Tl;dr Ultraprocessed stuff is uniformly bad, some processed food worse than others. Low-level alcohol consumption appears to have health benefits, but real world application of this knowledge is problematic.
Why recommend wine over eating red grapes or blueberries? I guess because you're telling me the alcohol is beneficial. That makes me pause and wonder about that data. The alcohol industry has deep pockets.
The meat industry also has incredibly deep pockets. It has been so sad to see the public go along with the push back against plant based diets, which clearly, consistently offer so many benefits.
I have always put meat and alcohol right side by side. Both are carcinogenic, but in both cases the increase in risk is enough that you can wave it away if you want to keep enjoying your pint and a steak. They're those studies where the headline is "x servings of meat/alcohol per day increase your risk of cancer by 50%"... then you read the article and see that it was 1.6% and it's gone up to 2.4% so you fire up the grill and crack a bud.
What's more interesting to me is that a lot of people seem to be coming around on drinking less but somehow going the other direction on meat consumption. That doesn't make sense to me, other than the fact that big meat has a lot of prominent influencers these days. There are people who legitimately believe a carnivore diet is as healthy/healthier than a plant based diet, where's as on the other side, there aren't a lot of people out there suggesting alcoholism is just as valid a health choice as abstaining.
You seem to be classifying meat as all the same, not sure if that is unintentional, maybe just the wording, but only processed meat (Group 1 "carcinogenic to humans") and red meat (Group 2A "probably carcinogenic to humans") are classified as carcinogens.
Well, this is getting a bit cyclical but grilling, deep frying etc poultry also creates carcinogens, so maybe my statement was too blanket but I guess I view poultry as somewhat analogous to red wine where it may have benefits/be less harmful but also chicken that isn't deep fried or barbecued is not something I have a ton of interest in eating anyway so that's my particular bias I suppose.
Outside of fish/seafood, pretty much all meat falls in the “less harmful” category - cancer risk isn’t the only thing to consider. Even non-grilled, non-processed white meat is neutral in terms of all-cause mortality. The data is mixed with eggs and dairy.
Unlike alcohol, AFAIK, there is no well designed study which shows
improved mortality (or any health outcome, for that matter) from increased meat intake.
Using @The Longtime Lurker’s logic, all the benefits of animal consumption can be replaced with something healthier. Despite this fact, there seems to be a shift to promote animal products in contemporary diets - grass-fed beef, butter, lard, bone broth, whey, etc. That change runs contrary to everything we’ve learned about human health and longevity.
I'm not sure if you're taking a shot or not here. My logic is that you should do your best at it's core. We all get into the weeds with what that looks like (that's the FFA way), but if I've said something outlandish let me know, I like people to show their work and i can certainly try and do the same.
My stance on alcohol is unwavering though. It's not food and outside of the buzz alcohol in a vacuum is in no way beneficial. If you think I'm wrong send me a study and I'll be happy to read it.
Not taking a shot, just extending the logic you introduced in prior posts wrt to alcohol.
As far as a study providing evidence of health benefits from modest consumption,
here’s one:
This large prospective study of US adults indicated that infrequent, light, or moderate drinking were associated with a lower risk of mortality from all causes, CVD, chronic lower respiratory tract diseases, Alzheimer’s disease, and influenza and pneumonia. Light or moderate drinking might have a protective effect on mortality from diabetes mellitus and nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, or nephrosis.
However, heavy or binge drinking were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause, cancer, and accident (unintentional injuries) mortality. The deleterious effect of heavy alcohol consumption was apparent, although the beneficial effects of lower consumption were still observed. Therefore, recommending drinking must be done with caution.
There are many other studies with conflicting results, but you need to scrutinize the methodology. The key is separating never drinkers from people who cut down or eliminated drinking due to health concerns, including addiction.
There is biologic plausibility to low level alcohol intake being helpful, however, and it’s not just due to the anthocyanins in grape skins. Alcohol thins the blood, which may explain why it reduces cardiovascular risk, and all cause mortality (CV disease is consistently the number 1 killer).
But as we know, there are health risks as well, and moderation is difficult to achieve, so there’s been a shift away from promoting any alcohol consumption. Personally, I’d never recommend drinking as a healthy habit.
