Skip to the posts
Buffalo's neighborhood journals since 2003 🍀 Patrick Spicy Devil Logan🌭 Sahlen🥨 Weber Spank🥟 Pierogi🐸 Scaj🍺 Labatt Utica Pink Cherio❄️ Snow Murder

tinypliny’s journal

Beers & Beer-Bellies aren't associated.

· · 🌡️ 18°F

Seriously? Someone actually did a study on this and got published in a fairly good journal? I so need to get on this slipping sleigh.

image

[box]BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The term 'beer belly' expresses the common belief that beer consumption is a major determinant of waist circumference (WC). We studied the gender-specific associations between beer consumption and WC (partially in relation to body weight and hip circumference (HC) change).

PARTICIPANTS/METHODS: Within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Potsdam study (7876 men, 12 749 women), cross-sectional associations were investigated applying general linear models. Prospective analyses of baseline beer consumption and an 8.5-year WC change were assessed using multivariate general linear models and polytomous logistic regression. To test the site-specific effect of beer consumption on WC, an adjustment for concurrent changes in body weight and HC was carried out. In addition, the relationship between change in beer consumption and change in WC was studied.

RESULTS: A positive association in men and no association in women were seen between beer consumption and WC at baseline. Men consuming 1000 ml/d beer were at 17% higher risk for WC gain compared with very light consumers. Significantly lower odds for WC gain (odds ratio=0.88; 95% confidence interval 0.81, 0.96) were found in beer-abstaining women than in very-light-drinking women. The adjustment for concurrent body weight and HC change diminished effect estimates notably, explaining most of the association between beer and change in WC. Decreasing beer consumption was related to higher relative odds for WC loss, although not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS: Beer consumption leads to WC gain, which is closely related to concurrent overall weight gain. This study does not support the common belief of a site-specific effect of beer on the abdomen, the beer belly.
[/box]

I have no idea what they set out to achieve. I hunted the paper down and read through their justification for the study and I see this weak unreferenced statement in the introduction:

Abdominal obesity is one of the most potent cardiovascular risk factors, making it of interest to understand whether beer consumption increases the risk of this site-specific fat patterning.



First, abdominal obesity was never really "the most potent risk factor" of cardiovascular disease as they claim. Second, there are a million other "potent risk factors" for cardiovascular disease and abdominal obesity figures rather low on that list. Third, there are strong hormonal, genetic and gender-related determinants of who accumulates fat near their bellies and who doesn't. Ignoring this fact completely in the justification section is rather dodgy.

Most importantly, doesn't every one pretty much know that Beer is just empty calories and that consumption without exercise will lead to weight gain? Was it so essential to wade in, and analyze a huge dataset to death just to show that it does lead to weight gain and is not really specifically associated with Beer Bellies?

What is the message they are trying to convey to the public anyway - that it is okay to drink Beer because you will only gain weight, and not grow a Belly? A truly "what-the-hell-do-epidemiologists-do-when-they-are-out-drinking-beer" study. Maybe I should start drinking beer now and coming up with random publication ideas. Or maybe I should just get that soymilk carton I have been craving and start drinking with abandon. The effect will be eerily similar to drinking beer.
552 words

💬 12 comments

  1. libertad ·

    What sparked this interest in beer bellies? It better not be mine! I know that much of what you do revolves around research but I'm glad that you realize the much of it is just plain b.s. I'm so sick of stupid studies. For example, I just found out that having a CT Scan increases substantially that you will get cancer. Great. I had a CT scan done that was completely unnecessary and was my MD's way of shutting me up. I didn't know that CT scans emit radiation when I got it done (call me stupid). I was never told but if they did tell me I wouldn't have needed this study to tell me that I was increasing my risk of cancer. I'm so mad at the MD that ordered the study even though he knew that it really wasn't needed. Most studies in my opinion are just so completely stupid.

  2. jenks ·

    To say that a CT "subtantially" increases your risk of cancer isn't quite accurate, in my opinion. Yes, there is SOME risk. But it's still small.
    For example- while going from one in a million to two in a million is technically a 100% increase in your risk- it's still VERY unlikely.

    If that makes you feel any better.

    (I will also beg to differ that "most" studies are stupid and unnecessary- but I understand what you're getting at.)

  3. jenks ·

    'substantially' (oops)

  4. jbeatty ·

    Truth be told cancer risk from low levels of radiation are highly unlikely to have any contribution to cancer. The data the Health Physics Society uses is extrapolated from doses several orders of magnitude higher than that of a single CT. It is impossible with any certainty to say that a single CT or even five in a year contribute to an increase in cancer risk.

  5. jbeatty ·

    That sentence makes no sense. Low levels of radiation are highly unlikely to have any contribution to cancer risk.

  6. james ·

    So, they didn't control for calories consumed? So, the dude with a desk job takes no exercise and eats 4,000 calories a day and no beer is on the same footing as the tri-athlete who drinks beer?

    booo

  7. tinypliny ·

    Good question, @james: They did control for age, no. of smoked cigarettes, physical activity (h/week), education (university degree¼reference), total non-beer energy intake and alcohol g/d from other alcoholic beverages (non-alcoholic beer, wine, fruit wine, sparkling wine, spirits and aperitif)

    @e:libertad: LOL, you are one the most handsome people I know, why on earth would I think you had a beer belly! Do you have one? Really? I am so checking it out next time. Why did you have a CT scan? Now, I am so curious. ;-)

  8. libertad ·

    So I was probably a bit over dramatic in my previous comment about how stupid studies are. I know they have their place and many of them are important.

    Really I should have asked more questions when my MD ordered the CT scan. In retrospect, it was kind of dumb on my part that I didn't know that they emitted radiation. The reason I had it done was I was worried that I had cancer because of swollen and painful lymph nodes (over long period of time). The MD said it was fine but he could tell I was still nervous and so ordered the CT scan to make me feel better. Turns out I am allergic to the contrast dye.

    To answer your question @tinypliny, my fat accumulates around my midsection. It does in my Dad too who also likes beer! Mine isn't so noticeable right now because I am fairly active throughout the day. It's weird because I wouldn't mind gaining weight but I want to lose the fat in the midsection at the same time. I know what I need to do to achieve that but I just don't because it takes more work and discipline than I want to put in.

  9. tinypliny ·

    Sometimes studies are a bit illogical because the sad reality is that its really publish or perish in the field. I won't be surprised if my future publications are criticized in a similar way. It makes me sad that sometimes research is marginalized by livelihoods that depend on it.

    Most scientists try to be fair and genuinely interested in what they do - otherwise they wouldn't be there and there would be no "science". However, there are times when your publications are the only thing that employers and advisors look at and those are the times when you feel desperate and your inspiration seeps down the drain because the numbers count more than they should.

  10. tinypliny ·

    Having swollen/painful lymph nodes for a long time is very worrisome. I don't blame you. You shouldn't repent getting it checked out. You did the best thing you could to have them investigated. It might not have been required, but reducing doubt and uncertainty about what the condition could be is part and parcel of your medical consultation.

    You could argue that other more conventional methods (more extensive history-taking/examination/conservative wait-and-watch methods) could have been followed by the doctor - however, sometimes the tendency to quickly reach the resolution of doubt takes over doctors too. It is only human. In resource-poor conditions where the cost of the CT might be prohibitive for the patients paying out of their own pockets, the approach to resolution of this diagnostic problem could have been more invasive - eg. the lymph nodes could have been biopsied. Here, where people are able to affort CTs/MRIs and a battery of other non-invasive tests, patient comfort takes precedence.

    What I am trying to say is, though there are a million approaches to diagnosis, what path is eventually followed is a result of the patient-doctor interaction and the various cultural, financial and personal cues from each party within that interaction. I think the final question is asking yourself the reason for the residual annoyance at your interaction with your physician. Are the lymph nodes still swollen and you feel the approach didn't do anything to give you specific answers? Are you unsatisfied with the explanations given to you to justify the CT? Are you unsatisfied with the time the physician spent with you at the consultation session? The answer to each question determines just how effective the physician was in being effective at his/her consult interaction with you.


    The risks associated with medical radiation (x-rays, CT, radioactive contrasts, dyes, etc.) are minimal compared to what uncontrolled radiation (eg. radiation accidents, warfare or nuclear plant leaks ) might do to your DNA. The risks from radiation comes mainly because of its ability to introduce flaws in your DNA. The human body is a wonderful thing because of its ability to repair flaws and regenerate. Each time new DNA is made from an old template (to put into new cells that come into existence), it is painstakingly checked and rechecked by the DNA repair mechanism - which is extensive in humans.

    In the normal course of proliferation and growth, several new cells are created all the time. The DNA repair mechanism is able to sequence-check the new DNA very very efficiently so that mutations (base-sequence changes in the DNA) don't propagate to new cells. As in all cases, this repair mechanism has a BIG buffer BUT it you throw it more work (more flaws to correct), it is able to handle it.

    If the radiation dose is massive (eg. accident), the DNA repair mechanism can't handle so much work and gives up and your new cells will have some flaws. Over time, these flaws add up because each cell with flaws gives rise to more cells with flaws . The DNA repair mechanism doesn't catch them after they are allowed in that one parent cell because it is mainly carrying out comparisons with the parent cell DNA templates for repairs - so anything the parent template has is considered the "correct sequence" for the new cell.

    Medical radiation doses are designed so that they lie within the buffer that MOST people's DNA repair mechanisms can handle. It is possible that some have faulty DNA repair or a DNA repair with a thin buffer - these people are the ones who are more susceptible to radiation-induced DNA damage.


    Maybe in the future, science will define who these people are exactly and find tests for determining exactly how much buffer their DNA repair mechanism can handle - so that you can reduce the radiation doses to them. Currently, we are just starting to find out about all these intricacies (exciting studies, huh?) so its a one-size-fits-all for now. But who knows, in the future, your physician might order another test before he orders a CT to make sure that your buffer is as "normal" as the buffers of most people out there. :)

  11. libertad ·

    I just noticed your last comment. Thank you for such a thorough response! I feel much better about having had done the CT scan done now. If I get cancer it will most likely be from other factors anyways.

    I don't see that MD anymore actually. I don't even have one now. It comes back again to me being distrustful of them or feeling that they just don't care. I definitely need to find one soon to be my primary care physician. Where do you go or do you go anywhere at all?

    Everything you said about your bodies natural ability to heal is all very encouraging. I use that (in much simpler terms) to encourage people about the benefits of quitting smoking.

  12. tinypliny ·

    I don't have a primary physician in Buffalo because I haven't really had a condition serious enough to warrant a visit to the clinic. I had a major fall from my bike in Rochester - but I just had to visit the Student Health Clinic there for a precautionary wrist X-Ray. I can't do that in Buffalo. So I don't ride my bike here. Haha

    For non emergencies, there is always this tendency to self-diagnose and self-medicate (which is not very advisable, but I can't help it!) I guess I do need to find a primary here but I don't have the motivation to research and find one, if I can deal with a minor problem such as a cold, fever or infection quickly at home. :/

💬 Write a comment