Is my daily beer intake unhealthy?

[JefeTheVol]

I would propose that doctors don't know what a proper cholestrol level is, and most would try to put you on some new fad drug just to get you popping pills everyday. Now let me start off by saying I am not a doctor.. Now that we got that out of the way let me give my two cents....

Some people have high cholestorol, some people don't. Some people who have high cholestorol also have heart attacks. Alot of people who's cholestorol is normal also have heart attacks.

My doctor tried to put me on one of those cholestorol lowering drugs. I said heck no!! I'll let you know in a few years if I have a heart attack

Regardless of that. Homebrew has yeasties in it. The yeasties are loaded with amino acids that you don't find in filtered beers. This gives you a bunch of B vitamins you don't normally get.. So I say drink the beer in moderation, not to the point of drunkenness.

While in some ways your post rings true. Some people with "normal" cholesterol do have a heart attacks this by no way represents the majority of the American population (and Western World population as well). Being in my 3rd year of medical school I can tell you that doctors don't follow fads, we follow Evidence-Based Medicine. And the overwhelmingly apparent (as well as easily accessible) information points towards lowering your LDL and Triglycerides and raising your HDL which will significantly reduce the chances of having a heart attack in Western Populations.

Now, on to "normal" cholesterol. Normal cholesterol is measured by the average healthy westerner which, as anyone here will know, has a cornucopia of genetic influences. For instance, I am part English, Polish, and German. This multitude of genetic influences leads to immense heterogeneity when it comes to person-to-person genetic histories. This leads to a large reference range that includes "normal" cholesterol/LDL/TG's. Following linear logic it is easy to realize that individuals exist who would fall "outside the range" of normal yet still not suffer the "normal consequences" of high cholesterol, etc.

Above this normal range significantly increases your risk of a myocardial infarction in the western population and decreases your life expectancy. I highly doubt your doctor, who took an oath to protect his patients and "above all else, do no harm" is following some fad by suggesting you get help lowering your cholesterol by using a drug. He is merely following evidence that suggests you will live longer and healthier if you decrease your cholesterol etc.

Of course the next thing to discuss is side effects. Sure, patients will have side effects to some of the cholesterol lowering drugs but evidence exists that the benefits significantly outweigh the risks of using a Statin or other cholesterol lowering medications. And human behavior studies show that just telling a patient that he/she needs to change their lifestyle to lower their cholesterol will not help as much as medication because, for the simple reason, people dont want to change their lifestyles.

Considering the number one killer among western populations is heart disease, I doubt he has ulterior motives. Everyone should get their cholesterol/LDL/HDL/TG's checked because keeping those in the normal range promotes overall good health.

The medical community works entirely on evidence-based approaches to medicine and it incurs some of the most intense and scrupulous peer-reviews of any scientific profession.

My question is this:
If one brews using science, why discredit a profession that sets its precedence using the same scientific method, if not a method that is held to a higher standard?
-Jefe-

 

[adamjab19]

Thank you JefeTheVol. You saved me a lot of time.

 

[Wellshooter]

Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing.
Redd Foxx

 

[BrewDocND]

Hey guys.

I am the original poster and wanted to share some bad news with you guys.

I'm a 33 year old at 230lbs and 5'11 who likes to go to restaurants, eat pizza, drink beer etc. I'm not someone who lives on McDonalds and fast food.

However, I originally posted this question because I knew I was going in for blood test results. I posted this question about an hour before I went in.

Well I went in and unfortunately, I have high cholesterol at 33 years old. My cholesterol is borderline medication zone. Like .05 away.

I eat red meat maybe once a week, if that. I always thought that I didn't eat that much saturated fats. Yes I eat pizza once to twice a week, but my levels were pretty high. I do like the food and do like to eat.

Not only was I high in cholesterol, my wife was also borderline 'high'. We both have normal 'good' cholesterol ranges, but we both have too much 'bad' cholesterol ranges. If you saw us you may think otherwise.

Wow I'm going to have to make some life changes. I can't believe this is happening at my age. We can no longer eat pizza, eat out, etc. We must exercise regularly now. The movie 'super size me' is coming to life for us. I can't believe that some restaurants, Chinese food, and pizza could cause this.

The question became about the beer. Well, all we keep reading is articles of how it raises 'good' cholesterol levels and it's actually something we should not cut out of our diet.

I really suggest people get their cholesterol checked if they haven't. Especially if they are at a young age.

Please do everything you can, lifestyle-wise, before you start taking statins. Definitely integrate a regular exercise program into you and your wife's lives, and cut out the crap food. Eat more fresh, living foods. Especially dark green and colorful veggies. And avoid any food that comes in a box or bag. Read labels. The more ingredients a food has, the worse it is for you (i.e., the more a food is processed before it gets to you, the more processing your body has to do to process it back into usable form. Your body knows what a raw red bell pepper is. It doesn't know WTF to do with a hot pocket).

Statins F*** up so many processes in your body, as cholesterol is used in the synthesis of sooo many necessary hormones, etc. Cut your beer consumption a bit, but do all those other things first.

 

[Erythro73]

Please do everything you can, lifestyle-wise, before you start taking statins. Definitely integrate a regular exercise program into you and your wife's lives, and cut out the crap food. Eat more fresh, living foods. Especially dark green and colorful veggies. And avoid any food that comes in a box or bag. Read labels. The more ingredients a food has, the worse it is for you (i.e., the more a food is processed before it gets to you, the more processing your body has to do to process it back into usable form. Your body knows what a raw red bell pepper is. It doesn't know WTF to do with a hot pocket).

Statins F*** up so many processes in your body, as cholesterol is used in the synthesis of sooo many necessary hormones, etc. Cut your beer consumption a bit, but do all those other things first.

That is something I hate to hear (or read). Are you a doctor? Are you a researcher? Did you study biology/pharmacy? If not, then don't go around giving advices about science and health when clearly OP's life is more risky giving is lifestyle. The only advices he should follow is the advices his doctor gave him. Nothing wrong in asking some questions to him, though, or asking for a second opinion on your condition to another doctor, to be safe.

I'm sorry, I may come a bit hard, but I'm a physicist (not a physician), and I just hate it when someone without proper qualifications tries to explain to me why physics is wrong, why I shouldn't believe physics or other **** like that. Or when they think they can revolutionize the entire field with basic ideas... dating back from Galileo. But I disgress here.

May it be with physics or science in general, if you're not an expert on the field, you can't, you don't have the knowledge to go against what scientists and profesionnals tell you. It takes a lot of humility to understand that, but that's how it works. Doctors had about 8-10 years of medecine education + some years of experience. Researchers spent their time doing experimentation on one hand, but also sharing information with other, reading and writing articles in scientific journals, participate in great international meetings, etc. You can't, you don't have the capacity to go against doctors or researchers on someone's health. Someone you don't really know, don't have all the factors or informations on hand and may not have all the qualifications to do so.

Of course, all this rant is meaningless if you're qualified. And clearly, a better lifestyle in his case is a must.

 

[BrewDocND]

That is something I hate to hear (or read). Are you a doctor? Are you a researcher? Did you study biology/pharmacy? If not, then don't go around giving advices about science and health when clearly OP's life is more risky giving is lifestyle. The only advices he should follow is the advices his doctors give him. Nothing wrong in asking some questions to him, though, or asking for a second opinion on your condition to another doctor, to be safe.

I'm sorry, I may come a bit hard, but I'm a physicist (not a physician), and I just hate it when someone without proper qualifications tries to explain to me why physics is wrong, why I shouldn't believe physics or other **** like that. Or when they think they can revolutionize the entire field with basic ideas... dating back from Galileo. But I disgress here.

May it be with physics or science in general, if you're not an expert on the field, you can't, you don't have the knowledge to go against what scientists and profesionnals tell you. It takes a lot of humility to understand that, but that's how it works. Doctors had about 8-10 years of medecine education + some years of experience. Researchers spent their time doing experimentation on one hand, but also sharing information with other, reading and writing articles in scientific journals, participate in great international meetings, etc. You can't, you don't have the capacity to go against doctors or researchers on someone's health. Someone you don't really know, don't have all the factors or informations on hand and may not have all the qualifications to do so.

Of course, all this rant is meaningless if you're qualified.

Yes, the only advice you should follow is your doctor's. However, it's important for patients to have all the information when they decide to take a potentially harmful medicine. I am not a physician, but will be shortly, and I'm simply giving my opinion. Your point is well taken. My post does not take the place of an appointment with a licensed physician.

 

[Rockchalk]

Didn't read everything here but I'm curious. How in the word do some of you profess to make these 5 and 10 gal plus batches of beer weekly but only drink a liter a day. That's some fuzzy math

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

Didn't read everything here but I'm curious. How in the word do some of you profess to make these 5 and 10 gal plus batches of beer weekly but only drink a liter a day. That's some fuzzy math

SWMBO intake plus give a lot away to family/friends. It goes fast.

 

[Monty420th]

Didn't read everything here but I'm curious. How in the word do some of you profess to make these 5 and 10 gal plus batches of beer weekly but only drink a liter a day. That's some fuzzy math

once you tell your friends about it, it goes very fast...I was brewing a batch one night an some friends wanted to see the process, I had just kegged one beer the week before

5 friends, 2 pints each, 1.25 gallons consumed out of 5. Just takes that to happen a couple of times and you are out of beer (especially if it is a good one and they keep coming back)

 

[Erythro73]

Yes, the only advice you should follow is your doctor's. However, it's important for patients to have all the information when they decide to take a potentially harmful medicine. I am not a physician, but will be shortly, and I'm simply giving my opinion. Your point is well taken. My post does not take the place of an appointment with a licensed physician.

Then, we agree my friend. I agree with you when you say a patient should get as many informations as possible before taking a medecine. Ask questions to your doctor, read about it as much as you can. I even suggest seeking a second opinion if this is a general practitioner.

 

[BlueSunshine]

I'm in the "do what makes you happy camp". I just found out that I have a cyst on my kidney today (it's not harmful, but being told that is a bit jarring) and I'm still going to drink beer. Granted, I only drink like 4 beers a week (sometimes less than that) but beer makes me happy. We're all going to die eventually anyway, so might as well be happy along the way.

 

[SoonerDoc]

While in some ways your post rings true. Some people with "normal" cholesterol do have a heart attacks this by no way represents the majority of the American population (and Western World population as well). Being in my 3rd year of medical school I can tell you that doctors don't follow fads, we follow Evidence-Based Medicine. And the overwhelmingly apparent (as well as easily accessible) information points towards lowering your LDL and Triglycerides and raising your HDL which will significantly reduce the chances of having a heart attack in Western Populations.

Now, on to "normal" cholesterol. Normal cholesterol is measured by the average healthy westerner which, as anyone here will know, has a cornucopia of genetic influences. For instance, I am part English, Polish, and German. This multitude of genetic influences leads to immense heterogeneity when it comes to person-to-person genetic histories. This leads to a large reference range that includes "normal" cholesterol/LDL/TG's. Following linear logic it is easy to realize that individuals exist who would fall "outside the range" of normal yet still not suffer the "normal consequences" of high cholesterol, etc.

Above this normal range significantly increases your risk of a myocardial infarction in the western population and decreases your life expectancy. I highly doubt your doctor, who took an oath to protect his patients and "above all else, do no harm" is following some fad by suggesting you get help lowering your cholesterol by using a drug. He is merely following evidence that suggests you will live longer and healthier if you decrease your cholesterol etc.

Of course the next thing to discuss is side effects. Sure, patients will have side effects to some of the cholesterol lowering drugs but evidence exists that the benefits significantly outweigh the risks of using a Statin or other cholesterol lowering medications. And human behavior studies show that just telling a patient that he/she needs to change their lifestyle to lower their cholesterol will not help as much as medication because, for the simple reason, people dont want to change their lifestyles.

Considering the number one killer among western populations is heart disease, I doubt he has ulterior motives. Everyone should get their cholesterol/LDL/HDL/TG's checked because keeping those in the normal range promotes overall good health.

The medical community works entirely on evidence-based approaches to medicine and it incurs some of the most intense and scrupulous peer-reviews of any scientific profession.

My question is this:
If one brews using science, why discredit a profession that sets its precedence using the same scientific method, if not a method that is held to a higher standard?
-Jefe-

This is an excellent post, Jefe. People who claim doctors follow fads or don't know the science behind health recommendations are either misinformed or are going to crappy doctors. There are a multitude of reasons why the OP's cholesterol could be high. Genetics play a huge role and to some extent so do lifestyle choices. Simply changing what you can for the better always helps. Modern medicine can not predict what will happen to the individual, only to groups of individuals. We know that a larger portion of people with high cholesterol will have an MI or stroke than people with lower cholesterol. Why is the cut-off for total cholesterol 200? Because someone looked at the data and noticed that people above 200 had higher incidence than those below 200. Could the recommendations change at any time? Yes. As new information comes available, it probably will change. It has already happened to the recommendations for LDL (bad cholesterol) and, even now, there is research that may indicate CRP levels are more accurate than cholesterol levels at predicting cardiovascular events.

The bottom line, IMO:
Avoid anything in excess.
Exercise.
Take care of yourself.
Be happy. You will die someday no matter how healthy you are.

 

[steinsato]

after reading this thread I've decided I'm going to start exercising more and drinking less. I haven't had my cholesterol checked (age 30) and I drink about 3 beers a night and more on the weekend. I plan on cutting back to 2 12 oz beers tops on weekdays. Also going to start hiking the dogs more often and if I really get a wild hare, I may even start using my weight bench that is currently collecting dust. This thread has kind of opened my eyes.

 

[weirdboy]

People who claim doctors follow fads or don't know the science behind health recommendations are either misinformed or are going to crappy doctors.

ahem

From the linked article:

Sitting at a table with most of the medical transactions in the state of Vermont listed before him, Wennberg was able to see just how bizarre the distribution of care was. People in one town would get their hemorrhoids removed five times more often than people in another town only 30 miles away. Ditto with mastectomies, prostate operations, back surgery.

This was even the case in Wennberg's own town.

"We lived right on the boundary between Stowe and Waterbury Center, Vt.," Wennberg says. "And if my kids had been going to the school system in Stowe, they would have had a 75 percent chance of having their tonsils out. If they had gone to the Waterbury School — where they actually did — it was about 20 percent."

 

[Monty420th]

after reading this thread I've decided I'm going to start exercising more and drinking less. I haven't had my cholesterol checked (age 30) and I drink about 3 beers a night and more on the weekend. I plan on cutting back to 2 12 oz beers tops on weekdays. Also going to start hiking the dogs more often and if I really get a wild hare, I may even start using my weight bench that is currently collecting dust. This thread has kind of opened my eyes.

no matter what this is a good idea, whether you change you drinking habits or not exercising more is NEVER going to be a bad thing. 20 minutes a day (although low) will make a BIG impact in your overall health

 

[SoonerDoc]

There is a subtle difference between "standard of care" in a given community and "fads".
There is also a difference in doctors trained 30 years ago and doctors trained 10 years ago.

 

[weirdboy]

There is a subtle difference between "standard of care" in a given community and "fads".
There is also a difference in doctors trained 30 years ago and doctors trained 10 years ago.

OK, let's talk about C-sections instead. Modern trend. US rate is double that of other industrialized countries. CDC says neonatal risk is three times that of normal childbirth, but the rate is still increasing.

Oh, and health care providers earn on average twice as much from a C-section.

 

[SoonerDoc]

OK, let's talk about C-sections instead. Modern trend. US rate is double that of other industrialized countries. CDC says neonatal risk is three times that of normal childbirth, but the rate is still increasing.

Oh, and health care providers earn on average twice as much from a C-section.

I don't do obstetrics so I can't answer for them. Malpractice insurance is now, I believe, limiting whether many elective c-sections are covered. Standard of care dictated that c-section was an acceptable alternative to vaginal delivery. I don't agree but that's what it was. It's now changing for the better, IMO.
Again, I'm not an OB. And unless OP is pregnant, this is only marginally relevant.
We used to use leeches as well. Medicine is always changing, hopefully for the better.

 

[weirdboy]

I'm not really trying to start an argument. I just want to clarify the previous statement, which seems to hold doctors in some exalted position.

My point is that doctors, just like other humans, are fallible and subject to both peer pressure and whims. This in turn leads to "fads" in the medical community where one guy will tell his peers about having good results with some procedure or treatment, based purely on anecdotal evidence, and that procedure or treatment making the rounds in a community.

Scientists, engineers, and other professionals who also in theory base all their decisions on empirical evidence routinely do the same thing. Their decisions are thus not always informed by sound scientific reasoning, but by what they heard from someone else, and often without knowing the underlying assumptions upon which the original decision was made.


EDIT:

To wit, another quote from the article I linked before regarding Wennberg's studies:

For instance, it turns out that if you increase the number of doctors in an area, chances are that the use of medical services will rise. If there's one doctor in a town with 100 patients, then he'll schedule your heart checkups for once every six months, but if another doctor comes to town — and now the first doctor has 50 patients — the doctor will just schedule your heart checkups for once every three months. There's a very simple reason why, says Frank Read, an eye specialist who participated in the doctor groups.

"I don't want to be sitting on my thumbs all the time — I want to be busy. And that may unconsciously loosen my criteria for doing a procedure."

 

[WildGingerBrewing]

To the OP, I am 39, 5'11'' and 230lbs. I have been fighting my cholesterol for about 8 years now. I lost 40 lbs to get to 219 (gained a few back in the last 8 months), changed the way I ate, started exercising AND have been on meds for 8 years. Nothing! My cholesterol was almost 300, my triglycerides were over 900. And my bad cholesterol was very low. My doctor finally gave in to the fact that it was NOT due to something I was or wasn't doing and chalked it up to genetics. I still drink beer and I still eat what I want, but I watch the amount of food I eat now. I really don't oay any attention tho how much beer I drink (it's a pretty good bit!). I started a new med about 6 months ago and my cholesterol is below 200 for the first time in, I can't tell you how long. Hang in there. It may not have anything to do with eating, drinking or exercising. For the record, the new med I am on is Simcore. It is the 4th or 5th one I've been on and it apparently works.

 

[SoonerDoc]

I'm not really trying to start an argument. I just want to clarify the previous statement, which seems to hold doctors in some exalted position.

My point is that doctors, just like other humans, are fallible and subject to both peer pressure and whims. This in turn leads to "fads" in the medical community where one guy will tell his peers about having good results with some procedure or treatment, based purely on anecdotal evidence, and that procedure or treatment making the rounds in a community.

Scientists, engineers, and other professionals who also in theory base all their decisions on empirical evidence routinely do the same thing. Their decisions are thus not always informed by sound scientific reasoning, but by what they heard from someone else, and often without knowing the underlying assumptions upon which the original decision was made.


EDIT:

To wit, another quote from the article I linked before regarding Wennberg's studies:

Fair enough. However most doctors are fairly stubborn and set in their ways. A "fad" is "an interest followed with exaggerated zeal." While you may be making a valid point, the use of the term "fad" implies that doctors change their procedure rates or use of certain medications on a whim. On the contrary, I think we often stick to "what we know."

My point is that doctors, just like other humans, are fallible and subject to both peer pressure and whims. This in turn leads to "fads" in the medical community where one guy will tell his peers about having good results with some procedure or treatment, based purely on anecdotal evidence, and that procedure or treatment making the rounds in a community.

I would still say the above does not happen with much frequency. At a minimum, insurance will dictate with what frequency they will pay for a procedure. You can do it more often, but you won't get paid for it. And if there is no scientific evidence behind it, they definitely won't pay you for it.

and often without knowing the underlying assumptions upon which the original decision was made.

I would avoid any doctor who can't explain why he's prescribing a medicine or recommending a procedure.

 

[Byrdbrewer]

Ok. I was in pretty much the same boat as you so I'll give you what I came up with. I love my beer and am not willing to give it up completely. That said, if you're trying to watch your health, you really should keep it to a minimum. I wouldn't consider 1L/day that heavy but I used to drink pretty excessively. What no one else has addressed is what moderation is exactly. If you're drinking daily, I'd say that more than 24oz daily is probably beyond moderation even at 5% ABV. ABV is not the main concern at this level of intake. What someone else did address rather well was the health risks associated with the caloric intake. I'll go further to explain that its not just the calories but the simple carbohydrates(sugars/alcohol) that really affect your insulin levels. Insulin makes your body store fat. Fat is bad for your heart and many other organs that you wouldn't have expected. There is a laundry list of diseases that are associated with high body fat. High insulin levels also increase your risk of diabetes. I've conceded that I'm going to be a bit chubby if I drink the amount of beer that I want to. Try to make your meals full of proteins and fiber and complex carbohydrates to try to reduce the other simple carbohydrates that you consumer in a day and it will help to offset a bit.

Moderate consumption surely does have some medical benefits but this point is usually raised by people(myself included) that drink it beyond moderation to a point that is more detrimental to overall health. I'm not a doctor so let me clarify that, but I'm sure that what those studies are referring to is more along the lines of one glass of wine with dinner than 1L of beer per night. And, no, matching the total alcohol intake of one glass of wine with the equal amount of alcohol in beer wouldn't be as healthy and also would be missing some of the antioxidants in wine.

Oh, and the issue with flouride is that it is an awful toxic poison. Google it man. Flouride can be really bad.

I'm trying to limit myself to one glass of beer per night although I typically drink pretty excessively on the weekends still. What good is being healthy if you can't enjoy yourself?

your right about the flouide - google aspertaime and you'll also find some interesting info - at 86 degrees it turns into Formaldehyde, and when you combine it with floride.....well I dont want to hijack the thread, just look into it if you want...You cant rely on the fda for your safety, and thats all I will say - please do not respond to this comment any one, as this thread is about beer not floride or aspertaime.

on a more related topic, I have had the same concern, as a home brewer its easy to question the impact of the amount of beer you intake, as theres usually an unlimmitted amount so you dont often think about how much you're consuming - My concern has been more focussed on the insolin topic. I brew a lot of Sorghum beer, I have heard that it is much lower in calories, but I dont know this to be a fact, so dont quote me.