Comments on: Just Don’t Look at My Liver

By: MacDoctor

MacDoctor — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:00:38 +0000

PaulL: If you have a history of heart problems in your family but not history of cancer, for example, drinking more to reduce the heart risk, while increasing the cancer risk, may be a gamble worth taking.

While that might make good economic sense, Paul, it makes no medical sense. Alcohol is so toxic to most organs (including the heart) in high doses that it would be impossible to make a rational assessment. A large amount of alcohol does not merely increase your cancer risk, it damages your brain, heart, liver and pancreas all at the same time. The cardioprotective effect of alcohol simply isn’t strong enough to mitigate this.

Eric: I agree that Alcohol Action NZ are trying to downplay the cardioprotective benefits. But the level of benefit is not really material. All the clinical studies on alcohol consumption show that more than 3 units of alcohol a day (a normal beer and a glass of wine), or more than 20 units of alcohol a week, will increase your all cause mortality even when trauma is discounted.

Small to moderate alcohol = good. Excess = bad.

By: Eric Crampton

Eric Crampton — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:28:41 +0000

If you’re trying to get an overall risk assessment, you’ve gotta count the margins on which you’re reducing risk as well as those on which you’re increasing it. If you only worry about the latter, you’ll overestimate the overall risk you’re incurring.

Note that Alcohol Action NZ goes on about how the cardioprotective benefits of alcohol are “overstated”. This most recent study, which seems to control for the “bad health former drinker” confound, gives measures of cardioprotection higher than Corrao’s 2000 estimates, and by a good deal.
Eric Crampton´s last blog ..Light binge drinkers

By: Paul Walker

Paul Walker — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:07:34 +0000

The trade-off is about the probability of death. If you have a history of heart problems in your family but not history of cancer, for example, drinking more to reduce the heart risk, while increasing the cancer risk, may be a gamble worth taking.
Paul Walker´s last blog ..EconTalk this week

By: Paul Walker

Paul Walker — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:18:52 +0000

But isn’t it all about trade offs? I trade off the benefits of drinking in terms of heart disease against the problems caused by drinking for other diseases. At least now I know there is such a trade off.
Paul Walker´s last blog ..How much greenhouse gas emission abatement is enough?

I’m not sure if a choice between death and death can be considered a “trade off”, Paul