Skip to main content

Why the new study on alcohol and breast cancer got it wrong - again

Big news! The latest study on the association between alcohol and breast cancer found what all the numerous prior studies using the same methods found: even small amounts of consumption increase the risk, regardless of the type of alcoholic beverage, even red wine. But as I point out in my book Age Gets Better with Wine, they are simply repeating the same mistakes and failing to see the big picture. Here’s why:

Self-reporting bias. Studies such as this, which seem to derive power from their large numbers, only magnify the errors if the data isn’t reliable. The nurses in this study were asked to fill out questionnaires on their drinking habits and other lifestyle factors every 6 months. It is widely acknowledged that this retrospective self-reporting is highly unreliable. So having a hundred thousand or even a million participants doesn’t yield stronger data, it just magnifies the error. Statisticians are of course aware of this and attempt to make adjustments according to known behaviors, but in a sense it would be better to use a smaller number of subjects and observe them more closely.

No distinction between different drinking patterns. If we were to design a study that could accurately measure the effects of say red wine vs beer or spirits, it would look like this: one group drinks only red wine, in the same amounts, every day, while the others do the same for their assigned beverage. They would be closely followed for many years. This is clearly not the case with the nurses study, which simply asked people what sort of drinks they prefer. By far the vast majority have mixed drinking patterns, both in amounts, types of drinks, and daily patterns. There is simply no realistic way to infer anything about the different drinks from this. On the other hand, studies from areas where drinking patterns are consistent for wine show a substantial decrease in breast cancer incidence.

Ignoring the big picture: Let’s put the numbers in perspective: the overall lifetime risk of breast cancer is around 9 or 10 percent, so a 10% increase in risk from a couple of drinks a week raises it to around 11%, and a 50% increase from heavy drinking brings it up to 15%. But far and away the leading cause of death in women is heart disease (1 in 3), and regular wine consumption clearly reduces that risk. Breast cancer, at 1 in 36, is a ways down the list. Add in also Alzheimer’s, hip fractures from osteoporosis, and diabetes, all of which are reduced among wine drinkers, and you get a very different picture.

That’s why I tried to portray the bigger picture in my book. There is little question that the net effect of regular wine consumption, especially wine with meals, is positive both in terms of disease incidence, lifespan, and quality of life.


Popular posts from this blog

Wear red and DRINK red for women’s heart health

This Friday Feb 2nd is the annual “wear red” day in Canada and the U.S. to raise awareness for women’s heart health. Why only a day for the number one threat to women’s health? Women are 5 times more likely to succumb to heart disease than breast cancer, which gets a whole month (October.) Another contradiction is that the advice women hear about prevention of breast cancer is the opposite of what you can do to lower the risk of heart disease: a daily glass of wine. Even one drink a day raises your risk of breast cancer, we are told, ignoring the overriding benefits of wine on heart health. Drink red wine to live longer Here’s why I think women should also “drink red.” For starters, wine helps de-stress and celebrates life. Stress is a factor in heart disease, and if that were the only way wine helped it would be worth considering. But the medical evidence is also strong: a daily glass of red wine helps raise the HDL “good cholesterol” levels, which lowers the risk of cardiovascular p…

Which types of wine are the healthiest?

I am often asked after lecturing on the healthful properties of wine which type is best to drink. Since much of the discussion has to do with the polyphenol antioxidants from the skins and seeds of the grape, red wine is the first criterion since it is fermented with the whole grape rather than the pressed juice. This allows for extraction and concentration of these compounds, familiar ones being resveratrol and tannins. But beyond that, which varietals have the highest concentrations?

According to the Roman philosopher Pliny the Elder, “The best kind of wine is that which is pleasant to him that drinks it” but modern science expects more specifics. (The point of course is that if you have a wine that you enjoy you are more likely to drink regularly and therefore reap the benefits.) But there are several difficulties in singling out certain wines for their healthful properties. Which compounds to measure? Are we talking about heart health or the whole gamut? Is it the varietal of the …

The J-curve is dead. Long live the J-curve!

There is a resurgence of debate about the validity of the J-curve, especially as it relates to alcohol and cancer. A 2014 report determined that “alcohol use was positively associated with overall mortality, alcohol-related cancers, and violent death and injuries, but marginally to CVD/CHD” (cardiovascular disease). In other words, there was little benefit if any in terms of heart disease but a big upside risk for cancer and accidental or violent demise. Gone was the French Paradox! The J curve is dead! Or not. Though that statement may be technically true, I looked at look at the data myself and found something different: a strong confirmation of the J-curve for overall mortality, overall cancer deaths, cardiovascular disease, and all “other causes.” This held for both men and women:
    Used under creative commons license from Ferrari P, Licaj I,Muller DC, et al. Lifetime alcohol use and overall and cause-specific mortality in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and nu…