1 Wine Dude

A Serious Wine Blog For the Not-So-Serious Drinker

Menu
  • Home
  • About
    • New? Start Here!
    • PR & Samples
    • Press & What-Have-You
  • Wine
    • by badge
      • crowd pleaser
      • elegant
      • kick-ass
      • overachiever
      • sexy
    • Full Reviews
    • Mini-Reviews
  • Stalk
    • Follow me on News Break!
    • facebook
    • Instagram
    • LinkedIn
    • pinterest
    • twitter
    • YouTube
  • Sign Up
  • Books
  • Services
  • Contact
Menu
1 Wine Dude
Lancet study graph 2018

Fumbling The Ball At Goal-line (Thoughts On The 2018 Lancet Alcohol Study)3 min read

Posted on September 5, 2018August 31, 2018 by 1WineDude

in commentary, wine health, wine news

Recently, an examination of a rather large data set of studies (we’re talking nearly 200 countries, and over 690 pieces of work involving millions of people) was published in Lancet, and most of my alcohol-loving friends just about lost their sh*t.

The reason for the theoretical emergency bowel-vacating stemmed from media coverage of one of the Lancet study’s late conclusions, and the one harpooned by the media and shared pretty much everywhere (emphasis mine):

“Alcohol use is a leading risk factor for disease burden worldwide, accounting for nearly 10% of global deaths among populations aged 15–49 years, and poses dire ramifications for future population health in the absence of policy action today. The widely held view of the health benefits of alcohol needs revising, particularly as improved methods and analyses continue to show how much alcohol use contributes to global death and disability. Our results show that the safest level of drinking is none.”

That pithy little emphasized sentence above is the scientific equivalent of constructing a late-game, come-from-behind, potentially-game-winning NFL drive that started on your team’s own ten-yard line, culminating in a 3rd-and-long breakout run during which your guys fumble the f*cking ball at the goal-line and emerge with a heartbreaking loss. This is because there is a wealth of health-related insight that could come out of the Lancet study, and they chose to focus on the one aspect that the data don’t actually support directly; that conclusion is controversial at best, and is only loosely inferred from the analysis, based on the facts and results cited in the very study itself.

Bear in mind that alcohol constitutes an inordinate amount of the professional and leisure portions of my existence on this planet, which is why instead of trying to make that case myself in my own (not-so-)potentially biased way, I’ll instead refer you to Vox, who have already (splendidly) done that for me…

Vox’s Julia Belluz has executed a well-researched and thoughtfully-entertaining takedown of the recent Lancet study, and it’s well worth a read, especially if you’re among the paints-soiling numbers who kind of freaked out about not being able to drink ever again.

This quote in particular from the Vox article needs a spotlight, as it brings a statistical numbers focus to the results and effectively acts as the article’s TLDR summary:

“…statistician David Spiegelhalter estimated that 25,000 people would need to drink 400,000 bottles of gin to experience one extra health problem compared to non-drinkers, ‘which indicates a rather low level of harm in these occasional drinkers.’

…the difference in health risk between those who drink nothing and those who have one daily drink is tiny — and, given the weak observational research it’s based on, potentially not meaningful.”

My slightly longer, but still abbreviated take involves this little summary results graph from the Lancet study (again, emphasis is mine):

Lancet study graph 2018
Jump to conclusions, much? (image: TheLancet.com)

As you can see above, the difference in cumulative relative health risks between having zero drinks and having one drink daily is reeeeeaaaalllly small. In fact, statistically it could be argued that the difference is within error margins; in other words, it’s almost zero.

Are you technically safer having no alcohol? Based on the Lancet study, yes, technically you are. Just like you’re technically safer not having any sun exposure whatsoever, never crossing the street, never driving a car, never taking a plane flight, never doing weed…

But if you want to play the statistical numbers, all things being equal health-wise you’re no worse off drinking in moderation than you are not drinking at all. And that conclusion is more-or-less just as valid based on the findings of the Lancet study as their conclusion that you should never drink if you want to reduce your overall health risk.

What this study does do a great job of underscoring, in my not-so-humble opinion, is the relative health danger of regular, immoderate/excessive drinking, which is undeniably a major worldwide issue right now and a substantial burden on our global economy and mental, social, and physical well-being. But focusing on moderate, responsible drinking as a problem – based on these data – is a bit like saying that we need to be careful about our water intake because too much of it can kill you…

Cheers!

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Related

2 thoughts on “Fumbling The Ball At Goal-line (Thoughts On The 2018 Lancet Alcohol Study)3 min read”

  1. EDWARD MILLER says:
    September 5, 2018 at 2:17 pm

    The technical critique by global alcohol researchers:
    http://www.alcoholresearchforum.org/critique-219

    1. 1WineDude says:
      September 12, 2018 at 9:51 am

      Thanks! Here’s the Carrol article they cite in the critique:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/upshot/alcohol-health-risks-study-worry.html

Comments are closed.

Dude’s New Books

Wine Taster's Guide Now Available!

“Bravo! Wine Taster's Guide is a perfect primer for both wine novices and learning enthusiasts." ―Evan Goldstein, Master Sommelier

Wine Taster's Journal Now Available!

"Wine Taster's Journal belongs in everyone's cellar… preferably wine-stained, dog-eared, and well-used.” ―Brian Freedman, wine/spirits/travel columnist

Get Some Wine

Popular Stuff

  • Wine in the Time of Coronovirus, Part 21: Touchable (Tasting Untouched By Light)
    Wine in the Time of Coronovirus, Part 21: Touchable (Tasting Untouched By Light)
  • Carignan, My Wayward Son (Chile's Carignan Renaissance for NVWA)
    Carignan, My Wayward Son (Chile's Carignan Renaissance for NVWA)
  • Wine Reviews: Weekly Mini Round-Up For January 11, 2021
    Wine Reviews: Weekly Mini Round-Up For January 11, 2021
  • Wine Reviews: Weekly Mini Round-Up For December 21, 2020
    Wine Reviews: Weekly Mini Round-Up For December 21, 2020
  • A Quiet Resistance (Eyrie Vineyards Original Vines Pinot Noir, In Retrospect)
    A Quiet Resistance (Eyrie Vineyards Original Vines Pinot Noir, In Retrospect)

About + Contact

Joe Roberts

Joe Roberts

Certified Specialist of Wine & WSET Advanced
Author, speaker, consultant, wine judge, & critic.

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS Feed

Find Stuff

Sign up, lushes!

Join 36,566 other subscribers

Fine Print

This site is licensed under Creative Commons.

Code of Ethics and Privacy Policies.

Play nice!

Get The Guide

Wine Tasters Guide Footer
#1 New Release in Amazon's Wine Tasting category
This site uses cookies. Duh. Cookie Policy
©2021 1 Wine Dude
Yo yo YO!

Wine Tasters Guide InstagramWell, hello there!

If you like what you’re reading (and want to like more of what you’re drinking), consider subscribing.

If you’re up for a more immersive wine learning experience, check out my books and other services.

Cheers!

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.