Alcohol and your heart: Just getting a buzz can trigger an irregular rhythm

They didn’t test just a “buzz”—mild intoxication but where someone is capable of functioning—but rather being legally too drunk to drive. To draw a picture, a person my size (210 lbs) in the study would have five drinks before getting to that point; half a gallon of beer or an entire bottle of wine, and without food to absorb it in the stomach and slow transfer to the blood/body. It also would be about a fifth to a third of my recommended daily calories—which is why we have the phrase “beer gut”.

It’s also worth noting that they didn’t actually demonstrate irregular rhythm or atrial fibrillation (that would raise some big ethical concerns), but rather precursors to the same.

Verdict; the study is very interesting and does suggest that getting legally drunk can trigger some fairly serious effects in the heart. However, CNN’s article is misleading, understating the degree of intoxication and overstating the observed results.

It would be hard for me to conclude that something God encouraged (in moderation) could be bad for you, as in the verse below regarding the Feast of Tabernacles. I use the same argument for those who try to push a vegan agenda. I am not a drinker, so I have no agenda. Understood is that a lot of things done in moderation (even eating of meat) could be bad in excess, obviously.

Deuteronomy 14:26

and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household.

[Ed Vasicek]

It would be hard for me to conclude that something God encouraged (in moderation) could be bad for you, as in the verse below regarding the Feast of Tabernacles. I use the same argument for those who try to push a vegan agenda. I am not a drinker, so I have no agenda. Understood is that a lot of things done in moderation (even eating of meat) could be bad in excess, obviously.

Deuteronomy 14:26

and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household.

[RajeshG]

What do you make of the following instruction from God, which demanded from Aaron and his sons not just moderation but also total abstinence whenever they would enter into the tabernacle of the congregation?

I would understand this the same way that the command to “be fruitful and multiply” is not for when people gather together, either in the temple/tabernacle or the churches today. I suspect that most if not all the regulations on the priests for how they worshiped before the Lord also were not followed when they were doing “normal life.” The vestments and other regulations were not in effect when they went to bed or when washing themselves, or when they cleaned their homes or took care of their animals and mucked out the stalls.

The simple answer for me as a layperson would be Ecc. 3:1: “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.”

I can’t speak for Ed, but one thing I would make of this is to note that prohibiting the priests “when ye go into the tabernacle” means that they were allowed to use wine or strong drink when they were not on duty. Otherwise, the prohibition would be at all times, not just when they went into the Tabernacle. It also implies that those who were not priests had no similar restrictions. I say this as one who chooses to abstain from alcohol, but my commitment to teach the Bible honestly prohibits my forcing Scripture to say what it does not teach.

Last time I checked, my last name was not “Cohen”, and there wasn’t a Temple or Tabernacle where animal sacrifices were being made, and it definitely wasn’t my turn to participate in that.

Which gives us one strong hint as to why the priests were not to have wine before going into the Tabernacle/Temple; part of their job was to swing a cubit-long, razor sharp (and stropped, not just sharpened) blade into the throats of animals who probably weren’t always cooperative, and whose handlers may not have been totally in control of the situation. A blood alcohol level that might have been perfectly fine for everyday work or (in today’s terms) even driving degrades fine motor skills that are critical to this kind of endeavor.

And again, if you’re at a wedding in Cana or the like, that condition does not apply. Enjoy, or abstain, with a good conscience.

Moderate drinking studies are like … coffee and dark chocolate studies

I think that Jaeggli’s point about the health benefits of alcohol consumption is well taken. He notes that no medical professional encourages people to start drinking to help their heart, rather they counsel those who already drink to practice moderation.

I’ve been told by a couple of people that their doctor advised them to drink one glass of wine in the evening to help their heart. That goes back twenty years or so. Do doctors do that now? I don’t know. Did they actually do that then, or did people “make that up” to explain why they drink wine? I would love to know.

[G. N. Barkman]

I’ve been told by a couple of people that their doctor advised them to drink one glass of wine in the evening to help their heart. That goes back twenty years or so. Do doctors do that now? I don’t know. Did they actually do that then, or did people “make that up” to explain why they drink wine? I would love to know.

I had a massive heart attack 4 years ago and have asked the wine question of every cardiologist I’ve had (there have been many) as well as my PCP’s. Each one has said that a glass of wine a day is not harmful and may be of minimal benefit. It was good to know but I don’t like wine so it didn’t matter. A few of them said that the benefits of a single beer was similar but more fattening. : )

I’ve personally had my doctors point to red wine as a way of helping my heart. Not run of the mill guys, either; residents at Mayo Medical. Other friends of mine have been counseled to do the same in other clinics. So if indeed Jaeggli claims that no medical professional encourages people to start drinking to help their hearts, he’s wrong. Red wine also plays a prominent role, in moderation, in the recommendations for healthy life endorsed in The Blue Zones.

I wonder if the original version of his book—the one before BJU Press pulled and revised it—contained this mistake. Many doctors are reluctant to tell patients to enjoy red wine simply because they don’t know them well enough to know whether they are in fact teetotalers, or whether they might be latent alcoholics or problem drinkers, but the recommendation is often made.

Randy Jaeggi said:

I think that Jaeggli’s point about the health benefits of alcohol consumption is well taken. He notes that no medical professional encourages people to start drinking to help their heart, rather they counsel those who already drink to practice moderation.

Not always the case. Some do counsel non-drinkers to drink moderately for their heart. At the same time, even moderate drinking can harm your liver. And for many of us, alcoholic beverages also interact with medications.

Rajesh, G.N. Barkman, and Bert Perry did a great job answering the objection about priests not drinking. The whole comman applied to the times they served, not all year and nor all day. In Leviticus 10:1-11, it seems (notice I am saying “seems,” not “says”) that Nadab and Abihu offered unathorized incense and were srticken dead because they were aneb… anabb. enibrea…. uh, drunk.

I could look up the reference if I were so inclined. I don’t think I misrepresented what Jaeggli said, but there’s always a chance. If your doctor says drink some wine, go ahead. It doesn’t matter to me, but I don’t think it’s a general medical recommendation for heart health.

Ed: “inebriated”

Another error Jaeggli makes which is appropriate to the topic here is the contention that it’s “easy” go from moderate/safe consumption to excessive consumption. Superficially, that might seem to be the case with hard liquor—going from 1 or 2 drinks in the safe zone to four or more is only 100-150ml, about 1/2 to 2/3 of a cup—there are a bunch of things that servers and drinkers do to stay in the safe zone and help others avoid going into the danger zone.

For starters, responsible drinkers take care to sip/smell/taste their drinks, while those trying to get drunk tend to mask the taste/guzzle—it’s like those Mountain Dew commercials from the 1980s where any contact the soda made with the taste buds is purely accidental. (yes, comment on gluttony there!) Getting seriously drunk requires guzzling because at a certain point of moderate drunkenness, one cannot get the bottle or cup and pour the liquid into one’s mouth anymore.

Going further, servers and friends tend to note other signs that a person is trying to get drunk, including ordering drink after drink, drinking cheap liquor, drinking alone, and drinking liquor that isn’t easily smelled on one’s breath. (my mom worked in a hospital where they had an alcohol treatment center, and they were always on the lookout for bottles from vodka or creme de menthe for this reason….other things were easily smelled, but people would smuggle that in)

Servers especially watch out for signs of drunkenness, because many states and nations allow restaurants, bars, and even servers to be held liable for the results when a person who’s visibly drunk leaves the place and gets behind the wheel or does something else foolish.

So really, while it seems “easy” to go from responsible to irresponsible drinking, there are really a whole set of behavioral norms and social constraints that work against it, and allow irresponsible drinking to be detected and stopped. That is, really, my major problem with the CNN article cited here—it conflates the two, and hence will lead people to very false conclusions.

Yes, Bert. It’s very hard to abuse alcohol. That’s why so few people do it.