4 ms·

I think this might be a case of over-stating all the negatives, because the alcohol industry has done such a good job at promulgating the falsehood that “modera

I think this might be a case of over-stating all the negatives, because the alcohol industry has done such a good job at promulgating the falsehood that “moderate” alcohol consumption is health _promoting_ — and of course drinking can be fun so people like to be validated in this way. I come from a heavy-drinking culture that is now promoting “Mediterranean-style” drinking habits as being a “healthy alternative” to binge-drinking. Maybe this is a good public health tactic, to push people to a “lesser evil”, but according to meta-analyses like https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17478320/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17478320/, there really is no safe level for alcohol. And even a “lesser evil” approach can be applied while being honest — know that when you’re drinking, it should always be pure indulgence, not under some false pretense of getting resveratrol or some other nonsense. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25670722/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25670722/ provides something of an overview. Apropos of nothing, sci dash hub dot se.

nostromo 6y ago
Your link doesn't seem to support what you're saying. > Our meta-analytic results indicate that the few studies without this error (i.e., those that did not contaminate the abstainer category with occasional or former drinkers) show abstainers and "light" or "moderate" drinkers to be at equal risk for all-cause and CHD mortality. Equal risk, or in other words, there was no increase in mortality from light or moderate drinking.
- dundarious 6y ago
  TL;DR I pointed at the wrong link for the "no safe level" claim. That quotation is from the first link, the meta-analysis "Moderate Alcohol Use and Reduced Mortality Risk: Systematic Error in Prospective Studies and New Hypotheses". It's a single piece of work focused on the "sick quitter" phenomenon, which only shows that light or "moderate" consumption is at best providing no benefit, as you say. This was the main thrust of my point -- it's not health-promoting. I did make a mistake and say that this meta-analysis justified a stronger claim though. I should have justified it using the second link. The second link is an editorial, "Alcohol’s evaporating health benefits: Industry lobbying and promotion are rife and unchecked by governments". It's more of an overview of many studies and meta-analyses, and is the reference I should have given for my claim of "no safe level". Choice quotation and it's reference. > A recent mendelian randomisation meta-analysis further concluded that “reductions of alcohol consumption, even for light to moderate drinkers, may be beneficial for cardiovascular health.” [16] > [16] Holmes MV, Dale CE, Zuccolo L, Silverwood RJ, Guo Y, Ye Z, et al. Association between alcohol and cardiovascular disease: Mendelian randomisation analysis based on individual participant data. BMJ 2014;349:g4164 CHD is the number one killer in the US.

nostromo 6y ago

Your link doesn't seem to support what you're saying. > Our meta-analytic results indicate that the few studies without this error (i.e., those that did not contaminate the abstainer category with occasional or former drinkers) show abstainers and "light" or "moderate" drinkers to be at equal risk for all-cause and CHD mortality. Equal risk, or in other words, there was no increase in mortality from light or moderate drinking.

dundarious 6y ago
TL;DR I pointed at the wrong link for the "no safe level" claim. That quotation is from the first link, the meta-analysis "Moderate Alcohol Use and Reduced Mortality Risk: Systematic Error in Prospective Studies and New Hypotheses". It's a single piece of work focused on the "sick quitter" phenomenon, which only shows that light or "moderate" consumption is at best providing no benefit, as you say. This was the main thrust of my point -- it's not health-promoting. I did make a mistake and say that this meta-analysis justified a stronger claim though. I should have justified it using the second link. The second link is an editorial, "Alcohol’s evaporating health benefits: Industry lobbying and promotion are rife and unchecked by governments". It's more of an overview of many studies and meta-analyses, and is the reference I should have given for my claim of "no safe level". Choice quotation and it's reference. > A recent mendelian randomisation meta-analysis further concluded that “reductions of alcohol consumption, even for light to moderate drinkers, may be beneficial for cardiovascular health.” [16] > [16] Holmes MV, Dale CE, Zuccolo L, Silverwood RJ, Guo Y, Ye Z, et al. Association between alcohol and cardiovascular disease: Mendelian randomisation analysis based on individual participant data. BMJ 2014;349:g4164 CHD is the number one killer in the US.