14 ms·
‘Moderate’ drinking guidelines are too loose, study says
- kriffo 9y agoI heard drink is bad for you
- jhoh 9y agoSmoke also bad I heard
- maoistinquisitr 9y agoAlcohol in the absence of polyunsaturated fats is fairly benign. In the context of fried foods and margarine and vegetable oils it's very damaging. On a very low fat diet you could probably down a six pack daily with minimal harm.
- aldoushuxley001 9y agoWhy does the presence of polyunsaturated fats have such an impact on the consumption of alcohol?
- maoistinquisitr 9y agoThese garbage studies confuse the impacts of crappy fried food and oils with alcohol itself. Heavy drinkers also eat more PUFA. The PUFA itself is very damaging. The alcohol just magnifies the damage of the PUFA. The alcohol even further increases the absorption of LPS from the intestine, and makes cells more susceptible to the toxins. But absent the PUFA the liver typically has no problem cleaning up. The liver is constantly clearing away such toxins.
- ben_w 9y agoDo you have a link to, or publication reference for, a study which shows a correlation between increasing PUFA and increasing all those problems when alcohol consumption is not changed?
- tristanj 9y ago>Alcohol in the absence of polyunsaturated fats is fairly benign. This isn't true. Sorry to inform you but Ethanol is a IARC Group 1 Carcinogen. There is no safe amount of consumption of ethanol. When Ethanol enters the body, it is metabolized into Acetaldehyde, which enters the bloodstream, and later another enzyme metabolizes Acetaldehyde into harmless Aceitc Acid. Acetaldehyde also a Group 1 Carcinogen. Acetaldehyde is a tiny molecule and when in the bloodstream, Acetaldehyde can pass through any cell membrane unregulated, and when it enters the cell nucleus it causes irreparable DNA damage https://www.sciencealert.com/alcohol-damages-dna-stem-cells-cancer-acetaldehyde https://www.sciencealert.com/alcohol-damages-dna-stem-cells-... . When cells accumulate too much damage to their DNA, they either die or (very rarely) start replicating uncontrollably, leading to a situation known as cancer. I reccomend you read how Ethanol is processed by the body here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_metabolism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_metabolism . You can see that the process by which the human body metabolizes Ethanol always produces carcinogens, no matter the presence of fried foods, margarine, vegetable oils.
- maoistinquisitr 9y ago> There is no safe amount of ethanol. When Ethanol enters the body, it is metabolized into Acetaldehyde Just wait until you look up how beans are metabolized. All food except pure glucose has "problematic" metabolic pathways. Alcohol is not particularly interesting in this regard. It just magnifies the negative impacts of certain other choices. A healthy liver can deal with quite a lot of alcohol and acetaldehyde with not much issue. Sorry, you don't really know what you're talking about. You can dowse rats with booze and they handle it fine absent oils. It really is that simple.
- tristanj 9y ago>A healthy liver can deal with quite a lot of alcohol and acetaldehyde with not much issue. But in evolutionary terms, this is not true at all. Humans today are consuming way more alcohol than the metabolic pathway can handle. Alcoholic spirits are a recent invention, they were first created ~4000 years ago, which is far to little time for a metabolic pathway to adapt. If you read the wikipedia article, it says humans typically consume 3g of ethanol per day, as it is naturally produced in (fermented) food. Fruit, for example, is typically 0.6% ethanol by weight, higher if let ferment. The ability to metabolize ethanol is an important evolutionary adaption, as it allowed our ancestors to eat rotten/fermented food, especially advantageous when there was no other food to eat. However, when modern humans consume 2-3 drinks of alcohol, they are loading their body with 30-50 grams of ethanol, far more than the metabolic pathway can handle. This is a whole week's worth of ethanol, which is now being consumed in one hour. This leads to toxic amounts of ethanol and acetaldehyde accumulating in the bloodstream. Humans were never meant to consume this much alcohol. If you are wondering why humans started consuming alcoholic spirits in the first place, I am quite favorable towards the frugivory by-product hypothesis.
- fnl 9y agoI think the most important finding here is that woman and men are affected alike, and our opinion that men can drink more (safely) are just false preconceptions.
- microcolonel 9y agoThat's not really what it says. It's the difference between quantizing by day (one or two drinks per day) and quantizing by some larger unit (seven or nine drinks per week or some such similar). The existing guidelines are not really all that well informed anyway, as with other U.S. dietary guidelines they are more or less just an expression of the status quo, set just high enough that 80%+ of Americans don't exceed them. The actual interesting result is that their interpretation of the data suggests that there is no amount of drinkable alcohol which can be said to have a neutral or positive effect on your health, male or female.
- ryanobjc 9y agoI was always suspicious of the magical 'one glass of red a day is actually GOOD for you!' - seemed like a major case of wishful thinking and confirmation bias. Alcohol is fun to many people - including researchers. This has driven an almost desperate attempt to legitimate drinking in nearly any context. Drinking daily? Good for you! While pregnant? Probably not bad! Breastfeeding? Sure! Just social drinking once a week, but a little bingey? Well that's like an average of 1 drink/day, so it's also good for you basically! I quote a friend who is a psychiatrist: there is no known safe level of alcohol.
- DataWorker 9y agoTime also. A single 24 hour period of time won’t kill you, but string together 80 or 90 years worth and you will be close to death.
- gknapp 9y ago> but string together 80 or 90 years worth and you will be close to death I think 80 or 90 years of "life" will bring you close to death!
- delhanty 9y agoSee also "Never cross a river that is, on average, 4 feet deep." ad nauseam by Nassim Taleb.
- thinkingemote 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- projektir 9y agoSeems like we plain do not have a good set of studies on alcohol (or coffee, or...). You can examine that alcohol has been consumed by many cultures for centuries and evaluate whether the associated outcomes are acceptable to you.
- AstralStorm 9y agoEpidemiology does not work that way. Too many confounders and very low predictive power.
- projektir 9y agoWell, I'm not talking about epidemiology, just personal choice. People had to use incomplete information for personal choices for centuries, I'm afraid. I'm not sure what to do about that, the alternative seems to be chasing after the conclusion of the latest study and a lot of said latest studies are very poor, often in very insidious ways that are hard to identify. If something was literally poisonous and was consumed by lots of people, we'd be seeing drastic effects. Like drastically slashed life expectancy. If something was literally hyper-beneficial and extended your life by 20 years, we'd be seeing some cohort expressing that, as well. If there are lots of confounders, it just means it's not the only problem, which I think is already frequently true for many of these things (i.e., smoking and weight gain associated with lots of root issues). The effects of a lot of things taken in vacuum often seem less significant than their very confounders.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago>Seems like we plain do not have a good set of studies on alcohol What's wrong with the one used in this report? It samples 600000 people over 19 countries. We have plenty of other good studies on the issue, and most of the disagreeing studies are tied to alcohol companies. The life expectancy effects of alcohol are fairly well laid out in this study. Examine those before making your choice, noting that people have drunk alcohol for centuries does not help you make an informed decisions.
- eecc 9y agoWas it the alcohol that killed the study subjects, or the carbs, or the fats, or the sugar, or the skewered red meats, or the caffeine, or the insanely aggressive competition at work and in life. To me it all seems a Calvinistic effort to lay the blame of anything at peoples’ feet, “poor life choices” and taking treatments off insurance coverage. Hey, on the tune of the conspiracists blaming “big alcohol”, I wonder if all these “x kills you” are also sponsored by “big insurance”.
- willbw 9y agoYou realise that insurance is all about calculating the statistical incidence of events right? They don't make life insurance more expensive for alcoholics and smokers because they are evil but because they are more likely to pay out a claim earlier.
- skookumchuck 9y agoI am bemused by companies that allegedly pay men more because they are men. Companies pay as little as they can to everyone.
- willbw 9y agoI'm guessing this is supposed to be a sarcastic rebuttal to my point but I'm not entirely sure.
- klmr 9y agoAssuming you’re actually serious: Companies don’t pay men more, they pay women less — because they pay everyone as little as they can: it’s well established that women systematically under-estimate their own value, compared to equally-qualified men (and they’re also underestimated by their peers). This has a huge impact on salary negotiations: Women tend to negotiate less, and if they negotiate at all, they tend to ask for less than their male peers. And to get this out of the way: Most companies nowadays don’t do this intentionally. It just happens. The outcome is the same though.
- mrleiter 9y agoThis is a good opportunity to point out that alcoholism is much more prevalent in young people than it is generally thought. Especially with students and young employees who like to "party", it must be taken seriously. The fact that alcohol is not frowned upon by society in general, hides the devastating effects it can have. What starts as drinking on weekends and getting wasted maybe once a week, turns into drinking 3-4 times a week, than maybe 4-5 times a week. When you start to feel alone and "need a drink", when you want to have fun, but you "need a drink", when you are under lots of stress and "you need a drink", those are signs that you are becoming an alcoholic. Please seek help and talk about it. Alcoholism is dangerous and kills you, makes you an outsider and loner over time. Please don't feel ashamed. Seek help, talk to friends/family.
- walshemj 9y agoNot sure I would totally agree with you in all European countries having say a beer or a glass of wine with lunch is normal. I recall discussing with some one who did training for mangers to deal with "serious substance abuse" and there comment was when you started finding multiple hidden stashes of spirits that was when you know they had a problem.
- jopsen 9y agoMaybe 20 years ago, and maybe still in some parts of Europe, but these days most workplaces have a strict no-alcohol policy.
- Improvotter 9y agoThis highly depends on the type of company you work for. There almost never is a strict no-alcohol policy in most small to medium-sized companies (who make up the majority of the workforce) in Europe.
- bsder 9y agoIt's generally a legal thing in the US. If you have alcohol at the company, the company winds up liable if something happens. If you simply buy a round at a bar or shop, the liability is the establishment's. And, if you think the US is bad, try Canada. One of the senior VP's at a company I knew threatened to fire the director of HR because there was no beer at an all-hands meeting. :)
- epistasis 9y ago>As for the threshold for low-risk drinking, White said, “there’s no magic number here. The effects of alcohol on health are very complicated. The effects are influenced by a wide range of factors, like body weight and sex, medications, rate of consumption, so it’s very hard to arrive at one single threshold below which everybody’s going to be safe from harm.” Yet another reminder that there's often a difference between what the public wants or needs (a magic number), and what reality can deliver (a very complex set of related variables). If you get all your science from news articles that talk about magic numbers, you're not getting the full picture of the science. The media delivers what readers want to read, not what the most useful info is.
- lsc 9y agoI actually think a 'magic number' is pretty useful, as a ballpark figure. Like BMI... nobody is arguing that BMI is a gauge of health for every individual, but it's a reasonable starting point, and if you want to studies of a bunch of people, well, something like BMI is pretty much required. I mean, weight in kg divided by your height in meters squared is obviously wrong and stupid in a lot of ways, but it's a lot better than nothing, and most importantly, it's super easy to understand. Having a simple answer is really useful... sometimes a simple answer, assuming that simple answer is still useful, is better than a complex answer, even when the complex answer is more correct. Sort of how bandwidth is charged for on the 95th percentiles (or on total transfer, which is in essence charging for average use)
- epistasis 9y agoYes, I actually agree with that! As long as the media doesn't come along a year or two later with articles about "everybody was wrong about BMI! It's much more complicated!" That type of reporting has tarnished medical research unfairly, IMHO.
- jonballant 9y agoA quick search of the list of the "happiest countries" conducted by the UN shows all top 10 countries are from the west with at least a minor drinking culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report Obviously there are a variety of factors affecting the outcome, but it does seem that in countries where drinking is prevalent, the people in general are happier possibly due to the relationships forged. I'll take slightly shorter and happier over an extra year added to the lifespan.
- taneq 9y agoThat's something that always frustrates me with these discussions about drinking and health. They always ignore the positives from drinking. Yes, drinking too much (or any at all) can negatively affect your health. Yes, it can have a measurable impact on your lifespan. So can skydiving, or surfing, or horse riding, or eating a delicious burger, or taking a lover.
- raverbashing 9y agoReminds me the discussion over dietary fats that lead to the "fat-free" farce, increasing obesity levels and decreasing overall health. Missing the forest for the trees.
- thomasz 9y agoUh... No. Happiness correlates strongly with wealth. The problem in Sub-Saharan Africa isn't that do not drink enough Alcohol.
- jonballant 9y agoOf course there are a variety of variables that drive happiness, and wealth is probably one of the strongest. A proper regression analysis would have to be performed, but even if minimal, I would bet there is some correlation. Here is an interesting article/study focusing on the short term benefits to increasing happiness when drinking. http://time.com/4347687/alcohol-happiness-boost/ http://time.com/4347687/alcohol-happiness-boost/
- jimmytidey 9y agoIt's important to study the risks associated with alcohol, but it's also important to be pragmatic about how we reduce risk in our lives. Everything is risky, riding a horse is risky, going sailing is risky, doing a stressful job is risky. Running marathons often causes health problems. Being sedentary causes health problems. Being lonely is terrible for your health. Having a beer with your friends could be as important as another evening in the gym.
- NullPrefix 9y agoGo to gym with your friends. The only sensible solution.
- KozmoNau7 9y agoSure, when they start putting lifting racks in concert venues.
- Fifer82 9y agoI always wonder why they focus on the effects of say, a few beers, or someone who has a smoke in the morning. Yet all the health problems caused by the very air we breath in cities, well that is fine.
- ben_w 9y agoIt is studied, it’s not fine, it’s just not newsworthy at the moment. It’s barely newsworthy around here even when it exceeds legal limits.
- Fifer82 9y agoThis is just one source of the many examples I have read over the years painting a similar picture. >> In the UK, 8.39% of deaths were due to pollution It always seems pretty high. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/uk-has-one-of-the-worst-pollution-death-rates-in-europe-major-study-reveals-a3663381.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/uk-has-one-of-the-worst-p...
- chimprich 9y agoOne question I have about this paper is that as far as I can tell they don't seem to control for obesity. Drinking is often correlated with increased weight, and fatness causes many of the problems attributed to alcohol. I wonder how much of negative health issues found in this paper could be offset by staying fit and keeping weight under control? That said, it seems to be quite a rigorous paper in general and it's made me think about how much I should be drinking.
- nabla9 9y agoImagine if alcohol would be invented today. Drinking strong industrial solvent and carcinogen would be considered batshit crazy even in strongly diluted forms. When everybody something has existed for few decades, it becomes accepted behaviour.
- nkohari 9y agoYou say this, but it's currently trendy to vaporize and inhale flavored antifreeze (propylene glycol).
- mrep 9y ago> Imagine if alcohol would be invented today. Drinking strong industrial solvent and carcinogen would be considered batshit crazy even in strongly diluted forms. People make and try new types of drugs all the time. You probably just don't here about that because they are not as popular as the big ones like LSD, MDMA, and cocaine. Here is a whole family of recent inventions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2C_(psychedelics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2C_(psychedelics) Maybe you think people are batshit crazy for taking drugs but I'm perfectly OK with people taking drugs if they want to since it is their body.
- KozmoNau7 9y agoWe didn't invent alcohol, it happens all the time in nature, by itself. We just improved the process a bit. Alcohol has served countless extremely useful purposes through history, not least making questionable water sources potable, in the form of beer and wine.
- scotty79 9y ago7 beers a week sounds like alcoholism to me but that's maybe because of "a week" and "7" parts.
- slfnflctd 9y agoIf you ever hang out with some actual alcoholics, you'll see how ludicrous that statement looks fairly quickly. Many of them report regularly consuming over 30 drinks a day. There is a huge spectrum. I've been mulling this study over since it hit the news a few days ago, and I haven't dug into the actual paper enough yet, but I'm wondering if they adequately controlled for under-reporting. A lot of people who say "one drink a day" really mean "3 or more drinks a day" and are either too ashamed or too self-deluded to be able to admit it-- whereas I suspect most people who say "less than one drink a day" are being more accurate because they can actually remember multiple 24-hour periods when they didn't drink (unlike a drinker who has or is developing a problem). Source: Have alcoholic tendencies myself, recently brought it down to 4-6 drinks a day but getting it lower is proving very difficult.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- scotty79 9y agoYou are right. I'm very biased. If I drink two beers I'm drunk. So 7 beers a week means for me being drunk every other day. Which sounds absolutely horrible. I never drunk two days in a row. Although I've been drunk two days in a row by drinking 6 beers one day and not managing to sober up during sleep. I had alcoholic uncle but I never noticed how much he actually drinks only that he needs alcohol regularly so I equate any drinking regularly with alcoholism.
- archagon 9y agoIt should be noted that "beer" in this context refers to 12oz of 5% ABV beer, not 7.5% IPAs (or worse).
- jgforbes 9y ago
- spodek 9y agoNutrition Facts' Michael Greger covered the misinterpretation of data that led people to believe in health benefits of moderate drinking in this video: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/Is-It-Better-to-Drink-Little-Alcohol-Than-None-at-All https://nutritionfacts.org/video/Is-It-Better-to-Drink-Littl... There are reasons to drink moderately besides health, but best not to decide based on misinterpretations.
- bollockitis 9y agoAll of the debate about risk and life expectancy and carcinogens, etc. is fine from a scientific perspective, but don't forget to enjoy your life and to allow others the opportunity to enjoy theirs. For most of us, the "goal" is not to live the longest or to be the healthiest person in the room, but to laugh, play, cry, and to enjoy the journey as best we can given our circumstances. It ends the same way for all of us and is rarely pleasant no matter the route one took to arrive there.