what do you think about the whole thing how healthy wine is?
does somebody have a good idea for a book or a homepage where i can find more about this topic?
thanks already
wine and health
wine and health
hey @ all
what do you think about the whole thing how healthy wine is?
does somebody have a good idea for a book or a homepage where i can find more about this topic?
thanks already
what do you think about the whole thing how healthy wine is?
does somebody have a good idea for a book or a homepage where i can find more about this topic?
thanks already
I'm actually not worried about my health^^
it's more that i heard a lot that a glass of wine every day should be good for you
i just found this article about it:
http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2009/ma ... ger-study/
it's more that i heard a lot that a glass of wine every day should be good for you
i just found this article about it:
http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2009/ma ... ger-study/
"The glass a day" theory is just that; a theory, and obviously the wine industry is pushing it.
The main reason is said to be the anti-oxidants. There are lots of ways to get them, and I don't think the evidence is compelling.
On the other hand, a glass or two most days won't do you any harm.
I would not drink wine for your health.
I drink it because I enjoy it.
What is without question is that large amounts can be harmful.
BUt your body will tell you.
The main reason is said to be the anti-oxidants. There are lots of ways to get them, and I don't think the evidence is compelling.
On the other hand, a glass or two most days won't do you any harm.
I would not drink wine for your health.
I drink it because I enjoy it.
What is without question is that large amounts can be harmful.
BUt your body will tell you.
The Australian Wine Research Institute have published a FAQ regarding wine and health, you can view it at this link... http://www.awri.com.au/industry_develop ... _book1.pdf
Hope this is helpful.
Cheers John
Hope this is helpful.
Cheers John
Wine with food slows the intake your liver gets to break down the alcohol (which is why the French with very high saturated diet still have extremely low cardiovascular problems). The alcohol thins your blood for easier pathway through clogged arteries and combined with the antioxidants both aid the good cholesterol (LDL) to carry the bad cholesterol out of the body. Without food the liver has more work load all at once and thus not so good (for liver).
Wine + Food = good
Wine – Food = good for cardiovascular system but not good for liver
Sam
Wine + Food = good
Wine – Food = good for cardiovascular system but not good for liver
Sam
Partagas wrote:Wine with food slows the intake your liver gets to break down the alcohol (which is why the French with very high saturated diet still have extremely low cardiovascular problems). The alcohol thins your blood for easier pathway through clogged arteries and combined with the antioxidants both aid the good cholesterol (LDL) to carry the bad cholesterol out of the body. Without food the liver has more work load all at once and thus not so good (for liver).
Wine + Food = good
Wine – Food = good for cardiovascular system but not good for liver
Sam
I can't ignore this post. I'm sorry Partagas, but this is not good quality information. I think orpheus has summed the issue up well. Drink for enjoyment, not for health. And when you drink, drink in moderation, if you want to avoid health problems. For guidance on what is moderation, suggest you have a look at the latest guidelines from the NH&MRC. They are available on their website. You may not agree with them, but they result from a wide survey of the literature and wide consultation. Link below
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/your_health/hea ... /index.htm
"It is very hard to make predictions, especially about the future." Samuel Goldwyn
Roscoe wrote:Partagas wrote:Wine with food slows the intake your liver gets to break down the alcohol (which is why the French with very high saturated diet still have extremely low cardiovascular problems). The alcohol thins your blood for easier pathway through clogged arteries and combined with the antioxidants both aid the good cholesterol (LDL) to carry the bad cholesterol out of the body. Without food the liver has more work load all at once and thus not so good (for liver).
Wine + Food = good
Wine – Food = good for cardiovascular system but not good for liver
Sam
I can't ignore this post. I'm sorry Partagas, but this is not good quality information. I think orpheus has summed the issue up well. Drink for enjoyment, not for health. And when you drink, drink in moderation, if you want to avoid health problems. For guidance on what is moderation, suggest you have a look at the latest guidelines from the NH&MRC. They are available on their website. You may not agree with them, but they result from a wide survey of the literature and wide consultation. Link below
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/your_health/hea ... /index.htm
Sorry Roscoe but really don’t understand where you are coming from here.
The question was about health and wine and my point was the “benefits†of moderate wine drinking “with food†as opposed to drinking without food. The link you have is about general alcohol consumption and the obvious ramifications it has on society as a whole (and also some of the bleeding obvious effects it’s has). If you eat moderate amounts of meat it is beneficial, too much can be adverse as with a lot of things and the list goes on and on. We all obviously enjoy our wine drinking at many different levels and would not want to applaud, preach to or condemn anybody for what they do. That’s their life and this is not the forum to do that. I personally hardly drink at all during most of the week (too busy spending time and playing with my boy) and tend to drink lots in the single sitting. I know it’s not as good as having just a glass or two with meals but it is what I do. Having nothing might be better, but still believe that wine does have certain health benefits when treated correctly.
Sam
Sorry Sam.
I guess I was taking issue with a number of things.
1. The French Paradox is explained by a number of hypotheses. But that is all they are - hypotheses.
2. Basically LDL is "bad", HDL is "good". You got them mixed up.
3. I think your conclusions are a tad simplistic and in relation to liver toxicity, lacking in evidence. Eating food with alcohol does tend to reduce the peak blood alcohol level, but the same amount of alcohol still needs to be metabolised by the liver (the area under the curve is the same). I don't know of any evidence that this reduces liver toxicity. It is a sensible strategy, may make a difference, but definitely not something to rely on.
I apologise if I'm being anal.
A lot of people believe what they read on the internet, so I thought some caveats might be a good idea.
I guess I was taking issue with a number of things.
1. The French Paradox is explained by a number of hypotheses. But that is all they are - hypotheses.
2. Basically LDL is "bad", HDL is "good". You got them mixed up.
3. I think your conclusions are a tad simplistic and in relation to liver toxicity, lacking in evidence. Eating food with alcohol does tend to reduce the peak blood alcohol level, but the same amount of alcohol still needs to be metabolised by the liver (the area under the curve is the same). I don't know of any evidence that this reduces liver toxicity. It is a sensible strategy, may make a difference, but definitely not something to rely on.
I apologise if I'm being anal.
A lot of people believe what they read on the internet, so I thought some caveats might be a good idea.
"It is very hard to make predictions, especially about the future." Samuel Goldwyn
I think doing anything you enjoy is good for your health (unless other toxicities come into play - like excess alcohol).... I think the J-curve phenomenom - the lower mortality noted with low-moderate alcohol intake is partly due to this, and the fact that strict teetotalers seem to be an uptight bunch!
(none of this is evidence-based, just my opinion....)
(none of this is evidence-based, just my opinion....)
cheers,
Lee
Lee
Roscoe wrote:Sorry Sam.
I guess I was taking issue with a number of things.
1. The French Paradox is explained by a number of hypotheses. But that is all they are - hypotheses.
2. Basically LDL is "bad", HDL is "good". You got them mixed up.
3. I think your conclusions are a tad simplistic and in relation to liver toxicity, lacking in evidence. Eating food with alcohol does tend to reduce the peak blood alcohol level, but the same amount of alcohol still needs to be metabolised by the liver (the area under the curve is the same). I don't know of any evidence that this reduces liver toxicity. It is a sensible strategy, may make a difference, but definitely not something to rely on.
I apologise if I'm being anal.
A lot of people believe what they read on the internet, so I thought some caveats might be a good idea.
Sorry woops did slip up there. Wrote too fast and was not thinking (LDL Bad HDL good).
Then where are you basing your info from? Didn’t you get yours from YouTube too
…........
Based on what I have read and studied (really don’t want to make this a medical journal and quote everything), a very high concentration of alcohol going to the liver (e.g. straight scotch) as opposed to low concentration (a bottle of beer) plain and simply will be worse (more alcohol at once). The scotch consumed while eating food will slow the delivery of the alcohol to the liver for breaking down (would like to know how you argue against this). There is strong evidence that states the liver functioning when breaking down alcohol can only break down so much at once, therefore if you scull half a bottle of scotch down the chute you will have poisoning due to the liver being unable to break that amount down at once (and definitely not good for liver). When I drink with food I am less intoxicated. When I drink the same amount without food I am more intoxicated. Reckon my liver would prefer me to eat………………………..
That is generally all I’m saying. I’m no doctor (don’t think you are
), but what we read and then perceive is left up to us and our educated decisions.Partagas wrote:
Based on what I have read and studied (really don’t want to make this a medical journal and quote everything), a very high concentration of alcohol going to the liver (e.g. straight scotch) as opposed to low concentration (a bottle of beer) plain and simply will be worse (more alcohol at once). The scotch consumed while eating food will slow the delivery of the alcohol to the liver for breaking down (would like to know how you argue against this). There is strong evidence that states the liver functioning when breaking down alcohol can only break down so much at once, therefore if you scull half a bottle of scotch down the chute you will have poisoning due to the liver being unable to break that amount down at once (and definitely not good for liver). When I drink with food I am less intoxicated. When I drink the same amount without food I am more intoxicated. Reckon my liver would prefer me to eat………………………..
I am actually a doctor, but it sounds awfully pompous saying so as part of my argument.
I don't think we actually disagree on that much. Drinking with food does reduce peak alcohol levels, and this is very likely to reduce your chances of suffering from acute effects of alcohol- injury and acute toxicity. Whether it reduces chronic toxic effects (e.g. cirrhosis) is, I think, an unknown and probably an almost unanswerable question. It might, but I don't think people should assume they can drink more if they consume food. Individual susceptibility to the chronic effects of alcohol is probably a much bigger factor. Unfortunately none of us really know what our own susceptibility is until something bad happens.
That is why the NH&MRC guidelines are so strict- there are a few people with very high susceptibilities. I hope I'm not one.
"It is very hard to make predictions, especially about the future." Samuel Goldwyn
No problem Roscoe, well I totally understand your wanting to clarify and be a bit more sensitive than most in this topic. You must see the direct /indirect effects it has at every level every day. Certainly would not doubt your knowledge or reason behind your explanations.
So exercise, eat well and have just a couple of primo vinos with food. Can't be that bad I reckon
Cheers Roscoe
Sam
Roscoe wrote:Drinking with food does reduce peak alcohol levels, and this is very likely to reduce your chances of suffering from acute effects of alcohol- injury and acute toxicity. Whether it reduces chronic toxic effects (e.g. cirrhosis) is, I think, an unknown and probably an almost unanswerable question. It might, but I don't think people should assume they can drink more if they consume food. Individual susceptibility to the chronic effects of alcohol is probably a much bigger factor. Unfortunately none of us really know what our own susceptibility is until something bad happens.
That's actually almost a measured view compared to some medics, and completely sensible.
To be blunt there are several big errors in Partegas's original statement:
Partagas wrote:Wine with food slows the intake your liver gets to break down the alcohol
True, but has nothing to do with long term toxicity
Partagas wrote: the French with very high saturated diet still have extremely low cardiovascular problems.
Yes, true, but has nothing to do with statement 1. The French paradox is best considered as yet unexplained, but are there are increasing data showing this difference is eroding.
Partagas wrote: The alcohol thins your blood for easier pathway through clogged arteries
Simply wrong and untrue.
Partagas wrote:Without food the liver has more work load all at once and thus not so good (for liver).
Not really - the liver still has to process all the alcohol PLUS the food and it seems the total amount of alcohol is the damaging factor. There's been stuff in the press about eating and drinking, and I agree it's a good idea. It will lead to a lower peak blood alcohol. But it's pretty clear that 3 bottles of wine on one night is just as damaging if it's with food or without (Roscoe's point on genetics notwithstanding).
Partagas wrote: Wine + Food = good
Wine – Food = good for cardiovascular system but not good for liver
This is the one I object to most. Drinking with food will lower your peak but prolong your blood average alcohol levels. There is no evidence that food is 'good' in any way bar increasing car safety etc. You are still exposed to the same amount of alcohol. Plus the benefits of cardiovascular benefit seem to disappear pretty quickly once you reach 2-3 glasses a day.
I rationalise this by an enjoyment factor; the pleasure I get from wine is worth it, even when balanced by possible negative health effects (as I frequently exceed the NHMRC limits) and I hope like hell that those antioxidants and resveratrol stuff really works
Cheers, Rob
Rob
Having a father that was a medical scientist must actually ask him his opinion (and did study liver function). Maybe all my statements are not totally proven by people you believe (or even true), but you are stating what you have read and “perceive†as being true also. You are quoting me as talking about endless amounts of alcohol (or 3 bottles) which proves you are just trying to sound overly corrective by putting down statements I have not actually made. That is simply ridiculous. A WINE OR TWO means a glass. You are also saying that high concentration of alcohol at once as opposed to gradual is equally as bad. How do you know yourself and how would you come to that conclusion? Seems a bit strange that the health of somebody who drank two to three GLASSES of wine a night with food would be equally “worse†off than somebody with similar make up that drinks them with no food. Sorry but if that’s what you believe and have read, I still find it hard to believe. If it is yet to be proven either way I would rather be on the food side. Have also not stated that Alcohol does not have any ill effect what so ever when consumed with food. You are also grabbing this out of thin air
To reiterate and try and make this as clear as possible, my statements are not about the total bliss health effects wine has, just how you can maybe “minimise†the ill effects while utilising the benefits.
Having a father that was a medical scientist must actually ask him his opinion (and did study liver function). Maybe all my statements are not totally proven by people you believe (or even true), but you are stating what you have read and “perceive†as being true also. You are quoting me as talking about endless amounts of alcohol (or 3 bottles) which proves you are just trying to sound overly corrective by putting down statements I have not actually made. That is simply ridiculous. A WINE OR TWO means a glass. You are also saying that high concentration of alcohol at once as opposed to gradual is equally as bad. How do you know yourself and how would you come to that conclusion? Seems a bit strange that the health of somebody who drank two to three GLASSES of wine a night with food would be equally “worse†off than somebody with similar make up that drinks them with no food. Sorry but if that’s what you believe and have read, I still find it hard to believe. If it is yet to be proven either way I would rather be on the food side. Have also not stated that Alcohol does not have any ill effect what so ever when consumed with food. You are also grabbing this out of thin air
To reiterate and try and make this as clear as possible, my statements are not about the total bliss health effects wine has, just how you can maybe “minimise†the ill effects while utilising the benefits.