nocellphone

[Yes I know, "I've been thinking..." is a scary phrase coming from one of us]

About this "a glass of wine is good for the heart" business:

First, let me say that I find this to be a dangerous bit of information to be given out to the general public. Whether the "benefits" are real or not, there are a great many people (millions, if I read my statistics right. I think they're called... oh what is it again... alcoholics...?) who are simply unable to stop after one glass or whatever it is. It's the ol' "one is too many and a thousand's never enough" syndrome.

Secondly, I could get behind this idea (possibly) if the wine somehow only affected the heart. Now, unless they come up with a way to pour the glass of wine directly into the heart and then contain it there until these supposed health benefits take place, I think they've overlooked a few things... (I ain't no doctor, but I do know how to Google. Please bear with me...)

The heart has one job: to pump blood throughout the body (yes, we want to believe it has something to do with love and all that, but really it's just a muscle that pumps blood. Check the brain and genitals for that other stuff... ). When alcohol is ingested, it enters the bloodstream via the small intestine and from there is transported throughout the body by the heart. Soooooooooo...

Every organ in the body is affected by the alcohol it absorbs. All of 'em. Liver, brain, kidneys, stomach, skin, etc. and so on. You don't get to pick and choose. But since it's "good" for the heart, who cares about the li'l ol' liver and those other bits? They'll just have to deal.

It's staggering what information is irresponsibly foisted on the public, and equally staggering what that public willingly swallows (pun definitely intended).

"Didja hear about Bob? His liver rotted away from all that wine he drank, but they say his heart looked great at the autopsy!"


I drink wine!!!



Yeah... me too. Uuuuuuuuurp...
(My apologies to whoever's son this happens to be)

ASH

Good thinking...
Also, what about the % of people who don't drink now and hear this great medical advice, start with the one per day and end up, well, like ME!

Some of these medical studies don't seem to take the whole picture into account, the people who have one glass of wine per day or less, ( an unbelievable feat in my book), may have other personality and chemistry traits that may contribute to longevity and a healthy heart.

In any event, a glass a day is not as good advice as
An apple a day, for me for
FOR SURE!!!!

nocellphone

I am amazed that I never even considered that...

Thanks! More for me to rant about in my next letter to the editor!

Brookie

Every news story I've ever heard discussing it has expressed the same reservations about it. I think there are probably millions of people who can have a glass or two most nights of the week without becoming an alcoholic, but there are also definitely those for whom it's like putting a gun to their heads and playing Russian roulette. And you're right that even moderate drinking may have other effects that completely negate any benefits to the heart.

At the end of the day, I'm generally in favor of more information being out there rather than less. But I'll agree that's a high wire act at best for many people, and not one I'd ever be capable of pulling off.

SPF 77

I have several problems with this argument. First of all, the great majority of people who consume alcohol DO NOT have a problem with it. Contrary to what you might think nocellphone (I think you need to check your data)...only 10 % of the north american drinking population has a drinking problem. Now its estimated that the total drinking popluation encompases about 2/3rds the total overall population. So lets say that there are 200,000,000 drinkers for arguments sake. That means about 20,000,000 have a drinking problem. Though that's a large number itself (I think we can all agree on.TOO large) my point is that What we see though with this is that MOST people can probably stop at 1-2 or even 3-4 drinks. Hell most people I've met can. Most people aren't like us bud...that's what makes US alcoholics -we can't stop! Second, even though 1-2 glasses of wine might be good for the heart as Brooke pointed out, every study done has urged caution with this and has NOT recommend people start drinking. And finally, though yes alcohol effects every organ in the body...there is little evidence (outside of occasional fatty liver) that 1-2 drinks a day really does damage other organs...most studies are contradicting on this data.

Its funny to me that you call this information "irresponsibily fed to the public"..when it has been actual done so in a responsible matter. As Brooke pointed out and as I've stated above shows this.

Finally for those of you who probably will inevitably write a reply saying "your defending alcohol consumption on an alcoholics board?". Well quite frankly I'm not. I think that the argument NOcellphone gave was flawed...and am giving my reasons for thinking that.

SPF 77

[QUOTE=Brookie]

At the end of the day, I'm generally in favor of more information being out there rather than less. [QUOTE]


I agree Brookie. What particularly bothers me is the HUGE political agends which go on in the medical world.

AndrewBeen

My impression was that concord grape juice was just as beneficial to the heart as red wine. Does anyone else have info on this? If this is true, then this argument is pretty academic.

nocellphone

I'm ok with this...

...but with this, not so much. I'm not sure you know what I "need", and I wasn't writing a scientific paper. I was opining...

"Only". I like that. Oh and by the way, it's only "only" for today. I would guess (not a hard fact here, nobody get nervous) that the number will continue to increase.

Yes they can. But even a little poison is still poison. And I believe judgement is impaired with the first drink which, as we all know, can lead to problems...

I guess my local newspapers suck then, 'cos I haven't seen much of the urging of caution around here.

Well, isn't it true that a "buzz", drunkeness and hangovers are the human body's reaction to the toxin alcohol being introduced into the system? Y'know, the initial stages of alcohol poisoning? Are we talking lasting damage or damage in the moment? I see little difference. If damage can be easily avoided by not drinking, why put the body through it? Is the possibility of fatty liver not enough?

My biggest gripe here is that this information is given to the 20,000,000 people (your number, not mine. Oh, and NIDA says it's about 14,000,000, last I saw) who have, as you called it, a drinking problem. In my experience, many of these people will use this type of info to justify drinking. "Hey, a Harvard study told me it was good for my heart, so..." To me, that's dangerous.

If studies showed that a little cocaine now and then had a beneficial effect on the sinuses, I guess a line or two during allergy season would be ok...?

What, is there nothing better for the heart than alcohol? Perhaps something non-toxic, like broccoli?

It's clear that you are not doing this.

I appreciate your comments!

SPF 77

Yes you were...and I was refuting...or perhaps you didn't read that part of it


Even if does..that wasn't my point to begin with...and the fact that you think it was suggests you didn't read my argument anyway

My point was that 90% of drinkers DONT have a problem with alcohol...do you deny that? Or perhaps you need another dosage of the facts.


Well you didn't read my argument to begin with so...


hmmm I guess then you need to look at things some more then....evidently your eye's aren't all adjusted yet


lmao...hmmm ok....a body tissue is damage for the moment is that damage for an eternity...hmmm let me know cause with your logic I am very curious

Well obviously...but I find it humorous of your analogies.

Little Missy

No scientific data here, but I believe that "normal" people feel the effects of the alcohol quicker then we do. This may be a little off the topic, but when you said "buzz" it made me think.

I know my hubby feels the effects of just 2 drinks. (Light weight, LOL) I'm sure some people feel this with their one glass of wine. Don't you think that with time, they too, would not feel this effect as greatly as when they first started? Won't the body accommadate to what it is taking in?

Just wondering,
Missy

Doug

You can't get "just a little pregnant".

DesertEyes

A few peanuts are good for the arteries. After all, airlines hand them out, surely they wouldn't give us something that's bad for us?

Well, unless you are allergic to peanuts, in which case a few peanuts will kill you.

If I am allergic to peanuts, and I eat them anyway, Darwin rules take over and the world is improved by my actions. Can I blame the airline for dumping a little package of 3 peanuts in my lap? Nope. _I_ am the one that ate them.

If my wife leaves me, I end up in jail, the docs say I'm going to die, all as a result of consuming some chemical, who's fault is it? Can I blame some goof-ball who wrote some words in some newspaper? Nope.

In my not so humble opinion, the world has always had vast amounts of B.S. cast about by the "authorities", and Darwin has always taken care of that problem. We are no longer living in trees, so Darwin has evidently been doing a good job.

Mike :-)

michaelj

The assertion that one or two glasses of red wine is good for the heart is a well known and established piece of medical opinion. Nobody says you have to drink it. Omega three oils are also accepted as being of value in your diet and again nobody says you have to ingest them.
I picked up every single bottle glass and can of alcoholic drink of my own free will. Nobody told me to drink, nobody twisted my arm. I drank myself into alcoholism and as a result of a free will decision I achieved sobriety. I didn't stop drinking because somebody told me it was bad for me, I drank despite that knowledge.
What I am trying to say is that the advertised health benefits of red wine will not of themselves produce alcoholism. The most important agency in the process is that of our free will and our desire to choose.
By the way, I seem to remember from my time in the Coroner's office that the definition of a poison is "anything that, taken in sufficient quantity, does you physical harm". I remember a case involving the death of a woman who was poisoned by water. She simply drank too much of it, many many pints, and suffered organ failure.
I'll stick my neck out here and say that in my opinion the amount of alcohol in one or two glasses of wine is not poisonous.
Here's to freedom of choice. It can get you into trouble and it can also save your life.
Michael

michski

I'm a drunk.. I drink to get drunk.. I always have and I always will because for whatever reason, that's the way my flop flips. Acceptance IS the key.

Brookie

Now that you mention it, seems like I've heard the same thing. At the very least, the Concord Gape Association agrees. And if you can't believe the Concord Grape Association, who can you believe?

nocellphone

Yes SPF, I read it. I got it. I appreciated it. I simply disagree with it somewhat.

Wellllll... I'm not sure about the accuracy of the %ages you've put forth, but I certainly agree that there are people who drink who don't have long-term problems with alcohol. I'm still a bit concerned about the short-term effects.

(Since you enjoy my analogies... ) What would you think if the NRA took out an ad that said, "Blankety-blank percent of people survive bullet wounds, so guns aren't really sooooooooooo bad after all!!! Yay, guns!"?

Hey! Let's not go confusing matters by bringing in facts now...


Yes I did! I swear!!! I can quote it back if you'd like... It's up above somewhere. I'm almost sure of it...


Every day, SPF. Every day. No argument there.

Well, I am quite nearsighted... (I almost qualify for a dog!) Colorblind, too.

By the way, your sarcasm bone seems to be in good working order (I'd put a smiley here, but apparently I'm over the limit).


Nooooooo... Let me see if I can put it in a way that might be more easily understood: I don't believe that the health benefits outweigh the health risks. If a person shows obvious signs of being affected by alcohol (no need to list 'em, we all know what they are), then the alcohol is affecting them. The damage may not be permanent, but it's still damage. If the ingestion of alcohol causes damage even for a minute, should it's use be advocated in such a way?



Thanks! I'm enjoying our interchanges!

Wha-wha-what??? Aw, man! There go my plans for the weekend...

What if you weren't aware of your allergy or, worse, what if you were in denial about it and just really, really, really wanted a peanut?

I've heard of this too. Weird, eh?

All I know is that I'm gonna keep on not drinking, 'cos my opinion is that it is poisonous. A little or a lot, my liver would have to deTOXIFY the alcohol from my system, and that just isn't a nice thing to do to my li'l ol' liver... Poor little guy has enough to do already.

DesertEyes

Heya cell :-)

Speaking of peanut allergies.

It is _still_ not the fault of the people who put the peanuts in front of me. The _first_ time I discover that I am allergic to peanuts it is just "karma". My bad luck for being born with bad genes.

In that case I still say that Darwin rules. If I go eat the peanunts, in denial or otherwise, it is still _my_ fault. It's my choice whether I want to go see a doc and learn all about my peanut allergy, or if I want to live in denial and risk my life from a peanunt allergy. As a human being it is _my_ responsibility to find out as much as I can about any medical condition I may have. It is also my responsibility to evaluate any information that is given to me and determine how much of it is B.S.

If the peanut industry puts out information saying that peanuts are safe for _everybody_ to eat, and that there is no such thing as a peanut allergy, and I choose to believe that they have no vested interest in the matter.... then Darwin rules again.

As far as I can tell, any pronouncement by the government is just as suspect as if it had come directly from industry. I don't believe the words coming out of a person who has their hand in my wallet.

Mike :-)
(who in real life has several allergies, but not to peanuts ;-)

nocellphone

Heh, heh... I hears ya, Mike!

By the way, who's this "Darwin" guy? If he keeps it up, I may have to change my Higher Power's name...










Curse you, peanuts! Why'd you have to taste so good?!?

I hold Charles Schulz accountable.

DesertEyes

He's a codie. Spent other people's money to rent a boat, dawdled around in the middle of nowhere studying birds, and then was such a perfectionist he refused to write up his findings for _years_. Guy needed a sponsor in a bad way.

LMAO

Mike :-)

Dan

I want Don S. in here...
His statistics are always more fun than anyone else's...

That's a relief.