I was asking seriously. I think my responses to H78 in this thread were all fair and reasoned and I didn't attack him at all. Keep white knighting though.
Alcohol and Athletes; Gronk's injuries in a 16 oz can
- Thread starter CoffeeNerdness
- Start date
Thank you for putting in the word to salvage useful conversation out of this. After reading the abstracts, I share your opinion: it's clear that beyond a certain point of consumption frequency and intensity, propensity to injury increases, but the location of that point is vague and the magnitude of increased risk could be miniscule. We certainly have no ability to make an argument that Gronk's behavior has been problematic, other than "hey, it can't have helped!", which is also true of, say, him driving out to the store to get stuff rather than ordering it online. Some sense of magnitude is necessary before we make any prescriptive judgments.
To the bolded: sure, but that's not useful. You've created a bit of a strawman. If Gronk is routinely ending up face-down in a gutter somewhere, scraped off the pavement by EMTs, yeah, obviously that's not good. But, by all accounts, he's not. If he is a minimal drinker, the potential impact, based on what we've seen posted, ranges from negligible to minor.
We ought to distinguish between things that have some theoretical amount of risk attached, but small and reasonable parts of everyday life - like driving to the store - and things that have clearly material amounts of risk attached, like doing meth. A criticism of Gronk is probably only fair if it's closer to the skydiving end of the spectrum. I'm persuaded that frequent binge drinking passes that threshold, but once we agree on how much Gronk drinks, we ought to be looking for signal that that amount is harmful, or that we can draw no conclusion.
In the same vein, just because Tom Brady avoids it doesn't mean it creates material risk. Gronk's adopting Brady's approach this year, which is great, but it also requires more self-discipline than it's reasonable to expect out of anybody. Brady's approach is "only do things that we're sure help or don't hurt", whereas we're talking about an approach of "avoid doing things that we're pretty sure hurt". There are some studies that show that, say, one glass of red wine a few nights a week helps with stuff like cholesterol, but that's not what we're examining here.
In a thread where Eric Feczko just went out of his way to try and reorient the conversation, to bring it back to the topic and introduce some meat to digest, you persist in trying to pursue the interpersonal psychodrama, and your own personal persecution complex.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE STOP. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SHIT NOW. HELP US OUT.
Actually, recent studies show that it's not actually red wine, necessarily, that's beneficial, it's actually the proanthocyanidins contained in red wine, which is usually present often in greater concentrations in foods like blueberries, cranberries, nuts, dark chocolate and, of course, grapes.
In fact, recent research suggests red wine (which is essentially the only form of alcohol with true proven benefits, though some barley wines have lower levels of proanthocyanidins) is actually only moderately beneficial for women over 55 and even a drink a day may raise your cancer risk.
You're really not getting this joke, huh? I'm going to have to spell this out for you huh?
Lemme give you a hint:
smooches
Yeah definite;y right over my head on the joke. If only I had made it over your head just as easily.You're really not getting this joke, huh? I'm going to have to spell this out for you huh?
Lemme give you a hint:
smooches
I also hope you know the white knighting was in jest as well. I did want to clarify that my question about early onset osteoporosis was real though. I wasn't being snarky.
I think now you're starting to get why there's no use digging out links when it comes to this type of conversation.
People believe what they want to believe, despite what you cite. If someone wants to believe alcohol has health benefits or is no way detrimental to athletic performance - they will. There's nothing on earth I can practically do to change their mind about it. Cited articles or research papers will be countered with ones that the "booze does no harm" crowd dig out of their own searches.
FWIW, I'm not judging anyone. I love craft beer. There are 40 bottles of Cantillon and probably 50 bottles of Casey sitting five feet from me right now. I just think it's okay to say "I drink, but I also believe it's harmful to athletic performance and recovery and could elevate injury risk."
No worries.
I mean, in retrospect, this is funny, yes? I'm not crazy?
And, to the point, yes, weakened bone density from prolonged alcohol use has been a hypothesized contributing factor to my patella fracture... You couldn't possibly have known that, of course, but that doesn't make it any less funny.
(Although nobody will ever know for sure, eh? Natch. Just like with Gronk... that's right... the first and last physical comparison between me and Gronk ever to be made!)
As far as humor, you've redeemed yourself with that "If only... line"--that shit is funny.
Verdict: Definitely funny. Well now anyway. I still would have felt awful if this thread happened even 6 months ago.
Edit: But I also probably would have gotten your joke too.
You still haven't contributed to this thread in any way whatsoever.
I guess you're just above that.
Before the thread is closed, is it worth going EV on it and noting that nobody has pointed out what kind of effects on sleep even low levels of alcohol consumption can have.
There's a reason that alcohol is bundled with caffeine when people refer to Brady's abstinence plan.
Consistent, high quality sleep has to be on the short list of basic, accessible changes most people could make to their lives to vastly improve health and wellness. But TV...
There's a reason that alcohol is bundled with caffeine when people refer to Brady's abstinence plan.
Consistent, high quality sleep has to be on the short list of basic, accessible changes most people could make to their lives to vastly improve health and wellness. But TV...
Not sure what EV is, but in post 2397346, H78 brings up the topic of alcohol consumption as it relates to someone's ability to recover from a previous injury which might be an interesting discussion.
Intriguing.
Do you think alcohol might also have an effect on how injury prone someone is?
One of the things that has always interested me is the role of genetics in bone fracture risk. Unfortunately, we often attribute bone fractures to other events. However, there is some evidence that bone mineral density may be somewhat heritable:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22222934
That's a very good point. There is substantial research suggesting that sleep quality is important for bone health, especially in middle aged and elderly individuals.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28459884
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28566092
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28101630
Unfortunately, sleep quality is often associated with other conditions, such as diabetes, MS, obesity, and all of these may impact bone health in and of themselves. An interesting article examining regiment changes in an elite Israeli unit noted no effects of sleep regimen on stress fractures. However, stress fractures are different from other types of fractures, and probably does not speak to Gronk's injuries.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28676439
I don't think this is particularly useful either and it was exactly what the next sentence was designed specifically to address: we can't really know whether Gronk materially increases his risk of injury by drinking because we don't know how much he drinks. I was trying to find ground reasonable minds would agree on, not solve the topic at hand with a quick post. I think it's insane people are demanding to see evidence when we all know drinking WILL affect injury risk at some threshold.
Edit: And really, "negligible" and "minor" are both non-zero (though negligible is pretty close) so I think we are in agreement.
I kind of hate when players who have had a lot of injuries are called injury prone. The term itself - injury prone - suggests that a player has been and will continue to be more susceptible to injuries when, regardless of how many injuries someone has suffered, that person may just have been 'injury unlucky.'
That being said, it makes sense that someone who is recovering from a previous injury may be more prone to a future injury or that a history of past injuries may make someone more injury prone in the future.
If I could build a table on this site it might be helpful to have a table with three columns. First column lists possible contributors, second column grades the contributor for impact on experiencing initial injury, and a third column for grading impact on injury recovery/potential for re-injury.
Possible contributors to be listed (per row) in the first column might include alcohol consumption (light, moderate, heavy), drug consumption (recreational drugs), drug consumption (PEDs), exercise intensity (off season), exercise recovery/rest (off season), exercise intensity (in season), exercise recovery/rest (in season), diet, family history/genetics, sport/position, injury/health history (recent), & injury/health history (long term).
Most of the "wine is better than beer/liquor" studies failed to account for confounding variables; that idea's been largely debunked since it was popularized in the early 1990s. There is some more recent interest in flavanoids (like proanthrocyanidins), but it's all pretty preliminary.
And while there does appear to be an increased risk from cancer, most studies show that 1-2 units of alcohol a day cuts your risk of heart disease by 25-40%, and that the effect is unrelated to the type of alcohol. More recent studies have confirmed that this effect still exists when you control for other variables (it does not appear that it's simply a matter of moderate drinkers simply being wealthier/healthier/living better lifestyles in a way that accounts for the heart benefits independent of alcohol consumption).
And because heart disease is a bigger killer than cancer, the overall impact is somewhere between a 12-20% decrease in overall mortality among moderate drinkers with some evidence that moderate drinking is more protective than light drinking, though there's a significant increase in mortality among heavier drinkers as the correlation with drinking is a J-shaped curve and the impact on other diseases (cancer, cirrhosis, pancreatitis, etc) is either a hockey stick or a uniform negative.
This is exactly right. Meta-studies like the Harvard one are somewhat more reliable, but there are so many confounding variables that approaching certainty is fraught. This has been a topic of study for long enough that there are even meta-meta-studies; IMO the best summary of the current state of belief wrt heart disease (but not overall mortality) comes from a 2014 meta-meta study:
This is a great post. Thanks for sharing. You lured me back in.
One thing I wanted to point out, just for clarification, is that 1-2 units per day is not the same as 1-2 drinks per day. One unit of alcohol equates to about eight grams, which is about one-third of a pint of beer, or half a glass of wine.
So, generally speaking (because not all beer and wine are created equal), if someone were to drink an entire pint of beer or anything over one glass of wine, they're beyond the threshold that you presented as it relates to possible heart benefits weighed against cancer risk.
Now, if someone were to drink just one New England style IPA - like Heady Topper, Sip of Sunshine, or virtually any beer from Trillium or Tree House - where a single can at 8% ABV contains about 3.75 units of alcohol, they'd have gone well beyond any possible heart-related benefits that you've outlined.
In fact, just to put "units" in perspective, one 12oz can of Bud Light contains 1.5 units of alcohol. Have two cans of Bud light, and you're already 50% beyond the upper threshold of the *possible* benefits it may provide.
Anyone that's interested can have fun determining units here.
You just fell into another trap in trying to decode these studies; what constitutes a drink varies by country. Your source is UK link (so is your calculator). While most US studies recommend 1-2 drinks a day, studies in the UK tend to recommend more like 3-4 drinks/day (for men)--that's because:
You have to make sure you calibrate a recommendation in "drinks" with what the country of origin considers a "drink" to be.
Can't put it in exact figures, but things that cause injuries would be like (technique, luck, genetics - 99.5%) all this other crap people are discussing (.5%).
At the end of the day the "drinks" rules of thumb for both country basically agree once you convert to real units; 3-4 8g/day units or 1-2 14-g/day units is within spitting distance of the meta-synopsis I posted that had the courtesy to use grams: Results from our quantitative meta-analysis showed that drinkers with average intake of <30 g/day and no episodic heavy drinking had the lowest IHD risk.
And kidding aside, the UK's recommendation (which I believe is also the most recent comprehensive study in either country) actually recommends 14 (UK) units per week for both men and women.
So if 8 grams is a unit, and 14 units is the weekly recommendation, that's about 112 grams of alcohol per week, or about 9 cans of Bud Light total, per week, male or female, and they should be spread out or the recommendation is a moot point.
So, no more than 1.25 cans of Bud Light per day, or at most three cans at once roughly every three days (so several days' breaks between) per this study. But who really knows at this point?
I'm citing units instead of drinks because your original post cites units (not drinks), but alas it still comes down to which study you want to believe more, though I think they're fairly close.
I was very busy yesterday and was not around to moderate. Sorry.
I think this thread and the requisite drinking that followed from posters having read it caused Edelman's injury.
This thread is fantastic for only because I am crying in my beer after reading about Julian.
Keeping the thread open if only for Esasky's line was well worth it. TAKE THAT REV. BTW, I'm taking credit for that injury, I was there and there was drinking so it contributed.
On a serious note, there is some decent back and forth. Perhaps we do get some professional opinions moving forward in support one way or another.
I think this thread and the requisite drinking that followed from posters having read it caused Edelman's injury.
This thread is fantastic for only because I am crying in my beer after reading about Julian.
Keeping the thread open if only for Esasky's line was well worth it. TAKE THAT REV. BTW, I'm taking credit for that injury, I was there and there was drinking so it contributed.
On a serious note, there is some decent back and forth. Perhaps we do get some professional opinions moving forward in support one way or another.
You are a solid solid poster but those numbers are bullshit.
Fitness is a huge factor in many injuries. People get injured more when they are tired they make more mistakes. Strength is a huge factor in joint injuries too.
I have seen countless athletes injured from over or under training.
Anyway this thread is typical SOsh. Really, it isn't better if Gronk lays off the booze?
The real danger is getting blasted. Getting hammered can set back training a great deal. For a lot of people the one or two drinks idea does not work, so they go with none.
Phil Esposito has said many time alcohol ruined the Bruins dynasty. Was is directly responsible for the butcher surgery and decision for Orr to skate hurt? Of course not but booze and athletes are a bad mix, no?
I don't think there is one poster in this thread who has said that it isn't better if Gronk lays off the booze, or at least cuts back.
I was rolling fatigue and strength into technique - if your tired and make mistakes, what's that mean? Your technique is off. If you're too weak, what happens? You get in a bad position and your technique is off.
Look at it this way - if you can squat 200 pounds with perfect technique, you won't get injured. If you try to squat 400 pounds and you're not strong enough, your back or knees will be in a bad position and you'll get hurt. That's technique under what I said above. Same with fatigue. If you're in good enough shape to squat 200 10 times, you're safe. If you get sloppy after 7 reps, that's where injuries happen.
It's the same in sports. You can parse it out into a bunch of different factors as you've done, I was just trying to make it a bigger umbrella.
So, should I start drinking for my heart or not?
edit: I actually run 4 miles a day and there's some people who believe if you are about to run 10k+ that carb loading on beer the night before isn't so bad. No idea if that's true.
edit: I actually run 4 miles a day and there's some people who believe if you are about to run 10k+ that carb loading on beer the night before isn't so bad. No idea if that's true.
I've heard the same about recovery from certain long distance training. Something about thinning the blood out. But the guy who told me that likes to drink, so I'm leery on that.
Some long distance runners (I am one, though of a middling sort) abide by the notion that a beer or two the night before is fine because it relaxes you and the benefits offset the small amount of dehydration such a small amount of alcohol will cause. But it's not for carbo-loading purposes; that's just what they say as a joke.
And yeah, running a marathon isn't the same as being a pro football player (obviously) but in terms of impact on hydration, I think the marathoner is more likely to feel any issues those two beers would cause the next day.