Regularly Drinking Alcohol After 60 Linked to Early Death

Abstain probably the best choice.

Confidence intervals for the risk ratio range from 1.01 to 1.35. That is very close to "no statistically significant effect found", as a relative risk of 1.0 is simply "that's what the average is". For comparison's sake, if memory serves, the risk ratios for tobacco use are around 40. I would guess that the relative risk for heart disease vs. obesity would be at least ten.

The trouble with trying to make decisions based on low relative risk ratios like this is that it greatly increases the odds that other factors are influencing the results.

Consuming modern alcoholic beverages is a wisdom issue. Those Christians who insist on drinking alcoholic beverages show foolish judgment, for themselves and their families.

Wally, given that it's the same species of yeast and the same species of grapes and barley, we can expect that the strength of modern, undistilled alcoholic beverages is about the same as those of ancient days. This is witnessed by Greek accounts of people dying from drinking too much Judean wine in Bible times.

So when it's the same species of person drinking a beverage of about the same strength of beverage, how would we say that it was OK back then, but foolish now?

Second question; given that Proverbs uses the word "fool" to describe the person doing sinful actions, what precisely is the difference between an allegation that something is a "wisdom" issue vs. a "sin" issue--except perhaps to allow one to cast aspersions on having a drink despite the Bible not stating that doing so is sin?

One reason foolish: Do any Christians who drink wine (or even liquor [like Carl Trueman]) dilute their alcoholic beverage like 1st century Christians did? If not, then they are drinking a beverage much stronger and therefore foolish. They are also setting examples for their children/grandchildren that it's OK to drink alcoholic beverages as long you can "handle it". But you don't know you can "handle it" until you try it. Then if you can't "handle it", you've got a problem. Foolish. Solution: Don't Drink. Simple. We have MANY more safer choices for beverages than 1 st cent Christians. To insist of drinking alcoholic beverages regardless of the potential effect on those you say you love is foolish. Not hard to understand.

The entire book of Proverbs is about wisdom. The fool contrasts with that wisdom. The foolish person is about more than sin. Fool also describes behavior which is not immediately sinful but is not wise, such as certain types of speech (babbling, speaking your mind) which can become sinful.

Putting yourself and others at risk of alcohol addiction by your example is foolish. Defend consuming alcoholic beverages all you wish. Drink your wine as often as you wish. When your grandchildren take your example further than you intended, you will see the foolishness and, unfortunately, the sin.

Wally, I'm going to push back on the notion that the ancients diluted their wine for a few reasons. First of all, Isaiah 1:22 suggests ("your wine is mixed with water") that doing so was actually seen as a bad thing in the time of Isaiah. That is one of very few clear examples of mixing wine in Scripture, and another is in Proverbs 23, where the "hero at mixing wine" is working to get people drunk.

Historically, the evidence for mixing wine is stronger among Greeks (who often loved to get very drunk) that it is among Hebrews, and when we go to today, what we find is that you won't finding too many drunks whose drink of choice is a good wine or a well crafted microbrew, or even a top shelf liquor drunk neat.

What you will see is things like Bud Light, White Claw, and other "alcopops" where either inexpensive wine or bottom shelf liquor (cheap, rotgut) are mixed with fruity sodas and the like. More or less, if you're trying to get drunk, you want something inexpensive that doesn't hit the wallet too hard, and that goes down easily. You don't want anything like taste to interfere.

So counter-intuitively, it's easier to avoid drunkenness by drinking things at full strength, and with good quality. Really, if you look at the "finely toned physiques" at Wal-Mart and such, we might suggest that using cheap food as "fix-a-flat" for hunger is a fast route to gluttony, diabetes, and getting to know your cardiologist on a professional basis.

One other correction to make is that the data suggest that very few people have alcohol problems or alcoholism somehow "sneak up" on them. Rather, the CDC/NIH have been noting for close to half a century that the key risk factor for alcoholism is not drinking per se, but "binge drinking" of four or more drinks in a sitting (2 hrs. I believe). In other words, dependency and problems occur when one intentionally gets about to the legal limit for driving in the US or higher.

Finally, let's not forget that among Scripture's references to wine, about a third are indeed warnings about drunkenness, but a second third references wine as an ordinary fixture in life, and a final third talks of the blessings of wine. So let's not ignore two thirds of the evidence, including of course John 2.

Back to the topic, a final note is that the dangers of wine in moderation are, actually, about half that of significant portions of red meat and cured meats. For some odd reason, however, I don't hear too many sermons about the dangers of ham, bacon, and steaks. I'd suggest as well that there are certain dietary fixtures where Scripture would tell us "it's OK to take a little bit of risk here, but use your head."

Bert, the suggestion that red meat might be bad for you could be fighten words here in Sout Akota. (; wink

My doctor insists that red meat is bad for me and I should stop eating it. I've cut back, but when a delicious burger comes my way it's going to get eaten.

JD, one of the best dining experiences I ever had was at the Alpine Inn located in Hill City, SD. Their bacon-wrapped filet mignon was so good, my wife and I went back a 2nd night, and we were only in SD for a week! SD definitely knows how to do red meat! :)

...at least I acknowledged that Scripture allows for some behaviors that are not perfectly good for a person, no? :^)

Seriously, I enjoy red meat--I favor grass fed and coaxing the flavor out with technique--but I also know that my heart and my wallet will not do well with too much of it. Plus I had gallbladder surgery a while back, so gigantic steaks and such just sit in my gut a while.

And one thing that strikes me is that a lot of medical dietary advice really proceeds mostly from the notion (which is true to a degree) that since cholesterol is synthesized by the liver from saturated fat, that foods high in both ought to be reduced. The trouble is, especially for women, that red meat is a primary source for things like iron--the redness in the meat is hemoglobin/iron inclusions to allow the muscle to hold oxygen and have more endurance.

So when we push women (and men, but primarily women) to get protein from things like chicken breast, we also push them to anemia....and they then do not have the endurance to do the exercise which also staves off heart disease. There is a bit of catch-22 in there.

There is also evidence that the cholesterol from meat is much healthier for your heart than the cholesterol from vegetable oil. These studies also suggest you are much better off with butter than margarin. Of course this comes down to which "experts" we choose to believe. Even if you look at the "expert" recommendations about avoiding red meat, you will often see then lump red meat in with processed meats. Our family eats mostly non processed meat. Most of what we eat is pork that we butcher ourselves, so no processing there. We also like to butcher lamb since they are small enough to do easily, but they cost a lot more. Still, you can save a lot of money and eat economically in a more healthy way if you know how to slaughter and butcher yourself. I don't want to suggest that everyone around here butchers themselves, but there is a pretty high percentage of people in Sodak who can do it.

But back to the point of the original article. There will be debates about which experts to believe when it comes to these kinds of studies and their affects on our health.

JD, I don't know what your source is, but cholesterol is only found in animal products. So there is no danger of "cholesterol from vegetable oil", because there is no such thing. (son of a registered dietician here who learned a little bit, FWIW)

There is some saturated fat in pretty much all oils unless you refine them, as there is in almost all meats. A lot less in cold water fish because it would coagulate in their blood and kill them, but you will either get cholesterol from your diet or your liver, and your "setpoint" rises as you get older and if you're male.

And meat that's not cured is better, it appears, than cured meats like ham, bacon, and cured sausages. But the key issues are still the species of the animal and how it's fed--grain fed tends to pile a lot more fat on it, and it somewhat affects the composition of that fat.

But that noted, in moderation, it's a blessing from God. Just like wine.

Bert, thanks for the clarification. It is not the eating of cholesterol that raises cholesterol, but eating certain foods can increase the risk that your body will produce more bad cholesterol. That is the theory behind vegetable oils leading to more bad cholesterol in the human body. The Cleveland clinic has an interesting article that basically says not to worry about how much cholesterol we eat: Why You Should No Longer Worry About Cholesterol in Food (clevelandclinic.org)

No doubt that it's a good thing that the cardiological/dietetic communities have progressed from the "cholesterol in cholesterol out" version of how to avoid heart disease. Notice, though, that what Cleveland is warning about there is not vegetable oils per se--say the olive/canola/soybean/corn oil that you buy in the stores--but partially or fully hydrogenated vegetable oils as found in Crisco, margarine, and the like. And to be fair to margarine, even that is far lower in trans fats than it was when I was young.

But I still trust cows more than chemists!

But I still trust cows more than chemists!

That is where I'm at. Beef and butter have been part of the human diet for 1000's of years. Oleo not so much. Olive oil on the other hand has been part of the human diet since Bible times. When we cook we use either lard or olive oil. We are able to render our own lard when we butcher and french fries cooked in lard taste amazing. (The danger imposed by frying foods is a whole other discussion though.)

BTW, for one of my part time jobs, I often end up working in the mud a lot. It is nice to have a stick to grab onto to keep me steady.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.