Laura J Tivis1, Rick D Tivis. 1. Institute of Rural Health, Idaho State University-Boise, Boise, Idaho 8371, USA. tivilaur@isu.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While some reported benefits of moderate drinking are thought to be the direct results of physiological mechanisms associated with consumption, other effects may be attributable to mediating factors. Both explanations suggest that moderate drinkers may be healthier than nondrinking and heavier-drinking peers. The purpose of this study was to determine whether moderate-drinking postmenopausal women report healthier dietary and exercise patterns, and whether they demonstrate better physiological functioning compared with peers. This study also aimed to describe patterns of relationships between alcohol and measures of general health functioning in postmenopausal women. METHODS: One-hundred and fifteen women aged 50 to 65 participated. Participants completed alcohol interviews, diet and exercise questionnaires, and bone density examination. Blood pressure, height, and weight were assessed, and blood was collected to conduct basic chemistry and complete blood count tests. RESULTS: Postmenopausal moderate drinkers failed to demonstrate healthier dietary or exercise habits, and did not exhibit significantly better health-functioning compared with peers. They did evidence positive associations between drinking and healthy behavior, and between drinking and cardiovascular health. Relationships between alcohol and blood analytes differed between drinking groups, some of which suggested possible negative health consequences for higher-end drinkers in both drinking groups. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggested that moderate-drinking postmenopausal women are not significantly healthier than their non- or heavier-drinking peers, but may drink as part of a larger effort to take care of their health. Despite this, even 1-drink-per-drinking-day moderate drinkers may have tendencies toward unhealthy conditions. Limitations include small sample size, inability to assess specific cardiac risk and socioeconomic status, small number of correlations, and clinical relevance of analyte values.
BACKGROUND: While some reported benefits of moderate drinking are thought to be the direct results of physiological mechanisms associated with consumption, other effects may be attributable to mediating factors. Both explanations suggest that moderate drinkers may be healthier than nondrinking and heavier-drinking peers. The purpose of this study was to determine whether moderate-drinking postmenopausal women report healthier dietary and exercise patterns, and whether they demonstrate better physiological functioning compared with peers. This study also aimed to describe patterns of relationships between alcohol and measures of general health functioning in postmenopausal women. METHODS: One-hundred and fifteen women aged 50 to 65 participated. Participants completed alcohol interviews, diet and exercise questionnaires, and bone density examination. Blood pressure, height, and weight were assessed, and blood was collected to conduct basic chemistry and complete blood count tests. RESULTS: Postmenopausal moderate drinkers failed to demonstrate healthier dietary or exercise habits, and did not exhibit significantly better health-functioning compared with peers. They did evidence positive associations between drinking and healthy behavior, and between drinking and cardiovascular health. Relationships between alcohol and blood analytes differed between drinking groups, some of which suggested possible negative health consequences for higher-end drinkers in both drinking groups. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggested that moderate-drinking postmenopausal women are not significantly healthier than their non- or heavier-drinking peers, but may drink as part of a larger effort to take care of their health. Despite this, even 1-drink-per-drinking-day moderate drinkers may have tendencies toward unhealthy conditions. Limitations include small sample size, inability to assess specific cardiac risk and socioeconomic status, small number of correlations, and clinical relevance of analyte values.
Authors: David J Baer; Joseph T Judd; Beverly A Clevidence; Richard A Muesing; William S Campbell; Ellen D Brown; Philip R Taylor Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Michael J Davies; David J Baer; Joseph T Judd; Ellen D Brown; William S Campbell; Philip R Taylor Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-05-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joline W J Beulens; Eric B Rimm; Henk F J Hendriks; Frank B Hu; JoAnn E Manson; David J Hunter; Kenneth J Mukamal Journal: Diabetes Date: 2007-06-11 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Pietro Ferrari; Mazda Jenab; Teresa Norat; Aurelie Moskal; Nadia Slimani; Anja Olsen; Anne Tjønneland; Kim Overvad; Majken K Jensen; Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault; Françoise Clavel-Chapelon; Sophie Morois; Sabine Rohrmann; Jakob Linseisen; Heiner Boeing; Manuela Bergmann; Dimitra Kontopoulou; Antonia Trichopoulou; Christina Kassapa; Giovanna Masala; Vittorio Krogh; Paolo Vineis; Salvatore Panico; Rosario Tumino; Carla H van Gils; Petra Peeters; H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Marga C Ocké; Guri Skeie; Eiliv Lund; Antonio Agudo; Eva Ardanaz; Dolores C López; Maria-Jose Sanchez; José R Quirós; Pilar Amiano; Göran Berglund; Jonas Manjer; Richard Palmqvist; Bethany Van Guelpen; Naomi Allen; Tim Key; Sheila Bingham; Mathieu Mazuir; Paolo Boffetta; Rudolf Kaaks; Elio Riboli Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 7.396