Oh dear.
Not sure how you got the idea she was asking permission.
That’s not really a holiday by normal definitions and still very little drinking.
I mean, I’m certainly not trying to talk anyone out of abstaining but daily exercise would probably do your future health a lot more good than following the latest dietary cancer warning.
Oooo. Bad case of the covfefe. Tsk. (In response to “I always pi6. Keoiidd”)
Well, at least we can be pretty sure it wasn’t because she had been drinking. 
Sigh Cat walked over the keyboard. I thought I fixed it, but I guess I didn’t get to it in time. Wiped out a paragraph about how I have been biking when I can. About 25 miles a week. Work it too far away to bike, but the stores I go to are pretty close, so as long as I don’t need to pick up something big, I do the shopping on my bike.
As noted in the OP, there were links between drinking and cancer researched in the 1980’s. 30 year old information isn’t the “latest dietary cancer warning” unless your definition of “latest” is way, way different from the usual.
Yeah I misread this, I read it as someone convincing themselves not to drink. Quitting is fine idea in itself, but cancer avoidance is also a very compelling reason by itself, especially for OP, it sounds like.
In case anyone is concerned about the effect the OP’s decision will have on the liquor industry, rest assured I will do my best to take up the slack.
Both of my grandmothers had major strokes in their late 70s. One was in a coma for six or seven weeks before she died, the other lived on in a twilight existence, occasionally conscious but mostly not, for a decade.
Sure, a sufficiently massive heart attack or stroke will kill you on the spot, regardless of age, but AFAICT, such sudden deaths are pretty infrequent.
My grandmother who survived breast cancer, and was diabetic, insulin dependent, even though she developed it as an adult (I think it was type 2, they just didn’t have the medications they have now), and was legally blind from diabetic retinopathy, had her first stroke when she was 79. She lived four more years, relatively well, mentally, but then she had another, and that was it.
Strokes don’t tend to run in my family, but when people do manage to live to be very old, they sometimes have them.
I’m not sure what my maternal grandmother’s actual cause of death was. I’m tempted to say “Old age,” as she was 15 months from her 100th birthday. She had been doing poorly for about a week-- seriously out of it, and not even able to feed herself, and then she went to sleep and didn’t wake up. She had had an abdominal aneurysm for 15 years, so that could have ruptured, or her heart could have finally given out, although she had no heart problems that I know of, other than a heart that had been beating for almost 100 years. She had some difficulty swallowing, and could even have choked on saliva. I’ve never seen her death certificate, and now that my mother is dead, I don’t even know where one is. My brother may have it.
Anyway, whatever her direct cause of death was, her underlying cause of death was just being really, really old.
Ironically, my maternal grandfather lived to be pretty old to-- 86, so my mother thought she’d make it to at least 90. We wanted to give her a big 75th birthday party after she was diagnosed with cancer, but she wanted to wait for her 80th-- that was when she’d given her own mother a big birthday bash. We didn’t get to do it.
We did have a smaller family reunion of sorts in July about a month before she died, which made her very happy. She wasn’t up to hosting a lot of people, so one of my cousins rented a house on the coast (it was in Maine), and most of the people stayed there. My brother stayed in the house, because he was by himself, since his wife unfortunately couldn’t make it.
We stayed in a hotel that was just a 5 minute drive away, so we got to spend a lot of time with her. The cousins did a lot of touristy stuff, but my brother and I spent a lot of time with my mother. My stepfather took all of us to several nice restaurants, but we also had dinner at my mother’s and stepfather’s several times.
It’s coming up on the first anniversary of my mother’s death. I need to do something for my stepfather. Maybe I’ll bake him some of the pastries my mother used to bake for the holidays. My SIL’s birthday is around the same time. I can send some to her and my brother as well.
Well it was new to her. I still don’t think quitting the very little drinking the OP does is going to make much difference. One shot glass of wine a week and a few real drinks on holidays?
I would read the New York Times article Tom Tildrum linked to above.
The decision to quit drinking is entirely yours and if it helps you feel better, then that’s great.
However, I wonder if you were drinking enough to really see a large difference in the risk. From here,
Your weekly average (total alcohol consumed during the year / 52) would likely be less than a half of a standard “drink,” placing you on the very edge of moderate drinkers. If so, eliminating that would likely not have a significant effect on any risk of cancer.
Your other changes are much more likely to help your health.
But I probably have a greater than average risk of cancer. Some people who smoke two packs of cigarettes a day don’t get cancer, and some people who smoke only at parties (what amounts to a pack a month) still develop cancers associated with smoking. Most likely the people who barely smoked at all would have developed some kind of cancer even if they never smoked-- maybe even a smoking-type cancer (there are always a few people with laryngeal or lung cancer who never smoked), but the smoking undoubtedly caused them to develop their cancers earlier than they might have otherwise.
I’m admitting to myself that I have a propensity for cancer, and reacting to it by avoiding triggers-- things that could cause me to develop cancer early. In other words, even if drinking causes only one in 1,000 cases of breast cancer, guess who that 1 in 1,000 is likely to be? I’m trying to increase the odds of some disease of aging getting me first. Or getting hit by a bus. Who knows? With all the biking I’m doing, I’m probably at a higher risk of getting hit by a bus than most people. I do wear a helmet though.
Although…now that I think about it, I know two people who were actually hit by buses, and both survived. One took two years to recover, but she ended up with normal functioning. The other ended up with minor damage to her motor cortex, so it appeared that she has mild CP. Hmm. Well, at least if I survive getting hit by a bus, maybe I will collect a nice judgment from the bus company.
Yes, I know. And the more I learn, the more I will make other changes. I have the worst luck when it comes to behaving badly, you have to understand. 100 people can speed down a certain stretch of highway, and guess who gets pulled over? 500 people can not pick up after their dogs, and no one notices. Guess who gets a ticket? You know how often people skipped classes left and right in high school? I skipped one class, once, and got caught immediately. Spent the next day in in-school detention. I have never smoked, not once. I would probably get cancer after a single cigarette. It’s a good thing I never had any desire to smoke.
At least for certain ones.
The statistical impact of you stopping your minimal drinking on you cancer risk may be essentially zero, but the impact on the quality of you life is pretty close to zero too. If it gives you any more sense of control then it is a no-brainer choice.
But yes the biggies to impact the risk on cancer and other risks for early death and/pr disability are regular exercise, lots of “real food” veggies and fruits/nuts/seeds/legumes/whole grain, limited added sugar foods, avoiding obesity, and high social connectedness. Those impacts are major.
Then the dice land how they land.
You don’t really know that you’re at a higher risk of cancer. Your mother and paternal grandmother getting cancer in their 70s is not a red flag. And I assume your dad and paternal grandmother didn’t have the same cancer.
On the other hand, if cancer runs in her family then making a lot of a changes that each slightly lowers her risk might add up to a significant lowering of the risk.
Truth is, we just don’t know.
On the other hand, the sense of control that can come from that sort of risk mitigation can also be beneficial to a person.
In the end, it’s as correct to not drink as to drink moderately.
The decision to drink or not to drink is a highly personal one, and far be it for me to question the OP’s motives.
I just want to point out that saying x increases your risk of cancer by y% is fairly meaningless. In this case, it means that, if the study mentioned is accurate, people who drink are represented at a 5-15% higher rate among cancer patients than non-drinkers. But how does that compare to the general population? I dunno.
And what is your baseline risk percentage? That varies from person to person and is difficult to determine. But say it’s 20%. Then you’re told that your risk has “increased by 10%.” Now it’s 22%. Not that big a difference.
It doesn’t pay to get all worked up over this sort of thing. I’m just going to live my life.
For certain cancers she definitely does. Pancreatic and ovarian cancer are among those cancers that are not infrequently associated with a family history. Just by ethnicity alone (presumptively Ashkenazi Jewish) she is at higher than average risk for those to in particular. And given the ovarian cancer possibly for breast cancer too as the genes that increase risk to one also tend to increase risk for the other.
Does the fact that the history of ovarian and breast cancer happened over the age of 70 in both relatives mitigate that at all? Especially since her paternal grandmother had it in the 70s? My sister had a breast cancer scare a while back and while it was cancer it was treated pretty easily as it was not aggressive at all. I shudder to think what the treatment was 40 years ago.