Alcohol-free beer 'raises diabetes and obesity risks', research suggests
Sales are booming and demand for alcohol-free beers is higher than it has ever been.
But now research suggests they are not exactly the health boost many people hope.
Scientists found that drinking two bottles a day is enough to drive up blood sugar levels – increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes. The drinks led to a build-up of insulin in the blood, another warning sign that diabetes could set in.
And levels of harmful cholesterol and triglycerides – blood fats linked with heart disease – also rose with some types of no or low-alcohol beers.
Many also have a high calorie content, which can raise the risk of obesity.
Pub sales of alcohol-free beers hit a record 120million pints in 2023, up 14 per cent from the previous year and a huge 77.8 per cent increase since 2019.
The steep rise reflects a marked change in drinking habits, with more and more Britons opting to avoid alcohol in favour of 'healthier' alternatives.
While there is little doubt this approach is better than heavy alcohol consumption for health, the latest study suggests no-alcohol beers are far from harmless.
Scientists from Germany and the US followed 44 healthy young men who drank either two 330ml bottles of alcohol-free beer or water every day for four weeks.
They had regular blood tests to monitor how it affected their bodies. The results, in the journal Nutrients, showed a worrying effect on cardiovascular health. The dangers were greater with booze-free wheat beers and so-called 'mixed beers' – which are often flavoured with orange or lemon soda. Lighter Pilsner-type beers stripped of alcohol, or with a maximum 0.5 per cent alcohol content, were slightly less damaging.
In a report on their findings researchers said: 'Non-alcoholic beer is increasingly consumed as an alternative to alcoholic drinks.
'But the benefits and risks are not yet known. We found they have an unfavourable effect on metabolism, mainly driven by their calorie and sugar content.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
UK-wide drug trial hailed as a ‘milestone' in leukaemia treatment
A groundbreaking UK-wide trial has found a chemotherapy-free approach to treating leukaemia that may lead to better outcomes for some patients, with the results being hailed as a 'milestone'. Led by researchers from Leeds, results from the Flair trial, which took place at 96 cancer centres across the UK, could reshape the way the most common form of leukaemia in adults is treated, scientists said. The trial set out to assess whether two targeted cancer drugs could perform better than standard chemotherapy among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). It involved 786 people with previously untreated CLL who were randomly assigned to receive standard chemotherapy, a single targeted drug, ibrutinib, or two targeted drugs taken together, ibrutinib and venetoclax. Treatment was guided by personalised blood tests. The trial found that after five years 94% of patients who received ibrutinib plus venetoclax were alive with no disease progression. This compares with 79% for those on ibrutinib alone and 58% for those on standard chemotherapy, according to the study, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented to the European Haematology Association congress in Milan, Italy. Meanwhile, 66% of patients on the combined drugs had no detectable cancer in their bone marrow after two years, compared with none of the people who received ibrutinib alone and 48% on chemotherapy. Ibrutinib is a type of drug known as a cancer growth blocker. It works by stopping signals that cancer cells use to divide and grow. Venetoclax blocks the functions of a protein found in CLL cells. The combined-drug regime was also tolerated better than traditional treatments, according to experts. Dr Talha Munir, a consultant haematologist at Leeds teaching hospitals NHS trust who led the study said: 'Flair trial is a milestone. We have shown that a chemotherapy-free approach can be not only more effective but also more tolerable for patients. 'By tailoring individualised treatment based on how well the cancer responds, we're moving into an era of truly personalised medicine.' Dr Iain Foulkes, the executive director of research and innovation at Cancer Research UK, which funded the trial along with the drug companies AbbVie, and Johnson & Johnson, said: 'The results show we can provide kinder, more targeted treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, which gives people with CLL more precious time with their loved ones. 'We're hopeful that the results of the Flair trial will power new treatment options for leukaemia and other blood cancers, thanks to the efforts of researchers at in Leeds and across the UK working together on this trial.' CLL is the most common form of leukaemia in adults. It affects white blood cells, breaking down the body's ability to fight infection. About 4,000 people are diagnosed with CLL in the UK every year. Catherine Whitfield, 63, from Farnley, West Yorkshire, was diagnosed with CLL in 2018 signed up to the trial, which was coordinated by the Leeds Cancer Research UK clinical trials unit at the University of Leeds and sponsored by the university. She said: 'After three years of treatment, I am still MRD [minimal residual disease] negative – that means no cancer cells.'
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE The vet misdiagnosed my dog and made us spend £2,500 on pointless treatments before recommending he was put down - all he needed was rest
A woman has told how a vet misdiagnosed her pet dog and made her shell out £2,500 in treatments that had no effect before suggesting he was put down - when all he needed was rest and medication. Emma Edwards, 50, told MailOnline she faced 'utter contempt' when she tried to pursue a complaint against her vet practice after her beloved dog Coco was 'misdiagnosed' with pancreatitis - and almost put down. The small business owner from Cwmbran said she and her husband were left fearing Coco was dying and spent £2,500 on pancreatitis treatments before vets finally admitted they had got it wrong. She was then told Coco would need to be euthanised, or she would need to pay more than £6,000 for an operation to fix a back issue - before a specialist finally diagnosed the pooch with a slipped disc and prescribed cage rest. Coco's case was dealt with by at least ten different vet staff during the three-month ordeal, his notes show. One even wrote she 'definitely' believed the dog had a spinal issue rather than pancreatitis, but refused to do X-rays to confirm it. But when Mrs Edwards lodged a complaint, she says the practice fobbed her off with excuses that the practice was relying on locum vets at the time, and that a pancreatitis misdiagnosis was a common occurrence. The practice manager even sent the couple a medicinal paper outlining how the condition can often be confused with spinal issues, while refusing to repay any of the wasted £2,500. To add insult to injury, the practice - a WellPets branch in Cwmbran - even got Coco's gender wrong in their correspondence with his owners. Mrs Edwards, who has owned dogs for 20 years, first noticed something was wrong with Coco when he began shaking and would yelp if touched on his back, and also had a hard stomach. Taking him to the vets, she was told Coco could have a spinal or gastrointestinal issue. Despite her concern that Coco was displaying no clinical signs of pancreatitis, Mrs Edwards said the vet conducted a test for the condition without making any investigations into the possibility of a spinal issue. The test for pancreatitis in dogs is known to sometimes throw up false positives, which is what happened in Coco's case. He was given fluids and pain medication and, for a few days, appeared to be slightly better. But as the pain medication wore off, Mrs Edwards' dog stopped eating and it became increasingly clear he was in severe pain. The couple took Coco back to the vet to request a spinal x-ray - but the vet, who was new to the case, refused to give him one. She even wrote in Coco's notes that, if it wasn't for the blood test - which is believed to have been a false positive - she would 'definitely' diagnose a spinal issue, but that she didn't want to put him through 'unnecessary X-rays.' Then, disaster struck after he woke up one morning and was unable to walk or control his bladder. 'He deteriorated rapidly until he could barely stand,' Mrs Edwards told MailOnline. 'We rushed him to the vets as an emergency. 'It was only then staff admitted it was a spinal problem. We were told, to our faces, that we had to immediately decide whether to euthanise Coco or pay more than £6,000 for an MRI and surgery. 'He deteriorated so quickly we were in panic mode. We thought he was dying.' Fortunately, Mr and Mrs Edwards managed to work out a way to afford the surgery so didn't have Coco put to sleep. They were instead referred to a specialist clinic, owned by the same company as their vet's practice more than an hour away in Gloucester. Far from recommending euthanasia, the specialist 'instantly' told Mrs Edwards that Coco did not need surgery, and should recover fully with pain medication and plenty of crate rest. The total vet bill for the specialist came to £3,300, around half of what the couple had been quoted for the operation. Six weeks later, Mrs Edwards said Coco, who was diagnosed with IVDD, a degenerative disc disease, had 'fully recovered'. He will continue to have occasional flare-ups of the issue, which will be treated with rest and pain relief. 'He's happy and healthy, we just have to monitor him,' Mrs Edwards told MailOnline. 'It's crazy to think that if it wasn't for money he would be dead. 'All he needed from the start was a bottle of anti-inflammatories and cage rest and we paid £6000 on something we needed to spend £30 on.' Video footage shared with MailOnline shows how Coco's ability to walk declined over several weeks in February last year, before he appeared fully recovered by the end of March after six weeks of rest. After Coco's ordeal was over, Mr and Mrs Edwards launched a complaint against their vet over - amongst other issues - the misdiagnosis, wrong treatment and advice they received to consider putting Coco down. 'The practice manager told me that they were relying on locum vets at the time,' Mrs Edwards said. 'Coco saw so many different vets, there were no consistent notes, his medical record was a complete mess. 'The manager even still tried to claim that Coco had pancreatitis even after the diagnosis. We had been with this vet practice for 20 years. It was like she didn't care.' In an apparent attempt to defend the vet's initial diagnosis, the manager even sent Mrs Edwards a medical paper detailing the difficulties of differentiating pancreatitis from spinal issues - but the dog owner believes this only proves the vets should have done more tests in the first place. They told her: 'The vets involved used a rational approach to Coco's case at the time, offered other diagnostic modalities as well as seeking a second opinion when response was limited and referral when Coco deteriorated. 'The vets treating Coco at the time did not have the benefit of hindsight and I am sure they felt they were providing appropriate care given the clinical picture in the moment.' To add insult to injury, the practice - a WellPets branch in Cwmbran (pictured) - even got Coco's gender wrong in their correspondence with his owners Her complaint was then handed to the Veterinary Defence Society, or VDS, which insures vets from negligence claims and investigates complaints on behalf of their clients - the vets themselves. The VDS has faced criticism over how vets are left to investigate other vets' actions, as part of an organisation specifically designed to protect them and defend their reputations. The VDS told Mrs Edwards that there was no case to answer. The family has never received any compensation for the £2,500 of wasted money on pancreatitis treatment. It comes after campaigners warned the veterinary complaints system leaves pet owners feeling dismissed, with consumer body Which? warning urgent reform is needed. The VDS lists its goals online, and says: 'We defend reputations against claims and offer compensation when appropriate. We protect you against claims of veterinary negligence, with human injury cover included. 'We provide legal representation at criminal and disciplinary hearings.' In response, Mrs Edwards has set up a petition calling for reform to the vet complaints system. A spokesperson for WellPet Vets told MailOnline: 'Our sincere sympathies remain with Coco's family and appreciate the worry of nursing a much-loved pet through a period of ill health. We recognise how upsetting this experience has been but are glad to hear Coco has recovered well. 'While we cannot comment on individual cases due to our duty of client confidentiality, we can confirm that our client care team has been in ongoing contact with Coco's family in an effort to address their concerns. We are sorry to hear that they feel their complaint remains unresolved. 'The most important thing to us is the welfare of the pets under our care. Our dedicated team at Wellpet Vets aims to provide a professional and compassionate service at all times, and we believe we have done in this case. 'We take any suggestion of substandard delivery of care to animals or their owners extremely seriously. All incidents are investigated thoroughly and any appropriate action necessary is taken. 'We should also clarify that our practice carries professional indemnity insurance provided by the Veterinary Defence Society (VDS) and when we receive a claim from a client seeking financial compensation, we are obliged under the terms of our policy to refer unresolved complaints to the VDS. 'We strongly encourage all pet owners to raise concerns with us directly, so we can continue to review and respond to them appropriately and fairly and allow the due resolution process to take place.'
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Chemo-free 'milestone' for leukaemia: Groundbreaking UK trial could reshape future treatment for cancer patients
Scientists have hailed a 'milestone' in leukaemia care for patients after a UK trial found a chemotherapy-free approach to treatment may lead to better outcomes for some patients. The groundbreaking UK-wide trial could reshape the way the most common form of leukaemia in adults is treated. Researchers from Leeds wanted to assess whether two targeted cancer drugs could perform better than standard chemotherapy among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). They led the Flair trial, which took place at 96 cancer centres across the UK. Some 786 people with previously untreated CLL were randomly assigned to receive standard chemotherapy; a single targeted drug, ibrutinib, or two targeted drugs taken together, ibrutinib and venetoclax, with treatment guided by personalised blood tests. They found that after five years, 94 per cent of patients who received ibrutinib plus venetoclax were alive with no disease progression. This compares with 79 per cent for those on ibrutinib alone and 58 per cent for those on standard chemotherapy, according to the study, which has been published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented to the European Haematology Association congress in Milan, Italy. Meanwhile 66 per cent of patients on the new combination had no detectable cancer in their bone marrow after two years, compared with none of the people who received ibrutinib alone and 48 per cent on chemotherapy. Ibrutinib is a type of drug known as a cancer growth blocker. It works by stopping signals that cancer cells use to divide and grow. And venetoclax blocks the functions of a protein found in CLL cells. Experts said that the new treatment regime was also tolerated better than traditional treatments. Dr Talha Munir, consultant haematologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, who led the study said: 'Flair trial is a milestone. We have shown that a chemotherapy-free approach can be not only more effective but also more tolerable for patients. 'By tailoring individualised treatment based on how well the cancer responds, we're moving into an era of truly personalised medicine.' Catherine Whitfield, 63, from Farnley, West Yorkshire, was diagnosed with CLL in 2018 after she noticed symptoms including bleeding gums, constant illness and neck pain. She signed up to the trial, which was co-ordinated by the Leeds Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit at the University of Leeds and sponsored by the University of Leeds. She said: 'After three years of treatment, I am still MRD negative - that means no cancer cells.' 'I lost my husband to cancer. I have seen how hard it could be. 'My first thought after my diagnosis was, I will never see my grandchildren being born and growing up. 'Now I have two grandchildren, Drew and Alaia, and they are a delight and highlight the joys of a healthy life'. Ms Whitfield added: 'The way this trial was explained, it just made sense. 'Also, the thought of chemotherapy was scary to me. The trial felt right. And it was.' Dr Iain Foulkes, executive director of research and innovation at Cancer Research UK, which funded the trial along with AbbVie, and Johnson and Johnson, said: 'The results of the Flair trial show that we can provide kinder, more targeted treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, which gives people with CLL more precious time with their loved ones. 'We're hopeful that the results of the Flair trial will power new treatment options for leukaemia and other blood cancers, thanks to the efforts of researchers at in Leeds and across the UK working together on this trial.' Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia is the most common form of leukaemia in adults. There are about 4,000 new CLL cases in the UK every year.
