Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label alcohol and breast cancer

Update on wine and breast cancer

With breast cancer awareness month upon us again, it’s fair to ask what we have learned about prevention and treatment, and for wine drinkers, it remains a confusing picture. It’s clear that heavy alcohol consumption increases risk, not so certain whether moderation – especially wine – is all that bad; it might even be good. On one hand, the message from the medical community is unambiguous: any level of drinking increases the odds of developing breast cancer. On the other hand, at moderate levels of drinking, cancer risk is extremely difficult to measure with confidence, even more so with wine. Here’s why I think a daily glass or two of red wine with dinner is still a healthy choice:    A recent study from the University of California San Diego [1] looked at survival and recurrence after breast cancer treatment, finding that light drinking had no correlation. Moderate alcohol intake was “protective against all-cause mortality” in non-obese women.    There app...

Seeing red over breast cancer-wine reports: Why studies still get it wrong

A recent headline announcing the results of another study examining the role of alcohol and risk of breast cancer proclaimed that even a glass of wine a day “can significantly increase a woman’s cancer risk.” The connection between drinking and breast cancer has been a troublesome one, the thorn among the rosés, if you’ll pardon the metaphor. It’s not that I mean to make light of all this well-intentioned alarm bell ringing, but the way I see it research on wine and breast cancer just keeps repeating the same mistakes. When it comes to the question of wine and breast cancer, most studies still get it wrong. That’s one reason why I can’t help but be a little bit cynical every October, when pink ribbons start sprouting everywhere, from lapels to football jerseys to cereal boxes. Increased awareness is laudable, but I wonder if these efforts do more to make us feel good than they do to actually make a difference for women with breast cancer. Case in point: the Komen Foundation, with ...

Yes Red Wine is Still Good for You

Recent reports that “red wine is not great for health after all” and that “no amount of alcohol is safe” are just plain wrong. This type of misguided reporting and misinterpretation of scientific studies is one of the reasons for my book Age Gets Better with Wine . How is it that the story is still so confused? Kicking off the latest round of hype was a report issued bythe World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer . Noting that the risk is dose-dependent, meaning that heavy drinking has a stronger correlation with some types of cancer, the authors of the report concluded that even moderate drinking carries some degree of risk. This was followed by release of a study in Italy that looked at dietary levels of resveratrol and incidence of diseases of aging. Since the most well-known source of resveratrol is red wine, the lack of a benefit from higher resveratrol consumption was reported as casting doubt on the benefits of red wine. So here we go again: I...

Wine and breast cancer: Here we go again

Yet another article about a possible link between wine and breast cancer is in the news, and as usual it is being widely quoted without any critical analysis or perspective. The article in question, a review of previously published studies, estimates that even a glass of wine per day increases risk of breast cancer and estimates that 1-2% of all breast cancer cases are attributable to light drinking alone. Rather than pick apart the article item by item, which would take all day since there are so many issues, I will highlight a few important things. First, there are fundamental problems with the way that these types of studies are done, and reviewing them simply magnifies the underlying mistakes. Here’s the thing: in order to know if for example a glass of wine per day affected breast cancer risk, you would have to follow a large population of women who drink only wine, only a glass per day, every day, rarely more, rarely anything other than wine, and rarely not having a drink; this...

New evidence that red wine lowers risk of breast cancer

Does drinking red wine increase risk of breast cancer? If you have been following the news over the past few years, you might have a hard time justifying that glass of wine with dinner, as we are told that even in moderation the risk of breast cancer increases. But as I have said here before (see post from Nov 2 2011), the whole topic is widely misunderstood and oversimplified, despite the declarations of medical authorities. But a new study helps to shed some light on the subject. So why is the party line so negative on wine? At first glance, the evidence seems overwhelming: dozens of studies showing that consumption of alcohol in any form – red or white wine, beer, spirits – increases chances of developing breast cancer by about 10% per drink per day. Some of these studies are quite large, with thousands of women surveyed. A closer analysis reveals some serious problems however. To begin with, any time there are dozens of population studies all looking at the same question, we may ...

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 beh...