> How alcohol or wine affects cardiovascular risk merits
> further research but right now the American Heart Association
> does not recommend drinking wine or any other form of alcohol
> to gain these potential benefits
If the science clearly indicated that "NOT drinking is actually considered a risk factor for heart diseasee" do you think AHA would:
(A) Refrain from mentioning the risk factor.
(B) Present the risk factor with a stipulation that individuals
"consult your doctor on the benefits and risks of consuming
alcohol in moderation"I would also like to point out that the very AHA page you linked to states "The incidence of heart disease in those who drink moderate amounts of alcohol (no more than two drinks per day for men or one drink per day for women) is lower than in nondrinkers." So there may be a potential benefit there that AHA acknowledges.
Maybe, but this works in reverse too. There is a bias towards assuming that behavior perceived as sinful must also be harmful. This manifests in bad science in any number of examples: meat consumption, fat consumption, and yes, alcohol consumption. The USDA food pyramid (1992 one) came out against sinful fats and guess what happened? A low-fat/high-carb craze that was completely ruinous to public health.
Please do not mix the serving sizes people use with "one drink". You have no idea how much wine goes into the glass, not the strength of that wine.
A standard drink of wine is 125 ml at an ABV (alcohol by volume) of 8%.
Most people pour more than that, and most wine is stronger than that. 175 ml at 12% would be 2 units; 2 glasses of that is 4 units. See how easy it is to drink double the recommended limit?
"The beneficial effects of alcohol are not only evident in cardiovascular disease, but also in reducing mortality from all causes."
http://www.medhelp.org/heart-disease/articles/Alcohol-Consum...
> In recent years we have seen that the results of similar “observational” studies were disproved when subjected to a “randomized controlled trial”—the standard bearer of scientific proof. A good example of this is female hormone replacement. For decades it was believed that female hormone replacement was beneficial. But a randomized controlled trial, called the Women’s Health Initiative, demonstrated that the exact opposite was true. The study was stopped in 2002 because women taking the study pills of estrogen plus progestin were developing heart disease and breast cancer at increased rates compared to those taking the placebo or inactive pills."
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/01/red-wine-good-heart-brai...
http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html
That page cites 188 articles, almost all of them finding health benefits to drinking alcohol. Without having gone into all of them to look for methodological flaws, that hints at a very consistent pattern of correlation.
That page alleges that it is maintained by a professor emeritus, who at least at this time, does not have nor need any funding from e.g. the alcohol industry. That's far from an exhaustive proof that he's free of bias, but it clears the most obvious source.
So I'm not sure how a doctor can say with a straight face that 1-2 drinks a day has no detrimental effect on your health at all.
No one is saying that alcohol doesn't have negative effects on health. It's just that the positive effects of moderate consumption are stronger, enough so that overall mortality is reduced (at least according to the available scientific evidence, which I admit may not tell the whole story).
If you can't drink, then don't, but if you can then moderate drinking is far better for you than not drinking at all.
Source?