Andy Rooney: Not a drop to drink!

They are always doing studies, and there are a lot of studies - whatever a study is - that suggest drinking some things that used to be thought to be bad for us are now considered good and drinks which were thought to be good are now considered bad.

It's got so you don't dare drink diet soda because researchers say that can be damaging to your health. I don't pay much attention to any of these alarms because, for that matter, life can be damaging to your health. Particularly in large amounts.

Another study I saw says that sweet drinks increase your blood pressure and your chances of getting fat. Well, I'm already overweight, so is it okay if I have a Coke once in a while?

Thirty years ago they were saying that people who drank a lot of coffee were more apt to increase their chances of getting cancer. Now, a study from Israel says that drinking three cups of coffee a day is good for you and good for your circulation and may even protect you against heart attacks.

I've never paid attention to any of the research and I'm still alive and drinking a lot of coffee. I was in Israel once and that didn't kill me either.

Experts have determined that an occasional glass of red wine may be good for us so you may catch me with a glass at dinner. My attitude is "drink up" because tomorrow they might say it's bad.

What I'm really waiting for is a study that says a lot of ice cream lowers your cholesterol. I mean, I'll eat to that.

Written by Andy Rooney

[furrieshome]

i love everything you do.i want to thank you Andy!

[NinthSt78]

Go for the big luscious dessert and leave the hors d'oeuvres for the expert!

[HealthNewsReview]

What Andy didn't say was that most of these studies are observational studies that can't prove cause and effect. Sometimes it's the researchers who miscommunicate the limitations of such studies. Many times it's journalists who screw it up.

On our HealthNewsReview.org site - http://www.HealthNewsReview.org - we offer a primer for journalists - or for anyone - to understand the proper language that should be used to explain observational studies. It's at:
http://www.healthnewsreview.org/tips-for-understanding-studies.php#tip1

Both scientists and journalists lose credibility when the limitations of research are not explained. It's not useless research. But not all studies are equal. And not all can prove cause and effect. This is what results in the apparent back-and-forth - the apparent flip-flopping.

As a journalist-friend wrote on my blog: "When he says that 'Experts have determined...' what he probably really means is, 'The media reports I've seen say that experts have determined...' Researchers (and industry, university, conference media staffers) too often originate the miscommunication. Still, the lesson that journalists and news execs should take from this expression of (the widespread) exasperation with apparently conflicting reports about research results is that sloppy reporting has seriously eroded the credibility of media reports on these topics."

Gary Schwitzer
Publisher
HealthNewsReview.org

[Nate650]

:) Indeed most of those studies are useless. Decades ago "medical professionals" advised us to eat trans-fat-containing, highly processed, and artificially-colored margarine over butter. Now it's known butter is far better. This is one reason my "diet" is a very simple one. I try to eat only foods that existed 100 years ago.