Skip to main content

Is wine a functional food?


Then again, didn’t all foods used to be functional? In the modern era of bulging waistlines, it would seem that nutrition has taken a back seat to processed foods engineered to tweak our taste buds and pleasure centers in the brain. And it is all too easy – and wrong – to cast wine as merely empty calories. But can we really consider wine to be a food, especially a nutritious one?

To begin with, the term “functional food” means that it contains specific nutrients with identifiable health benefits. Sometimes these are added in, as with vitamins A and D in milk or calcium in orange juice. The way I see it, in a well-balanced diet there shouldn’t be a need for such enhancements. Wine for example naturally contains an abundance of antioxidant polyphenols, nutritionally vital ingredients that are increasingly lacking in many foods. A glass of wine with dinner on a daily basis is associated with longer life and better health by a variety of measures, a claim difficult to prove with vitamin supplements. Sounds like a functional food to me.

There are specific reasons too why wine should be considered a food, part of a meal. Wine actually makes other foods healthier, by blunting the rise in blood levels of oxidized fats after eating. Wine drinkers tend to eat and drink more slowly, also healthy habits. This may be one of the reasons why wine drinkers are notably less likely to be overweight, though some interesting findings about wine polyphenols and sugar metabolism have led to research into wine-derived diabetes treatments.

As compared to say grape juice, wine has another advantage: no sugar (at least in dry wines.) Though alcohol may be considered empty calories, it does have some benefits when consumed in the right amounts, where sugar has none. I have an entire chapter in my book on the specific benefits of alcohol in moderation. In fact, it is easy to make a case that sugar has contributed far more to public health problems than alcohol, considering that diabetes and other diseases related to obesity are in epidemic proportions.  

Comments

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The French who reulagry consume wine have a lower incidence of coronary heart disease and are overall more heathy than Americans. We should slow down and enjoy our food (with a glass of wine!).

    -- Kristy @ Wine Logic

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your blog is very interesting- I am so confused about women's health and wine drinking. I love a good glass of wine with dinner a couple of times a week- but seeing some new studies has made me cut back. I am afraid to have more than 2 glasses a week now. Any info would be appreciated!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Which came first: Beer or wine? (or something else?)

Actually neither beer nor wine was the first fermented beverage, and wine arguably has a closer connection to health, but recent evidence indicates that humans developed the ability to metabolize alcohol long before we were even human. The uniquely human ability to handle alcohol comes from the digestive enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase, or ADH4. A new science called paleogenetics identifies the emergence of the modern version of the ADH4 gene in our ape ancestors some 10 million years ago. Interestingly, this corresponds to the time when our arboreal forebears transitioned to a nomadic lifestyle on the ground. We went from swinging from tree limbs to walking upright, and the rest is history. Understanding the circumstances that led to perpetuation of the ADH4 mutation may contain clues to what made us human in the first place. How the ability to metabolize alcohol made us human Paleogenetecist Matthew Carrigan has an idea about how this happened . Arboreal species rely on fruit tha

Why I am not surprised that the NIH cancelled the alcohol-health study

Not long after enrolling the first patients in the much hyped prospective study on alcohol and health, the National Institutes of Health recently announced that they were pulling the plug. I am actually more surprised that they ever got it off the ground in the first place. As I wrote a year ago when the study was still in its planning stages, there were too many competing interests, criticisms of the study design, and concerns about funding to expect that whatever results came out would be universally accepted. Nevertheless, I am disappointed. The study, called Moderate Alcohol and Cardiovascular Health Trial (MACH) was intended to provide hard evidence about the health effects of moderate alcohol consumption by prospectively assigning subjects with heart disease to one drink per day or not drinking, which they were to follow for up to 10 years. Most existing data on the question is retrospective, or simply tracks a subject population according to their drinking preferences, w