Beers to Your Health?
In today’s world of chronic information overload, it is often quite easy to find a study or report that supports a “pro” or “con” position on just about any topic. The relative healthiness of beer drinking is not immune to this infuriating phenomenon and there are many recent examples which proclaim that either beer is good for you or bad for you. I wasn’t able to find an example of those two positions appearing on the same Internet media page, but it would not surprise me one bit if that hasn’t occurred somewhere before. Today we will delve into some of these claims and try to make some sense of this topic in a look at beer from a health perspective.
Beer and Your Bones… truth or dare to believe…
In a perfect example of the type of “evidence” being foisted on the public I reference a recently released study (Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture) called “Silicon in beer and brewing” which supposedly analyzed the potential impact of silicon contained in beer on bone density. This study received a lot of media attention and “buzz” when it was released, primarily because it “proved” that beer was “good for you”. According to the authors of this study “Silicon impacts bone mineral density in humans, and supplementing silicon in the diets of osteoporitic women increased bone mineral density”. I have a degree in Biological Science and have spent a fair amount of time in a laboratory being instructed in the proper “scientific method”. Anyone with a similar background will tell you that the methods that you use tao arrive at your conclusion are as important as the conclusion itself (my former teachers are proud of me right now). As I read through the study and some third party analyses of it, it quickly became apparent to me that there are some problems with how the researchers arrived at their conclusion (#justsaying).
- Good Information from this study –
As a necessary mineral for good health, significant scientific evidence (lots of studies about this topic) has shown that silicon can influence bone density. The “official” daily requirement for this nutrient has not been established, but a healthy Western diet generally provides 20-50 mg/day. Beer is, in fact, a good source of dietary silicon. The barley-based (vs. wheat-based), hoppy beers tended to have the highest concentration of silicon. India Pale Ale (one of my favorite styles) had the highest levels of silicon and the wheat beers and non-alcholics had the lowest. - Bad Information from this study –
It appears that the researchers spent a lot of time analyzing the amount of dietary (bioavailable) silicon in various types of beer and little or no time actually measuring this nutrient’s effects on the human body. The study itself did not measure any human bone mineral density or even look at any patient data. Without the empirical evidence that supports the direct connection of the silicon in beer to the actual effects on the human body, the study, while interesting, is flawed and not worth very much to me. The researchers simply “leapfrogged” their beer/silicon measurements to more significant studies concerning the bone/silicon connection. Bad science… in my opinion… I hope that we taxpayers did not pay too much for this.
There are other studies, which seem to be designed to more appropriately support their conclusions, which also support the connection of dietary silicon to bone density. Some of these actually looked at patients and measured the changes to bone density over the course of the study. A good example of this would be a long-term study (The Framingham Offspring Cohort) involving 2847 human subjects which appeared in the a 2004 article in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. The study found a significant association between greater dietary silicon (orthosilicate anion) intake, including that from beer, and high cortical bone mass density (BMD) in the hips of men and premenopausal women. This report contains lots of the empirical evidence one should look for in a study of this type and, as a result, produces a supportable/believable conclusion, from a scientific perspective. Although 2004 was quite a while ago, I could find no significant media references to this study at the time that it was released. Could it be that this was because it did not specifically identify beer as the sole source of the dietary silicon? I guess that without the “beer is good for you” link, nobody (beer drinkers specifically) paid much attention.
Healthy Beer Drinking
A common disclaimer seen in any beer/health study is of “drinking in moderation”. As many studies have shown, beer, as a part of a healthy diet and in relatively small amounts, can produce positive effects on the human body… and we are not talking about the “buzz” from the alcohol here. Moderate consumption of alcohol, including beer, may reduce the risk of heart disease (currently the #1 cause of death in the US). A 2006 study by researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and the Harvard School of Public Health found that healthy men who consumed moderate amounts of alcohol had a 40 to 60% reduced risk of heart attack compared with healthy men who did not drink alcohol. Of course the term “moderate amount” is slightly subjective, but most of these studies identify 1-2 12 ounce glasses of “regular” beer (5% ABV) as an appropriate daily consumption amount. So no Dogfish Head 120 Minute IPA or BrewDog Tokyo for you.
The sad truth is that a lot of alcohol drinkers (beer aficionados included) do not drink in moderation and, as a result, across the globe the level of alcohol abuse and its associated health problems is rising. For example, according to figures published in 2007, the British government estimates 9 out of 10 of Britons over the age of 14 drink alcohol. As amazing (to me) as that sounds, they are also drinking more than they did previously as the average amount of alcohol consumed (per person) has doubled since 1960. Not coincidentally, the rate of deaths from liver disease, like cirrhosis, also nearly doubled from 6.9 deaths per 100,000 people in 1991 to 12.9 per 100,000 in 2005. Booze-induced violent crimes are also on the rise as nearly 44% of British victims in 2007 reported that they believed that their attackers were under the influence of alcohol. I won’t even bother to get into the problems that drinking and driving causes… that would/could be the subject of a whole other article.
All alcoholic beverages contain calories of various amounts. Aside from additives (mixers and/or fruit), in general more alcohol means more calories. Excess calories in the diet can lead to weight gain (will lead to weight gain if caloric intake exceeds metabolic needs) and the associated health problems that it frequently brings along with it, like diabetes, heart disease, increased chance of certain types of cancer and stroke. The concept of the “beer belly” was burst by a study published by The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition which published a study that was conducted with over 20,000 beer drinkers over the course of 8 1/2 years. The research was conducted in Sweden and Germany with 12,749 women and 7876 men. The report concludes that heavy beer drinkers did gain weight while drinking, but just not in the belly, it showed weight gain in other parts of body as well. The fact is that the weight gain problem holds true for all alcoholic drinkers and not just beer consumers… yes, that includes the wine “snobs”… all of those types should see “moderation”, above, too.
It seems to me that the true test of ALL of these health claims, regardless of the study that you choose to look at, is one of common sense. As I was taught by my parents… if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Beer is cool, beer is fun, beer is interesting, beer is “good drinks”… beer is healthy… not necessarily… you should all remember that beer drinking is quite likely only as healthy as you choose to make it. Please, for your own sake, choose to enjoy your favorite beer in good health.
14 Comments to “Beers to Your Health?”
Leave a Reply
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ratebeer. ratebeer said: From The Hop Press: Beers to Your Health?: In today's world of chronic information overload, it is often quite eas… http://bit.ly/dtC3UB [...]
[...] Read more… [...]
One of the most balanced and informative articles I’ve read on the subject. Thanks!
Thanks, I appreciate your feedback. It is always nice to hear that someone enjoys what I write about.
Cheers!
–Steve K (VTHopHead)
I feel the survey on 14 year old bracket for the UK most unrealistic. They probably were asked during school environments instead of on their own. This means they’re more likely to say yes. Also a lot of people may have had only minimal amounts with their parents viewing. This is not a realistic survey.
I suspect that you are right about the 14 year olds and I think that you would have a hard time gathering that type of data in most any country. Figures for the US were just as questionable. However, even if this age group skews the numbers a bit, the fact remains that after a fair amount of looking around I would not find one Western country where the percentage of drinkers or the amount that they were drinking was going down. I feel that is the important takeaway from that particular discussion.
I agree with your statement. I too feel the drinking age is becoming more liberal. A touch of alcohol for the youngters is ok but again how much is this? It really doesn’t depict the quantities and this is where it is flawed.
I didn’t drink really until 18 and have only been doing so legally for 10 years and a few months now. Even so I perceive myself as lucky for getting into proper beer only when I was in my very early 20′s. Duvel to Rochefort 10 I found my ground.
Now I’m trying to get my head around all these American massive hop concussions. I have also good knowledge that some NHS conducted and involved research is also wrongly done from people in the industry in my family.
I know front page reports which have wrong information on from these studies and highly suspect the research value gone into these. It gets even worse when politicians use these research cases as arguments at Westminster. I am pretty sure a lot of these cases are completely overblown for market research purposes. That’s why I’m very cynical of a lot of market research produced here. I just want the honesty. It’s better to write an overblown faux statement for a headliner than the truth. People wouldn’t read newspapers as much then.
I certainly agree with what you say about the marketing… I too blame the media for not doing their homework before promoting these scientifically flawed studies and questionable conclusions. The adage of “doing a job right” seems to not apply… and where does the money come to support these things.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments and for reading this article.
–Steve K (VTHopHead)
this was well done and paid attention to the science of it, as opposed to internet blurbs I get where samples are likely too small and biased. One area of interest is the impact of brewer’s yeast on the body. People with gout and tendencies to rheumatism and arthritis was have to preclude brewer’s yeast concoctions. Others have allergies to beer.
Thanks, I’m glad that you enjoyed it. It was hard for me to provide an informative article without making it too long, too boring or simply a rant against the media because of their greed and lack of common sense. That meant, of course, that some information got left out or some points of view ignored. However, that does leave me plenty of material for a future article.
Concerning the brewer’s yeast; the “default” school of thought is that it is “natural” and therefore good for you. You correctly identify situations and conditions that should be considered as well… and should change our way of thinking of it, but may not for some.
Cheers!
–Steve K (VTHopHead)
steve, take those UK figures with a pinch of salt. Bear in mind they were released by a government that is obsessed (because the gutter press is obsessed) with the “binge drinking problem”. Space precludes a detailed critique here but, believe me, the conclusions drawn from the data (and in some cases the data itself) are selective, frequently over-simplified and often flawed.
Oh and, by the way, it is not that amazing that a high proportion of young Britons have consumed alcohol as, contrary to ill-informed belief, the minimum drinking age is 5. 18 is just the minumum age at which you can legally buy the stuff yourself. It is not generally regarded as amazing, surprising or even in any way unaccepatble that pretty much every young person in France, or Spain, or Italy etc etc etc has consumed alcohol.
I suspect that the flawed data problem plagues many of the so called “scientific studies” so often quoted by the media in their headlines. While I suppose that anything is possible, my suspicion is that any alcohol consumed beyond what most people agree is a “moderate” amount has little, if any, chance for making you “healthier”. I figure that, like everyone else, I am going to die of something, eventually, so why not enjoy some of the “ride” along the way, if you know what I mean.
It is sort of like computer security… if you unplug it from the network,turn it off and put it in a locked room… it is safe, but hardly useful. I do not any intention of spending my life in a locked room. That is not to say that I won’t choose to drink in “moderation”… sometimes.
Thanks for jumping in…
–Steve K (VTHopHead)
What constitutes a “moderate” level of drinking is, of course, open to interpretation. Obviously, pretty much everyone would agree that getting rolling drunk every night would be excessive. However, the figure used by the UK government – 21 units, about equivalent to 5 pints of stronger beer per week – always seemed very low to me. Then, it was revealed by a member of the committee that came up with that recommendation as long ago as 1987 (and subsequently confirmed by other members of that committee) that the figure had been “plucked out of the air” and that there was “not really any data whatsoever”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article2697975.ece
One of the Committee members is even reported to have suggested 21 units because that was about the amount he consumed. And, 23 years later, despite the Government knowing from the outset that 21 units was nothing more than a guess, that figure remains a cornerstone of their health policy today. Worse, they have made no attempt to commission any comrehensive study to establish what the safe limits really should be.