Friday, January 30, 2015

Drinking Beer Is Good For You...

Just in time for Super Bowl Sunday comes the latest in hard science: if you drink beer regularly you will be less likely to contract Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

The Daily Mail reports:

Regularly drinking beer could help slow dementia, research suggests.

Scientists have discovered an ingredient in hops which they think could slow the progression of degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

In laboratory experiments they found that the chemical, called xanthohumol or Xn, could help protect brain cells from oxidative damage associated with dementia.

The research, published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, suggested that people who regularly drink beer might be better able to ward off the progression of neurological diseases.

As with all good things, beer should only be consumed in moderation. Too many brews will harm you:

British scientists, however, warned against drinking beer too often.

Previous research has suggested that excessive alcohol consumption can lead to brain tissue loss and that binge drinking is associated with an increased risk of dementia.

And separate studies have concluded that developing a beer belly in middle age boosts the risk of Alzheimer's in later life three-fold.


Sam L. said...

Beer: both good and bad for you. The old "too much of anything" comes to mind.

Dennis said...

The old adage that states, "A teaspoon of medicine will cure where a whole bottle will kill." also comes to mind. I have come to the point of almost disbelieving most of the studies that say coffee is bad for you then another study states it is good for you. Wine is bad for you and then it is good for you. Butter is bad for you and then it is good for you. Fat is bad for you and then it is good for your brain. Vaccines are good for you because they nay cause autism and then they really are good for you.
It would seem that science as it applies to human beings may not have progressed enough to be making "settled science" statements. This applies to a number of "settled science" statements. It fails to understand that it is not science if it is settled.
Is there anything a significant number of so called scientists won't say for a government grant or money no matter the source?