SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Regular beer consumption linked to higher prostate cancer risk:
[...] Overall, the researchers found no significant association between heavy consumption of all types of alcohol and prostate cancer. However, the results were very different in the case of heavy drinkers of beer. "Men in the upper quartile of beer consumption (over 63 drinks per year over several decades) had a 40% increased risk of advanced prostate cancer compared to the control group," said Karakiewicz, who is director of the Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit at the University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM).
Men whose beer consumption was slightly above average did not see an increase in their risk of developing prostate cancer. It's only when the daily quantity of beer consumed reaches a certain threshold that the risk starts to rise. "For example, our model shows that for a man who starts drinking at the age of 18 and drinks more than two beers every day, the risk of a high-grade prostate cancer appears at the age of 65. If he drinks more than three beers a day, the risk emerges at 50 years of age," Karakiewicz explained.
"At least one out of five participants in the study consumed beer at levels above what is considered safe," he added. Given that the cumulative consumption of beer over a lifetime appears to be a predictor of disease, he believes that it should be taken into account by physicians and urologists when seeing patients.
Fake Brews!
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13 2018, @10:25AM (2 children)
Always try to get to the source, the closest I could find was this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877782116301552 [sciencedirect.com]
So an Epidemiological study (not experimental), but I guess that is to be expected. Only relative risks are mentioned, not the absolute levels.
It is based upon an interview of past alcohol consumption over previous years (a known unreliable technique).
Even then the results don't exactly shine, they themselves indicate that some of the results are non-significant.
A number of the results have Confidence Intervals which cross (or include) 1.00, and so should be ignored
I'm not sure how to consider the impact of 'adjusting for the timing of last PCa screening', which they indicate makes numbers more significant.
That 40% increase would seem to be from 'Risk estimates were more pronounced among current drinkers (OR = 1.40, 95%CI 1.00–1.97)', but note the CI.
The spirits effect would seem to be from 'High cumulative consumption of spirits was associated with a lower risk of low-grade PCa (OR = 0.75, 95%CI 0.60–0.94) but the risk estimate no longer achieved statistical significance when restricting to current users', but note that it vanishes when current drinkers are included.
Basically this seems to be a load of fluff about a study which found nothing.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday September 13 2018, @10:38AM (1 child)
Indeed. One wonders who funded the study.
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Thursday September 13 2018, @11:34AM
Big Cannabis!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]