This is another of a long line of these studies. The effects they get from this type of epidemiology is entirely an artifact of the inclusion/exclusion criteria.
In this case they say they controlled for formerly heavy drinkers who now abstain. Without reading the paper in detail we don’t know if they controlled for socio-economic status etc. For example that group may include a group of former polydrug users who were insecurely housed. Assigning that group to “heavy drinkers now abstaining” will tilt the results. There are chronic health conditions that arise from that lifestyle independent of alcohol use.
Epidemiology needs to be treated with kid gloves and I find this kind of advocacy unhelpful.
Thanks for that!
I’ve replicated this study and reached similar results.
Canadian Heritage Moment
Reads news……there are two weeks/day right?
It appears I killed it at the family Christmas party, in more ways than one, with that mini keg.
Studies have linked marathon running and colon cancer. So we should put out PSAs! Limit yourself to 2 runs a week!
Then find out some other factor (such as special interest funding, industry manipulation, someone trying to get published) was skewing the interpretation of the data, and change the advice again. This ping pong advice is why no one trusts it.
Black pepper is a carcinogen, they proved it my injecting under the skin! Lol.
This research is negative advice/guidance. Asking people to not do something and as a result spend less money. Where’s the financial interest there?
