Could it be true? Have the benefits of a cheeky glass of red for health been exaggerated?
According to new research it appears that this may be the case.
Published this week in the British Medical Journal the study investigated the suitability of age specific limits of alcohol consumption and whether or not there was a difference of the effects of drinking to health in different age groups.
During the course of their research what they found was that previous studies suggesting a protective effect from moderate drinking may have come do this conclusion due to flaws in the design of these studies.
Emmanuel Stamatakis from the University of Sydney and one of the study authors told
ABC radios’ PM program, “This body of evidence has some pretty serious methodological issues, and us, by addressing the methodological issues, we found that the protective effect reported previously in fact could be an artefact, a statistical artefact relating to the way the study was designed.”
“If our study is taken at its context and it was the first study that showed that we should be a bit cautious, but is quite consistent. This finding is becoming more and more consistent in the literature, so I think, regarding the messaging, what is the main implication of our study, is to tone down quite a lot the messages around the protective effects of alcohol for health.
Is this the end of drinking?
Stamatakis told PM “I think we have to put our results in the context of real life. Alcohol was consumed, is consumed, and will be consumed, so I think the moderate consumption method has still some value, providing that it's put in the context of a broader healthy lifestyle.”
In an
editorial piece on the study, Mike Daube, Professor of Public Health at Curtin University writes, “If something looks too good to be true, it should be treated with great caution.”
Daube also spoke to PM and said "Nobody's arguing that I shouldn't enjoy my evening whiskey. But what it does tell us is that if people thought they were drinking for health benefits, they should think again.”
Sources
BMJ 2015;350:h384
BMJ 2015;350:h407