So that's how Jesus cut such a trim figure.
I always wondered why eating all those carbs didn't turn him into a fatty

Yeah, this week. Next week, "Red Wine, killer menace!"

This is relevant to my interests. (The losing the pants part).

Deucetoo: This is relevant to my interests. (The losing the pants part).

Tequila works better at that!

Pick: Yeah, this week. Next week, "Red Wine, killer menace!"

Don't blame the researchers, blame the scientifically illiterate journalists.

I got my Ph.D. in mensoakedtal arithmetic, so I'm getting a real kick, etc. etc.

The article is painfully lacking on some key information.

It mentions three study groups: Teetotalers, moderate drinkers, heavy drinkers. It then says that it is surprising that the moderate drinkers gained less weight than the other two.

It occurs to me that many of the teetotalers might be teetotalers because they have eating, weight, or behavior moderation issues. In which case you'd expect that group to be the leader of the weight gaining class. Naturally, the heavy drinkers also have some of the same issues, but not to the extent that they have (yet) cut alcohol consumption from their lives.

So, you have a study that essentially says: "People who can consume alcohol in moderation are more likely to consume food in moderation too."

Color me shocked. And forgive me while I dismiss all the other conclusions made by the article.

People who park at L.A. fitness for two hours a day are more likely to be fit. Parking at an L.A. fitness every day won't cause you to lose weight.

msheda: Tequila works better at that!

Not if you want to lose your pants AND remember what happened after

+=

/Helps my ladies lose their pants all the time.

Not a word about white wine. The study is assholutely useless if it ignores white wine. And thanks for ignoring men, they don't count just like white wine doesn't count.

Pick: Yeah, this week. Next week, "Red Wine, killer menace!"

FTA:"But it is not all good news. Alcohol is also believed to be the biggest factor behind surging rates of breast cancer."

So everybody cherry picks data to suit their agenda. Over-all longevity is improved but the breast cancer thing is disturbing.

I found this interesting from wiki: iodine:

Breast cancer. It is known that a diet lacking in iodine is connected with adverse health effects collectively referred as iodine deficiency diseases or disorders. Studies also indicate that iodine deficiency, either dietary or pharmacologic, can lead to breast atypia and increased incidence of malignancy in animal models, while iodine treatment can reverse dysplasia.[32][33][34] Laboratory evidences demonstrate that the effect of iodine on breast cancer is in part independent of thyroid function and that iodine inhibit cancer promotion through modulation of the estrogen pathway.

Well they don't allow nutritional supplements in alcoholic beverages but maybe they could get away with iodine treated water. I don't know if it would kill the yeast or affect the flavor. But salt is our major source of iodine and women who diet try to avoid it so as not to have water weight. I'm just thinking outloud but women who drink should consider some kind of iodine supplement. Something to look into:PSA

Kevin72: Not a word about white wine. The study is assholutely useless if it ignores white wine. And thanks for ignoring men, they don't count just like white wine doesn't count.

Men don't drink wine unless all their beer and liquor is gone.

The Icelander: Kevin72: Not a word about white wine. The study is assholutely useless if it ignores white wine. And thanks for ignoring men, they don't count just like white wine doesn't count.

Men don't drink wine unless all their beer and liquor is gone.

What about fortified wine?

phreakmonkey: The article is painfully lacking on some key information.

It mentions three study groups: Teetotalers, moderate drinkers, heavy drinkers. It then says that it is surprising that the moderate drinkers gained less weight than the other two.

It occurs to me that many of the teetotalers might be teetotalers because they have eating, weight, or behavior moderation issues. In which case you'd expect that group to be the leader of the weight gaining class. Naturally, the heavy drinkers also have some of the same issues, but not to the extent that they have (yet) cut alcohol consumption from their lives.

So, you have a study that essentially says: "People who can consume alcohol in moderation are more likely to consume food in moderation too."

Color me shocked. And forgive me while I dismiss all the other conclusions made by the article.

People who park at L.A. fitness for two hours a day are more likely to be fit. Parking at an L.A. fitness every day won't cause you to lose weight.

You're right that the article is lacking a lot of information, but don't extrapolate from it the idea that the study itself is lacking. The fact that the study came from Brigham and Women's suggests that there is a bit more information than the article mentioned.

kevin72:

Let me educate you. The first duty of any wine is to be red.

That white stuff is for making vinegar.

It sounds like a survey and it doesn't make sense.

Poor people have higher rates of obesity. I would say those who drink wine with dinner are not poor.

Thus carrot juice causes prostate cancer.

phreakmonkey: The article is painfully lacking on some key information.

It mentions three study groups: Teetotalers, moderate drinkers, heavy drinkers. It then says that it is surprising that the moderate drinkers gained less weight than the other two.

It occurs to me that many of the teetotalers might be teetotalers because they have eating, weight, or behavior moderation issues. In which case you'd expect that group to be the leader of the weight gaining class.

Another possibility that seems likely to me that some teetotalers (since we are talking about women aged 40+) are on medications for conditions that prevent them from drinking, and either the underlying condition or the medication could cause weight gain. Frankly, without seeing how they set up the study, I'm skeptical.

Personally, I don't drink alcohol and I'm the skinniest chick I know.... I just don't like to drink. But of the other two women I know that also don't, one can't because of health issues that also caused her to gain weight, and the other is an alcoholic, who if she does manage to stop drinking for a stretch, starts overeating. I know this is only n=3, and all of us are still under 40 but confounding factors still seem a more plausible explanation to me than "Wine makes you skinny! Liver is super smart! Read more on page 43 in May's issue of Cosmo!"

FTA: The finding, from a long-term study of almost 20,000 women, suggests that the body processes the calories in alcohol differently to those in food.

I thought that was well-known. Your body can't store the calories from alcohol, so they end up getting used first. If you have other energy sources in your system, they just sit around until they get stored, usually as fat.

Alcohol isn't fattening in and of itself. It's eating anything while your body is still metabolizing the alcohol that's fattening--that food will go pretty much straight to long-term storage. It doesn't help that most food drunk folks consume tends to be high in grease and fat anyway.

So only drink on an empty stomach (and don't eat after) if you're worried about booze weight-gain.

/ah waffle house...

Jubeebee: Women who enjoy a glass or two of wine a day put on less weight than those who stick to mineral water or soft drinks, research shows - with red wine particularly forgiving...

You'd think some of these health articles would be old news by now. No shiat, red wine is better for you than mineral waterpop? Next they'll tell us that tea and moderate amounts of coffee are better for you than neon colored HFCS solution.
-11
It's a UK study...bad test, bad comparisons
In other breaking news, people who eat vegetables are generally healthier than those who don't. Cite? But mammals that kill their meat are happier than those that pick on the poor defensless vegetables. Right in your own FIBland mahn! Link (new window)
Cheers

Jubeebee: Or if you're having steak or Italian food. Men can drink wine if the wine is considered an integral part of a meal.

You drink wine with steak? You poofter.

\Maybe with Italian food
\\If they don't have Stella

Jubeebee: The Icelander: Kevin72: Not a word about white wine. The study is assholutely useless if it ignores white wine. And thanks for ignoring men, they don't count just like white wine doesn't count.

Men don't drink wine unless all their beer and liquor is gone.

Or if you're having steak or Italian food. Men can drink wine if the wine is considered an integral part of a meal.

Or if
a) you're a writer (not necessarily successful, you just have to drink heavily while monkey-pounding your keyboard),
b) there are cigarette butts in it,
c) you're trying to make her pants disappear.

The study examined 19,200 women aged 39 or older and followed them for the next 13 years? Why are men even commenting in this thread? Of course, the woman pictured with the story doesn't look close to 39 years old either...

aufhebung: I got my Ph.D. in mensoakedtal arithmetic, so I'm getting a real kick, etc. etc.

Well that's convenient. Please be so kind to explain what it is.

palelizard: Jubeebee: The Icelander: Kevin72: Not a word about white wine. The study is assholutely useless if it ignores white wine. And thanks for ignoring men, they don't count just like white wine doesn't count.

Men don't drink wine unless all their beer and liquor is gone.

Or if you're having steak or Italian food. Men can drink wine if the wine is considered an integral part of a meal.

Or if
a) you're a writer (not necessarily successful, you just have to drink heavily while monkey-pounding your keyboard),
b) there are cigarette butts in it,
c) you're trying to make her pants disappear.

And, it's also acceptable to drink wine if it's your own creation, because the making of alcohol (be it wine, beer or something that may not be entirely within the revenue code) is just awesome. Gotta stick with the requirement that it be red, though.

Sybarite: Red red wine you make me feel so fine
Monkey pack him rizla pon the sweet dep line


Dammit! Thanks for getting that song stuck in my head for the rest of the day week month year.

The Icelander: Kevin72: Not a word about white wine. The study is assholutely useless if it ignores white wine. And thanks for ignoring men, they don't count just like white wine doesn't count.

Men don't drink wine unless all their beer and liquor is gone.

yeah, but in those cases, it really isn't that bad, as long as you have something expensive enough to actually be made out of grapes and cheap enough to not suck.


for reasons i don't pretend to understand, after the bottle crosses about 40 dollars or so, the chances its going to be absolutely undrinkable increase at a exponential rate

Adman12: phreakmonkey: It occurs to me that many of the teetotalers might be teetotalers because they have eating, weight, or behavior moderation issues.

In my unscientific opinion, non-drinkers tend to be sugar pigs.

This.
My detailed study suggests there are 4 basic types of drinks:
a)Sugary drinks - pop, most fruit juices and will probably lead to hypertension, diabetis and heart disease
b)water - boring
c)coffee, tea - most of you drink your sugar and cream with coffee so this really falls under catagory a. If you drink it black you're good.
d) alcohol - It's fun, helps prevent stress and heart disease and apparently keeps you from getting fat.

Which do you choose?

BoisePaul: And, it's also acceptable to drink wine if it's your own creation, because the making of alcohol (be it wine, beer or something that may not be entirely within the revenue code) is just awesome. Gotta stick with the requirement that it be red, though.

Definitely. Any homebrew is sufficiently manly for the brewer to drink, but if you're brewing white wine, I'll question your masculinity for other reasons.

White is acceptable in the food context when and only when you're using it to wash down something blisteringly spicy, like a decent szechuan stir-fry. Mmm... stir-fry. I think I know what I'm having for dinner.

mesmer242: I know this is only n=3, and all of us are still under 40 but confounding factors still seem a more plausible explanation to me than "Wine makes you skinny! Liver is super smart! Read more on page 43 in May's issue of Cosmo!"

I can't give you a link to the article, as it isn't in print yet. It has apparently been accepted for publication in the Archives of Internal Medicine, but even the research institution doesn't have a press release up for it yet.

That being said, don't discount the science because reporters don't offer more than a superficial glossing over of information. No peer reviewed journal would accept a paper for publication if they hadn't addressed something like medication prohibiting alcohol or other health conditions causing weight gain.

Just because you don't fit the trend doesn't mean the trend isn't real. That's the point of statistics: they let you ignore individual readings and find patterns even when some individual people don't fit them. Give the hundreds of the hundreds of years of mathematical and scientific experience a little credit.

Beat up on journalists. Or even better, on the readers who don't wish to clutter their brains by learning to understand the actual article themselves, and rely on the journalists to dumb it down for them.

palelizard: Definitely. Any homebrew is sufficiently manly for the brewer to drink, but if you're brewing white wine, I'll question your masculinity for other reasons.

White is acceptable in the food context when and only when you're using it to wash down something blisteringly spicy, like a decent szechuan stir-fry. Mmm... stir-fry. I think I know what I'm having for dinner.

Wine is one of my alcohol forms of choice, and I prefer red wine. But all of my really amazing, memorable, favorite bottles tend to be whites. I think white wine can be amazing, but a great red takes a whole lot less skill to make as a brewer than a great white. Party this is because I don't like sweet wines. But a dry and spicy gewurtztraminer is amazing.

Wine is too scary to brew at home. The price per gallon to make it doesn't sit well with the learning curve to make it not suck. I stick to cider, and occasionally mead (again with the sweet issue), and rarely beer, since I'm not a huge beer person.

Is that manly?

omris: palelizard: Definitely. Any homebrew is sufficiently manly for the brewer to drink, but if you're brewing white wine, I'll question your masculinity for other reasons.

White is acceptable in the food context when and only when you're using it to wash down something blisteringly spicy, like a decent szechuan stir-fry. Mmm... stir-fry. I think I know what I'm having for dinner.

Wine is one of my alcohol forms of choice, and I prefer red wine. But all of my really amazing, memorable, favorite bottles tend to be whites. I think white wine can be amazing, but a great red takes a whole lot less skill to make as a brewer than a great white. Party this is because I don't like sweet wines. But a dry and spicy gewurtztraminer is amazing.

Wine is too scary to brew at home. The price per gallon to make it doesn't sit well with the learning curve to make it not suck. I stick to cider, and occasionally mead (again with the sweet issue), and rarely beer, since I'm not a huge beer person.

Is that manly?

its kind of like choking on a pretzel, its really not that uncommon, a lot of people do it in the privacy of their own homes, but maybe not the best thing to admit to

Duh, alcoholics on average weigh less than normal people, not to mention the increased delirium tremens...

theinsultabot9000: The Icelander: Kevin72: Not a word about white wine. The study is assholutely useless if it ignores white wine. And thanks for ignoring men, they don't count just like white wine doesn't count.

Men don't drink wine unless all their beer and liquor is gone.

yeah, but in those cases, it really isn't that bad, as long as you have something expensive enough to actually be made out of grapes and cheap enough to not suck.


for reasons i don't pretend to understand, after the bottle crosses about 40 dollars or so, the chances its going to be absolutely undrinkable increase at a exponential rate

This. I have a wine enthusiast friend who has people over for dinner every once in a while where he brings out a bunch of bottles of fancy wine. I'm sure each time it's over $1000 worth of wine. There's been one that I've ever thought was worth whatever he paid for it, and one other that I enjoyed. All the others, no matter the region, year, or type of grape had a similar taste to them that I found really unenjoyable. I've pretty much come to call it the "too-expensive wine flavor." I have had some fantastic $60-80 bottles of wine, but quite frankly they weren't twice as good as a $30-40 bottle. Personally, I think $20 is a good sweet spot for a good, enjoyable bottle of wine, and $30 will get you a very nice bottle with some subtlety and complexity. Much above that, you have quickly diminishing returns, and eventually you get back to wines that suck.

Adman12: In my unscientific opinion, non-drinkers tend to be sugar pigs.

In the past when I've stopped drinking for a length of time I noticed my craving for junk food went up. I know I sure didn't loose any weight from not getting the booze calories.

omris: mesmer242: I know this is only n=3, and all of us are still under 40 but confounding factors still seem a more plausible explanation to me than "Wine makes you skinny! Liver is super smart! Read more on page 43 in May's issue of Cosmo!"

I can't give you a link to the article, as it isn't in print yet. It has apparently been accepted for publication in the Archives of Internal Medicine, but even the research institution doesn't have a press release up for it yet.

That being said, don't discount the science because reporters don't offer more than a superficial glossing over of information. No peer reviewed journal would accept a paper for publication if they hadn't addressed something like medication prohibiting alcohol or other health conditions causing weight gain.

Just because you don't fit the trend doesn't mean the trend isn't real. That's the point of statistics: they let you ignore individual readings and find patterns even when some individual people don't fit them. Give the hundreds of the hundreds of years of mathematical and scientific experience a little credit.

Beat up on journalists. Or even better, on the readers who don't wish to clutter their brains by learning to understand the actual article themselves, and rely on the journalists to dumb it down for them.

I found a more detailed article that said it was a survey, and that the authors attempted to compensate for "lifestyle" differences that might affect the results after said unexpected results were found.

Does that sound like hard science to you? Really? The examples I gave were possible confounding variables (I tried to make that clear), that at this point we don't know if they took into account when they adjusted for lifestyle differences. Nor do we know if the adjustment they did was sufficient.

I agree that the journalists are the bigger problem here... they're reporting this as "drink red wine and lose those pounds!" instead of "researchers found something interesting they need to research more". If the researchers involved set up an actual controlled randomized experiment that shows the relationship, or alternatively, prove the mechanism they hypothesize regarding the heat seeking liver, then I will be convinced. And try to learn to like red wine.

In the meantime, as a woman, I weigh the possible unproven risk of a couple extra pounds versus the possible slightly less unproven risk of breast cancer (especially considering family history), and I determine that I'd like to keep my breasts healthy and happy for as long as possible and will therefore keep teetotaling.

jimb213: All the others, no matter the region, year, or type of grape had a similar taste to them that I found really unenjoyable. I've pretty much come to call it the "too-expensive wine flavor."

This may be that your friend is holding on to them too long. Not that they would have been worth it in the first place, but no matter what they cay about cellaring, wine doesn't last forever, and it certainly changes as it ages, and not always in a positive way. Or he's a sucker, and whoever he's buying from sells him skunked bottles, or bottles with moldy corks, because he only pays attention to the price.

jimb213: Personally, I think $20 is a good sweet spot for a good, enjoyable bottle of wine, and $30 will get you a very nice bottle with some subtlety and complexity. Much above that, you have quickly diminishing returns, and eventually you get back to wines that suck.

I happen to agree with that price point. There are, I'm certain, bottles that cost $500 that are as good, but I'm not convinced they are spectacularly better, and I have never tasted wine 10 times better than the $20-$30 range. Let's face it. I'm really only going to taste the first glass and a half. After that, it might as well come in a jug, or a plastic bag with a spigot.

theinsultabot9000: The Icelander: Kevin72: for reasons i don't pretend to understand, after the bottle crosses about 40 dollars or so, the chances its going to be absolutely undrinkable increase at a exponential rate

True, true, true. I love table wines. In fact, the only thing I understand less than dropping $40 on a bottle of wine in a store is dropping twice that or more on a bottle of wine in a restaurant. Either way, I doubt people are as impressed by such a person's wine knowledge as they are unimpressed by the lack of common financial sense. A $40 bottle of wine is not 6x more enjoyable than a $6 bottle of Barefoot, and it's certainly not as pleasure-delivering as 6 bottles of it.

But... to each his own.

To all you peeps who like cheap, decent wine next time you're at TJ's try this for $5:

omris: jimb213: I happen to agree with that price point. There are, I'm certain, bottles that cost $500 that are as good, but I'm not convinced they are spectacularly better, and I have never tasted wine 10 times better than the $20-$30 range. Let's face it. I'm really only going to taste the first glass and a half. After that, it might as well come in a jug, or a plastic bag with a spigot.

Agreed. I start my guests off with the best wine of the night, and after someone crosses the three-glass mark he or she starts working their way down to the jug wine. I've never had any complaints. Anyone drinking more than three or four glasses isn't tasting much by glass 5 anyway.

Valor: omris: jimb213: I happen to agree with that price point. There are, I'm certain, bottles that cost $500 that are as good, but I'm not convinced they are spectacularly better, and I have never tasted wine 10 times better than the $20-$30 range. Let's face it. I'm really only going to taste the first glass and a half. After that, it might as well come in a jug, or a plastic bag with a spigot.

Agreed. I start my guests off with the best wine of the night, and after someone crosses the three-glass mark he or she starts working their way down to the jug wine. I've never had any complaints. Anyone drinking more than three or four glasses isn't tasting much by glass 5 anyway.

Lets be honest with ourselves here, most people don't have sophisticated taste in alcohol, particularly wine. Especially Americans who tend not to drink wine regularly. Spending less than $10 on a bottle of Yellow Tail or Barefoot will do just fine 90% of the time.

/still draws the line at anything that comes in a box

mesmer242: Does that sound like hard science to you? Really?

I have never read even a press release from the researchers themselves that sounded like hard science. This is not surprising, as this information is not meant for scientists, or to further scientific information, but to get people to read it, or at least click on the link and skim. But none of that has any bearing on the study.

mesmer242: If the researchers involved set up an actual controlled randomized experiment that shows the relationship, or alternatively, prove the mechanism they hypothesize regarding the heat seeking liver, then I will be convinced. And try to learn to like red wine.

I don't know what heat seeking liver you're talking about. I've never heard about that as a proposed mechanism for the health benefits of moderate consumption of alcohol. Just a few of the mechanisms that have been reported are:

Anti-inflammatory action of a variety of polyphenols.
Antioxidative properties of both ethanol itself and the other compounds of fermentation.
Stimulation of AMP-activated protein kinase might increase insulin sensitivity.
One polyphenol found in grape wine has been demonstrated to surpress the expression of tissue factors and cytokines, which can lead to fewer clots.

None of this makes a great news story, so you'll only find this information if you look to the publications themselves. But it is out there.

But there have been literally hundreds of studies about the health effects of alcohol, and most of them are positive. Even in relation to obesity. There are mouse studies that have been saying this for quite a while. The point is that this is the first evidence of the same pattern in humans. To assume that because data was collected via a survey it is therefore not randomized or controlled is silly. Why would a respected journal publish something that was not statistically and scientifically sound?

And in terms of breast health, there has been reported a weak association between moderate alcohol consumption and breast cancer incidence. You are confusing correlation with causality, and ignoring a whole lot of other research in the process. There is no evidence to suggest that ceasing to consume alcohol will lower your risk of breast cancer, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that even if it does reduce your risk, it does so my a tiny amount, and increases your risk of heart disease, stroke, etc..

I'm not saying you should drink. I'm saying that your scientific justification for not drinking is flawed. We know that gender, age, and genetics are all much more significant risk factors, so preventative screening is a much more realistic strategy to avoid dying of breast cancer.

I know, I scienced all over the place, but I get touchy about people questioning the scientific validity of a study without any evidence. Maybe I should drink more.

Could also be that daily wine drinkers don't eat all that much. But there's no way that could factor into a study about alcohol.

Hey Steve! What type of wine are you drinking?

Sweet Berry Wine!