Words such as "00 is good for your health" and "bad for your health" are often heard, but it is difficult to strictly evaluate the effects of food on people's health. If it is a drug, we often use the method of randomized comparative trials that randomly distinguish between the drug administration group and the control group, but in the field of food and nutrition, it is mainly the observation and research that is easy to produce deviations, in serious cases, only through animal experiments and the study of the level in the test tube, there will be comments about good or bad health.
Having said that, it is not entirely without randomized comparative trials. In 2017, the Czech Republic reported a randomized comparative trial of red wine and white wine. The research background is: "Red wine is good for your health." There is a hypothesis, especially whether it has the effect of preventing coronary heart disease. Known as the "French paradox", it is well known that France eats more animal fat and less coronary heart disease, one of the reasons may be related to the consumption of red wine. At the level of animal experiments, we also found that the polyphenols rich in red wine have a good effect on the heart and blood vessels. However, based on observation and animal experiments, it is not known whether red wine is really good for the body.
As a result, the study randomly divided 157 healthy adults into a red wine group and a white wine group and asked them to drink their own wine for a year, and measured and compared HDL cholesterol (so-called "good cholesterol") and other tests related to atherosclerosis. The reason why the control group is white wine is not to assess the effects of alcohol, but to assess the effects of polyphenols in red wines. Not only check the value, I also want to compare the actual number of people suffering from coronary heart disease or death, then there is too much money and time. Only evaluating the check value of the proxy indicator is one of the limitations of this study.
Among the participants, women weighing less than 70 kg consumed 200ml a day, while men and women weighing more than 70 kg consumed 300ml of wine. The wine was sent to the participants' homes in bottles. In general, clinical trials do not get a price from participants. Although there is no clear record in the paper, the wine is also provided free of charge. If it is such a clinical trial, it does not seem very hard to collect participants. By the way, the cork was recycled to make sure it wasn't resold.
This is a worrying result, but unlike the researchers' expectations, there was no significant difference between the red wine group and the white wine group. Researchers may regret that "even a daily intake of 200-300mL red wine for a year does not have a good effect on arteriosclerosis-related tests compared with white wine." this is not a failure of the study.
Coupled with many other research results, it now seems that the credibility of the hypothesis that red wine is good for the body is quite poor. The lack of coronary heart disease in France is probably affected by factors other than red wine. In addition, the hypothesis that "not limited to red wine, the right amount of alcohol is good for the body", as introduced last time, there has been a negative study. I don't recommend drinking for health purposes.
Not only red wine and alcohol, but the words "00 is good for your health" and "bad for your health" are mostly questionable. Whether positive or negative, if you keep in mind that a single food has little impact on health, even if it is small, you will not be confused by suspicious health information. (Kenji Sakai)