6 ms·

I find it interesting that the FDA is recommending 1 drink per day for adult males, meanwhile Europeans live longer than us and drink a lot, on average [1] "Wo

I find it interesting that the FDA is recommending 1 drink per day for adult males, meanwhile Europeans live longer than us and drink a lot, on average [1] "World Health Organization figures show the French are far from being the heaviest drinkers in Europe. They have an average annual consumption per person of 12.6 litres of pure alcohol among the over-15s, behind Lithuania’s 15 litres, Germany’s 13.4 litres, Ireland and Luxembourg’s 13 litres each and Latvia’s 12.9 litres. In the UK 11.5 litres are drunk per person annually. Wine represents 58% of all the alcohol consumed in France. " The moral of the story IMO is take anything these institutions recommend with a grain of salt. This is the same FDA that pushed the carb-heavy food pyramid for years, ignoring all of the sugar and corn syrup added to everything[2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/27/the-french-must-drink-less-wine-say-health-officials https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/27/the-french-mus... [2]https://www.salon.com/2015/04/12/the_fdas_phony_nutrition_science_how_big_food_and_agriculture_trumps_real_science_and_why_the_government_allows_it/ https://www.salon.com/2015/04/12/the_fdas_phony_nutrition_sc...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gruez 6y ago
> I find it interesting that the FDA is recommending 1 drink per day for adult males, meanwhile Europeans live longer than us and drink a lot, on average [1] I don't see the contradiction in this. You can also make the conclusion that europeans are living longer than us despite their alcohol intake, but they can live even longer if they weren't drinking as much.
- mint2 6y ago
  Yeah based on my anecdotal European experience, they tend to have healthier lifestyles along many facets from food portions to attitude towards walking places. They probably are more keen to taking walks rather than grabbing an Uber for 3 blocks because the walkability of places in America is straight up garbage but that’s another issue, a digression. But all those factors mean that it’s likely in spite of the drinking that they’re healthier.
  - misiti3780 6y ago
    My anecdotal European experience is a bit different: I was in France last year and it seemed like literally everyone smoked. Italy in Spain, not so much.
- a3n 6y ago
  Yes, at least this.
this_user 6y ago
What we do know about alcohol is that the WHO has officially classified it as a Group 1 carcinogen. Studies have linked even low levels of consumption to an increase in cancer risk, so even one drink per days seems higher than it realistically should be. As for the life expectancy issue, that remains a mystery, but it would appear unlikely that higher alcohol intake is beneficial from a health perspective.
- bena 6y ago
  Cancer shows us just how bad we are at statistics and risk management. Most lung cancer is a result from smoking. That is true. However, it is also true that most smokers don't get lung cancer. So while drinking alcohol will increase your risk of cancer by a substantial amount comparatively, we're still comparing really small numbers. An increase of 0.1% to 0.2% is a 100% increase in risk, but you're still not likely to get it. And before anyone reads this as a pro-smoking message, there are many other ailments that come with smoking that happen with greater frequency. However, smoking will not guarantee you get lung cancer.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    > Cancer shows us just how bad we are at statistics and risk management. > Most lung cancer is a result from smoking. That is true. However, it is also true that most smokers don't get lung cancer. > So while drinking alcohol will increase your risk of cancer by a substantial amount comparatively, we're still comparing really small numbers. An increase of 0.1% to 0.2% is a 100% increase in risk, but you're still not likely to get it. The problem with this sort of thinking is that risk factors are, roughly speaking, multiplicative. So if you have other risk factors such as a family history of lung cancer, smoking may bump your personal risk from 12% to 24%. Still an increase of 100%. And of course, that's just a combination of two specific risk factors, many of which are implicated in multiple conditions (for example smoking also increases the risk for other lung conditions such as emphysema, heart problems, etc., meanwhile alcohol consumption also increases risks for diabetes, cirrhosis, heart problems, stroke, etc.), and many risk factors aren't as obvious (or as well marketed). The flip side of the multiplicativity of risk factors is that if you have several that are at least nominally under your control just eliminating one or two factors is probably going to be worth the effort (but if you are an overweight, snoring, sedentary, smoker and drinker, who consumes way too much sugary and salty snacks, etc. etc., choosing to take the stairs instead of the elevator is probably not the place to start). Anyway, sidestepping those risk factors you can both identify and do something about is probably worth it, because no individual is really representative of the population as a whole (ie. there are no people who are average in every way), and you don't really know how large your personal base level of risk is that the one isolated factor is multiplying.
fy20 6y ago
Here in Lithuania I'd say most people know someone who has died from alcohol (directly and indirectly), and many more people who you would consider alcoholics. I wouldn't say that's something a modern nation should strive for...
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
There's been a notable push in the UK over the last several years to reduce alcohol consumption guidelines. There have been well-established medical professionals that have argued that the correct "daily limit" is zero, but this has been shot down for a variety of reasons (lobbying is likely one of them, but not the only one). Although the UK does put alcohol consumption at the center of social life, civic institutions there really are pushing to significantly reduce the "norms".
triceratops 6y ago
> Europeans live longer than us and drink a lot, on average Maybe it's because they have better and cheaper healthcare.
grumple 6y ago
Gonna go out on a limb here and say this is a spurious correlation. Those nations differ from us immensely in their diet and overall food consumption, and perhaps more importantly they have universal healthcare and likely exercise more.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gruez 6y ago

> I find it interesting that the FDA is recommending 1 drink per day for adult males, meanwhile Europeans live longer than us and drink a lot, on average [1] I don't see the contradiction in this. You can also make the conclusion that europeans are living longer than us despite their alcohol intake, but they can live even longer if they weren't drinking as much.

mint2 6y ago
Yeah based on my anecdotal European experience, they tend to have healthier lifestyles along many facets from food portions to attitude towards walking places. They probably are more keen to taking walks rather than grabbing an Uber for 3 blocks because the walkability of places in America is straight up garbage but that’s another issue, a digression. But all those factors mean that it’s likely in spite of the drinking that they’re healthier.
- misiti3780 6y ago
  My anecdotal European experience is a bit different: I was in France last year and it seemed like literally everyone smoked. Italy in Spain, not so much.
a3n 6y ago
Yes, at least this.

this_user 6y ago

What we do know about alcohol is that the WHO has officially classified it as a Group 1 carcinogen. Studies have linked even low levels of consumption to an increase in cancer risk, so even one drink per days seems higher than it realistically should be. As for the life expectancy issue, that remains a mystery, but it would appear unlikely that higher alcohol intake is beneficial from a health perspective.

bena 6y ago
Cancer shows us just how bad we are at statistics and risk management. Most lung cancer is a result from smoking. That is true. However, it is also true that most smokers don't get lung cancer. So while drinking alcohol will increase your risk of cancer by a substantial amount comparatively, we're still comparing really small numbers. An increase of 0.1% to 0.2% is a 100% increase in risk, but you're still not likely to get it. And before anyone reads this as a pro-smoking message, there are many other ailments that come with smoking that happen with greater frequency. However, smoking will not guarantee you get lung cancer.
- webmaven 6y ago
  > Cancer shows us just how bad we are at statistics and risk management. > Most lung cancer is a result from smoking. That is true. However, it is also true that most smokers don't get lung cancer. > So while drinking alcohol will increase your risk of cancer by a substantial amount comparatively, we're still comparing really small numbers. An increase of 0.1% to 0.2% is a 100% increase in risk, but you're still not likely to get it. The problem with this sort of thinking is that risk factors are, roughly speaking, multiplicative. So if you have other risk factors such as a family history of lung cancer, smoking may bump your personal risk from 12% to 24%. Still an increase of 100%. And of course, that's just a combination of two specific risk factors, many of which are implicated in multiple conditions (for example smoking also increases the risk for other lung conditions such as emphysema, heart problems, etc., meanwhile alcohol consumption also increases risks for diabetes, cirrhosis, heart problems, stroke, etc.), and many risk factors aren't as obvious (or as well marketed). The flip side of the multiplicativity of risk factors is that if you have several that are at least nominally under your control just eliminating one or two factors is probably going to be worth the effort (but if you are an overweight, snoring, sedentary, smoker and drinker, who consumes way too much sugary and salty snacks, etc. etc., choosing to take the stairs instead of the elevator is probably not the place to start). Anyway, sidestepping those risk factors you can both identify and do something about is probably worth it, because no individual is really representative of the population as a whole (ie. there are no people who are average in every way), and you don't really know how large your personal base level of risk is that the one isolated factor is multiplying.

fy20 6y ago

Here in Lithuania I'd say most people know someone who has died from alcohol (directly and indirectly), and many more people who you would consider alcoholics. I wouldn't say that's something a modern nation should strive for...

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

There's been a notable push in the UK over the last several years to reduce alcohol consumption guidelines. There have been well-established medical professionals that have argued that the correct "daily limit" is zero, but this has been shot down for a variety of reasons (lobbying is likely one of them, but not the only one). Although the UK does put alcohol consumption at the center of social life, civic institutions there really are pushing to significantly reduce the "norms".

triceratops 6y ago

> Europeans live longer than us and drink a lot, on average Maybe it's because they have better and cheaper healthcare.

grumple 6y ago

Gonna go out on a limb here and say this is a spurious correlation. Those nations differ from us immensely in their diet and overall food consumption, and perhaps more importantly they have universal healthcare and likely exercise more.