Fasting

oceanclub

demonspawn wrote: »

So am I correct in thinking that former alchos were included in the "abstainers" group?

The point of this study, unlike previous ones which _had_ counted former drinkers as abstainers, was to take that factor out of the equation. Until I read the study itself (I think the Time article is poorly worded), I can't tell you exactly how they did this. Might check the Bad Science forum to see if anyone is talking about it there.

I can't see any evidence that Holohan was bribed by the drinks industry; why you think he's not an objective scientist?

P.

demonspawn

oceanclub wrote: »

The point of this study, unlike previous ones which _had_ counted former drinkers as abstainers, was to take that factor out of the equation. Until I read the study itself (I think the Time article is poorly worded), I can't tell you exactly how they did this. Might check the Bad Science forum to see if anyone is talking about it there.

P.

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 were not current drinkers, regardless of whether they used to be alcoholics, second highest for heavy drinkers and lowest for moderate drinkers.

That's the complete passage. It states mortality rates were highest for non drinkers, regardless if they used to be alchos. That's pretty clear to me that they included former alcoholics and grouped them up with the people that never drank. That's incredibly misleading and just bad science.

I can't see any evidence that Holohan was bribed by the drinks industry; why you think he's not an objective scientist?

Eh...because he's trying to tell people that heavy drinking is better for you than not drinking at all? Who would say such a thing if they weren't being paid by the drinks industry? The whole article stinks to be honest.

oceanclub

demonspawn wrote: »

Eh...because he's trying to tell people that heavy drinking is better for you than not drinking at all? Who would say such a thing if they weren't being paid by the drinks industry? The whole article stinks to be honest.

Ah so because you disagree with his conclusions, he simply must be bribed? Fairly flimsy evidence on which to make libellous accusations (and yes, it is libel).

P.

demonspawn

oceanclub wrote: »

Ah so because you disagree with his conclusions, he simply must be bribed? Fairly flimsy evidence on which to make libellous accusations (and yes, it is libel).

P.

Then bring forth the lawsuit because that doctor is a certified quack. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

The comment about the bribery was harsh, so I retract that. I'd be more worried about a lawsuit from them tbh.

Muslim

That study is bollocks...

As demon rightly points out... It does nt just have flaws in its conclusion, the methodology itself is flawed which is bound to give wrong results...

I do think this thread is going off tangent...

By the way... Fasting has no ill effects on health... Losing a bit of weight is not really an "ill effect"

.... anyway... back on track folks...

oceanclub

demonspawn wrote: »

That's the complete passage. It states mortality rates were highest for non drinkers, regardless if they used to be alchos. That's pretty clear to me that they included former alcoholics and grouped them up with the people that never drank. That's incredibly misleading and just bad science.

From the actual study itself (rather than Time's poor description):

A model controlling for former problem drinking status, existing health problems, and key sociodemographic and social-behavioral factors, as well as for age and gender, substantially reduced the mortality effect for abstainers compared to moderate drinkers. However, even after adjusting for all covariates, abstainers and heavy drinkers continued to show increased mortality risks of 51 and 45%, respectively, compared to moderate drinkers.
[...]

FORMER PROBLEM DRINKING AS A POTENTIAL
CONFOUND
An early study by Marmot and colleagues (1981), prospectively
examining 10-year mortality in almost 1,500 British
men between 20 and 64 years of age, showed a pattern of
findings—and problems—replicated in many subsequent
studies. The investigators found a U-shaped relationship
between baseline alcohol consumption and mortality, with
mortality highest among abstainers and individuals consuming
3 or more drinks a day and lowest in moderate drinkers.
However, they did not take account of former problem drinking.
Thus, a persistent controversy pertaining to the putative
salutary health effects of moderate drinking involves a concern
that current abstainers may include past heavy or problem
drinkers with poor health habits and high prevalence
rates of many medical illnesses (Fillmore et al., 2006; Shaper,
1990).

However, a number of prospective studies that have
accounted for former drinking behavior among abstainers
have continued to show higher, although attenuated, all-cause
mortality among abstainers, as well as heavy drinkers, compared
to moderate drinkers (Di Castelnuovo et al., 2006). For
example, controlling for former problem drinking, a significant
U-shaped relationship between alcohol consumption and
all-cause mortality has been found for almost 2,000 U.S. men
aged 28 to 82 (moderate drinking indexed annually averaged
less than 3 drinks per day; DeLabry et al., 1992) and for more
than 85,000 female registered nurses aged 34 to 59 (lightto-
moderate drinking encompassed up to slighty more than
2 drinks per day; Fuchs et al., 1995). Similarly, using lifetime
abstainers as a reference group, reduced mortality associated
with light to moderate alcohol consumption of approximately
1 to 2 drinks per day has been reported for mixed-age samples
of U.S. adults (Klatsky et al., 1992; Liao et al., 2000).

P.

Torakx

Lapin wrote: »

Yuk - Give me a couple of pork chops any day.

ONLY JOKING

I can't understand the reason for fasting in any religion.
Why would a loving God expect His people to abstain from
food (and sex) for a given period of time every year.

Its difficult to discuss this topic without running the risk of sounding flippant.
Although there was an excellent piece on the Carol Coleman Programme this morning addressing this topic. Newstalk, The Wide Angle. (First half hour.)

Does God favour those who deny themselves the basic neccessities of survival more than those who indulge in them?
As a child I was encouraged to abstain from the things I enjoyed during the Lenten season.
Will the gates of Heaven be shut in my face because I secretly ate a Cadbury's Creme Egg on Good Friday when I was 9?

Will followers of Islam be banished to the fires of Hell for procreating with their
husbands, wives, girlfriends, boyfriends etc during Ramadan?

I'm not knocking anyone who practices their faith, and I wish those who fast during Ramadan the best of luck.

I just don't understand it.

I hope I'm allowed to say this - Salaam.

I can see where your coming from.I might have fully agreed if i had not needed to fast myself for serious health reasons.
Well when i say fast i mean cutting down on alot of foods to a point where nearly everythign in the shops where not on the menu.It was a detox that lasts at least 2 weeks and it probably saved my life in the long run.
So i think there might be something to this fasting stuff.
Im startng to think now myself from my medical/health research that everyone should be fasting to some degree to clear all the toxins out of the body.
I dont believe water should be excluded at all but i guess thats the religious part i do not understand yet.