How do I tell which are the alfatoxin Peanuts?
Reagan was infamous for hoarding Chateau Margaux.
That was Nixon
That was enemies
True. And in All the Presidentās Men, Woodward and Bernstein wrote that Nixon loved Margaux and would hoard it for himself, often in another wine bottle. If my memory servesā¦
2 Likes
Nixon.
1 Like
Michael,
I appreciate the information youāve shared in this thread. When making personal health decisions, I try to evaluate my own risk thoughtfully, avoiding panic over data from large population studies. For example, letās say a womanās lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is around 10ā12%.
If consuming one alcoholic drink per day increases this risk by 7ā10%, that sounds significant at first glance, especially when considering the total number of cases across a population. However, for an individual, this translates to an increase of less than one percentage point. For example, a 12% baseline risk would rise to approximately 13%, which is a relatively modest change.
On the other hand, if consuming two to three drinks daily raises the risk by 20%. For the individual, this increases the lifetime risk from 12% to around 14.5%, which is not insignificant.
Ultimately, the question becomes this: is this level of increased risk enough to justify giving up something that adds greatly to oneās enjoyment and quality of life? Everyoneās answer will differ based on their values, priorities, and personal circumstances. Iāve personally cut back, but I still hope to be raising a glass and making toasts from my deathbedāideally, many years from now.
Cheers,
Warren
3 Likes
Yeah, I think this is a good summary. I donāt think the increased risk of low/moderate alcohol consumption is very large, especially compared to other risk factors such as smoking, lack of exercise (especially resistance training), and metabolic syndrome.
Adults make their own decisions and can consider the risks of their decisions.
For me, regular alcohol consumption negatively affects sleep (which has much more significant health effects to me than the small increased risk of cancer described above) which is why I choose not to do it regularly. If I feel like drinking wine, cocktails, beer, whatever, i will, but I usually choose not to.
At the end of the day itās up to adults to make their own decisions, but I think itās helpful for everyone to at least have the right information.
4 Likes
This is true of course, but āwarningsā set off red flags and folks tend to āover reactā to these things in general, and certainly a lot more now with social media, influencers, etc. And add in a very neo-Prohibitionist leaning these days and over reacting will probably become the norm.
If I were producing NA wines and/or beers, Iād be blasting this out ASAP.
Thanks for all if your info too
Cheers
Warren,
I share your general attitude about personal lifestyle choices but your illustrative example for breast cancer for women unfortunately may understate the risk identified from drinking:
For those who have < one drink per week:
11.3%
For those who have one drink per day: 13.1%
For those who have two drinks per day: 15.3%
Added risk due to moderate/low drinking for men is (fortunately) smaller. Increase for all associated cancers goes from 10% to 11% for men who have one drink per day.
1 Like
At least some of the studies were also not statistically significant at p of 0.05 also for men.
@Frank_Murray_III happy new year to you and Jill. I hope we can catch up soon!
Warren said:
For example, letās say a womanās lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is around 10ā12%. If consuming one alcoholic drink per day increases this risk by 7ā10%, that sounds significant at first glance, especially when considering the total number of cases across a population. However, for an individual, this translates to an increase of less than one percentage point. For example, a 12% baseline risk would rise to approximately 13%, which is a relatively modest change.
He was simply pointing out that a ā7-10% increase in riskā does not mean adding 7-10 percentage points, as many mistakenly assume.
If you want to quibble with the figures he threw out to frame an example, you might at least cite your sourceā¦
Good point. Thanks.
It reinforces your earlier point that biggest effect by far relates to female breast cancer.
Apologies. I appreciated Warrenās post and was simply trying to add some numbers that reflected the Surgeon Generalās report. My data source was NYT reporting on that report.
Just a few data points:
Cancer rates amongst Amish, Hutterites, Muslims are lower. This would suggest that there might be a link to alcohol. But that could also be because of diet, fasting, less excess, less sugar etc. Thereās no real way to know without a dedicated study.
What we do know is - breast cancer rates among the Amish are disproportionately higher. Why? Could it be a diagnostics problem?
Cancer rates amongst muslims increasing sharply. They havenāt started drinking, so this points towards a dietary or environmental change affecting this.
2 Likes
If you give Murthy any credence after his antics in 2021-22, Rudy Kurniawan has a new offer you might be interested in.
1 Like
Tom,
All peanuts have some level of this carcinogen. It comes from Aspergillis mold. Most large countries have very strict control on the levels in processed food like peanut butter that are sold. The highest risk is probably buying peanuts from local farmers that have been tainted. This is low granted. There are varieties of peanuts now that are resistant to making this toxin that are being developed. If you eat peanut butter at all, you will get small amounts of these toxins although it it probably insignificant. FWIW.
Just looking at the data without any high level analysis isnāt particularly useful.
2 Likes
I stand corrected