4 ms·

The answer is "Yes", alcohol is bad for you. Of course, it tastes good, so people want to believe these very specific studies. And ignore any of the confoundi

by powera 11y ago

The answer is "Yes", alcohol is bad for you. Of course, it tastes good, so people want to believe these very specific studies. And ignore any of the confounding evidence in the second half of the article (such as the fact that people who drink moderately are healthy enough to do so).

exodust 11y ago
So you're saying "bad for you" unless you're a healthy moderate drinker? Or are you saying the healthy moderate drinker is somehow worse off than if they didn't drink at all? If so, how can we measure the harm that moderate drinking is doing on healthy people? If we can't measure any harm, are you open to the possibility that moderate drinking is good for healthy people?
- scott_s 11y ago
  I am open to the possibility that moderate drinking is good for healthy people (I am a moderate drinker), but the article discusses evidence that we can measure harm from moderate drinking - there's quite a bit of it in the second half. When we control the other studies properly (eliminate people who were former drinkers, or are abstaining for health reasons), the benefits seem to go away. I also admit that it would take a large amount of evidence to convince me that moderate drinking is beneficial as a counter to my own fear of motivated reasoning: I would like to believe moderate drinking is beneficial, since I do it. Given that fear, and the evidence we have, I find it much more likely that moderate drinking is mildly harmful, and at best, not beneficial.
digi_owl 11y ago
Straight alcohol tastes anything but "good".
- coldtea 11y ago
  Depends on what you consider good. A lot of western societies have been conditioned by the food industry to only think sugary/salt-soaked/greasy BS as good -- to the degree that they'd prefer a ketchup-soaked burger and fries to a home-cooked diner.
  - niels_olson 11y ago
    Straight ethanol kills cells, including taste buds, almost instantly. The cell death alone is a noxious stimulus without even discussing the ethanol, which I think most people would agree is quite unpleasant. Bacardi 151 and other such ultra-hard liquors are primarily for flambe or making batches of mixed drinks. College kids who down them and swear it's awesome are either lying or still delusionally pumped on hormones. Alchololics who swear by such liquors have no taste buds left and are possibly well on their way to head and neck or esophageal carcinomas due to all the excess squamous cell turnover.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      Not sure what you're going on about. Nobody (well, outside of outliers) drinks "straight ethanol". And of course taste is a personal matter, but denying that alcoholic drinks can and do taste good for people is crazy talk. Millions of people can very much discern the taste of drinks (and anything else for that matter), and are not "alcoholics", and yet enjoy wine, beer and tons of other things, including hard liquor (from whiskeys to ouzo). Well not commercial beer in the US, so you got a point there).
  - mkaziz 11y ago
    As an anecdote, my mouth watered just a bit when you said "ketchup-soaked burger and fries". :(
  - nsxwolf 11y ago
    With the right balance, those properties in a food item are are objectively delicious. I know it's popular to state that all preferences are manufactured by big corporations but it isn't true.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      Sure they are. But people have been marketed to and encouraged to enjoy them without the "right balance".
  - Domenic_S 11y ago
- powera 11y ago
  True, pure alcohol doesn't taste good because it burns your throat. Most people drink alcohol in a mix with water (and sugar, flavors, etc.) and in that context, it tastes good.
dogecoinbase 11y ago
Not only have humans had alcohol on a timescale long enough to induce evolutionary pressure (eliminating the "unnatural product" argument, which as evidenced by modern pharmacology is ridiculous regardless), but higher-alcohol products are a recent invention and, like everything else including water, consumption to excess is excluded. It's entirely possible that reasonable quantities of alcohol are beneficial to a majority of people. Eventually, science will tell us if this is so. Your absolutism is ridiculous posturing.
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  "Reasonable amounts of alcohol" are in fact responsible for the establishment of civilization, right up until the age of civil sanitation. Of course now that we have sanitation we don't need the alcohol any more.
  - update 11y ago
    > responsible for the establishment of civilization "I would beg leave to suggest the propriety of erecting public Distilleries in different States. The benefits arising from the moderate use of strong Liquor have been experienced in All Armies, and are not to be disputed" --George Washington to John Hancock, 16 August 1777
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ryandvm 11y ago
That is an awfully weak argument: "Yes, it's bad. Ignore the facts." The reality is that moderate drinkers flat out live longer than alcoholics and teetotalers. Fairly hard to come to the conclusion that it's "bad for you" unless your definition of bad doesn't consider... you know... not dying.
- scott_s 11y ago
  What you said does not match up with the article. What facts are you talking about? The article is clear that when you control for former drinkers, the benefits go away. I am a moderate drinker; usually a drink or two a week. So I would like it to be true that this is somehow beneficial to me, but I am very skeptical of that idea, and the evidence I have seen supports my skepticism.
- powera 11y ago
  The article says, and I quote in detail, "The World Health Organization reported last year that drinking can increase your risk of depression and anxiety, liver cirrhosis, pancreatitis, suicide, violence, and accidental injury. Alcohol is also linked to cancer of the mouth, nose, larynx, oesophagus, colon, liver, and breast cancer in women."
- jfoutz 11y ago
  It's not clear at all why. Moderate drinkers may live longer than average, but i really doubt your teetotaler statement. - http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705377709/UCLA-study-proves-Mormons-live-longer.html?pg=all http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705377709/UCLA-study-prov... The cause is the tricky part. Perhaps moderate drinkers have a more active social live, thus having a larger support group for getting through difficult times. Perhaps they take a moment to reflect on their lives at the end of the day, thus making slightly better choices than their peers (pipe smoking, aside from smoking itself, might fall into this category http://www.seattlepipeclub.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=969877&module_id=17020 http://www.seattlepipeclub.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_...) Perhaps having wine over dinner, means meals are more thoughtful, increasing quality of food and improving quality of discussion around dinner, improving family life. Alcohol is bad for you. Perhaps in low regular doses there are some beneficial chemical effects, but what would you put that probability at .05? .1? Far more likely is a halo of other effects that come with the consumption environment.

by powera 11y ago

exodust 11y ago

So you're saying "bad for you" unless you're a healthy moderate drinker? Or are you saying the healthy moderate drinker is somehow worse off than if they didn't drink at all? If so, how can we measure the harm that moderate drinking is doing on healthy people? If we can't measure any harm, are you open to the possibility that moderate drinking is good for healthy people?

scott_s 11y ago
I am open to the possibility that moderate drinking is good for healthy people (I am a moderate drinker), but the article discusses evidence that we can measure harm from moderate drinking - there's quite a bit of it in the second half. When we control the other studies properly (eliminate people who were former drinkers, or are abstaining for health reasons), the benefits seem to go away. I also admit that it would take a large amount of evidence to convince me that moderate drinking is beneficial as a counter to my own fear of motivated reasoning: I would like to believe moderate drinking is beneficial, since I do it. Given that fear, and the evidence we have, I find it much more likely that moderate drinking is mildly harmful, and at best, not beneficial.

digi_owl 11y ago

Straight alcohol tastes anything but "good".

coldtea 11y ago
Depends on what you consider good. A lot of western societies have been conditioned by the food industry to only think sugary/salt-soaked/greasy BS as good -- to the degree that they'd prefer a ketchup-soaked burger and fries to a home-cooked diner.
- niels_olson 11y ago
  Straight ethanol kills cells, including taste buds, almost instantly. The cell death alone is a noxious stimulus without even discussing the ethanol, which I think most people would agree is quite unpleasant. Bacardi 151 and other such ultra-hard liquors are primarily for flambe or making batches of mixed drinks. College kids who down them and swear it's awesome are either lying or still delusionally pumped on hormones. Alchololics who swear by such liquors have no taste buds left and are possibly well on their way to head and neck or esophageal carcinomas due to all the excess squamous cell turnover.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    Not sure what you're going on about. Nobody (well, outside of outliers) drinks "straight ethanol". And of course taste is a personal matter, but denying that alcoholic drinks can and do taste good for people is crazy talk. Millions of people can very much discern the taste of drinks (and anything else for that matter), and are not "alcoholics", and yet enjoy wine, beer and tons of other things, including hard liquor (from whiskeys to ouzo). Well not commercial beer in the US, so you got a point there).
- mkaziz 11y ago
  As an anecdote, my mouth watered just a bit when you said "ketchup-soaked burger and fries". :(
- nsxwolf 11y ago
  With the right balance, those properties in a food item are are objectively delicious. I know it's popular to state that all preferences are manufactured by big corporations but it isn't true.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    Sure they are. But people have been marketed to and encouraged to enjoy them without the "right balance".
- Domenic_S 11y ago
powera 11y ago
True, pure alcohol doesn't taste good because it burns your throat. Most people drink alcohol in a mix with water (and sugar, flavors, etc.) and in that context, it tastes good.

dogecoinbase 11y ago

Not only have humans had alcohol on a timescale long enough to induce evolutionary pressure (eliminating the "unnatural product" argument, which as evidenced by modern pharmacology is ridiculous regardless), but higher-alcohol products are a recent invention and, like everything else including water, consumption to excess is excluded. It's entirely possible that reasonable quantities of alcohol are beneficial to a majority of people. Eventually, science will tell us if this is so. Your absolutism is ridiculous posturing.

thrownaway2424 11y ago
"Reasonable amounts of alcohol" are in fact responsible for the establishment of civilization, right up until the age of civil sanitation. Of course now that we have sanitation we don't need the alcohol any more.
- update 11y ago
  > responsible for the establishment of civilization "I would beg leave to suggest the propriety of erecting public Distilleries in different States. The benefits arising from the moderate use of strong Liquor have been experienced in All Armies, and are not to be disputed" --George Washington to John Hancock, 16 August 1777

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ryandvm 11y ago

That is an awfully weak argument: "Yes, it's bad. Ignore the facts." The reality is that moderate drinkers flat out live longer than alcoholics and teetotalers. Fairly hard to come to the conclusion that it's "bad for you" unless your definition of bad doesn't consider... you know... not dying.

scott_s 11y ago
What you said does not match up with the article. What facts are you talking about? The article is clear that when you control for former drinkers, the benefits go away. I am a moderate drinker; usually a drink or two a week. So I would like it to be true that this is somehow beneficial to me, but I am very skeptical of that idea, and the evidence I have seen supports my skepticism.
powera 11y ago
The article says, and I quote in detail, "The World Health Organization reported last year that drinking can increase your risk of depression and anxiety, liver cirrhosis, pancreatitis, suicide, violence, and accidental injury. Alcohol is also linked to cancer of the mouth, nose, larynx, oesophagus, colon, liver, and breast cancer in women."
jfoutz 11y ago
It's not clear at all why. Moderate drinkers may live longer than average, but i really doubt your teetotaler statement. - http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705377709/UCLA-study-proves-Mormons-live-longer.html?pg=all http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705377709/UCLA-study-prov... The cause is the tricky part. Perhaps moderate drinkers have a more active social live, thus having a larger support group for getting through difficult times. Perhaps they take a moment to reflect on their lives at the end of the day, thus making slightly better choices than their peers (pipe smoking, aside from smoking itself, might fall into this category http://www.seattlepipeclub.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=969877&module_id=17020 http://www.seattlepipeclub.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_...) Perhaps having wine over dinner, means meals are more thoughtful, increasing quality of food and improving quality of discussion around dinner, improving family life. Alcohol is bad for you. Perhaps in low regular doses there are some beneficial chemical effects, but what would you put that probability at .05? .1? Far more likely is a halo of other effects that come with the consumption environment.