The place for all things wine, focused on serious wine discussions.

New York Times on the Kaiser Permanente cancer study.

Moderators: Jenise, Robin Garr, David M. Bueker

no avatar
User

Bob Ross

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

5703

Joined

Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:39 pm

Location

Franklin Lakes, NJ

New York Times on the Kaiser Permanente cancer study.

by Bob Ross » Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:35 am

There's been an enormous amount of ink spread on this study, in large measure because of the 70,000 people studied; a copy of the September 27 press release appears here.

The New York Times is carrying an analysis of the study today; extracts:

A new study linking alcoholic beverages to breast cancer has left many women in a panic. Should you give up evening cocktails? Should you stop cooking with wine?

The latest data, gathered by researchers at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif., are based on the drinking habits of more than 70,000 women who supplied dietary information during health examinations between 1978 and 1985. The truth is, the findings aren’t nearly as scary as they sound.

The highest risk of breast cancer was found among women who consumed on average more than three alcoholic beverages a day. Among those who consumed less, one drink a day didn’t increase breast cancer risk at all and two drinks a day raised the odds only slightly. The main finding of the new research is that a woman’s overall risk was the same whether she drank white wine, red wine, beer or spirits.

The question for most women now, though, is whether the apparent health benefits associated with moderate drinking outweigh the slight increase in breast cancer risk. Scientists don’t know how exactly alcohol contributes to breast cancer, but they know levels of circulating estrogen tend to be higher in women who drink.

The Kaiser study found a 30 percent increase in risk with three drinks a day. A pooled analysis by Harvard researchers of six studies on alcohol and breast cancer shows that a woman’s risk increases by about 9 percent for every 10 grams of alcohol a day that she drinks. In the United States, a typical drink delivers about 12 grams to 14 grams of alcohol. That means just two drinks a day might increase a woman’s risk for breast cancer by 27 percent. That’s about the same increase associated with long-term use of estrogen or smoking a pack a day of cigarettes.

But before you panic, remember these scary percentages translate into very small risks for the individual woman. A typical 50-year-old woman has a five-year breast cancer risk of about 3 percent. If her risk jumps by 30 percent, her individual risk is still only about 4 percent.


Entire article and discussion appear here; free registration required: Another Quaff of Confusion About Alcohol.

The discussion of the article is particularly intelligent, something that can't always be said about NYTimes reader discussions.

Regards, Bob
no avatar
User

wnissen

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

1227

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:16 pm

Location

Livermore, CA

Re: New York Times on the Kaiser Permanente cancer study.

by wnissen » Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:19 pm

Dear Bob,

What drives me nuts about these studies is that it's almost impossible to look at overall mortality. A woman is six times more likely to die of heart disease than breast cancer, which is about the opposite of what you'd expect if you judged by the amount of publicity, colored ribbons, etc.

Therefore, if alcohol causes breast cancer risk to *double*, but reduces heart disease risk by a mere third, you've broken even. Certainly it does seem to warn against immoderate consumption.

Walt
Walter Nissen
no avatar
User

Bob Ross

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

5703

Joined

Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:39 pm

Location

Franklin Lakes, NJ

Re: New York Times on the Kaiser Permanente cancer study.

by Bob Ross » Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:58 pm

Dear Walt,

The Times caught my state of mind on these studies -- "Confusion". :(

Regards, Bob
no avatar
User

Paul Winalski

Rank

Wok Wielder

Posts

8071

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:16 pm

Location

Merrimack, New Hampshire

Re: New York Times on the Kaiser Permanente cancer study.

by Paul Winalski » Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:09 pm

Has anyone yet done a study on the effects of the stress caused by obsessing on the effects of diet on health? I'll bet that those who don't worry about what they eat have lower cancer rates/better longevity than those who are neurotic about what they eat/drink.

In favor of chilling out,

-Paul W.
no avatar
User

David M. Bueker

Rank

Riesling Guru

Posts

34436

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am

Location

Connecticut

Re: New York Times on the Kaiser Permanente cancer study.

by David M. Bueker » Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:11 pm

Enjoy life. At least you will die happy.
Decisions are made by those who show up
no avatar
User

Dale Williams

Rank

Compassionate Connoisseur

Posts

11177

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:32 pm

Location

Dobbs Ferry, NY (NYC metro)

Re: New York Times on the Kaiser Permanente cancer study.

by Dale Williams » Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:13 pm

My theory (and it seems that of many people here) is the thing to do is proclaim the wisdom and veracity of all papers showing the benefits of drinking wine, and poo-poo all the ones that show possible drawbacks. Works for me!
no avatar
User

Paul Winalski

Rank

Wok Wielder

Posts

8071

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:16 pm

Location

Merrimack, New Hampshire

Re: New York Times on the Kaiser Permanente cancer study.

by Paul Winalski » Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:35 pm

Dale Williams wrote:My theory (and it seems that of many people here) is the thing to do is proclaim the wisdom and veracity of all papers showing the benefits of drinking wine, and poo-poo all the ones that show possible drawbacks. Works for me!


I'll drink to that! :D

-Paul W.
no avatar
User

Mark Lipton

Rank

Oenochemist

Posts

4285

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:18 pm

Location

Indiana

Re: New York Times on the Kaiser Permanente cancer study.

by Mark Lipton » Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:47 pm

Paul Winalski wrote:Has anyone yet done a study on the effects of the stress caused by obsessing on the effects of diet on health? I'll bet that those who don't worry about what they eat have lower cancer rates/better longevity than those who are neurotic about what they eat/drink.


I believe that you'll find those results summarized in the book "French Women Don't Get Fat" by Mireille Giuliano, who is (not coincidentally) the former head of Clicquot, Inc. :D

Mark Lipton

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AhrefsBot, ClaudeBot, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 3 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign