first is about a new Mendelian Randomization study (basically using genetic traits to "randomize" large groups of people to show causation instead of the typical correlation found with epidiemiology) that shows increased risk of high blood pressure and heart disease with any amount of drinking. So much for the long held idea that a couple of drinks a day are OK.

The second article goes into some of the conflicts of interest from the government scientists that have been advancing the theory that a small amount is healthy.

I'm not preaching or telling anyone what to do. Heck, we all do some things that are not good for our health. But, if any of you are drinking thinking a small amount is healthy, unfortunately that appears to be a false correlation.

I read your preamble and thought, “I wonder how this will line up with what Peter Attia says.”

Then I scrolled down to the article and saw the by line.
 
I pose that people who drink more worry less about diet and exercise and that alcohol it self is not the problem. I feel better already. So, three hours of cardio a week, a diet with little to no red meat, and....drink.
 
Drinking isn’t any worse than gluten free or non gmo. Both are highly manipulated foods
Never heard of people who eat gluten or non gmo vegetables causing wrecks . I’d say you’ve manipulated facts to make a mute point.
 
Back
Top