Live longer , drink wine . . .

[poker]

And here you have it from a docter ot the WHO himself http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608193/Bottle-wine-day-not-bad-Leading-scientist-claim-exceed-recommended-does-live-longer-teetotallers.html

Wel Ill know in another 50 years if he was right . Lol

[Pete]

wut?

[Michael]

And here you have it from a docter ot the WHO himself http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608193/Bottle-wine-day-not-bad-Leading-scientist-claim-exceed-recommended-does-live-longer-teetotallers.html

Wel Ill know in another 50 years if he was right . Lol

I think Nova has already made up her mind. 

[Nova]

Makes sense to me 

[Myrtle Hogan-Lance]

I'm with Poker and Nova.

[Janet]

me too! 

Isn't it amazing how one day it's wrong to drink anything more than half a glass, then another day that it's fine to drink a bottle. The problem is the likes of the DM publishing misleading articles on various research projects that each show something valid, but often investigating a slightly different aspect of an issue that, in any case, has so many variables that consistent results are likely to be impossible to achieve.

As such, and given the history of wine, I think I'll stick with my 2 glasses a day, whatever the latest "research" shows!

[Pete]

This is why I ignore ALL of the advice because of the bad science. Everything is bad for you, nothing is good for you, so why worry and just go with how you *feel*.

[Myrtle Hogan-Lance]

me too! 

Isn't it amazing how one day it's wrong to drink anything more than half a glass, then another day that it's fine to drink a bottle. The problem is the likes of the DM publishing misleading articles on various research projects that each show something valid, but often investigating a slightly different aspect of an issue that, in any case, has so many variables that consistent results are likely to be impossible to achieve.

As such, and given the history of wine, I think I'll stick with my 2 glasses a day, whatever the latest "research" shows!

It isn't just the DM though; it's all of them.  I wish I had kept track of all of the articles from all of the news sources with respect to coffee and its affect on health.  One day it is good for you and the next it isn't.  It's all over the show and everybody picks up the articles and runs with them.  That is why we are all so cynical about them. 

[Janet]

The problem is that genuinely good stuff gets lost amidst the crap reporting - and I don't agree that it's bad science. It can be, of course, but generally it's stupid analysis by the non-scientifically trained that is the problem. Our daughter is a chemist who has run training courses for scientists on how to communicate with the media. Even when they are trained in how to communicate, however, there is no way of allowing for the general stupidity (or angles) of those who will be charged with disseminating the results.

[Pete]

Oh, that's true for all the sciences, even the softer ones. In the aftermath of Heartbleed, for example, one bank proclaimed that they had 'patched' against it, when what they meant to say was that they had reviewed and weren't vulnerable to it. Subtle but extremely important difference.

That said, I haven't seen many studies that could legitimately claim to be 'good science' on the subject of food or drink. I'm not a scientist (not of the conventional sciences, anyway) but when I see issues like a too-small sample size, or correlation being confused for causation, or ignoring related data, I wonder how some of these papers ever get published.