10 ms·
Two standard alcoholic drinks a day no longer safe, health officials say
- rogerkirkness 7y agoThe original studies didn't control for wealth. Wealthy people drink moderately, and live the longest. So technically it was never safe if you control for wealth.
- cies 7y agoI understood that the 2/day thing was measured on an on average quite obese population. And that doing the test on exclusively healthy individuals would result in 2/day, everyday, being a disaster. (Not sure where I read this, most likely in Greger's "How Not To Die"). Its like you give the obese a little blood thinner, which is like a medicine for them. But not for the rest.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoConsidering that obesity related cirrhosis is starting to outpace the alcohol version, I'd say that doing both probably isn't a good thing, and is in fact compounding the potential liver issues.
- cies 7y agoThe liver is a rather forgiving organ. High blood pressure and whatever-sclerosis are not so forgiving. Alcohol seems to help on the second ones.
- barrkel 7y agoWealthy people drink more; drinking is correlated with income [1][2]. The catch is that wealthy people don't suffer like poor people do when they drink, and wealthy people are less likely to be full-blown alcoholics. It's not clear which ways the causality goes, though. [1] https://www.healthline.com/health-news/rich-people-drinking-more https://www.healthline.com/health-news/rich-people-drinking-... [2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170511095038.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170511095038.h...
- thrownaway954 7y ago"wealthy people are less likely to be full-blown alcoholics" - total bullshit. Sorry, but walk into any once a week church AA meetings and you will find many wealthy alcoholics there. The difference is that wealthy people can afford a lawyer and don't suffer the same devastating economic consequences from their drinking as the poor so it takes them longer to hit their bottom and finally admit they have a problem they can't control.
- OnlineGladiator 7y agoI think this is a knee-jerk overreaction. Poor people can be alcoholics, and rich people can be alcoholics. But rich people tend to have a lot of luxuries that poor people don't, and those luxuries make it easier not to lean on alcohol as a dependency to get by. The biggest predictor of recovery from an addiction is whether or not the addict has a safety net. Rich people can buy a safety net (if they don't have close friends, they can pay for life coaches, therapists, and more). Poor people either have it or they don't. I could easily believe that genetic predisposition to addiction is the same regardless of wealth (I'd actually be somewhat surprised if it weren't true), but the reality is that rich people have a lot more support to help them through their struggles than poor people.
- csallen 7y ago> Sorry, but walk into any once a week church AA meetings and you will find many wealthy alcoholics there. This type of anecdata is meaningless for assessing anything. Not only is your sample size tiny and biased based on where you live, but there's selection bias due to the fact that some types of alcoholics don't go to church AA meetings. > The difference is that… As usual, there are likely many differences, rather than just one. Studies have shown that wealthy people drink more, likely because they can afford to drink more. They're also more likely to seek and afford healthcare, therapy, gyms, healthy food, etc., not just lawyers.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- barrkel 7y ago
- zozbot234 7y agoModerate drinking may not be "safe", but binge drinking is a lot worse. For one thing, wealthy people who drink alcohol out of tradition do not generally become alcoholic, or even go "black out drunk" and get into all sorts of social dangers and/or grossly antisocial behavior as a result.
- vorpalhex 7y agoThese guidelines generally shift both ways over time, but anecdotally, I notice that "a few drinks a night" every night is a lot more harmful than occasionally having a few drinks at once with friends. The folks who go home and have a whiskey or two every single weeknight end up with a lot more repercussions.
- aswanson 7y agoThis is true from what I see among friends, anecdotally.
- empath75 7y agoI think it's often because "a couple of drinks a night" is more like "drinking yourself to sleep".
- alpaca128 7y agoI guess that applies to most things involving our bodies and minds. So many things from food to other health related things depend more on what we do consistently (almost) every day, aka as a habit. Eating a couple burgers at once doesn't really do much, just like a single long session at the gym. Of course there are exceptions, for example if a minor gets heavily drunk just once it dramatically increases the chance of alcoholism later in life as it affects the developing brain a lot more.
- rriepe 7y agoWhen did reporting tacitly turn into reality? It was either always safe or never safe. What we considered it to be is what changed. It's this really insidious subtext of "What we tell you is reality."
- nathan_compton 7y agoOr they are just employing a figure of speech and everyone knows what they mean?
- mindcrime 7y agoIt's bad use of language no matter how you split it. I won't go as far as suggesting any kind of sinister intent or conspiracy theory, but the parent poster is right: it was either always safe, or it was never safe. There's no good reason not to report this using precise language.
- nathan_compton 7y agoI can't argue wit the fact that adding a "considered" to the headline would substantially improve its literal reading without impacting its readability.
- mindcrime 7y agoAgreed.
- rozab 7y agoI think it's a subtle anti-science attitude that pervades throughout society. "Next thing they'll be telling us apricots give us cancer! Those stupid scientists, eh?" When of course it's really the media itself to blame.
- rs23296008n1 7y agoEating apricots does cause cancer if there is enough remaining pesticide residue that hasn't been washed off. I also agree that most of the scare is media neglecting their public interest responsibilities in the name of sensationalism.
- outside1234 7y agoMy favorite part: 'But Anne Kelso, the NHMRC chief executive, said the guidelines were “not telling Australians how much to drink”.' Isn't that exactly what you are doing? (And should be doing?)
- Beltiras 7y agoIt's a sensitive issue for some. Especially those that should cut back or quit.
- rvense 7y agoI haven't had any alcohol since 2011. Most people don't really care, but ever so often you run into someone who is offended that you don't even want a single beer... and it is always, without failure, the kind of person who themselves drink too much, too often, and/or just handle it poorly.
- globular-toast 7y agoStrange wording. Saying it's "no longer safe" implies that it once was and maybe alcoholic drinks are now more dangerous or humans are now more susceptible. I suppose it means it is no longer considered safe. That's a non-trivial difference. Personally, I've stopped using alcohol completely. At first I just tried to drink less, but that's difficult because using it lowers inhibition and makes it more likely to be overused. It's much easier to just stop entirely and remove any possibility of a bad decision. I've found that I actually enjoy mocktails, alcohol-free beers and soft drinks when I go out and don't miss alcoholic drinks one bit. I know I won't get a hangover or be in a compromised mental state at any point. It feels great. Even though I only did this for personal reasons I do now see many more of the negative effects of alcohol as an outside observer. I hope that within my lifetime I'll see much less use of this drug much like what's happened with tobacco.
- bluedino 7y agoPeople don't drink for the taste.
- paulmooreparks 7y agoI just now enjoyed a small, delicious glass of cognac, my only drink of the day. Yes, some people do drink for the taste.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- chrisseaton 7y agoWhat do you think people are doing at wine tastings? And what do you think is the point of alcohol free beers and wines?
- aaronax 7y agoI believe that wine tastings are primarily for the social value, with the socializing eased by the alcohol. Having a guise of learning about the wine (or whatever) is useful. And my second belief (again generalizing, how I see it, etc.) is that alcohol-free beers are so that you can fit in when at the bar (where again, socializing is the main value) and choosing not to drink alcohol.
- draklor40 7y agoDosage and frequency are 2 different things. Smoking a pack of cigarettes every year wont kill you, but smoking one cigaratte a day for a year might.
- adrianN 7y agoI'd be interested in a good study that compared smoking one cigarette a day with smoking 365 cigarettes "at once". (or more likely a less immediately lethal dose both for daily as well as "at once" consumption) My intuition would be the opposite of yours. I think our body is reasonably well equipped to handle low dose exposure, but large doses at once are more likely to cause irreversible damage.
- draklor40 7y agoIs one cigarette a day, dosage low enough for the body to benefit from it, or atleast not be damaged by it? Is a pack of cigarettes high enough to kill you if you smoke it all at once ? I know quite a few friends who get through a pack a day. I didn't say 365 cigarettes at once. Everyone knows its too high a dosage that might actually kill a person, just like a high enough dose of caffeine or alcohol. I don't think a cigarette a day is low dosage. While you might not die of a heart attack or get lung cancer directly from smoking, it might still increase the risk of serious diseases given other environmental conditions, your fitness level, diet, etc. The 2 drinks a day has to be seen in a similar light.
- codyb 7y agoI read of a study once which said smokers who wait until after breakfast are less likely to develop cancer. Which makes me think maybe it’s the length of time between, in which case you might be better off smoking seven on Sunday than one a day.
- jcutrell 7y agoThere are studies that show not this level of extreme, but that there is what is called “wasted harm” - the harm done by 3 packs a day is not 3x the harm done by 1 pack a day, and 1 pack a day for 5 years is thus worse than 5 packs a day for 1 year.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- minikites 7y agoBased on what we now know about the health effects of alcohol, I think if alcohol was "invented" today there's no way it would be legal, we just have a 10,000 year long status quo bias.
- spats1990 7y agoAlcohol was grandfathered in, as Elon Musk said in that interview where he hit the blunt.
- umvi 7y agoIt would be impossible to have any degree of control over the black market though. Unlike other drugs where you need difficult-to-obtain seeds or extremely convoluted chemical synthesis processes, alcohol can be made by accident with stuff you normally buy at the grocery store. Are they going to make grape juice illegal, too?
- blaser-waffle 7y agoPlus bread yeast and any sort of food that has easily accessible carbs: fruits, grains, refined sugar, etc. Prohibition tried to ban booze, and it failed for those reasons.
- siberianbear 7y agoPart of the problem is that alcohol is very easy to manufacture. It's hard to enforce a law on manufacturing something if anyone with a very small amount of knowledge can easily make it in their bedroom closet out of legal materials.
- MadWombat 7y ago> if alcohol was "invented" today there's no way it would be legal I see it as a good reason to legalize things invented recently rather than making alcohol illegal. The prohibition and the war on drugs should have taught people something.
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoAlways lots of pushback when anyone suggests limiting alcohol. Defensiveness, projection, anger are common. Has to be a reason for that.
- benbristow 7y agoBecause life is depressing and alcohol is an accessible, legal escape.
- downerending 7y agoIf I hadn't had booze dealing with my ugly divorce and its ugly aftermath, I'd surely be dead. It's easy to pronounce something bad. But always you must ask how it compares to the available alternatives.
- blhack 7y agoProbably for the same reason you get that response when you tell a vegan to eat meat, or a meat eater to stop eating meat.
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoReally? Alcohol is a moral choice, like vegetarianism? That's a new one. {Defensiveness}
- hellisothers 7y agoPlenty of people are vegan/vegetarian because it’s fashionable, in the end it is a choice which is the OP’s point.
- blaser-waffle 7y agoThey say the yeast is "free range" but really it is confined in a tank against its will! Free the yeasts!
- mnm1 7y ago
- HONEST_ANNIE 7y agoImagine a sci-fi story where you encounter human settlement that consumes solvent that is known to causes violence and accidents and is addictive carcinogen. The inhabitants use various methods to add little taste into it, bottle it into fancy bottles. Sophisticated solvent enthusiasts recognize different tastes and treat solvent fruit juices as the highest form of sophisticated hedonism. Alcohol as a solvent is very similar to many inhalants as a drug. Closer to paint thinner than nitrous oxide. Similar cultural affection to hallucinogens, pot or even pure methamphetamines would be less harmful. Some things are hard to perceive odd when it's everyday phenomenon. Women wearing high-heels is be another very odd cultural artifact.
- blhack 7y agoState anything without context an it will sound weird. Imagine a sci fi story where people stare into a glowing rectangular box for hours on end per day. There are whole industries surrounding the production of these glowing rectangles, and the people who are particularly good at changing the colors get paid far more than anybody else. Major efforts by the academic and altruistic class have been made to provide glowing squares to people who are starving to death, thinking that the inedible glowing squares might cause them to grow food.
- hajile 7y agoConsidering all the studies about the bad effects of too much TV, I don't know that you are providing a counter-example. EDIT: staring at a computer screen all day is also associated with quite a few negative effects -- whether working or playing.
- blhack 7y agoInteresting that you think I was talking about TV. I was talking about computing.
- mbostleman 7y agoParaphrased meme I saw on social media yesterday: Hipster mad that publication used a picture of him to show that all hipsters look alike eventually realizes that it was not a picture of him.
- swiley 7y agoI’m pretty sure no amount of alcohol is safe. I remember before college (in other words: before all the binge drinking.) I felt bad weeks after I had just a glass of wine.
- chrisseaton 7y ago> I felt bad This isn't the same as being unsafe though, is it?
- swiley 7y agoI guess we have different meanings for safety? For me: safety means not causing permanent damage.
- chrisseaton 7y agoAre you still feeling ill now? So is it permanent?
- authoritarian 7y agoYou said you feel bad, in what way did that cause permanent damage? I stubbed my toe this morning and it felt bad but no permanent damage was caused
- logfromblammo 7y agoSomeone with a congenital deficiency for the acetaldehyde dehydrogenase enzyme, or too young to express adult levels of it, will definitely feel bad after a drink. Ethanol metabolizes to acetaldehyde, which is a chemical that causes several unpleasant symptoms. Among these is the so-called "Asian blush". (Asians have a higher incidence of acetaldehyde dehydrogenase deficiency.) Any amount of alcohol you drink in excess of your liver's ability to express acetaldehyde dehydrogenase will cause damage. If you get a hangover, it was too much.
- blhack 7y agoA lot of the doctors I know seem to agree on something: more than anything you can do, decrease stress to improve your health. Alcohol does that. Sitting and having drinks, even sitting and having a LOT of drinks occasionally, with your close friends, is good for you because it helps decrease your stress.
- phonypc 7y agoNo. If having a good drunken time with your friends actually does decrease stress in the medically important sense, it's in spite of the alcohol, not because of it. Metabolizing alcohol is inherently stressful for the body.
- blhack 7y agoExercise is stressful for the body too, but that doesn't mean it's bad for you. (I'm not equating these two)
- chrisseaton 7y ago> having a good drunken time You're talking about being drunk. The person you're replying to is talking about having a drink.
- faissaloo 7y agoThere are infinitely more constructive and sustainable ways to reduce stress. If you are so stressed that you need to abuse substances you need psychotherapy.
- rs23296008n1 7y agoSafe is and was a relative term. Historically alcoholic drinks such as beer were often safer than just water in days gone by. Also true: Water purification is still a challenge even today. Plenty of cities don't even have drinkable water in people's residences.
- minikites 7y agoIt wasn't full strength beer in the past, people weren't wasted 24/7: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_beer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_beer
- rs23296008n1 7y agoI've made that and its why I know beer was safer in times past. Probably still is in a lot of places.
- faissaloo 7y agoThis is a false comparison, water is a human necessity
- rs23296008n1 7y agoUnhelpful brusque comment. Of course water is a necessity. Given a choice between a lot of the tap water across the world's cities and basically any strength of beer, I'd go for the beer if I had any doubts about local water quality. That tap water often requires boiling and/or filtration. Overly clever local water sellers often bottle the unfiltered tap water and sell it. I've had that experience as well.
- unpythonic 7y agoI find it funny when satire from the past becomes the truth of the present. It's not hard to find examples such as the dystopian satire of "Network" (1976) becoming depressingly accurate. In this case, Mitchell & Webb performed a sketch on the power of having just shy of two drinks. The Inebriati is "a group bound by the creed that humanity is better and more noble after very nearly two drinks than at any other time." Video here: https://streamable.com/wtsn https://streamable.com/wtsn
- blaser-waffle 7y agoSee also: XKCD's "Ballmer Peak" https://xkcd.com/323/ https://xkcd.com/323/
- DanBC 7y agoOne Australian standard drink is 10gm of alcohol. A (UK) pint (568ml) of beer at 5% ABV will have 2.24 standard drinks. A 175ml glass of wine at 12.5% ABV will have 1.8 standard drinks. Important advice is to have at least one day a week with no alcohol at all.
- scottlocklin 7y agoMost public health officials fail to use statistics properly; this is about as useful as advice that broccoli gives you cancer (or cures it; whatever it is this week). It's obvious that health effects of moderate use of alcohol are ... moderate. I certainly appreciate public health officials for their efforts; not dying of cholera when I drink water is a nice feature of modernity, but them jabbering on about how many drinks you can have before you have "health effects" is just a lot of horse shit. I'm pretty sure oral sex is more dangerous than consuming alcohol at such levels (it's statistically mildly carcinogenic). There are obvious things these people could be doing which are tremendously more useful: assessing the human health impacts of ... pesticides, herbicides, widespread use of soy protein (which is highly estrogenic and has almost certainly had a huge negative impact on human health), BPAs and so on. Such things should be reassessed by public health officials, and are likely vastly more dangerous than people having a couple of beers, but somehow we keep getting obsessive advice from teetotal nitwits.
- mbostleman 7y ago"It is no longer safe to have two standard drinks a day". Dear Australian health officials. Nothing has changed. It has never been safe to have two standard drinks a day. It's inconceivable to me how anyone but the most uninformed could have ever thought that something that melts your liver would be safe in any concentration. For decades I've rolled my eyes at the "one glass of wine a day" or whatever phrase was used in the current era.
- airbreather 7y agoHigh consumers of peanuts and pistachio products are at greater risk of intermittent exposure to aflatoxin. ... Longer term exposure to dietary aflatoxins in combination with chronic infection with hepatitis viruses, particularly HBV, significantly increases the risk of liver cancer. Best watch your peanut consumption as well. Point is, there are likely many things in a day that are consumed that are not tha great for people, but they don't even know. Some are even thought to be good for them.
- archagon 7y agoThis brings Australia's drinking recommendations up to par with pretty much the rest of the world, so this is a good change. (Last I checked, I think 100–120 grams a week for men was most common.) If anyone's into fancy alcohols and wants to ensure they're sticking to safe drinking limits, I made a free iOS app called Good Spirits just for that purpose: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/good-spirits/id1434237439 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/good-spirits/id1434237439 You set a weekly drink amount (with suggestions based on government recommendations) and check in every time you drink, and the app tracks your progress and lets you know how you've been doing over the course of the week/month/year. For convenience, you can automatically pull your recent beer check-ins from Untappd. The source code is available under the GPL here: https://github.com/archagon/good-spirits https://github.com/archagon/good-spirits (I think I'm pretty much the only user at the moment, but it's been invaluable in tempering my craft beer obsession!)