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

A troubling report in the WSJ -- Hidden health risks for women.

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

A troubling report in the WSJ -- Hidden health risks for women.

by Bob Ross » Tue Dec 26, 2006 4:17 pm

I believe the article is free today; some of the key points:

Overall, science shows that for both men and women, drinking a small amount of alcohol each day is better for you than never drinking at all, and it likely lowers your risk of heart attack, diabetes and mental decline. But for women, moderate alcohol consumption also carries risks you may not know about.


Even small amounts of alcohol consumption are linked with higher risk for breast cancer. Women who drive after drinking are at higher risk than men of dying in a car accident, even at similar blood-alcohol concentrations. And women are at higher risk than men for serious health problems related to alcohol abuse, including liver, brain and heart damage.

The reasons alcohol appears to affect men and women so differently are complex. Women achieve higher concentrations of alcohol in the blood and become more impaired than men after drinking equivalent amounts of alcohol, even when taking into account differences in height and weight. This is likely due to the fact that a woman's stomach empties more slowly than a man's, giving the body more time to absorb the same amount of alcohol, many doctors say.

Lab studies suggest there may be gender differences in how alcohol affects the response to visual cues and other tasks related to driving performance, which may explain why it's more risky for a woman to drink and drive. And alcohol also may alter a woman's natural estrogen levels, which can influence her risk for a number of health concerns.

***

While there's disagreement about whether any level of alcohol is good for a woman, most authorities agree that women should limit themselves to one-half to one drink a day to get the maximum health benefits of drinking and minimize the risks. For men, the maximum health benefit comes with one to two drinks a day.

And women who do choose to drink should also take a multivitamin that contains folic acid. Recent studies show folic acid seems to blunt the harmful effects of alcohol on the breast and lowers risk of breast cancer to near that of a woman who doesn't drink alcohol.


The author is Tara Parker-Pope; in case this isn't a free feature today, you can reach her at healthjournal@wsj.com for further information.

Home page of the WSJ.
no avatar
User

Jenise

Rank

FLDG Dishwasher

Posts

42632

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:45 pm

Location

The Pacific Northest Westest

Re: A troubling report in the WSJ -- Hidden health risks for women.

by Jenise » Tue Dec 26, 2006 4:31 pm

Aw, poop. I don't want to hear this! Ladies, place your fingers in your ears and sing with me: la la la la la la la la la.
My wine shopping and I have never had a problem. Just a perpetual race between the bankruptcy court and Hell.--Rogov
no avatar
User

Cynthia Wenslow

Rank

Pizza Princess

Posts

5746

Joined

Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:32 pm

Location

The Third Coast

Re: A troubling report in the WSJ -- Hidden health risks for women.

by Cynthia Wenslow » Tue Dec 26, 2006 4:49 pm

Since heart problems run rampant and there is no cancer at all in my family, I will continue to err on the side of drinking wine. Guess perhaps I picked my parents more wisely than I sometimes thought. :wink:
no avatar
User

Robin Garr

Rank

Forum Janitor

Posts

21622

Joined

Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:44 pm

Location

Louisville, KY

Re: A troubling report in the WSJ -- Hidden health risks for women.

by Robin Garr » Tue Dec 26, 2006 4:53 pm

Bob Ross wrote:While there's disagreement about whether any level of alcohol is good for a woman, most authorities agree that women should limit themselves to one-half to one drink a day to get the maximum health benefits of drinking and minimize the risks. For men, the maximum health benefit comes with one to two drinks a day.


Bob, as with so many health-and-alcohol studies, data fall all over the map, and this is no exception. Given the strong tendency of reporters (even for august publications) to fall into the let's-go-for-a-headline trap, I'd urge digging back to primary sources as one way to evaluate how accurately the article characterizes the research. I won't have time to look at the article until later ... is it possible to track back through it, directly or via Google, to find the actual research?
no avatar
User

Randy Buckner

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

1708

Joined

Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:46 am

Location

Puget Sound

Re: A troubling report in the WSJ -- Hidden health risks for women.

by Randy Buckner » Tue Dec 26, 2006 4:58 pm

Just going by what Bob printed out (I could not find the article on today's web health site) this is another typical alarmist article, full of "may cause" and "likely do" maladies. Talk to me when you hard hard facts, WSJ.

Secondly, they lost me when they didn't even get their facts straight -- women have less alcohol dehydrogenase, which causes elevated levels even when taking weight into effect.

Finally, what are the risk levels? The press loves to twist these into alarmist numbers. If there is a one in two million risk of something, but now you drink and there is a one in a million risk, you just doubled your risk, but it is still one in a friggin' million. I'd like to see the statistics to dig out the real risks here.
no avatar
User

Bob Ross

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

5703

Joined

Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:39 pm

Location

Franklin Lakes, NJ

Re: A troubling report in the WSJ -- Hidden health risks for women.

by Bob Ross » Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:36 pm

I'll send the author an email and demand the backup, Robin. One really good thing about being a long time WSJ subscriber is that they will respond with whatever facts they have.

My guess is that they will get quite a bit of feedback on this article. Just to stir the pot a little more, I'm going to send a copy of the article to Dorothy J. Gaiter and ask for her comments.

I'll revert.

Regards, Bob
no avatar
User

Bob Ross

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

5703

Joined

Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:39 pm

Location

Franklin Lakes, NJ

Re: A troubling report in the WSJ -- Hidden health risks for women.

by Bob Ross » Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:56 pm

Randy, here's some more on the cancer/alcohol link from the article; as I mentioned to Robin, I'll ask the author for her support for the article and revert:

"One of the most troubling effects of alcohol is that even small amounts increase a woman's risk for breast cancer. A pooled analysis by Harvard researchers of all the data on alcohol and breast cancer shows that a woman's risk increases by about 9% for every 10 grams of alcohol a day that she drinks. In the U.S., the typical serving of 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine or 1.5 ounces of liquor delivers about 12 grams to 14 grams of alcohol, according to the Harvard School of Public Health.

That means a woman who consumes just two drinks a day has about a 27% higher risk of getting breast cancer than a woman who doesn't drink alcohol.

It's worth noting that the absolute risk of alcohol consumption to an individual woman is slight. Consider that the typical 50-year-old woman has a five-year breast-cancer risk of about 2.1% -- so two drinks a day would boost her risk to only about 2.7%.

"It's not a huge difference to an individual woman, but it could translate into many thousands of breast cancers in a year that would not have otherwise occurred," says Walter Willett, epidemiology and nutrition professor at the Harvard School for Public Health. The alcohol-health equation "is definitely more complicated in women because of the relationship with breast cancer," says Dr. Willett.

For many women, similar risks from other choices have proved unacceptable. For instance, recent studies have shown a woman's risk of breast cancer increases 9% to 24% if she uses the menopause hormones estrogen and progestin, a concern that has prompted millions of women to abandon hormone treatments for menopause.

Exactly why alcohol consumption alters a woman's breast-cancer risk isn't entirely clear. Several studies have shown that alcohol can raise a woman's natural estrogen levels, and high natural estrogen is linked with higher breast-cancer risk. Alcohol may enhance the negative effects of natural estrogen on the breast.

While the breast-cancer risk sounds scary, it has to be weighed against other health benefits of alcohol. Women who consume about one drink a day have a 40% lower risk for heart attack, and a 70% lower risk of stroke. In the well-known Nurses Health Study, which now follows more than 120,000 women, those with diabetes who drank at least a half-serving of alcohol a day had a 52% lower risk for heart attack than nondrinkers.

Studies also show that moderate alcohol use might protect against osteoporosis, a serious health problem that leads to brittle bones and risky fractures and affects far more women than men. Women who drink six to seven servings of alcohol a week typically have higher bone density than nondrinkers. The higher bone density is likely explained by the estrogen-enhancing effects of alcohol, doctors say.

As a result, women need to take into account family history and personal concerns. A woman with a strong family history of breast cancer or someone with a family history of alcoholism might decide to forgo alcohol altogether. But someone without those added risk factors who is worried about heart attack, diabetes or osteoporosis might consider drinking small amounts of alcohol daily.


Regards, Bob
no avatar
User

Randy Buckner

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

1708

Joined

Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:46 am

Location

Puget Sound

Re: A troubling report in the WSJ -- Hidden health risks for women.

by Randy Buckner » Tue Dec 26, 2006 6:01 pm

Thanks, Bob.
no avatar
User

Bob Ross

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

5703

Joined

Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:39 pm

Location

Franklin Lakes, NJ

Re: A troubling report in the WSJ -- Hidden health risks for women.

by Bob Ross » Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:50 pm

I sent off the two emails, Randy; thanks for the factual inaccuracy. Here's the email to Gaiter and Becher:

Hi, I sent the following email to Tara Parker-Pope today -- do you agree with the conclusions and do they affect the advice you would give to women you encourage to drink wine?

Thanks, Bob

I was troubled by your article on alcohol today at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1167084 ... side_today

Could you give me the citations to the research you relied on?

I understood that women women have less alcohol dehydrogenase, which causes elevated levels even when taking weight into effect.

Do you have any idea what Dorothy J. Gaiter thinks of this piece?

Regards, Robert C. Ross
[Address deleted.]
robcurtross@hotmail.com


Let's see how they respond. Regards, Bob
no avatar
User

Paul Winalski

Rank

Wok Wielder

Posts

8019

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:16 pm

Location

Merrimack, New Hampshire

Re: A troubling report in the WSJ -- Hidden health risks for women.

by Paul Winalski » Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:06 am

The lower level in women of alcohol dehydrogenase may be a postive feature rather than a bug (to put it in software engineering terms). Yes, it means more ethanol in the blood for longer, but it also means less acetaldehyde in the blood. Ethanol detoxification is a two-stage process. The first liver enzyme is alcohol dehydrogenase, which converts ethanol to acetaldehyde. The second enzyme is aldehyde dehyrodgenase, which converts acetaldehyde to acetate, which then enters the central metabolic energy-producing system. The problem is, aldehyde dehydrogenase acts more slowly than alcohol dehydrogenase, so if there's a lot of excess ethanol present, you get a build-up of acetaldehyde. The excess eventually gets dumped into the bloodstream. Acetaldehyde is to blame for many of the toxic symptoms of a hangover. So if you have less active alcohol dehydrogenase, the result is you get drunk faster and stay drunk longer, but you don't suffer as much from hangovers.

I've noticed this on several occasions where I've been part of a group of over-indulgers. The men were all completely wiped out the next day, whereas the women, who had drunk just as much (if not more), were seemingly unaffected. But the women had gotten schnockered first.

It's not clear to me where the trade-off is between having more ethanol present in the bloodstream, versus being protected against the toxic effects of acetaldehyde.

-Paul W.
no avatar
User

Randy Buckner

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

1708

Joined

Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:46 am

Location

Puget Sound

Re: A troubling report in the WSJ -- Hidden health risks for women.

by Randy Buckner » Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:08 am

Good point, Paul.
no avatar
User

Thomas

Rank

Senior Flamethrower

Posts

3768

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:23 pm

Re: A troubling report in the WSJ -- Hidden health risks for women.

by Thomas » Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:08 am

Robin Garr wrote:
Bob Ross wrote:While there's disagreement about whether any level of alcohol is good for a woman, most authorities agree that women should limit themselves to one-half to one drink a day to get the maximum health benefits of drinking and minimize the risks. For men, the maximum health benefit comes with one to two drinks a day.


Bob, as with so many health-and-alcohol studies, data fall all over the map, and this is no exception. Given the strong tendency of reporters (even for august publications) to fall into the let's-go-for-a-headline trap, I'd urge digging back to primary sources as one way to evaluate how accurately the article characterizes the research. I won't have time to look at the article until later ... is it possible to track back through it, directly or via Google, to find the actual research?


hear, hear.

Always reach back for the source on stories like this. Did I say ALWAYS?
Thomas P
no avatar
User

MikeH

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

1168

Joined

Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:07 pm

Location

Cincinnati

Re: A troubling report in the WSJ -- Hidden health risks for women.

by MikeH » Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:17 am

I have decided to take all of these reports with a grain of salt. Now that I have passed the half-century mark, I have accumulated enough conflicting data and reports to thoroughly confuse me. That is primarily because professional medical opinions change course more often than a battleship being chased by a submarine. First, we're supposed to eat low-fat. Then we're supposed to eat low-carb. Then its low protein. In addition, when you get into the details, you find that some lab rat was fed, in a single day, a quantity that represents a million times his normal lifetime consumption.

I fully expect to read or hear someday that saliva causes cancer. :lol:
Cheers!
Mike
no avatar
User

Paul Winalski

Rank

Wok Wielder

Posts

8019

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:16 pm

Location

Merrimack, New Hampshire

Re: A troubling report in the WSJ -- Hidden health risks for women.

by Paul Winalski » Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:44 pm

Keep in mind that birth is the leading cause of death. There's a nearly 100% correlation there (the exceptions being a few biblical figures).

-Paul W.
no avatar
User

James Roscoe

Rank

Chat Prince

Posts

11013

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:43 pm

Location

D.C. Metro Area - Maryland

Re: A troubling report in the WSJ -- Hidden health risks for women.

by James Roscoe » Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:47 pm

Paul Winalski wrote:Keep in mind that birth is the leading cause of death. There's a nearly 100% correlation there (the exceptions being a few biblical figures).

-Paul W.


I think I might be a Biblical figure! 8)
Yes, and how many deaths will it take 'til he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
no avatar
User

Thomas

Rank

Senior Flamethrower

Posts

3768

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:23 pm

Re: A troubling report in the WSJ -- Hidden health risks for women.

by Thomas » Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:06 am

Paul Winalski wrote:Keep in mind that birth is the leading cause of death. There's a nearly 100% correlation there (the exceptions being a few biblical figures).

-Paul W.


I have a friend who told his older brother that if he didn't stop smoking he would die. His brother shot back, "...and you aren't going to die???"
Thomas P

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AhrefsBot, ClaudeBot, Google [Bot] and 2 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign