Slashdot Mirror

Now it cones out = we all need to watch our diet = with respect to who's guidance?
The USDA Food Pyramid?
The American Heart Association's Diet and Lifestyle Recommendations?
American College of Cardiology
The USDA food Pyramid was built as much as a marketing tool for the food industry as it is a nutrition guide.
You could try this Japanese Health and Nutrition information but there is no way to tell if it is actually better, or if the users that make that claim are suffering from confirmation bias.

Even one drink a day can harm you.

That is one very particular condition (irregular heartbeat), which may be slightly exacerbated by alcohol consumption. The people suffering from this condition should obviously confer with their doctors, to mitigate any risk factors.

But as the authors directly state: "more than 100 previous studies have shown that a light to moderate intake of alcohol – up to seven standard drinks per week for women and 14 standard drinks per week for men – can actually be good for some people, and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, more specifically coronary artery disease."

Arguably our #1 killer right now is cardiovascular heart disease

And moderate alcohol intake has been shown to reduce this risk. Did you have a point somewhere, or are you just on a puritan rant?

Yes I do have a point.

Even one drink a day can harm you.

One of the benefits of continued studies is finding where we were wrong in the past to better educate ourselves, which defines progress.

By comparison, there is no amount of alcohol that has been proven to be of benefit, even with moderation. It is quite clearly, a poison.

Stop lying. You're basing your statements on one flawed study. Notice the amounts consumed by the participants. They're way over what any reasonable person would call "moderate".

Also, this: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n...

The only lie is thinking there has only been one damn study done on the effects of alcohol consumption over the last half century. I wasn't even talking about the flawed study in TFS, which is quite obviously showcasing more of an excessive or high consumption.

As I stated, newer evidence tends to highlight the fact that even moderation is not good for you when consuming a poison.

Even one drink a day can harm you.

Reading the study, it seems like the statistics are not so clear cut. Link: http://www.acc.org/about-acc/p...

"Data from the largest study of its kind in the U.S. reveal a 25 percent jump in the number of heart attacks occurring the Monday after we “spring forward” compared to other Mondays during the year – a trend that remained even after accounting for seasonal variations in these events. But the study showed the opposite effect is also true. Researchers found a 21 percent drop in the number of heart attacks on the Tuesday after returning to standard time in the fall when we gain an hour back."

It's a bit odd for the shift back and forth to be so closely correlated. Later in the study:

"Total daily admissions were adjusted for seasonal and weekday variation, as the rate of heart attacks peaks in the winter and is lowest in the summer and is also greater on Mondays and lower over the weekend."

A quick check in Excel tells me that for the period of the study (January 1, 2010 to September 15,2013), there is one more Friday, Saturday and Sunday than the rest of the week. There is no mention of this fact being adjusted in their results.

Then let's look at what day of the week the year starts:

1/1/2010 = Friday
1/1/2011 = Saturday
1/1/2012 = Sunday
1/1/2013 = Tuesday

Starting to notice something? 2012 was a leap year. No mention for any adjustment for that either. 2/29/12 was a Wednesday, by the way.

So, Mondays are statistically have the highest average heart attacks, most likely because there is one more weekend in the data and that one weekend is most likely in the winter (end of the year) when the number of heart attacks are lower. How much lower? A range of 12-18% lower would account for the 25% versus 21% in heart attack rates between springing forward and falling back.

There was a similar study several years ago that showed a similar correlated link of 10% between the day daylight savings movements as well:

https://www.uab.edu/news/innov...

But I could never find the study mentioned. I'm willing to bet there was also an extra winter weekend weekend or two they did not account for in their study as well.

Whenever you see correlations so tidy like that, there has to be something going on with the data.

The recommendations for beta blockers in ST Elevation myocardial infarction and Non ST Elevation myocardial infarction are set forth by the American College of Cardiology, after careful review of the literature. Link.

Implying that physicians don't know what they are doing when administering beta blockers to ST/Non-STEMI is ridiculous. We fully acknowledge that data is conflicting or insufficient. It is rightly up to the physician to decide whether or not to administer beta blockers after physicial examination of the patient and all the associated data.