In order to make sense of the seemingly conflicting reports
about wine and health there’s one essential thing to understand: the J-shaped
curve. It’s a simple concept, universal, in plain sight, and often ignored. It
goes like this: Take “nondrinking” as the baseline and plot increased or
decreased relative risk of a health issue with increasing levels of daily
consumption. Nondrinkers have a certain risk of, say heart attacks, moderate
drinkers a lower risk, heavy drinkers a relatively higher risk. Not too
complicated. The tricky parts are separating wine drinkers from drinkers in
general, and daily moderate drinkers from occasional drinkers.
The J-curve is not just about wine
The J-shaped curve is too universal to ignore once you see
it. Even dietary salt intake has a J-curve; consuming too little in your diet
can be as harmful as too much. For years, the American Heart Association has
endorsed a 1.5 gram per day limit on sodium intake (salt is about 40% sodium),
about what you get in a 6-inch sub sandwich or a bowl of vegetable soup.
However, a massive multi-country review a couple of years ago found that the
lowest incidence of heart disease correlated to about 4-5 grams per day, the
bottom of a J-curve. Similar patterns plot out for coffee, vitamins, even
water.
Wait - water? Obviously not drinking enough water is
unhealthy, and questioning the benefits of hydration seems a fool’s errand. But
it is possible to take it too far; in
2007 a woman participating in a water drinking contest called “Hold Your Wee
for a Wii” was found dead of water intoxication. Superhydration throws
electrolyte balances out of whack, with toxic and even fatal levels of water
intake surprisingly easy to achieve. A
J-shaped curve.
Even lifetime happiness reportedly follows the curve. Young
people generally enjoy a sense of well-being and optimism, career and family
stress creates a dip through the 20’s and 30’s, then later in life happiness
rises above the baseline, at least for most.
Why the J-curve is sometimes overlooked
Why is this simple model so often overlooked? One reason is
that good data points are hard to come by, when it is drinking and eating
habits that are being tabulated. People are unreliable self-reporters. Or
researchers may have hidden agendas based on the need to publish, so that they
focus on only the findings that support their hypothesis. Research on breast
cancer and alcohol is particularly fraught with this problem; heavy drinking is
unquestionably bad, but difficult in parsing out the subset of women who drink
red wine (for example) with regularity and in moderation leads to extrapolation
errors. If you simply draw a line from the heavy drinking/high risk corner of
the graph down to the no drinking corner, you miss the bottom of the J. And you
don’t want to miss the bottom of the J curve.
Unfortunately they totally miss a potent confounder. Non drinkers include sick people who have given up alchohol due to poor hhealth; therefore the non drinkers include them also and the statistics become skewed in favor of drinkers.
ReplyDelete