The short answer to the question posed in the title is attributed to Ben Franklin-“Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see” (or read).

First, be aware that research on the effects of alcohol on one’s well-being may be initiated and conducted with varying degrees of bias (could apply to any research). As an illustration, I recently came across contrasting research findings about the advantages of alcohol consumption from two seemingly reputable sources. The 22nd and 24th of August 2018 saw the release of two somewhat antagonistic articles. On August 24, 2018, both studies were published in the Newsmax website’s Health section.

The lead article on the 24th had a headline: “No Safe Level of Alcohol”, the other appeared on the 22nd: “Moderate Drinking May Protect Your Health”. What conclusions should the reader draw if the only information provided is that which is implied by the titles?

What is a customer supposed to believe? Years ago, I started writing about the contradictory research on the advantages of drinking wine and alcohol in general. Making rational decisions based on the information in such studies can, in my opinion, be negatively impacted by the disparity in studies. You are undoubtedly curious about the long-term effects if you enjoy drinking alcohol. However, it is difficult to place much trust in any one study or even reach a logical conclusion in light of the never-ending studies that cover both sides of the argument.

The majority of wine’s health advantages are related to cardiovascular health. For decades, a French scientist investigated the seeds and skins of grapes and wine. Regarding wine’s antioxidant benefits in general and grape seeds in particular, he was widely published. In the 1980s, he came to the conclusion that wine, particularly grape seed extracts, had remarkable advantages for heart health, vascular health, and skin elasticity, to name a few. “OPCs are an antioxidant compound found in grape seeds, skin, and wine. In 1985, Jack Masquelier discovered that OPCs neutralize free radicals, which are frequently responsible for degenerative diseases and the early onset of age-associated changes in the body. This discovery helped to further explain the powerful and immediate positive effects that OPCs have on the human body.”

The point is that while drinking wine has some antioxidant benefits (derived primarily from resveratrol), the majority are found in grape skin and seeds. Grapes have high concentrations of OPCs in both their seeds and skin. Actually, some sizable wine producers—Gallo is one—produce grape seed extract as well for the dietary supplement market. Additionally, some topical anti-aging skin care products use resveratrol.

Benefits of wine and wine by-products can be found online, but it would be impossible to count all of them. Needless to say, reports on alcohol’s positive and negative effects have been around for a long time. Is any of this research, however, reliable? Some of it is anecdotal, biased, and based on predetermined, specific results. If one tries to adopt a healthy lifestyle based on persuasive and reliable information, it is like chasing rainbows. How is being told to drink plenty of water, but not too much, forgetting reliable advice? Even before the birth of Christ, people drank alcohol regularly.

Why do previous studies’ initial conclusions shift so drastically if they were founded on science? A Navy doctor advised me to limit my coffee consumption to no more than two cups per day in the 1970s. He affirmed that studies had shown that drinking coffee damaged kidneys and hardened arteries. There are doctors today who promote coffee consumption and extol its antioxidant properties. What changed?

Stated in the one study highlighting” the ill effects of alcohol”, the author states, “The protective effect of alcohol was (is) offset by the risks,” Griswold told AFP in summarizing the results, published in medical journal The Lancet on Friday–“No Safe Level of Alcohol”. One may have some concerns about the study’s methodology and the facts presented if they only read the headlines. Perhaps the data was not properly aggregated. Simply put, how can we be sure that the data we are using to decide whether lifestyle changes are necessary are accurate? Perhaps we simply feel that the contradictory information in the public domain isn’t worth much thought.

In addressing the much-reported benefits specific to wine, Griswold says, “despite recent research showing that light-to-moderate drinking reduces heart disease, the new study found that alcohol use is more likely than not to do harm.”

There are numerous limitations to the results, as with this study and the majority of polls. For example:

• The size of each group and the age differences will have an impact on the findings’ significance of alcohol consumption. In a particular finding, researchers made the assumption that alcohol was a factor in fatalities even when it was not the primary or even a passing connection.
• Geographical differences exist. “Among men, drinking alcohol in 2016 was most widespread in Denmark (97 percent), along with Norway, Argentina, Germany, and Poland (94 percent),” notes Griswold.
• “With 91 percent of their male population hitting the bottle at least occasionally, South Korean men led all Asian men in this category.”
• Results will be impacted by gender. Denmark had the highest percentage of women who consumed alcohol (95%) followed by Norway (91%) Germany and Argentina (90%) and New Zealand (89%) in that order.

Geographically, the Slavic nations of Belarus, Ukraine, Romania, and others are home to the largest drinking populations. It’s important to note that in this case, we are referring to both men and women who drink more than 4 units daily.

The top six killers of people who also consume alcohol are: high blood pressure, smoking, low-birth weight and premature delivery, high blood sugar (diabetes), obesity and pollution. However, aren’t those the same health risks for those who don’t drink alcohol? Griswold goes on to report, “a small beer, glass of wine or shot of spirits — per day, for example, ups the odds of developing at least one of two dozen health problems by about half-a-percent.” It is challenging to follow this reasoning to a clear conclusion!

In conclusion, the Griswold study found that alcohol is responsible for 2.8 million preventable deaths worldwide each year. But they do not define the caveats relative to what the “pre-mature” category is based upon. As I mentioned earlier, it is arbitrary to try to take into account or factor in things like ethnicity, the combination of drinks (wine, beer, spirits), seasonal concerns, etc.

Just because we agree with a study’s conclusions about alcohol does not make it a superior study. Having said that, the following investigation, conducted by Health Day and released by Newsmax on August 22, 2018, is titled: Moderate Drinking May Protect Your Health. 35,000 British and French citizens participated in this study over a 10-year period. However, when French participants are involved in a study, diets should be taken into account. Remember another study from years ago brought into our lexicon the term “French Paradox”? That study at the time threw all earlier studies on their collective heads. Even then, some researchers objected to the study. (Despite having diets that are known for being high in fat, most researchers believe that French people have healthy cardiovascular systems.)

Variables are present in every study that I discuss in this article. The following are a few variables that can make alcohol consumption studies, conducted many decades ago, irreverent:

• In some regions of the world, people are adopting better exercise habits, while this is not the case in others.
• diets that are higher in fiber, lower in sugar, and less gluten-containing. Again, this may have an effect on the geographic distribution of study participants.
• Communal eating.
• The increased availability of families, retirement income, and other supports for older adults.
• lower stress levels, some of which are related to retirement.
• higher levels of education.
• better keeping an eye on, comprehending, and adjusting to these factors in lifestyle changes.
• Even the internet increases the accessibility of information.
• consumer tastes changing. Over the past seven years, there has been a shift toward craft spirits and beers.

The study titled (“Moderate Drinking May Protect Your Heart”) introduced another often-noted element to the benefits of alcohol. Alcohol consumption was found to be crucial for the heart when it comes to consistency and moderation. Health Day reported, “Alcohol consumption that was moderate on a regular basis was associated with a lower risk of heart disease than alcohol consumption that fluctuated over time.” (This claim does not line up with the findings of the first study.) The key to reaping the benefits of alcohol consumption was regular, moderate drinking.

General findings of this Health Day study are summarized:

• Regular drinking appears to reduce the risk of heart disease.
• Retirement appears to play a role in rising alcohol consumption above the moderate level.
• In the long-term, “non-drinkers” heart risks were most noted amongst women.
• Regular heavy drinkers showed fewer cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks and strokes.

Dr. Eugenia Gianos, who directs women’s heart health at Lennox Hill Hospital in NY says, “the jury is still out on the effect of even moderate drinking on a person’s overall health.” (Tell Griswold that.) However, Dr. Cathy Grines who directs department of cardiology at North Shore University Hospital in NY says, “the protective effects of alcohol went away if one did not drink the same amounts regularly.” “Many of us mistakenly think that by abstaining for extended periods of time, we are detoxing and benefiting ourselves, but this (possibly) is not the case.”

Now that we have two studies that are in stark contrast, must one be correct and the other false? Even within the medical community, it appears that there are divergent viewpoints. These come from primary care professionals who read the same studies that we do and are advising patients to change their lifestyles based on picked, potentially flawed studies. Some cardiologists I’ve spoken to claim that wine and spirits have a number of health benefits. On the other hand, some physicians believe alcohol causes bad cholesterol (LDL) levels to increase.

These studies appear to rely heavily on empirical information in many areas. However, this poses a problem: “If there are flaws in the way that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid,” say Ana Bradford, July 27, 2017, in Life Science. As laypeople reading the two studies I’ve mentioned, we really aren’t equipped to understand the degree of validity in either study.

I thought it was interesting that two reports on the effects of alcohol on health were published on nearly the same day, one claiming that alcohol is completely bad and the other discussing the advantages of alcohol for the heart. The bottom line is that everyone should conduct their own research, but as Dr. Grines states, there are “flukes” in data. I believe there is more research on wine and wine related products than research that definitively say’s “moderate wine or alcohol reduces natural life expectancy”! I hope it doesn’t boil down to “Pick Your Poison”.

Without knowing the protocols used, we probably shouldn’t rely on poll-based research as a tool to change our lifestyles. We should be more skeptical the more variables there are in the control groups.

Cheers!