Drinking alcohol 3 to 4 times weekly may lower diabetes risk: study A new study that looked at more than 70,000 Danes suggests that men and women who drink three to four times a week have a lower risk of diabetes compared to those who never drink.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
No, it won't.
Maybe it will. Stranger things have happened.
I mean, whoever would have thought that exposing someone to polio would make them immune to it?
In any case, the actual study appears sound and their data set is significant.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-4359-3
No, it won't.
Maybe it will. Stranger things have happened.
No, it won't. Stranger things have happened, but random data pointing to a cause/effect situation isn't one of them.
In any case, the actual study appears sound and their data set is significant.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-4359-3
No, it's not. It's a 'cohort' study, relying on self reporting data, such as body weight. Things like trying to recall your weight 5 years ago are terribly inaccurate. It did not take any measurements, and therefore no cause/effect can be determined by its results. There are no considerations for other causes, such as exercise or genetic predisposition. It's not a conclusive study by any means.
. . .
This study had a number of limitations that weaken confidence in the results:
People were only asked about their drinking habits and other risk factors at a single time point. The study doesn't tell us whether those habits changed over the period in which people were monitored for diabetes. Most studies related to alcohol consumption also run the risk that people are not always completely accurate when describing what and how much they drink.
The way diabetes cases were recorded for the study did not distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, even though these conditions have different causes and treatments.
The study only followed people up for an average of just under five years, whereas a condition like diabetes may develop due to risk factors experienced over a longer period.
The information collected on diet may have been too simplistic to properly allow an understanding of how nutrition may also affect the diabetes risk of the people in the study.
Although the researchers excluded people from the study if they already had a diagnosis of diabetes at baseline, they didn't exclude people if they had other chronic health conditions, some of which may contribute to diabetes risk. The only other condition that was considered in the analysis was high blood pressure.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2017/07July/Page ... urate.aspx
These kind of reports are dangerous, because people just read the headline and don't dig any further. Reporters translating medical studies do no one a service. They should stick to what they are good at.
early enough.
That makes it a pretty useful statistic.
For drinking or drug use. Not whether drinking prevents diabetes.
They're not saying that it does. Just that there's an indication.
That indication will lead to further study and that will probably be paid for by pharmaceutical companies.
They may find something in the liquor that's responsible for the anomaly and then produce that compound as a drug to help control diabetes.
But I agree that alcohol itself seems unlikely to be preventing diabetes.
For drinking or drug use. Not whether drinking prevents diabetes.
They're not saying that it does. Just that there's an indication.
That indication will lead to further study and that will probably be paid for by pharmaceutical companies.
They may find something in the liquor that's responsible for the anomaly and then produce that compound as a drug to help control diabetes.
But I agree that alcohol itself seems unlikely to be preventing diabetes.
But that's what I'm trying to get across! They did not screen for the known triggers of diabetes! There is no control group! They relied on self reporting of information, a method know to be inaccurate! They can no more say alcohol intake prevents foot fungus anymore than they can say it prevents diabetes.
And my point being, the average person will just read the headline and consider that medical advice. Dangerous practice, reporters translating science into clickbait.
Self-deprecating data would generally be trustworthy.
*****
But that's a cultural function.
Funny, sixty years ago almost every unmarried teenage girl would claim to be virgin because peer pressure and society demanded it.
These days the same girls would deny it and for the same reasons.
I come from a family of celiacs, have several friends with it as well. Dumb bag posted how a gluten free diet will "heal" it... yeah if heal means you still have it! So I see where you're coming from.
But like I said a few drinks and a sugar restricted diet probably lowers the risk, just like a few club sodas and a sugar restricted diet would. Or 3 haircuts a week and a sugar restricted diet.
REPEAT MY CALL TO MARKETING MANAGERS: most of the FAT PEOPLE out there are diabetic. They're not gonna buy shit labelled "DIET WHATEVER" so stop calling it that and start marketing more stuff as "SUGAR FREE" and "ZERO SUGAR"!
Native buddy said diabetes is prevalent cuz on the rez if there's any breakfast at all its Cream Soda on a bowl of Frosted Flakes
For instance (I'm making this up):
A population in Somalia has bee identified that has lower cholestorol, lower rates of obesity, and lower rates of alchol-induced cirrhosis than North Americans.
That's because they're a bunch of starving Muslims.
Some things just don't work when you start analyzing the raw data.
Funny thing, I never saw him anything either!
Some kinds of self-reporting are generally accurate.
Self-deprecating data would generally be trustworthy.
I've been encouraging you to take some statistics courses for years, and this is exactly why!
Self reporting data is useless shit. Do you remember what you had for lunch a month ago? A year? Five years ago last Tuesday? It's unreliable!
http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/the-da ... lf-report/
is the only accurate test. To determine which foods, if any, reduce the chance of diabetes, you have to have an accurate record of not only food consumed, but other factors, such as exercise and medical risks. And you have to have a very large population, and a control group, and you have to follow them around for a decade.
But no one wants to fund such a study, so all there will ever be are unreliable anecdotes like this. The only way to lower risk of diabetes is still the same as it has been - a low sugar low carb diet, exercise and maintaining a healthy weight.