Alcohol and Cancer
Discussion
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/22/al...
Every week a new report comes out linking alcohol with cancer. It's still the one vice that i am reluctant to give up though.
A nice single malt in the chilly winter or an ice cold german lager in the summer, the thought of giving them up is still an anathema to me. In all other respects i live a healthy life, tons of exercise, no smoking healthy eating etc.
Am i being reckless here or is this just the latest Government bit of nannying. The facts seem crystal clear.
Anyone decided to give up completely based on the new scientific reports?
Every week a new report comes out linking alcohol with cancer. It's still the one vice that i am reluctant to give up though.
A nice single malt in the chilly winter or an ice cold german lager in the summer, the thought of giving them up is still an anathema to me. In all other respects i live a healthy life, tons of exercise, no smoking healthy eating etc.
Am i being reckless here or is this just the latest Government bit of nannying. The facts seem crystal clear.
Anyone decided to give up completely based on the new scientific reports?
If you took every report of something giving you cancer as gospel then I think you'd end up with very little that is actually safe to eat or drink.
As far as I see it it's a balance of pleasure vs. attempting to live forever which may not happen anyway as you could get run over by the proverbial bus tomorrow. We've all got to die of something in the end. Moderation is the key.
I too love a drink and would be loathed to give it up unless a doctor told me that it was actually going to kill me or I had too due to medication etc. Even then I'm not sure I could go without some sort of "high" to enjoy so would be tempted to return to my old dope smoking days (fecking students) though would look for more healthy ways to enjoy it e.g. cooking with it or vaping (is that possible?).
I should probably heed the warning signs, my Dad would have a few beers most evenings when he wasn't working as he did shift work, he died of bowel cancer at 74 years of age but whether it was the alcohol that caused it, or thirty odd years of working in the petrochemical industry back when the health and safety wasn't what it is now, or something else is anyones guess.
As far as I see it it's a balance of pleasure vs. attempting to live forever which may not happen anyway as you could get run over by the proverbial bus tomorrow. We've all got to die of something in the end. Moderation is the key.
I too love a drink and would be loathed to give it up unless a doctor told me that it was actually going to kill me or I had too due to medication etc. Even then I'm not sure I could go without some sort of "high" to enjoy so would be tempted to return to my old dope smoking days (fecking students) though would look for more healthy ways to enjoy it e.g. cooking with it or vaping (is that possible?).
I should probably heed the warning signs, my Dad would have a few beers most evenings when he wasn't working as he did shift work, he died of bowel cancer at 74 years of age but whether it was the alcohol that caused it, or thirty odd years of working in the petrochemical industry back when the health and safety wasn't what it is now, or something else is anyones guess.
I agree with the aptly named poster above. Everything has a report of giving you cancer if look far enough. Cancer and its causes is a very complex area and there are many causes. Some people drink and smoke and god know what else and never get it. Others live an entirely clean life and do.
I wouldn't give up drinking off one report. I have given up drinking but that was because I couldn't moderate myself and drank too much and it was effecting my sanity.
I wouldn't give up drinking off one report. I have given up drinking but that was because I couldn't moderate myself and drank too much and it was effecting my sanity.
I can't find the figures now but it seems that it is a compound percentage; x% of x% and the final figure of by how much the risk is elevated is really quite small. I seem to recall that about 40% of the populace will have cancer and that 5.8% of cancers are caused by alcohol. Therefore about <2.5% of people who drink will die of cancer because of it. Pretty small beer IYSWIM. 
I've not seen the report nor do I intend to make such decisions on government/industry sponsored 'studies'. I've made my decision and hope to stick with it.
Whether you consider yourself a social drinker, 'normal' drinker, problem drinker/FA or full on alcoholic you may find Allen Carr's book of interest. It's only a book, it's not going to make you do anything you don't want to - and I'm not entirely sure it's based on fact; but it's offers a view 'different' to the popular, accepted perception of alcohol. Worth a few hours of your time if you're interested in controlling your alcohol intake.
Amazon link
Whether you consider yourself a social drinker, 'normal' drinker, problem drinker/FA or full on alcoholic you may find Allen Carr's book of interest. It's only a book, it's not going to make you do anything you don't want to - and I'm not entirely sure it's based on fact; but it's offers a view 'different' to the popular, accepted perception of alcohol. Worth a few hours of your time if you're interested in controlling your alcohol intake.
Amazon link
Taken from Reddit:
MrsPatrickCampbell said:
I want to edit this because some of my wording was unclear (with regard to the "back and forth" view of alcohol particularly).
We've known alcohol causes cancer since (at least) 1988, with more research constantly moving forward. There's a summary in 2006 that has a large analysis of the issue. More info about how alcohol is a carcinogen is here.
This Guardian article is just a summary of one relatively small study (published in the "For Debate" section of the journal), and you can read the full study here - this is a 7 page PDF. The Guardian didn't really get the details right. The study was done at Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, New Zealand by Jennie Connor. In general, her arguments are that (a) there is no safe level of drinking (b) "moderate safe drinking" is a lie propagated by liquor corporations, (c) alcohol causes cancer, (d) the research on alcohol reducing cardiovascular risk is flawed. There is also a mildly complicated theoretical discussion of how causation and correlation work in epidemiology (that I don't really understand, but you can see for yourself).
Given all this, I am not really sure why this particular article made it to the first page of Reddit, as it really adds nothing that isn't already known about alcohol & is a small 1-author research paper...though the headline will obviously get your attention. (Ok - now I do - another redditor reminded me about statistic that 90% of the people in the UK do not know about the link between alcohol and cancer. I can't find the statistic for other countries, though.)
To Connor's point (b) above, the media has been promoting studies about alcohol's positive effects, and this is discussed the paper using the acronym CVD for cardiovascular disease. For example, here is a meta-analysis of 26 studies showing a relationship between moderate alcohol consumption and reduced cardiovascular risk - and these were the studies to which I was referring in my initial post before editing. They constantly appear, and then contradictory studies come out, and then other positive studies come out with people trying to sell you resveratrol and so on. None of this changes the fact alcohol is a carcinogen. The "back and forth" had to do with the media's take on positive / negative aspects of alcohol, aside from the carcinogenic effect.
Personally, I didn't know the mechanism by which alcohol caused DNA damage (to cause cancer), so that's what I was asking about & what the replies are directed towards. I know how sunlight causes DNA damage (to ultimately skin cancer), but alcohol wasn't something I ever studied. The reason I wanted to understand the mechanism is because the author of this study was arguing that there was a causal link from correlation data. You can't infer causation from correlation unless you have some data on the mechanism by which it occurs (at least). That data is available and in posts below this one (largely due to acetaldehyde - but many other reasons). Connor also states that it's not a good idea to analogize cigarettes to alcohol because alcohol's effects are much more complex.
TLDR: There's not much new here and it's largely an opinion paper published in the "For Debate" section. Alcohol causes cancer, just like it did in 1988. This researcher disagrees with the idea of "moderate drinking" being safe. 5.8% of cancer deaths are due to alcohol, worldwide. The author is very skeptical of research showing cardiovascular benefits and marketing / media coverage of such benefits.
We've known alcohol causes cancer since (at least) 1988, with more research constantly moving forward. There's a summary in 2006 that has a large analysis of the issue. More info about how alcohol is a carcinogen is here.
This Guardian article is just a summary of one relatively small study (published in the "For Debate" section of the journal), and you can read the full study here - this is a 7 page PDF. The Guardian didn't really get the details right. The study was done at Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, New Zealand by Jennie Connor. In general, her arguments are that (a) there is no safe level of drinking (b) "moderate safe drinking" is a lie propagated by liquor corporations, (c) alcohol causes cancer, (d) the research on alcohol reducing cardiovascular risk is flawed. There is also a mildly complicated theoretical discussion of how causation and correlation work in epidemiology (that I don't really understand, but you can see for yourself).
Given all this, I am not really sure why this particular article made it to the first page of Reddit, as it really adds nothing that isn't already known about alcohol & is a small 1-author research paper...though the headline will obviously get your attention. (Ok - now I do - another redditor reminded me about statistic that 90% of the people in the UK do not know about the link between alcohol and cancer. I can't find the statistic for other countries, though.)
To Connor's point (b) above, the media has been promoting studies about alcohol's positive effects, and this is discussed the paper using the acronym CVD for cardiovascular disease. For example, here is a meta-analysis of 26 studies showing a relationship between moderate alcohol consumption and reduced cardiovascular risk - and these were the studies to which I was referring in my initial post before editing. They constantly appear, and then contradictory studies come out, and then other positive studies come out with people trying to sell you resveratrol and so on. None of this changes the fact alcohol is a carcinogen. The "back and forth" had to do with the media's take on positive / negative aspects of alcohol, aside from the carcinogenic effect.
Personally, I didn't know the mechanism by which alcohol caused DNA damage (to cause cancer), so that's what I was asking about & what the replies are directed towards. I know how sunlight causes DNA damage (to ultimately skin cancer), but alcohol wasn't something I ever studied. The reason I wanted to understand the mechanism is because the author of this study was arguing that there was a causal link from correlation data. You can't infer causation from correlation unless you have some data on the mechanism by which it occurs (at least). That data is available and in posts below this one (largely due to acetaldehyde - but many other reasons). Connor also states that it's not a good idea to analogize cigarettes to alcohol because alcohol's effects are much more complex.
TLDR: There's not much new here and it's largely an opinion paper published in the "For Debate" section. Alcohol causes cancer, just like it did in 1988. This researcher disagrees with the idea of "moderate drinking" being safe. 5.8% of cancer deaths are due to alcohol, worldwide. The author is very skeptical of research showing cardiovascular benefits and marketing / media coverage of such benefits.
motco said:
I can't find the figures now but it seems that it is a compound percentage; x% of x% and the final figure of by how much the risk is elevated is really quite small. I seem to recall that about 40% of the populace will have cancer and that 5.8% of cancers are caused by alcohol. Therefore about <2.5% of people who drink will die of cancer because of it. Pretty small beer IYSWIM.
This sort of thing?http://understandinguncertainty.org/microlives
ALawson said:
motco said:
I can't find the figures now but it seems that it is a compound percentage; x% of x% and the final figure of by how much the risk is elevated is really quite small. I seem to recall that about 40% of the populace will have cancer and that 5.8% of cancers are caused by alcohol. Therefore about <2.5% of people who drink will die of cancer because of it. Pretty small beer IYSWIM.
This sort of thing?http://understandinguncertainty.org/microlives
Statistical 'Facts' beloved of pressure groups, the media and the Govt are seldom anything like facts.
Moderation is the key. Our individual, unique and amazingly complex sets of genes mean that it's nothing like as straight forward as is portrayed to the public as eat / drink X = Cancer.
So I shall carry on having a bacon sandwich a couple of times a week, sitting out in the sun for 10min peace on a sunny day, enjoying the odd highly cancerous sirloin steak, and enjoying my beer.
Moderation is the key. Our individual, unique and amazingly complex sets of genes mean that it's nothing like as straight forward as is portrayed to the public as eat / drink X = Cancer.
So I shall carry on having a bacon sandwich a couple of times a week, sitting out in the sun for 10min peace on a sunny day, enjoying the odd highly cancerous sirloin steak, and enjoying my beer.
Timmy40 said:
Moderation is the key.
This really, too much of anything can be bad for you. But remember we will all die in the end, give me 80 happy years rather than 85 miserable years any day.I don't mean this comment to be trite but we humans are prone to thinking we can cheat death by living healthily, we cannot, look after yourself enough so that you feel ok and are physically and mentally healthy and avoid stress where possible. Get regular checkups to make sure all is ok and you should live a long and healthy life unless you get unlucky, sometimes thats all it boils down to.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff