“Hammered”
But a new paper in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research suggests that – for reasons that aren’t entirely clear – abstaining from alcohol does actually tend to increase one’s risk of dying even when you exclude former drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers’ mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers. But why would abstaining from alcohol lead to a shorter life? It’s true that those who abstain from alcohol tend to be from lower socioeconomic classes, since drinking can be expensive. And people of lower socioeconomic status have more life stressors – job and child-care worries that might not only keep them from the bottle but also cause stress-related illnesses over long periods. (They also don’t get the stress-reducing benefits of a drink or two after work.)
But even after controlling for nearly all imaginable variables – socioeconomic status, level of physical activity, number of close friends, quality of social support and so on – the researchers (a six-member team led by psychologist Charles Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin) found that over a 20-year period, mortality rates were highest for those who had never been drinkers, second-highest for heavy drinkers and lowest for moderate drinkers. The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the never-drinkers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.
These are remarkable statistics. Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than people who have never drunk.
Don’t you love it when a study supports your guilty pleasures?
“It’s true that those who abstain from alcohol tend to be from lower socioeconomic classes, since drinking can be expensive.”
What complete bullshit. You can buy a 40 oz. cheaper than you can get a bottle of water most places. Pretty much everyone I know in the “lower SES” manage to get their drink on (or smoke, whatever). They skimp on other things; cheaper food, lower quality &/or thrift store clothes, crappy housing, etc.
#17 – relieved,
Alright brain, you don’t like me and I don’t like you, but process this article, then I’ll get back to killing you with beer.
Off-topic, but I heard that as “shut up brain or I’ll poke you with a Q-tip again.”
#18 – McCullough,
#14. We’ll all be dancing at your wake.
I expect to have plans that day, probably involving alcohol.
#14
You are counting the hits and not the misses. How about the teetotalers that did not live long lives? How about the heavy drinkers that did live long lives? Science is about not BS’ing ourselves and that means taking bias out of the results.
#3 bobbo said “Only if you think the Morality preached by completely uniformed bible thumpers trumps actually studying an issue.”
Really? What does this have to do with religion?
“I think the OP explains the results quite well and proves the old adage: Moderation in all things. Abstinence is not moderation.”
Do you actually think the Bible says to abstain entirely from alcohol? If so, then why would Jesus turn the water into wine? While there is a prohibition against going around intoxicated, (“Do not be drunk with wine…”) drinking moderately is encouraged. (“Drink a little wine…”)
Since we live in a modern society that has cars in it, we need to use a little common sense when it comes to alcohol. However, as long as you aren’t intoxicated, have a few drinks. Just don’t get behind the wheel of a car.
Are eggs good again?
Benjamin==you answered your own question. Read your own post more carefully as if it was a TRAP! and when you can’t climb out, borrow Animby’s phone and give me a call.
Heavy drinkers had slightly lower mortality rates while moderate drinkers had a much lower mortality rate. So moderate drinking is what again has been shown to be beneficial.
Dean Martin lived to 78
Betty White (loves her cocktails) still going strong at 88
Foster Brooks 88
Jeanne Calment (France)lived to 122, drink port wine daily, and smoked until she was 117!
My Great Uncle Joe Griffin…kept taking shots until he could hold it down…died at 92.
So, you see…it goes both ways.
They added controls for social activity, but also offer as an explanation alcohol consumption’s correlation with social activity for why they live longer. I’d like to see the regression models they used because that seems funny to me.
This might be true for a few reasons. One. Heavy drinkers are the ones running down and killing non-drinkers, with their huge cars. They get larger vehicles to make themselves safer, from all the accidence they know they’re likely to have. And for some reason, even when hitting another vehicle, Drunk drivers seem to come away with fewer injuries. Or non-fatal ones. So maybe the booze relaxes them more. But I think it mainly because they’re all driving pickups, SUVs, and Caddies.
Two. Anyone who can afford to get drunk on a regular basis. Probably has a decent income. Maybe even a quite high income. Bored, rich people, often turn to drink. At least the stereotype says they do. So, they’re also likely to have very good health coverage. That’s saving them from all the other nasty things, that could kill them off. Like cancer. Whereas the non-drinker, may not be as well covered. Because they’re already on a tight budget. And can afford getting “tight” in other ways.