More Red Wine for Health!?! Oh no! (lol)

Click here to read even more good news about red wine -- drinking it with steak cancels out the negative effects of eating red meat!

Heart health isn’t just a women’s issue, it gets everybody.  So does food poisoning.  Food poisoning?


Just pulled this from Women’s Health Magazine — good news all around!  Red wine is good for you. (again)  Not sure when it fell out of grace, but it’s back, with a bang!

Wine, then Dine
Drinking wine with your meal, in addition to being good for your heart, may help ward off food poisoning before it happens. Scientists at Oregon State University recently found that wine can put the kibosh on three common food pathogens: E. coli, Listeria, and salmonella. In lab studies, the wine’s combination of ethanol, organic acids, and low pH appeared to scramble the bugs’ genetic material. All wines have some effect, say researchers, but reds are the most potent.


It's the "Resveratrol" that does the trick, evidently.... who knew?

And…  Try this article from the Mayo Clinic about the effects of red wine on heart health.

I guess this means you not only should have it before meals to kill off all those little bacteria, but with your meal as well — at least if you’re having read meat.

I wonder if there’s some downside to drinking this much wine?


(Click the image to go to the Mayo Clinic site)


Moderation Schmoderation

And just in case you thought the Mayo Clinic would get the last word on all this, here’s a link to the official “Doubting Thomasses” of the whole red wine/health question, the  American Heart Association and its pitch for caution, moderation, and a good long look before leaping into the bottom of a wine bottle:

Is it any wonder we don’t trust the medical community?  They can’t seem to agree on something as simple as one glass of red wine.

Maybe we should just ignore them, and drink a glass every day because it tastes good.  Then, if it’s really a miracle drug-food, then we get the benefit.  If it turns out to just be alcohol like all other alcohol, then 1 glass is just 1 glass and we haven’t gone off the deep end into binge drinking, alcoholism, or alcohol poisoning.

Maybe just that nice, warm and fuzzy feeling is a good enough reason to indulge….


2 thoughts on “More Red Wine for Health!?! Oh no! (lol)

  1. lol — okay. But it was a joke. I always like to find reasons to add a glass of red wine to dinner….

    😀 I was citing the AHA because they don’t jump on and off the popular science bandwagon like so many others have in the last 15 years. As in — One day, red wine was a must — the next day, it was verboten. Then it was all the rage again — and then not so much. If I wanted to tilt the results, I’d only have cited the reportage.

    I actually believe that cautious distance is the most reasonable stance for medicine to take until there really is a preponderance of evidence one way or the other. But for my personal choice whether to drink red wine — any reason is a good reason!

  2. Who says we don’t trust the medical community? A smart, literate person doesn’t trust over-simplifications from any source. In this case, the AHA isn’t making firm recommendations because of a lack of *definitive* evidence (“No direct comparison trials have been done to determine the specific effect of wine or other alcohol on the risk of developing heart disease or stroke.”) and because alcohol is potentially dangerous. The Mayo Clinic’s article on resveratrol sums up the latter point thusly:

    “Neither the American Heart Association nor the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommend that you start drinking alcohol just to prevent heart disease. Alcohol can be addictive and can cause or worsen other health problems.”

    There is a small but significant population of people with a variety of occult predispositions for whom 1 glass of wine a day is the first step down a road to serious disease. An organization with as wide a readership as the AHA has must do a very nuanced risk/benefit analysis when presenting their expert opinions and clearly divulge the relative quality of the evidence used to support their conclusions. I would argue that an article published on a magazine stand has no such obligation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s