I hate these studies because people always have this idea, especially americans, that "more is better"... like with food and sun exposure.

NOTE: it clearly states half a glass.

Reply

Such findings are, at best, dubious. Just because a correlation can be made between two entities (in this case, wine drinking and longevity) does not mean they are necessarily linked.
The study doesn't reveal, for instance, the lifestyle of the study group and therefore what other factors, either in isolation or in combination with wine-drinking, might have contributed to the longevity (For e.g. what were the diet habits of those winedrinkers? were they all on an idenitical diet? Were they from the same demography? what about their geneologies? Were they all medically certified healthy? Did some of them have issues such as cholesterol/ BP etc.? And did the beer and spirit-drinking study group also indulge in other habits like smoking etc.?

Usually in complex biological systems factors seldom work in an isolated fashion and hence they cannot be pin-pointed squarely as being responsible for a certain effect. They work in combination with a whole bunch of other factors and conditions.

Another thing about 'Research' is the usage of ambiguous statistics. Just because a study says that the likelihood of something happening is a certain percentage (of the study group), it does not follow (as readers tend to imagine) that the percentage should apply for an individual.
For e.g. a finding that claims that nearly 75% of a study group that followed a specific regimen showed 'x' results, does not mean that the likelihood of an individual following the same regimen has a 75% chance of ending up wth the same results.
I guess for an individual the pecentage is always 50% - you either fall into a category or you don't!

I once saw a BBC TV program that had this to say about Statistics - "Statistics is like a bikini. What it reveals is important but what it conceals is vital!"

Reply