A recent study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition1 used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to establish the diet patterns of drinkers. In particular the researchers were interested in establishing if the diets of the drinkers were different between drinking and non-drinking days. The survey data included nearly 2000 individuals who completed 24 hour diet surveys based on their diets and drinking habits. The results showed that for men, on the drinking days 168 additional non-alcoholic kcals were consumed. This increase comprised of higher intakes of protein and total, saturated and monounsaturated fat. The higher intakes of protein and fat likely resulted from the higher intakes of meat and oil on drinking days. Men also had lower intake of fruit and milk but higher intakes of potassium and sodium on drinking days. Women consumed no extra kcals on non-drinking days but had higher intakes of total fat, monounsaturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, potassium and oil, with lower intakes of milk.
The authors of this study concluded that the subjects had ‘poorer’ diets on the drinking days compared to non-drinking days. But hang on, what objective means did they use to define a poor diet? This is a great example of personal opinion being used by scientist under the guise of objective science. The fact remains that drinkers have lower mortality rates and lower body weights than non-drinkers suggesting that these researchers are not familiar with their own literature. Further, other studies have clearly shown that drinkers substitute protein and fat for carbohydrate foods causing them to have lower intakes of carbohydrates compared to non-drinkers. This is also clearly evident in the data from this study. Importantly, this means that the drinkers likely have lower intakes of sugar, which explains their lower mortality and body weights, as sugar consumption is now liked to development of insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome. So a nice observational study, but a shame about the ignorance of the authors.
RdB
