Even Moderate Drinking Increases Stroke Risk, Groundbreaking Genetic Study Finds
A major genetic study has concluded that there is no healthy level of alcohol consumption, at least when it comes to stroke risk.
The study, published in The Lancet Thursday, contradicts some previous research suggesting that drinking one to two glasses a day might protect against stroke, though other studies have said there is no safe level of alcohol consumption, BBC news reported. In Thursday's study, a research team from the University of Oxford, Peking University and the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences found that even drinking one to two glasses a day increased stroke risk by 10 to 15 percent.
Moderate #alcohol consumption does not protect #against stroke: finding from a mendelian randomisation study… https://t.co/LWKqi4PcuS— The Lancet (@The Lancet)1554417300.0
"The key message here is that, at least for stroke, there is no protective effect of moderate drinking," study co-author and Oxford Nuffield Department of Population Health professor Zhengming Chen told Reuters. "The genetic evidence shows the protective effect is not real."
For heavy drinking, the effect was even more pronounced. Drinking four or more glasses a day increased stroke risk by 35 percent and raised blood pressure.
The researchers were confident in their results because they were able to use a unique genetic variant common in Asian populations to help separate the impact of alcohol on health from other factors, The Guardian explained.
In East Asian countries, around one third of people have a combination of genes that makes them flush and feel uncomfortable after drinking, leading them to drink less. However, the genes cut across status or overall health, so scientists can isolate them as a variable.
Researchers followed around 500,000 people from China for 10 years and tracked their drinking habits and incidents of stroke or heart attack. When they looked at self-reporting of alcohol consumption, they did find that drinking 100 grams of alcohol a week (one to two drinks a day) did seem to ward off stroke. However, when they looked at genetic data and location to predict the mean amount of alcohol consumed by participants, the protective effect disappeared. Stroke risk went up 38 percent for every additional 280 grams of alcohol consumed each week.
"Using genetics is a novel way ... to sort out whether moderate drinking really is protective, or whether it's slightly harmful," study author and Oxford epidemiologist Iona Millwood told Reuters. "Our genetic analyses have helped us understand the cause-and-effect relationships."
The study looked at both women and men, but very few women in China drink. While 33 percent of the male subjects consumed alcohol, only two percent of the women did. This allowed the researchers to further confirm the negative impacts of alcohol, since women with the same combination of genes did not have an increase in stroke risk.
University of Cambridge Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk David Spiegelhalter, who was not involved with the research, told The Guardian he found the results persuasive:
"This is a very impressive study which shows that men who, by chance, have a combination of genes that put them off drinking alcohol have a lower risk of stroke compared with those without these genes," he said.
"The fact that this is not true for Chinese women, who tend not to drink whatever their genes, suggests this effect is due to the alcohol rather than the genes themselves. I have always been reasonably convinced that moderate alcohol consumption was protective for cardiovascular disease, but now I am having my doubts."
The study could not draw any conclusions about the impact of alcohol consumption on heart attack risk. It also focused on beer and spirits, not wine, which some say may have separate health benefits.
"It has certainly advanced what we know about the role of alcohol in some diseases but it can't be the last word," Open University Emeritus Professor of Applied Statistics Kevin McConway told BBC News. "The new study doesn't tie down exactly how alcohol works to increase stroke risk but doesn't appear to increase heart attack risk."
How #Sugar, #Alcohol and #Caffeine Affect Inflammation https://t.co/ldeDWLPmbL @HealthyChild @naturallysavvy— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1546898417.0
By Robin Scher
Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.
- Can Urban Farms Prevent Hunger in 54 Million People in the U.S. ... ›
- New Report Finds Malnutrition World's Top Killer Amid Pandemic ... ›
- Oxfam Warns 12,000 Could Die Per Day From Hunger Due to ... ›
- Three Ways to Support a Healthy Food System During the COVID ... ›
- Trump USDA Resumes Effort to Cut Food Stamp Benefits - EcoWatch ›
- Pandemic Threatens Food Security for Many College Students ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.
As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.
- 15 Top Conservation Issues of 2021 Include Big Threats, Potential ... ›
- How Blockchain Could Boost Clean Energy - EcoWatch ›
By David Drake and Jeffrey York
The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
The Big Idea
People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.
- Major Milestone: More than 100,000 MW Worth of Coal-Fired Power ... ›
- Coal Will Not Bring Appalachia Back to Life, But Tech and ... ›
- Renewables Beat Coal in the U.S. for the First Time This April ... ›