Pages

Showing posts with label Alcohol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alcohol. Show all posts

Monday, 3 September 2018

Any Amount of Drinking Is Bad for You. Here's What Experts Say

A new study concludes there’s no amount of alcohol consumption that’s safe for overall health — a finding that’s likely to surprise moderate drinkers, and that has left some experts unconvinced.

By JAMIE DUCHARME 
August 24, 2018

HEALTHWISE


For years, public health officials have said that, while no one should pick up drinking in search of better health, moderate drinking (defined as up to a drink per day for women and up to two per day for men) probably won’t hurt anyone who already imbibes, and may even confer some benefits. This standard is written into the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and is supported by organizations including the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society.
But the new paper, published Thursday in The Lancet, calls that long-held conclusion into question.
“The evidence is adding up that no amount of drinking is safe,” says study co-author Emmanuela Gakidou, a professor of global health and health metrics sciences at the University of Washington. “I don’t think we’re going out on a limb to say anything that the data do not support.”
The new research was based on a review of nearly 700 existing studies on global drinking prevalence and nearly 600 studies on alcohol and health, and found that alcohol was the seventh leading risk factor for premature death in 2016, contributing to 2.8 million deaths worldwide. That number is equivalent to 2.2% of all female deaths and 6.8% of all male deaths that year, according to the study.
The health risks likely only increase the more you drink, the study found. Compared to non-drinkers, people who had one alcoholic beverage per day had a 0.5% higher risk of developing one of 23 alcohol-related health problems, including cancer, road injuries and tuberculosis, in a given year, the study says. At that level, the absolute increase is small, equaling only four additional deaths per 100,000 people per year, according to the study. But those who had two drinks per day had a risk 7% higher than non-drinkers. At five drinks per day, the risk was 37% higher, the study says.
Gakidou’s paper did show some modest cardiovascular benefits associated with moderate drinking, particularly among women, but she says that effect is overshadowed by the numerous ways alcohol can threaten health. When you consider risks like breast cancer and road traffic injuries, she says, “the protective effect goes away, even at low doses.”
Other experts have recently come to similar conclusions. In May, for example, the World Cancer Research Fund released a report saying that, at least in terms of cancer prevention, “it’s best not to drink alcohol.” The U.K. government made a similar recommendation in 2016.
Meanwhile, some studies have questioned the long-standing idea that moderate drinking is good for heart health. That’s in part because some older studies didn’t account for the fact that many people who don’t drink abstain either because they had addiction issues in the past, or have other health problems that force them to stay away from alcohol. Including these individuals in the general non-drinking population may have skewed research results to make teetotalers as a whole group look unhealthier than they actually are, some studies have suggested.
Walter Willett, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, questions the conclusion that the cons of drinking always outweigh the pros. While there’s “no question” that heavy drinking is harmful, he says that plenty of data supports links between moderate drinking and lower total mortality and a decreased risk of heart disease — which, he says, are far more relevant concerns for most Americans than something like tuberculosis, which the Lancet paper identifies as a leading alcohol-related disease worldwide. Tuberculosis is very rare in the U.S.
“Our decisions about drinking in the United States shouldn’t be influenced by what alcohol does to tuberculosis,” Willett says. “When you throw together everything in one big pot and draw conclusions for the whole world, it’s just misleading.”
Willett does acknowledge that even moderate drinking comes with tradeoffs. A drink a day may decrease a woman’s risk of heart disease but increase her risk of breast cancer. For a young, healthy woman who is unlikely to die of heart disease, those risks might outweigh the benefits. But that’s a decision that woman would have to make with her doctor, Willett says — and it’s unlikely the entire population would or should come to the same conclusion.
“I think they went too far in this paper,” Willett says. “There are risks and benefits, and I think it’s important to have the best information about all of those and come to some personal decisions, and engage one’s health care provider in that process as well.”
Gakidou, on the other hand, says her paper’s recommendation is valid precisely because individual health decisions are so variable.
“We don’t have the information for specific individuals…we’re making overall recommendations at the population level,” she says. “If you’re running a health system in a country, it’s better overall for the population of your country to not drink at all than to drink a little bit.”
Dariush Mozaffarian, dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, agrees with that assessment. It’s clear, he says, that drinking comes with health risks, and far less clear that it comes with any benefits. So while some moderate drinkers might never experience health problems from drinking, “if you look at all the risks and all the benefits of alcohol, it’s probably net harmful, on average, for the whole population,” he says.
While that conclusion may seem stark to people who have come to feel virtuous about their nightly glass of wine, Mozaffarian says it’s actually not so different from current medical advice.
“I think this is actually consistent with every organization’s recommendation that, overall, no one should start drinking to prevent heart disease or diabetes,” Mozaffarian says. “No organization has ever recommended to drink alcohol. The recommendation has been that if you drink — and that’s the key caveat — don’t drink more than moderately.”

Wednesday, 1 August 2018

An easy way to boost your sperm quality

Eating nuts as part of a regular diet significantly improves the quality and function of human sperm, researchers in Spain found.

An easy way to boost your sperm quality
Eating nuts as part of a regular diet significantly improves the quality and function of human sperm. — TNS

During a 14-week randomised clinical trial, 119 healthy and apparently fertile young men ages 18-35 were put into two groups.
One followed their usual western-style diet supplemented with 60 grams – roughly a half cup – of mixed almonds, hazelnuts and walnuts daily.
The other group ate a western- style diet without nuts.
Researchers measured conventional semen parameters and molecular changes, and found the group that ate nuts had improvements in their sperm count, vitality, motility and shape.
Lead researcher Albert Salas-Huetos from the Human Nutrition Unit of the Universitat Rovira i Virgili in Reus, Spain, said the study was set against a background of general decline in the quantity and quality of human sperm in industrialised countries due to “pollution, smoking, and trends toward a western-style diet”.
A Mediterranean diet is rich in fruits, fish, whole grains, legumes and olive oil – and a splash of red wine.
The western-style diet includes red and processed meats, fried foods, high-fat dairy, eggs, butter and sugary drinks.
A half cup of mixed nuts can contain about 400 calories.
There are plenty of causes of problematic sperm production.
Medical causes include swelling of the veins that drain the testicle, infections, tumours, coeliac disease and ejaculation problems.
Overexposure to benzenes, toluene, herbicides, pesticides, organic solvents, painting materials and lead might contribute to low sperm counts, and exposure to x-rays or other radiation might alter sperm production, according to the Mayo Clinic in the United States.
Even frequent use of saunas or hot tubs might temporarily impair sperm count.
And if you are thinking of washing down those nuts with a pint of beer, hold off. Alcohol can be a contributor to low sperm count.
Drug use, tobacco and obesity also play a role, the Mayo Clinic reported.
Salas-Huetos said that the study results cannot be extrapolated to the general population.
But they are consistent with results from other studies that included diets rich in omega-3, antioxidants such as vitamin C and E, selenium, zinc and folate, he said.
“Evidence is accumulating that healthy lifestyle changes such as following a healthy dietary pattern, might help conception – and of course, nuts are a key component of a Mediterranean healthy diet,” he said. – The Philadelphia Inquirer/Tribune News Service

https://www.star2.com/health/2018/07/28/easy-way-boost-sperm-quality

Wednesday, 16 May 2018

Why does alcohol make us drunk? You asked Google – here’s the answer

Every day millions of people ask Google life’s most difficult questions. Our writers answer some of the commonest queries
Man drinking pint of beer
 ‘Humans’ ambiguous relationship with alcohol is older than civilisation.’ Photograph: Johnny Green/PA
Ah, alcohol. As Homer once said, this infamous molecule is both “the cause of, and the solution to, all of life’s problems”.
OK, it was Homer Simpson who said that rather than the classical bard, but it’s no less true or profound for that. Sometimes, the rubbish you come out with when you’re drunk really is quite clever, or funny, or both, so long as you can remember it properly the next morning.
Our ambiguous relationship with alcohol is older than civilisation – in fact there’s a strong argument that it was the cause of civilisation itself. We’ve been drinking it since our dawn as a species, and it probably helped us evolve into humans in the first place. It may even have played a role in the very creation of life on earth. No, I’m not drunk. This is proper science.
For all that time, alcohol has been, as Simpson said so beautifully, both a cause of great pleasure and, for a minority, colossal pain. Our relationship as a society with alcohol swings on a pendulum over time between celebrating the positives and deploring the negatives, and right now we’re over on the temperance side. Between 1785 and 1985, The Times used the term “binge drinking” a total of 49 times. The same paper ran over 300 stories about binge drinking in 2004 alone. Which is odd, because people were drinking much less in 2004 than their ancestors had been at pretty much any point in the preceding two centuries.
A barman pouring Jagerbombs at the bar at Travellers Friend, (‘The Spivs’), pub, Woodford Green, Essex, England
Pinterest
 ‘Ethanol behaves quite differently with the depressive Gaba, convincing it to switch to shots, grab a kebab and then go on to a club and do Jägerbombs.’ Photograph: Mark Dunn/Alamy Stock Photo
This means we live in an age of alarmist misinformation about the perils of booze, with a growing belief that any level of consumption of this “poison” is potentially harmful. If there were any truth to this claim, given the quantities we used to drink in the past, the human race would have been extinct long ago.
So what does alcohol really do to us? And how does it do it? The truth is, neuroscientists are still in the process of figuring this out. To a significant degree, it depends on who you are, what your relationship with alcohol is, what and how you’re drinking, and also, ultimately, what you mean by “drunk”.
Let’s look at the physiological effects first. The active component in booze is ethanol, which as molecules go, has all the sly charm of one of those beery lads who can worm his way past the velvet ropes of any bar in the world. Water soluble and small enough to pass through and between cell walls, ethanol is drawn first to the liver, which immediately begins to break it down. But the liver only works so fast, so surplus ethanol shoots on through to every part of the body and ends up in the brain within minutes. It does all sorts of stuff to our digestive system, our motor functions, our need to pee and much more, but it’s the feeling of drunkenness that fascinates us.
Information and instructions are carried around the brain by neurons – excitable cells that carry data. Neurons don’t touch, but communicate across tiny gaps known as synapses, using chemicals known as neurotransmitters. Simplistically, these fall into two types: “excitatory impulses”, which tell us to do stuff and are carried by glutamate, and “inhibitory signals” which tell us to do less, and travel via gamma-aminobutyric acid, or Gaba. Trillions of these signals are happening all the time, and their net effect is the mind itself, and our sense (some would say illusion) of consciousness.
Ethanol gleefully speeds into the synapses, cascading into the gaps between the neurons, and then sidles up to them, puts its arms around their shoulders and assures them it’s their best mate in the whole world. You might be suspicious if a stranger did this to you in a pub unless you were already gattered, but your neurons totally believe the ethanol molecules, and scientists still don’t really know why.
When it binds to glutamate, ethanol slows it down and stops it from acting, like the pub bore who pins you in the corner and gives you an episode-by-episode recap of Game of Thrones even though you keep saying yes, you’ve seen it, and you really have to go because you just remembered you left the babysitter in the oven. But it behaves quite differently with the depressive Gaba, basically convincing it to switch to shots, grab a kebab and then go on to a club and do Jägerbombs.
A reveller stops to help her friend after leaving a bar in Bristol City Centre on October 15, 2005 in Bristol, England
Pinterest
 ‘Loss of motor function, memory loss, nausea and so on often only kick in at high blood alcohol concentrations.’ Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty Images
This double-bind effect – dulling the active signals and amplifying the sedative ones – is what we really mean when we say alcohol is a depressant: it doesn’t make you depressed – at least not at low levels – but it slows down and depresses your active functions, making the brain slower and more sedate and, given enough time and reinforcements, can accelerate the process until you pass out, or in very extreme cases, forget to breathe. But at the same time, ethanol also jacks up the release of dopamine, exciting the part of the brain that perceives reward. Your brain tells you this reward is related to the ethanol you consumed, so you consume more, depressing your brain function while increasing your sense of euphoria.
Loss of motor function, memory loss, nausea and so on often only kick in at high blood alcohol concentrations. The vast majority of drinking is more moderate, and here, perceptions of tipsiness are not as straightforward as simple brain chemistry. From the 1970s onwards, psychologist Alan Marlatt developed a series of experiments where the taste of a placebo was indistinguishable from that of an alcoholic drink. He gave the placebo to half the subjects and alcohol to the other half. But then he cut the group in half the other way too, telling half they were drinking alcohol and half they were not. So, you had people expecting alcohol and getting it, people expecting alcohol and not getting it, and vice versa with those not expecting alcohol.
Consistently, those who believed they were drinking alcohol – whether they actually were or not – showed signs of intoxication including flushed faces, more animated behaviour and slurring of speech. Those who thought they were not drinking alcohol – even alcoholics, in some of the experiments – did not. Marlatt also showed that the perceived effects of intoxication were far more pronounced in social situations than when subjects were drinking alone.
Why does alcohol make us drunk? When you look at the history of our relationship with it in light of Marlatt’s research, the smart-ass, know-it-all-on-the-bar-stool answer has to be: “Because we want it to.”
 Pete Brown is the author of several books on beer and pubs. He blogs about drinks at petebrown.blogspot.com

Sunday, 8 April 2018

Curious Cook: The latest news on processed food

February is quiet, cold and sombre here in France – days tiptoe stoically through the winter, wistful for spring and warmth. But there is always news that catches the eye after freezing walks with my dog and here are a couple of recent items.
Curious Cook: The latest news on processed food
Instant noodles fall under NOVA Group 4 foods, so dress them up all you want, and overeat at your own risk. Photo: The Star

An important non-story
February 14 this year was a curious day. It was the day the British Foreign Secretary gave a ridiculous speech trying to justify Brexit – it was also Valentine’s Day and the first anniversary of my mother’s death. More relevantly, the prestigious British Medical Journal published a significant French study on the impact of processed foods – it is loquaciously called “Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort”.
It should be the best kind of study: large-scale (104,980 participants), long-term (eight years) and wide in scope (covering some 3,300 different food items). I am a sucker for such complex studies because they usually provide a lot of data, and huge volumes of data suit my penchant for analysis.
The sobering headline finding, quoted verbatim, was “a 10% increase in the proportion of ultra-processed foods in the diet was associated with a significant increase of greater than 10% in risks of overall and breast cancer”. This is relevant as the World Health Organization had categorised processed meats in 2015 as Group 1 carcinogens (along with plutonium, tobacco, asbestos, etc) – their statistics indicate that eating 50g of processed meats daily increases the chances of developing colorectal cancer by 18%, raising the risk from 6% to 7% overall for bowel cancers in Britain. If you are curious, please read this article.
So to link a 10% increase in consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPF) with a 12% increase in overall cancer rates and 11% increase in breast cancers is indeed disconcerting. This implies that a persistent 20% increase in UPF consumption can result in a serious 24+% increase in overall cancers, easily qualifying UPF as a Group 1 carcinogen after a certain consumption threshold.
Reviewing the data in detail finds that the problem food items investigated falls into the NOVA Group 4 classification. NOVA is a name, not an acronym, and Group 4 includes highly-processed industrial foods, usually with five or more ingredients including sugar, oils, fats, salt, antioxidants, stabilisers, colourings, bulking/anti-bulking agents, emulsifiers, humectants, industrial flavourings, artificial sweeteners, preservatives, etc – basically, many compounds that you would not find in your average home kitchen.
Examples of NOVA Group 4 foods include “mass produced packaged breads and buns; sweet or savoury packaged snacks; industrialised confectionery and desserts; sodas and sweetened drinks; meat balls, poultry and fish nuggets, and other reconstituted meat products transformed with addition of preservatives other than salt (for example, nitrites); instant noodles and soups; frozen or shelf stable ready meals; and other food products made mostly or entirely from sugar, oils and fats, and other substances not commonly used in culinary preparations such as hydrogenated oils, modified starches, and protein isolates” – in short, many of the foods sold in supermarkets.
The study spanned eight years and covered 104,980 participants aged between 18 and 73 years, of which 78.3% were women (men apparently did not complete their surveys as diligently as women). The monitored diets were graded – ranging from normal to high UPF content and the impact of UPF was surmised from the study results. Also noted was that people consuming high levels of UPF tended to be younger, smoked more and exercised less – this will be reflected upon later.
One immediate puzzling statistic was the lack of a strong link between UPF and colorectal cancers – one would have thought a lousy diet full of additives would have at least a similar impact on bowel cancer as processed meats. Even the report mentioned that “food preserved with salt are associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer” as are foods with a low dietary fibre – but there was no conclusive statistical link recorded.
Another curious issue is the manner data is collated. After an initial comprehensive survey, research data was collected by randomly asking participants to fill in online surveys of daily food consumption over a two-week period, specifically tracking 3,300 different food items. This method can therefore exclude other foods which may also have health impacts – and does not eliminate the possibility that things can go unreported from such a large list of items. However, it is understandable why this novel method was elected – large scale epidemiological studies are notoriously difficult to manage and the researchers probably had reasons for their approach, perhaps relying on the large numbers of participants to smooth out any outliers.
Some lifestyle analysis was included, though it did not appear rigorous. For example, it is not possible to differentiate light smokers from heavy smokers, or whether people are on medications. The focus on NOVA Group 4 foods was too general, and does not analyse the impact of additives or combinations of additives. Other dietary-related issues (eg. diabetes, hypertension, and cholesterol) were not investigated, nor were items such as pesticide or BPA residues – cancers can also take more than eight years to develop. Notably, the transition effect of moving away from high UPF to better diets was not captured. However, to be fair, the researchers did try to adjust the statistics for certain variables (eg. body mass index, use of oral contraception, even family cancer histories), though none of their adjustments made any difference to the headline numbers.
So after an afternoon of poking around various sets of data, the only relevant statistics are that eating UPF increases the overall probability of getting cancers – and these probabilities are quantified at between 11% and 12% for a 10% increase in consuming NOVA Group 4 foods. More than this, we cannot say – and even so, there may be confounding factors affecting the statistic (eg. it is indeterminate how lifestyles affected the results) and the baseline level of UPF consumption was also not definitively prescribed.

Indisputable

Nevertheless, it is now indisputable that there is a link between cancers and ultra-processed foods – it is NOT suspicions, hunches or educated guesses anymore.
Overall, this is probably not earth-shattering news, almost a non-story (as the statistics are not surprising) – and we are still no wiser as to which compounds/components in foods are active carcinogens. But it does highlight we are far from understanding the impact of additives and processed foods on health – and more research is needed to make sense of the increased disease probabilities. But this study is a kick in the right direction, and a well-founded confirmation that over-consumption of UPF tangibly increases cancer probabilities. It therefore makes sense to watch what and how much we eat – and a good way to avoid UPF is shunning foods with too many additives/ingredients.

Alcohol and living longer

Other news is the latest claim from The 90+ Study (a research project started in 2003 covering around 14,000 participants) that modest consumption of alcohol improved the chances of people living past the age of 90 – two daily glasses of beer/wine is alleged to be better for longevity than regular exercise.
Reading the papers from the University of California raised some points – the study only covered people living in the California Leisure World retirement community (which therefore immediately incorporates an income and lifestyle bias). The latest study also only investigated 1,700 people who were already at the age of 90 or older – hence there may be a genetic longevity bias as it automatically excluded everyone who had died before age 90. However, an earlier 2007 paper from the same study also claimed a 15% reduction in mortality for younger retirees who had two or more alcoholic drinks a day.
There is only speculation as to why alcohol might be beneficial. One theory involves the recently-discovered glymphatic system (GS) in the brain, which is regulated by the hormone norepinephrine – this system increases the flow of cerebrospinal fluid when we sleep and acts as a waste clearance mechanism, flushing toxins and damaged proteins such as beta-amyloid and tau tangles out of the brain. Not providing time for the GS to finish its housekeeping is a plausible explanation why we feel bad after too little sleep. It may be that alcohol can improve the function of the GS in some unknown manner, possibly by relaxing the brain – or it may be that casual drinkers eat better or have more sociable lifestyles.
However, before we get excited, there are other findings. People who drink two or more cups of coffee daily also live longer as do people who are mildly overweight (not obese) in their 70s. Over 40% of people aged 90 or older also have dementia and almost 80% are disabled in some manner – making one wonder how they get their daily two glasses of booze.
The news media’s headline focus on alcohol’s impact on longevity might therefore be misleading – though it is an interesting subject to contemplate over a bottle of wine.

https://www.star2.com/food/2018/04/08/curious-cook-news-on-processed-food/