Red Wine and Your Health. A History of Scientists Hitting the Bottle

OK. OK. We all know that red wine is good for us. Turns us into marathon running, ageless, mentally sharp, cholesterol-free superheroes, right? There's a new study out almost every week about how wine is good for us. When I started Vinography three years ago I thought that would be something I would keep track of, but after seeing that literally every couple of weeks there was new news of the miracle properties of our favorite beverage, I gave up. I made a pretty long list.

So how did we get on this wine for heath kick anyway? I don't have the time nor the investigative journalism skills to find out, but Bret Stetka did. And he brings us a mostly-accurate-tongue-in-cheek survey of the history of Scientists Hitting The Bottle. I couldn't have written it better myself..

Readers of tender heart and mind should be warned that this article contains profanity and is written with the bad attitude typical of my generation.

Enjoy.

Posted by: Alder on February 11, 2007 11:58 PM: Filed under: Ramblings and Rants; Like this post? Share it! Digg it! - Add to del.icio.us - Add to Stumbleupon - Add to Reddit

Previous Entry - Main - Next Entry

TrackBacks (0)

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Red Wine and Your Health. A History of Scientists Hitting the Bottle.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.vinography.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/6846

Comments (6)

Jake Reimer wrote:

02.12.07 at 10:02 AM

Great article. The link was broken for a few hours but is now fixed. Enjoy!

Andrew Faulkner wrote:

02.13.07 at 9:09 AM

I think people seem to be searching for health reasons as excuses to drink wine. Why not just enjoy it? (In moderation of course!)

Arthur wrote:

02.13.07 at 1:16 PM

I agree with Andrew. It's so easy for consumers to accept (or even ignore) alcohol levels approaching those seen in FORTIFIED wines when they believe the bottle they down with their spouse in one evening is a panaceum.

As Bret's friend puts it in the article: â€œYeahâ€¦ But wouldnâ€™t it be great if you could get hammered and it was, like, good for you?â€

I am waiting for CNN to break the following story: "Increased wine consumption directly and causatively linked to cirrhosis and liver cancer".

I am seeing 16% Pinot Noirs this year...

Oy!....

Kathy wrote:

03.27.07 at 7:25 PM

I'm a wine lover for several years.
I'm also a health freak.
I've also gained tons of weight from drinking wine,not understanding why.

I just found out that between 2.5 to 4 CUPS of SUGAR is added to a gallon of wine in the making process.

This is a downer for me.

The glycemic index is the problem. Calorically, a bottle of wine is roughly 600 calorids. However the glycemic index isn't accounted for and that is where the problem occurs.

I used to joke at special dinners when I waved dessert that my wine is my dessert. I didn't realize how right I was.

I appreciate the bioflavinoid plus in red wine, but that is easily supplemented.

Alcohol has no glycemic index since it is not a carbohydrate. I erroneously thought that the only sugar in wine was in the fructose.

Still love it and will drink it on occasion. But if I had known this information, I would not have chosen the red as my soul source of alcohol enjoyment thinking it healthy.

Arthur wrote:

03.27.07 at 7:53 PM

Kathy,

I have always looked with skepticism on those â€œonly 400 caloriesâ€ claims about a glass of wine.

Alder wrote:

03.27.07 at 9:42 PM

Kathy,

I am not a nutrition expert, but I do know something about wine, and most wines do not have sugar added to the winemaking process at all, and those who do have sugar added have nowhere near the amount you suggest.

Wine can be a significant source of calories, like most alcoholic drinks, but this doesnâ€™t have to do with sugar added during the winemaking process.