It’s also scientifically proven that any amount of alcohol is harmful, it might have some slight benefits but it’s such in small quantity that it’s practically non existing.
I’m not sure if the Mediterranean diet is actually proven or just a consequence of the economy boom that happened when most old persons were young, so they had the money for good healthcare and food was grown in more natural ways.
The available evidence is large, strong, and consistent. Better conformity with the traditional MedDiet is associated with better cardiovascular health outcomes, including clinically meaningful reductions in rates of coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and total cardiovascular disease.
For the last couple of decades many trials were done with thousands of participants and the results are strong and consistent.
As for wine, results of Predimed study (17k participants) showed that Mediterranean diet reduced mortality by 23%. Mediterranean diet with wine reduced mortality by 33%.
updated and longer GBD analyses published four years later concluded that, among adults older than 40 years, low-to-moderate alcohol consumption was associated with lower all-cause mortality than abstention.3 Likewise, the 2025 report by the U.S. Academies concluded that moderate drinking, up to two drinks per day in men or one in women, was “associated with lower all-cause mortality” with moderate certainty.
You’re basically quoting old research to dispute new findings. If you would read what I posted, you would see that…
We fully agree that high-dose alcohol consumption, particularly as binge drinking, has well-established detrimental effects on the liver, pancreas, and brain and increases the risks of certain cancers, injuries, and substantial harm to others.
We also respect the World Health Organization’s position, advocating universal abstention, which was largely shaped by an influential Global Burden of Disease (GBD) report published in The Lancet in 2018. However…
and then comes my quote. It’s basically a “yes, but…” situation. Alcohol is bad for you, especially if you’re young but new research shows that if you’re over 35 moderate consumption has it’s benefits. I don’t think the findings are final but it goes both ways: it’s not 100% clear alcohol is always bad for you either.
And MedDiet has nothing to do with blue zones. Nothing I mentioned was about longevity. I linked to latest research which shows clear benefits of MedDiet that go beyond correlation. The first link, right before the part I quoted states that “The criteria for causality were met”.
I mean, it’s clear you’re not interested in the evidence and just trying to reaffirm your believes. Not much I can do about so I will move on.
The science is actually clear: Mediterranean diet extends life. Mediterranean diet + wine extends it even more.
This means:
It’s scientifically proven that this is good for you.
*look for traditional Spanish recipes for fabada, lentejas, garbanzos etc.
It’s also scientifically proven that any amount of alcohol is harmful, it might have some slight benefits but it’s such in small quantity that it’s practically non existing.
I’m not sure if the Mediterranean diet is actually proven or just a consequence of the economy boom that happened when most old persons were young, so they had the money for good healthcare and food was grown in more natural ways.
It is proven: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.118.313348
The available evidence is large, strong, and consistent. Better conformity with the traditional MedDiet is associated with better cardiovascular health outcomes, including clinically meaningful reductions in rates of coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and total cardiovascular disease.
For the last couple of decades many trials were done with thousands of participants and the results are strong and consistent.
As for wine, results of Predimed study (17k participants) showed that Mediterranean diet reduced mortality by 23%. Mediterranean diet with wine reduced mortality by 33%.
https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehag696/8786407
updated and longer GBD analyses published four years later concluded that, among adults older than 40 years, low-to-moderate alcohol consumption was associated with lower all-cause mortality than abstention.3 Likewise, the 2025 report by the U.S. Academies concluded that moderate drinking, up to two drinks per day in men or one in women, was “associated with lower all-cause mortality” with moderate certainty.
just no, that research is mostly causation correlation and cones. down to fraid mostly (see below)
No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health
https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health
and most blue zone long life nonsense is to do with pension fraud and poor record keeping, not diet
https://allthatsinteresting.com/blue-zones-supercentenarians
You’re basically quoting old research to dispute new findings. If you would read what I posted, you would see that…
We fully agree that high-dose alcohol consumption, particularly as binge drinking, has well-established detrimental effects on the liver, pancreas, and brain and increases the risks of certain cancers, injuries, and substantial harm to others.
We also respect the World Health Organization’s position, advocating universal abstention, which was largely shaped by an influential Global Burden of Disease (GBD) report published in The Lancet in 2018. However…
and then comes my quote. It’s basically a “yes, but…” situation. Alcohol is bad for you, especially if you’re young but new research shows that if you’re over 35 moderate consumption has it’s benefits. I don’t think the findings are final but it goes both ways: it’s not 100% clear alcohol is always bad for you either.
And MedDiet has nothing to do with blue zones. Nothing I mentioned was about longevity. I linked to latest research which shows clear benefits of MedDiet that go beyond correlation. The first link, right before the part I quoted states that “The criteria for causality were met”.
I mean, it’s clear you’re not interested in the evidence and just trying to reaffirm your believes. Not much I can do about so I will move on.