Proponents of alcohol may have upped their arguing power: A recent clinical study found that middle-aged adults who drink any type of alcohol in moderation are likely to outlive those who abstain or drink heavily.
The six-member research team behind the study, led by University of Texas Professor of Psychology, Charles Holahan, concluded that moderate alcohol intake yields psychological benefits that encourage social interactions and, ultimately, favorable mental health.
Additionally, the researchers found that heavy drinking could be more beneficial than not drinking at all; mortality rates among heavy drinkers were nine percent lower than among those of abstainers.
The study consisted of 1,824 participants, aged between 55 and 65, who were observed over a period of 20 years.
Some questions remain as to whether the study's puzzling results might be skewed by the pre-existing states of the subjects' health, but according to participating researcher Rudolph Moos, these problems were considered and factored into the study early on. Moos, professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral science at Stanford University, was at one point particularly worried that the group's results might be affected by subjects who identified as abstainers but who had, at previous times in their lives, been problem drinkers. Even when he took the variable into account, though, light drinkers still had the winning hand, he said.
"We had a 20-year follow up and raw data to prove that abstainers in our sample did in fact have a higher death rate than light or moderate drinkers," Moos told the Daily. "Yes, some of these abstainers were previously problem drinkers; however, when we controlled for that, the abstainers still tended to have a higher mortality rate than the lighter drinkers."
In addition to the mental benefits, Moos also acknowleged the more well-known cardiovascular benefits associated with light alcohol intake, which he explained can result from moderate consumption of beer, wine, vodka and most other types of alcohol.
"There are other things that suggest that light drinking — and the [United States'] definition of this is one to two drinks a day — means there tends to be a protective effect; lighter use of alcohol has cardiovascular protective effects against strokes and heart attacks," Moos said.
The results, Moos emphasized, were significant: 69 percent of abstainers studied died within the 20-year time period compared to 41 percent of moderate drinkers.
Still, Moos clarified that the study is far from a sanction of heavy drinking.
"The results do not mean that it's OK for individuals to engage in heavy drinking," Moos said. "It is the case that some blogs very briefly misinterpreted the findings and came up with statements like ‘this is great for drinkers.'"
On the other side, some medical professionals are skeptical of the study's results; among them is Louis Shuster, professor emeritus of pharmacology at the Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences.
"I'm wary about the reliability of the reported study; I don't believe that it was a proper prospective study in which goals and criteria were set and then two groups of matched patients were followed … for 20 years," Shuster said in an e-mail to the Daily. "Such a study would cost a fortune and require much work."
Shuster said that there are certain medical anomalies and special cases that the study did not account for, like certain medical reasons for abstaining from alcohol.
Schuster also felt that factors such as nationality — which often affect life expectancy — were not thoroughly accounted for in the study.
"About 50 percent of Orientals get quite sick if they try to drink alcohol and are therefore non-drinkers. The reason is a genetic difference in liver enzymes that causes increased formation and/or decreased metabolism of acetaldehyde," he said.
Roy Kisliuk, professor emeritus of biochemistry at the Sackler School, also questioned the validity of the study's results, explaining that retrospective studies like this one are less reliable than prospective studies.
"The [study] should be examined very carefully to determine if there are flaws in subject selection and errors in the interpretation of the data," he said.
Like the study's legitimacy, whether it will have any practical effect for alcohol consumers and abstainers is also debated. Moos believes that if there are any effects, they will be minimal — especially for college students.
"[College students] who are abstainers tend to abstain for personal-value reasons, usually for religious reasons [or] family background … They won't likely start to drink," he said. "For older adults — to the extent that this is picked up — older adults will do so because of their primary care physicians."
Freshman William Ross agreed with Moos, explaining that students' decisions to drink or abstain from alcohol is generally not health-related.
"For most people who choose not to drink, it's not about living longer; it's more about changing their mental perspective," Ross said. "They don't want that depressant in that system. It doesn't matter that they are living longer; it's that they don't like that state of having that depressant."
Freshman Randall Tesser said that if the study does manifest in tangible effects, they will more likely have to do with how underage drinking is punished and regarded rather than with students' personal drinking habits.
"I think this evidence will probably take hold in that there will be less severe punishments for drinking and/or contribute efforts to lower the drinking age," Tesser said. "A lot of college students are drinking to excess, especially those who didn't have the availability or opportunity to drink beforehand."
