122 ms·

No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

• maskil 5y ago
  I know of a man who had a shot of 96 percent alcohol (192 proof) every single day and died at the age of 96.
  • JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
    Yes that is an anecdote. We get better info by looking at large groups of people and that is what the recommendation is based on.
    • notch656a 5y ago
      Agreed, although a single shot of moonshine is a equivalent to a little over a pint of beer. You can drink that and be well within alcohol consumption guidelines in US. Even most alcohol-naïve people would only be minimally intoxicated from a single shot of moonshine.
      • JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
        The guidelines are probably wrong. All recent scientific data I see shows that, like most poisons, the best amount to intake is zero. Here’s one for brain health. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.10.21256931v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.10.21256931v...
        • notch656a 5y ago
          "The dose makes the poison" - Paracelsus I'm sure drinking has some effect on you, but I'm not sure one non-peer reviewed which by their own papers shows <18 drinks / week shows baseline within the uncertainty band is evidence of any noticeable mental decline. In fact several of the graphs, it shows an increase in matter volume for low non-zero amounts vs zero.
  • jeromegv 5y ago
    From Wikipedia: Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to some false conclusions in several different ways. It is a form of selection bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
  • HNDen21 5y ago
    should have gone for 98 percent alcohol, would have lived till 98 :-)
  • mellavora 5y ago
    Damn! Good thing he wasn't drinking 40 proof spirits, otherwise he would have died much sooner.
  • scrapcode 5y ago
    My great grandfather sat in a chair and drank from his handle of whiskey every day until his death also at 96. I had heard stories of workers on his farm not realize he was drinking during the work day until the tractor plowed through a neighboring fence causing them to look up in concern to see him passed out on the seat. I unfortunately saw many in my family use his fortunate long life span, regardless of drink consumption, as an enabler to drink like that. Including myself, up until about 90 days ago.
    • selimthegrim 5y ago
      What happened 90 days ago?
      • scrapcode 5y ago
        I gave up drinking.
  • dontlistentome 5y ago
  • tasha0663 5y ago
    These studies have clearly run into some local maximum... the trick is to blow past it!
  • RankingMember 5y ago
    Yep, and there's always that one person who trots out that their grandmother smoked 2 packs of unfiltered cigarettes a day and lived to be 100. Anecdata is not data.
  • maskil 5y ago
    He was known to have said that it's the 4 percent water that's going to kill him.
  • gatorvh 5y ago
    The statement is only interesting when you consider a sizeable population who regularly drank the % alcohol and lived to 96. It’s a classic case of selection bias
• Leary 5y ago
  When they say the evidence is clear, you have to ask, where's the evidence? Did they have a randomized control trial I don't know of?
  • actually_a_dog 5y ago
    Click through to the download and chase the citations, if you want to see what they're referring to as "evidence."
  • tasha0663 5y ago
    Evidence? Didn't you see those dirty MGD bottles next to the broken window on page 2?
• charcircuit 5y ago
  >Studies have shown that even small amounts of alcohol can increase a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease I've never drunk alcohol before. Is it worth never having it? Does one drink really ruin your body that much.
  • the_only_law 5y ago
    If you mean literally having one drink once in your life I highly doubt there is any meaningful impact. If I had to guess, the air I breathe and other environmental factors would be more harmful over a long term period than having a single drink.
  • malfist 5y ago
    Disclaimer, not a scientist, just a (3 year) sober alcoholic One drink once in your life is not going to harm you. I think this is talking more about the "moderate" drinking of 1-2 servings per week. That said, I've been down the whole alcohol path before and it ain't good for me. I don't know of any time since I've gotten sober that I thought back and said "Man, I wish I had been drunk for that" It's an unnecessary risk. Maybe you'll do fine trying alcohol, maybe you'll become an addict and ruin your life. I don't think you're going to enhance your life by trying alcohol.
    • freedom2099 5y ago
      My parents and grandparents drinks wine daily… every single meal (no water at their table)… have done their entire life… grandpa died at 94 due to an accident… grandma 98 and going strong… both my parents are 75 healthy and a active (always around travelling). But for them alcohol is not a drug… is a beverage that goes very well with food! They never drink for the sake of it! As long as a person sees alcohol as a recreational drug he has a problem but it must not always be the case! P.S. we are from Southern Europe
  • runnerup 5y ago
    It's fine to never drink alcohol. One drink won't change anything measurable. Even this press release doesn't claim that one drink per day is harmful -- it merely claims that one drink per day has never been definitively shown to cause benefit.
• friendlydog 5y ago
• vladcodes 5y ago
  Cheers
• nradov 5y ago
  The problem with articles like this is that they lack context on the relative risks of various activities. Is drinking a daily glass of wine more or less bad for your heart than skipping your daily aerobic exercise? Surely we can put some numbers on that.
  • lenzm 5y ago
    I think a good measuring stick would be the distance you'd need to drive in a car to generate the same level of risk to your life. Driving is seemingly mundane but I think one of the riskiest things we do on a daily basis in the US.
    • nradov 5y ago
      Driving risk statistics are sort of artificially inflated by deaths and injuries of motorcyclists and DUI/ DWI drivers involved in single-vehicle crashes. If you avoid putting yourself in those categories then driving is much safer than the raw statistics suggest. There's also a huge variance in risk based on what vehicle you drive. Some larger vehicles have a statistical driver death rate close to zero. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-model https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-...
  • downrightmike 5y ago
    daily, whoa there armstrong
  • bequanna 5y ago
    Straight up comparisons like that are pry too simplistic when dealing with a complicated system like our bodies. People seem to really want this kind of +1/-1 point system for health related behavior tho. Like: “I just spent 30mins at the gym so I racked up enough ‘health points’ to eat an apple pie at McDonalds”. I think the reality is that you need to generally do a good job of following all advice all the time if you want to remain healthy. Keep very active and remember that indulgences are OK, but should be infrequent.
  • P_I_Staker 5y ago
• tharne 5y ago
  Don't worry, in 5-10 years it will be good for you again. I still remember being lectured in school on the food pyramid and the importance of getting your 8-10 servings of grains a day.
  • JKCalhoun 5y ago
    This clip from Woody Allen's "Sleeper": https://youtu.be/D2fYguIX17Q https://youtu.be/D2fYguIX17Q
  • melissalobos 5y ago
    > Don't worry, in 5-10 years it will be good for you again. I don't know about that, it it looking more like Alcohol is heading down the path of cigarettes where the more unbiased funding and studies that are done, the worse it appears. There have been several convincing reviews[1] recently that showed an increased risk of cancer at any dosage. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32584303/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32584303/ (First one I could find easily again)
    • P_I_Staker 5y ago
      Yeah, it’s really a myth that science is changing so much. You can look at dietary recommendations from the 70s, and they’re fine. Eat your plants and don’t eat garbage. The food pyramid was more a product of lobbying than science. The doctors advice wasn't that bad, although there would be less knowledge of the dangers of refined carbs. People want it to be true that the doctors don’t know what they’re doing, but it’s not (or these are bad examples of).
      • ravenstine 5y ago
        Honestly, I find it baffling when people think that doctors know what they're talking about when it comes to nutrition. Maybe things have changed in recent years, and that would be great, but in my experience and from the anecdotes of others, my conception of what doctors understand is the opposite of what you describe. Granted, I do agree that the science actually hasn't changed that much, and that doctors who do research know ath they're talking about, but your average MD is pretty clueless about nutrition and fitness because that's really not a subject that gets priority in med school. There are even doctors today who still give advice along the lines of the Food Pyramid and My Plate. I've heard more than one account in my social circles of doctors telling people the myth that dietary fat flows freely through your blood vessels and clogs them exactly the same way that bacon grease can clog drain pipes. > People want it to be true that the doctors don’t know what they’re doing Also, the root of this statement is something I am surprised by. People want their doctors to not know what they're doing? In what universe is that true? Maybe that fits your experience, but this is a phenomenon I've never encountered in the slightest.
• coldtea 5y ago
• 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
  as someone who grew up i a community that has for many reasons, religious, social, economic that no one really does alcohol. when there is nobody who is drunk, we have 0 drunk driving cases, 0 cases of people ending up in wrong places, 0 cases of alcoholism, 0 cases of "well we will just mix a drink with something more recreational", no need for AA among a host of other things including not having to budget alcohol in your daily budget because people are generally still poor. why is that not more prevalent?
  • jdhn 5y ago
    Because alcohol has been purposely drunk by people for literally thousands of years, and the vast, vast majority of people are able to drink without having a problem?
    • amirbehzad 5y ago
    • 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
      people have purposely been doing a lot of slavery for thousands of years as well. took us some time but we got over the whole "its been fine for millions of years so it must be good or at least fine" to get to the root of the issue. once we found that, slavery was abolished pretty much everywhere. my point is, why bring "societal pressure of 500 years" into an argument for an inherently bad thing. just thinking out loud
      • N1H1L 5y ago
        Slavery is not alcohol, and equating the two is a very obvious strawman argument
        • netizen-936824 5y ago
          The point was the "doing something for a long time is not a good reason to view it as okay"
• DamnYuppie 5y ago
  Yes but a moderate amount with good friends is great for my soul.
  • tootie 5y ago
    I usually spend time with friends over coffee which has very much been rehabilitated in the medical world over the past ten years.
  • asdf_snar 5y ago
    My friend and family groups have been making a consistent effort to stop romanticizing alcohol and have gatherings without it. There's no denying alcohol is a social lubricant that can be very enjoyable.
    • slfnflctd 5y ago
      I think it's important to normalize having alcohol-free excursions, especially when younger people are around. Demonstrate that self control is valued. And I say that as someone with a drinking problem who sweats about going more than half a day without one.
      • pydry 5y ago
        What's a good alternative, though? It's delicious and it lets you collectively guard down in a way that creates a bond of trust. It's a difficult thing to substitute. When one of my friends went to China on business and came back with "stories" I realized that KTV visits (prostitutes) performed a similar function, but honestly a glass of wine seems a bit more wholesome.
      • Ensorceled 5y ago
        My father, an alcoholic (25 years sober), gave the best description ... he was always worried about if there was going to be alcohol at the event and how much. If you are turning down attending events because they are dry ... you have a problem.
    • jsonne 5y ago
• mmastrac 5y ago
  Alcohol is one of the worst "drugs" on a personal/societal harm scale - if we're going to tolerate this at large, we should probably consider legalizing everything else that's less harmful to at least be consistent. While we're at it, let's de-stigmatize the abuse of substances and treat it like a real mental health issue.
  • matthewfcarlson 5y ago
    I would much rather legalize pot over alcohol being illegal. If alcohol had the same usage as pot we would have far fewer deaths. My only complaint is that pot smells awful (though alcohol isn’t much better).
  • golemotron 5y ago
    This comes from the point of view that harm is a scalar quantity. There are many different dimensions of harm and they vary wildly for each activity/drug. Reality is more nuanced than any single measure we select.
  • wizzwizz4 5y ago
    > if we're going to tolerate this at large, we should probably consider legalizing everything else that's less harmful to at least be consistent. Please do not decide policy using this kind of reasoning. Maybe we should legalise more stuff, but “worse things are legal” is not a good reason. > A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. — Ralph Waldo Emerson
    • lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Consistency in legal matters seems like a good and necessary thing for ensuring fairness. What is the basis for Emerson’s quote to apply here?
      • mlac 5y ago
        Statesmen saying “alcohol is legal, might as well legalize everything else that is less harmful on some dimension”. Where the alternative may be just leaving alcohol as an exception, or outlawing it (but yeah… don’t mess with Americans and their Alcohol - see prohibition and the whiskey rebellion).
• slackfan 5y ago
  • JoeAltmaier 5y ago
    You know, most (Americans) drink little or no alcohol. The cult of alcohol is certain they cannot live without it, which is part of the problem perhaps. But most do live without it. And are not eating bugs.
    • fastball 5y ago
      Source that most Americans drink little or no alcohol? Apparently in 2019, 54.9% of respondents[1] had alcohol in the last month. And I would imagine polls like this are generally under-reported, not over. [1] https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/alcohol-facts-and-statistics https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sh...
      • lkbm 5y ago
        I drank alcohol in the past month. I drink about once a month. I'd assume that that counts as "little or no alcohol". Thus, if just 1/11 of those 54.9% are like me, his statement to be true.
        • mindcrime 5y ago
          I'm in the same boat. I drink, I just drink very little. I don't see any reason to think this behavior is particularly exceptional.
    • NickBusey 5y ago
      This sounded wrong to me, so I did a simple search. This study from the NIAA of the NIH seems to suggest what you said is incorrect. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/alcohol-facts-and-statistics https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sh... Most Americans do drink.
• jppope 5y ago
  > The evidence is clear: any level of alcohol consumption can lead to loss of healthy life. No it isn't. The studies change on this constantly. Literally, it is why they are making their policy- because its confusing to people. They also need to conduct a longitudinal study (or more than 1) to prove this... and guess what? They won't do it.
  • kevinmchugh 5y ago
    If you see a study that purports to show health benefits of drinking check to see if it distinguishes lifelong teetotalers vs recovering alcoholics. Lifelong teetotalers are much healthier than an alcoholic who's quit drinking, on average. The studies, at least in the US, should also control for wealth.
    • starwind 5y ago
      Bingo. A lot of studies that purport health benefits from drinking are comparing "sick quitters" who drank themselves into health problems to normal people who have the occasional drink and don't bother to control for socioeconomic status
      • kevinmchugh 5y ago
        Ah, thank you, I knew the phenomenon had a name and couldn't remember "sick quitters"
  • BurningFrog 5y ago
    Note the weasel word: "can".
  • f38zf5vdt 5y ago
    They've been consistent on the positive cardiovascular effects from mild consumption of red wine forever. > 48 animal and 37 human studies were included in data extraction following screening. Significant improvements in measures of blood pressure and vascular function following RWP were seen in 84% and 100% of animal studies, respectively. Human studies indicated significant improvements in systolic blood pressure overall (− 2.6 mmHg, 95% CI: [− 4.8, − 0.4]), with a greater improvement in pure-resveratrol studies alone (− 3.7 mmHg, 95% CI: [− 7.3, − 0.0]). No significant effects of RWP were seen in diastolic blood pressure or flow-mediated dilation (FMD) of the brachial artery. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-020-02247-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-020-02247-8
• not_good_coder 5y ago
  They want to keep all the alcohol to themselves.
• jdlyga 5y ago
  Interesting how there's a major shift in the knowledge about risks of things like sugar, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. And it usually turns out there was an industry group involved in sort of a coverup. The lesson here is to take any health claims or dismissal or risks with a grain of salt when there's a big industry behind it.
  • cies 5y ago
    > The lesson here is Do not allow victimless crime to exist. And big biz lobby efforts should be illegal.
  • newaccount74 5y ago
    One of my favorite examples of this is how coconut oil is advertised all over youtube by thousands of influencers as a superfood that must be a part of a healthy diet. (Especially since it's hardly an oil in my opinion -- it's partially solid at room temperature) There's absolutely no reliable evidence that coconut oil has any beneficial effects on the human body, and I really don't see why anybody would believe that an oil high in saturated fats is good for you.
    • halflings 5y ago
      Same goes for agave syrup and other health fads.
      • api 5y ago
        There's a ton of alternative kinds of sugar that are marketed as healthier than sugar but are in fact just sugar extracted from a different plant or other source. Sugar is sugar.
        • blfr 5y ago
          Sugar is sugar but fructose does seem to be particularly hard on humans.
    • yuuu 5y ago
• ct0 5y ago
  Funny that they're saying this now because fermented drinks used to protect people from health issues when the water supply was not clean enough to drink.
  • qwytw 5y ago
    This is myth which was debunked countless times already, people always drank water (even in the middle ages).
    • tsol 5y ago
      Yes. There's a reason every early human civilization was located near a body of water. Water is necessary for humans. Clean water. Alcohol also doesn't have a significant disinfecting property until at least 30% ABV. And it wasn't until the middle ages that distilled alcohols became common
  • mywittyname 5y ago
    With beer, this was because the brewer needed to boil the water used in order to kill off any microbes which would compete with the yeast, or it would go "off". It's a very important step for brewing beer. Then the beer would be stored in barrels/casks to help reduce the chance of introducing further microbes, plus the use of preservatives like hops to help keep it longer. With wine, people generally mashed the grapes immediately after picking to ensure that the yeast took hold before any harmful bacteria did. Then followed the same process of barrelling it to prevent other microbes from getting in. People also learned that added sugar served to further preserve wines that would be stored for longer periods of time. If people would have boiled their drinking water, it would have been safe to drink.
    • Mikeb85 5y ago
      > If people would have boiled their drinking water, it would have been safe to drink. For a limited time. The live cultures and then alcohol in fermented drinks keep the bad bacteria at bay. Keep in mind in the past, not everyone had a convenient source of heat in their homes.
• WithinReason 5y ago
  It's not good for the heart, but is it good for the soul?
• JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
  I wish this info was more well known. My family still labors under the old info of thinking a little of that poison is healthy. And I have watched that be incorrect.
• IvanK_net 5y ago
  That is strange. But I am sure a small amount of cigarettes is good for lungs.
  • colechristensen 5y ago
    Smoking cigarettes actually has a protective effect for contracting covid. You’re less likely to get it but if you do the outcome is worse.
    • JetAlone 5y ago
      That's interesting. I decided to look up to see if there were any theories on why that might be the case. It looks like results on this are inconclusive across the board and conflict of interest rears its ugly head yet again, but I found this: https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/coronavirus/coronavirus-and-smoking https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-maga... "One study suggests this could be because nicotine interferes with ACE2 receptors, which may prevent the virus from entering cells."
• BunsanSpace 5y ago
  Alcohol is a carcinogen, it's bad for the liver, and while I didn't know, I'm not surprised it's bad for the heart. Keep drinking to a minimum, and if possible keep it social. Life's short, enjoy a beer or glass of whiskey, but try to minimize it's harms, or just take mushrooms. Also keep an eye out if you're a binge drinker, it's the second type of alcoholic, you don't drink everyday, but when you do drink you drink until you pass out.
• endisneigh 5y ago
  Of course it isn’t. Drink water. Unfortunately some people believe they can’t enjoy themselves without alcohol. It’s curious: - babies have fun without drinking - kids have fun without drinking - some teens have fun without drinking Then at some point some people, as adults, feel like they have to drink to enjoy themselves? I wonder what happened. Edit: explicitly clarifying that I’m only talking about some people here
  • WithinReason 5y ago
    We run out of fun
  • hiptobecubic 5y ago
    As we age, we feel more pressure to conform socially, I think. Alcohol lets people feel uninhibited like kids temporarily.
  • gambiting 5y ago
    >>I wonder what happened. I think you start working and the only "fun" situations you are in are meetings at a pub after work with drink involved. After few years you naturally start to associate fun off-work time with drinking.
  • jedimastert 5y ago
    You forgot many to most adults that can have fun can do so without alcohol
    • endisneigh 5y ago
      Not at all, I’m referring mainly to those who feel like they have to drink to enjoy themselves. Of course there are adults who don’t have to drink to enjoy themselves (there are many who have never had a drink)
  • eljimmy 5y ago
    My take on it is that as adults you mature and begin to abide by all the rules of society. Alcohol lowers your inhibitions and "allows" you to act like you were as a child.
• mywittyname 5y ago
  A fitbit helped me discover how terrible alcohol is for your heart. I could clearly see which days I would have a drink because my average resting heart rate would go from 63-65 to 77-80!
  • tasha0663 5y ago
    You easily could have done that just worrying about it.
    • mywittyname 5y ago
      Unlikely. A) I never worried about it, B) The effects last into my sleep. The effect is also most pronounced in my sleep since my heart rate is usually quite consistent, it varies like 2 bpm most nights. But if I look at the last night I drank, my average heart rate is +10 from baseline and varied by 20 bpm during my sleep. The data is crystal clear.
    • tsol 5y ago
      That high an effect? I don't think so. I also monitor my heart rate and anxiety doesn't cause nearly as big a heart rate increase as alcohol.
• steelstraw 5y ago
  Everything is a balance though, isn't it? If a little alcohol reduces one's stress and increases socialization, then they may be better off with the alcohol on net.
  • zbentley 5y ago
    That common claim has a lot of asterisks/caveats, however: stress has many bad health effects and alcohol can reduce stress, but it does so while inducing many of the same phenomena that make stress dangerous (e.g. cardiac issues).
  • kevinmchugh 5y ago
    It's not obvious that alcohol reduces stress.
    • gjs278 5y ago
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • bt1a 5y ago
      Alcohol consumption increases cortisol production, so I'd say the opposite is true.
      • kritiko 5y ago
        I had a doctor tell me it was probably preferable to have a beer after work to unwind than try to quit. I dunno, I think it's very dose and situation dependent. There are social aspects to drinking in our culture and being social has health benefits.
    • recursive 5y ago
      It's obvious to me that it reduces my stress. No study could convince me otherwise.
• ziggus 5y ago
  • jedimastert 5y ago
    Why is there so much of this sentiment around here? It's an article on the internet, not a cop. But alcohol has risks and if you actually want to balance those risks with the rewards, you should have an accurate account of what those risks are
• luispa 5y ago
  cheers!
• flippyhead 5y ago
  I've heard this more lately and can't square it with what I had understood about those super long-lived cultures; like in Italy or Japan, where supposedly they drink moderate amounts of alcohol approximately daily.
  • acomjean 5y ago
    There are so many factors that effect health its really hard to isolate one. I think moderation is key to preventing one of these things from having an undue large effect. grandmother (Irish/English) drank and smoked a lot, she lived to her mid-nineties. She had a relatively stress free existence though. But she's one person and without an identical twin control, its hard to tell how much better she might have been had she abstained.
    • flippyhead 5y ago
      But that's why I thought these studies of long-lived _cultrures_ were significant. These things, including moderate alcohol consumption, which are common to multiple very different large groups that live longer than average.
  • Swenrekcah 5y ago
    Generally, doing things in moderation is way better than going to extremes. Drinking moderately as a culture may be correlated with eating moderately, exercising moderately, etc. In any case it has always seemed clear to me that studies showing beneficial effects of moderate alcohol consumption are heavily influenced by some combination of paying interest-groups and the researchers really wanting to justify a daily beer/wine glass. The clearest evidence for me that a glass a day can not possibly be healthy is the effect just a single glass has on athletic performance the next day. For the record I do drink and have for a long time, but have no illusions about the negative effects.
    • flippyhead 5y ago
      I definitely see why you'd be suspicious. But on the other hand, the Okinawa Japanese are definitely one of those groups that DOES live really long and DOES drink moderately. I've traveled extremely widely, used to live in Japan, and (sure, anecdotally) it feels reasonable.
• asow92 5y ago
  But the tannins in red wine (consumed in moderation) are good for your heart?
• siva7 5y ago
  Who thought that Alcohol is actually good for the heart? Here is the good news: It won't either kill your healthy heart if you don't abuse it
  • starwind 5y ago
    > Who thought that Alcohol is actually good for the heart? I remember studies in the 90s (the ones I can find specifically were done by Eric Rimm) that touted health benefits from a glass of red wine. These weren't randomized control studies, they rarely controlled for anything that might impact someone's drinking or what they drink, and they've been torn apart in the years since.
  • revax 5y ago
    The high consumption of red wine in France is thought by some people to be the explanation of the French paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox
• asow92 5y ago
  No amount of walking outside can guarantee not being hit by a car.
  • alex_young 5y ago
    Seems like 0 could? Not at all recommended of course.
    • asow92 5y ago
      What if the car goes through your window? :)
• thomaspaine 5y ago
  For everyone complaining about evidence citation, this is just a press release. The actual brief which includes 41 citations is here: https://world-heart-federation.org/wp-content/uploads/WHF-Policy-Brief-Alcohol.pdf https://world-heart-federation.org/wp-content/uploads/WHF-Po...
  • dang 5y ago
    (the parent comment was originally in reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30009882 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30009882, which we merged hither)
  • chainwax 5y ago
    I saw this from this link: https://world-heart-federation.org/news/no-amount-of-alcohol-is-good-for-the-heart-says-world-heart-federation/ https://world-heart-federation.org/news/no-amount-of-alcohol... In that article, it states: "Alcohol has a greater impact on people from low socio-economic backgrounds, who are more likely to experience its adverse effects compared to people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, even when consuming similar or lower amounts." Can someone provide some insight here? What does your wage have to do with how you body handles booze?
    • omgitsabird 5y ago
      My first thought would be compounding any of the comorbidities that are already correlated with low socioeconomic status.
    • magicroot75 5y ago
      This is a statistical claim. Not a causal claim. But we could make some assumptions about it. For instance low income people may be less likely to afford childcare or driver services like Uber which result in them being more likely to drive or child-care under the influence. Furthermore they may be more likely to have diabetes and heart issues, which may make them more susceptible to comorbities from alcohol toxicity.
    • exdsq 5y ago
• aww_dang 5y ago
  The psychological benefits of drinking may not be quantifiable, and may impact long term heart health. “Who can’t stop drinking may get drunken three times a month. If he does it more often, he is guilty. To get drunken twice a month is better; once, still more praiseworthy. But not to drink at all - what could be better than this? But where could such a being be found? But if one would find it, it would be worthy of all honour.” ― Genghis Khan
• omgJustTest 5y ago
• muongold 5y ago
  I saved this article from a similar discussion a few years ago, which argues that moderate drinking (but not binge drinking) is healthy in various ways. Does anyone know if it, or the underlying data it refers to, has been refuted? https://psmag.com/social-justice/truth-wont-admit-drinking-healthy-87891 https://psmag.com/social-justice/truth-wont-admit-drinking-h...
  • bena 5y ago
    This is a correlation fallacy. The group of moderate drinkers is also the group of the most healthy. That doesn't necessarily mean that moderate drinking is healthy. Because guess what else correlates with moderate drinking? Affluence. Guess where poor people fall more in either the "never or hardly" category or the "binge drinking" category. Either you feel like you're too poor to afford to drink and thus do so only rarely. Or you've just completely given up and all your money goes to drinking. What else correlates with affluence? Overall health outcomes. If you're poor, you also can't really afford to go to the doctor regularly. So what the study really tells us is what we already know: having a reasonable amount of money is good for you.
    • starwind 5y ago
      Don't forget that studies looking at drinking often fail to seperate out former alcoholics who usually have long-term health problems from drinking from teetotalers
• kstrauser 5y ago
  Although I live in a place where weed is legal, I don’t use it. I enjoy the occasional glass of a nice scotch, though, and I love a good stout or porter beer. This is where it gets a little strange for me: by every metric I can think of, I’d be better off replacing alcohol with weed. There seem to be fewer negative effects, it’s not a source of empty calories, and looks like a better recreational drug in every way. And still, growing up with “Just Say No”, I can’t quite bring myself to. In the back of my mind, a little voice asks if that’s the example I want to set for my kids, which is silly when they’ve seen me (responsibly) using alcohol for years. I just can’t imagine using a vape or popping an edible in the same way I might pour a little glass of whisky before settling down for the evening.
  • dokem 5y ago
    Personal anecdote but I disagree. I started smoking pot regularly after college and moving to a state where it was legal. It mostly displaced alcohol in my social circle. I thought it was harmless and 'superior' to drinking. I cannot have pot around anymore and was somewhat difficult to finally quit. While the consequences of pot addiction and difficulty in quitting are much lower than that of alcohol; the barrier to forming an addiction is also much lower. Pot undermined my life, mental health, social life, and motivation while using it. It's just too easy to get high, and too easy to tell yourself 'it's only pot, and it's not harmful.' Now I'll drink a couple beers after work some days, or some days I wont. But I don't think about how I want to go home and drink while I'm at work and it doesn't leave me in a groggy anti-social haze for 24 hours after using it. For me, alcohol is a much healthier drug.
    • kstrauser 5y ago
      I appreciate that. And again, I have little experience with pot so I can’t counter that with a personal story. I’m a little surprised, though, as it’s so easy to stumble across alcohol with it being sold in every store and restaurant. I’d have to go out of my way to acquire pot, but I could pick up a 6-pack of beer on my way to the cheese section of the grocery store. I wonder what the relative numbers are of people who occasionally use pot vs weed and become addicted to it.
    • 5y ago
• boringg 5y ago
  Is anyone surprised by this? Alcohol being good for the body was pushed by the Alcohol lobby a long time ago and made its way into the mainstream consciousness. It has lingered because people enjoy drinking and because of powerful incentives not to change. How large is the alcohol industry and how many people are directly tied to it? Am I saying we shouldn't drink? No the amount of stimulating conversations I have had with people is somewhat a function of alcohol and being more comfortable to talk about ideas in a less formal setting.
  • LesZedCB 5y ago
    I guess you could say the alcohol lobby was "cooking with gas"
• devoutsalsa 5y ago
  "I knew a man who gave up smoking, drinking, sex and rich food. He was healthy right up to the time he killed himself." - Johnny Carson
  • weedontwee 5y ago
    "You're gonna feel like a damn fool, laying out at that hospital, dying from nothing!" - Redd Foxx https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6grI16niGXA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6grI16niGXA
  • mritchie712 5y ago
    One of those things is not like the others. I don't think sex is linked to many bad health outcomes.
    • alar44 5y ago
      The point is that they are considered vices. Sex, drugs, rock and roll etc. It's a joke, lighten up.
    • jcadam 5y ago
      > I don't think sex is linked to many bad health outcomes. Sure it is. STDs, risk of injury, etc.
      • stronglikedan 5y ago
        Bad comparison. Too much of the other stuff will harm you regardless of how careful you are. No amount of sex will harm you, if you're careful.
        • devoutsalsa 5y ago
          "Futurama - Death By Snu Snu" => https://youtu.be/3f8sjzETQ5o https://youtu.be/3f8sjzETQ5o
        • Cthulhu_ 5y ago
• yalogin 5y ago
  I think most people know this on some level. Alcohol cannot be good for the body. However, society encourages and even shames people that don't drink to an extreme degree that people go with the herd on this. Its going to be impossible to beat and turn around that societal pressure and acceptance.
• solox3 5y ago
  I am fine with abstinence as a general recommendation, but critical thinking pointed out two issues with the WHF Policy Brief, which I suppose I have read in sufficient depth: 1. There is no citation on the sentence, "Recent evidence has found that no level of alcohol consumption is safe for health." This is really the only line we are interested in. 2. There is no comparison on the effects of alcohol on the body by dosage (and frequency), which is, again, what is required from the brief to make that claim. Again, while I don't necessarily disagree with what's in the report, and that it is already established that drinking too much is not good for the heart, considering many otherwise toxic substances have a hormetic zone, it is critical that a study like this rules out the its existence for ethanol.
  • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    Would any non-trivial substance be deemed "safe" under these criteria?
    • jcadam 5y ago
      There's a very small chance you'll choke to death every time you eat something.
      • avgcorrection 5y ago
        Another score for fasting!
        • queuebert 5y ago
          BRB, gonna fast the rest of my life.
          • Semiapies 5y ago
            That's definitely an achievable goal with sufficient dedication.
      • deleted 5y ago
• bena 5y ago
  I love studies like this. Because it shows exactly where our lines are. If this is true, we should stop drinking. That's what the data says. But if you won't, I really don't want to hear you opining on anyone else's choice of unhealthy vice.
  • tsol 5y ago
    It's interesting how much opposition these articles get. I notice a lot of people are annoyed just at the declaration that alcohol is bad for you. People almost seem to take it personally. I know people like their alcohol, but I'm surprised how defensive people get just at the idea it's unhealthy.
• coding123 5y ago
  I've been waiting for something like this. Now we need to get the AMA to reverse its stance too. I've seen too many people start with the one drink excuse, and multiply by the number of days they HAVEN'T had a drink. It's totally irresponsible messaging.
• colechristensen 5y ago
  Question one: what is the world heart federation? I have never heard of it before today. Two: > The evidence is clear: any level of alcohol consumption can lead to loss of healthy life. The evidence is not clear. There are plenty of studies showing benefits. “Any level” “can” makes the statement technically true but meaningless, you could replace alcohol with anything and that would also be true. If you want to back up the statement, do a meta analysis study and publish that instead of pretending you’re the authority and giving vague statements. This reads like somebody with a prejudged conclusion announcing that instead of actual scientific openmindedness. Plenty of people in the comments who already agreed are eating it up. How could anybody who didn’t already agree with this be convinced, their argument boils down to “we say the studies conclude this” which is trivial to refute.
  • nabla9 5y ago
    > There are plenty of studies showing benefits. Yes. And these studies are being exposed as the product of alcohol lobby. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/21/17139036/health-effects-alcohol-moderate-drinking-nih https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/21/17139036/he... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6055701/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6055701/
    • colechristensen 5y ago
      I am perfectly aware of p-hackng. I still don’t believe it without actual evidence, I get strong vibes of people wanting this to be true which would take more than a little evidence to overcome.
      • nabla9 5y ago
        The alcohol industry gave the government money to prove moderate drinking is safe https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/21/17139036/health-effects-alcohol-moderate-drinking-nih https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/21/17139036/he... Alcohol industry involvement in science: A systematic review of the perspectives of the alcohol research community https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6055701/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6055701/
• throwaway889900 5y ago
  One more of these huh? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7l2hUp0CkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7l2hUp0CkQ
• temp12913231 5y ago
• anoplus 5y ago
  Before talking about what amounts are good or bad, the cultural phenomenon of drinking has always been mysterious to me. Alcohol feels overrated. It seems like no more than symbolic association with social life, or celebration. I love socializing and celebrating, but when I want to seize the moment, I want sharp senses - not the opposite. Also, I find it not tasty honestly. I trust people to like having me as their company even when not participating in drinking.
• helsinkiandrew 5y ago
  Can anyone find any research in the citations that my glass of red wine in the evening - although it may increase atherosclerosis and have other health implications - doesn't have benefits that offset the drawbacks. https://world-heart-federation.org/wp-content/uploads/WHF-Policy-Brief-Alcohol.pdf https://world-heart-federation.org/wp-content/uploads/WHF-Po... How much do the social, relaxation, and stress relief benefit my health. In the same way that taking a walk in a polluted city has pros and cons or the enjoyment someone might get from sky diving or taking up motorcycling.
  • cma 5y ago
    > although it may increase atherosclerosis and have other health implications - doesn't have benefits that offset the drawbacks. You can get all the theoretical benefits by eating grapes or raisins.
    • criddell 5y ago
      How often do you get together with friends after work for a few raisins before heading home?
• drapermache 5y ago
  I feel like alcohol consumption isn't taken as seriously since its been legalized, but its incredibly destructive. The only thing I've really seen get talked about is driving while drinking. This hits very close to home to me because I am currently taking care of our kids while my wife had to fly across the USA to help with her Uncle's funeral. He was a high functioning alcoholic for many years until he joined AA and cleaned up. He was a very active member of AA and lead his local chapter. He had just come to visit for the holidays and passed a week and half later from a heart attack. My mother's side of the family came from a long line of abusive alcoholics, and she was the first to break the cycle. So I made the personal choice to not even try it to keep it going. Sometime I do wonder if I'm missing out, but I don't want to take the risk of getting addicted.
  • penjelly 5y ago
    > I feel like alcohol consumption isn't taken as seriously since its been legalized alcohol was being consumed before first evidence of laws in human society. Ancient mesopotamians drank a lot of beer because it was more resistant to bacteria then other beverages. Unless you meant legalized after prohibition?
    • N1H1L 5y ago
      We have been consuming alcohol long before we even became Homo - even 10 million years back we were seeking out rotting fruits on the forest floor.
      • globular-toast 5y ago
        Some birds and many insects specifically seek out fermented fruits and ears of corn etc. Not sure if it's known why.
  • freedom2099 5y ago
    I think the problem is the culture of alcohol in some countries… in Southern Europe has a culture of wine as part of a dining experience rather then as a recreational drugs and the effects are that has a lower alcoholism rates than countries where it is more seen as recreational (like Northern Europe or the US). I live in France, we have wine served at the company’s cantine… no one is ever drunk! https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/alcoholism-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/alcoholis...
• chasebank 5y ago
  You know what's worse than drinking alcohol? Sitting in a chair all day staring at a screen. Why do we need studies for things we've known for centuries? Drink, eat, exercise, all in moderation. Get outside and move often as possible. It's not rocket science.
  • nozzlegear 5y ago
    I think we need studies because there are people who believe the opposite. Growing up, a close friend of mine had a die-hard belief that everyone should have a glass of wine with every meal because it was good for your heart.
  • Elizer0x0309 5y ago
    Alcohol changes your state of mind which leads to car accidents, abuse and so much more. To compare that to sitting is stupid.
    • chasebank 5y ago
      Why? The article in question is about what's good for the heart and ultimately, living. Prolonged sitting kills far, far more people than alcohol. Anecdotally speaking, alcohol happens to be a lot more fun than sitting. Pick your poison, I suppose.
      • Elizer0x0309 5y ago
        One is a poison, the other is not. Sitting, alone doesn't kill you. The studies that mention that include unhealthy habits coupled with sitting. Alcohol defenders like you should just embrace the poison and stop trying to compare it to anything else unless that other thing is literally another poison. You are ridiculing yourself.
  • forgotmyoldacc 5y ago
    > Why do we need studies for things we've known for centuries? Because folk wisdom is not science. For example, many people enjoy a cozy fireplace, but increases chances of heart/lung disease a significant amount due to small (PM10) particles: https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/how-smoke-fires-can-affect-your-health https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/how-smoke-fires-can-affect-... https://www.lung.org/clean-air/at-home/indoor-air-pollutants/residential-wood-burning https://www.lung.org/clean-air/at-home/indoor-air-pollutants...
• pharmakom 5y ago
  So “any amount of alcohol is bad for the heart”?
• gojomo 5y ago
  Lots of scholarship disagrees, but: before this press release, I'd never heard of the "World Heart Federation". Now I have. That was the real purpose of it issuing this provocative, but not quite scientifically-settled, statement.
• it_does_follow 5y ago
  I don't drink to live a long time, I drink to make the time I'm hear a bit more bearable.
• nabla9 5y ago
  Heineken and Carlsberg paid NIH $100 million to "to show that moderate alcohol consumption is safe and lowers risk of common diseases". This and other ethical research violations created the whole "moderate amount of alcohol may be healthy" meme. The alcohol industry gave the government money to prove moderate drinking is safe https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/21/17139036/health-effects-alcohol-moderate-drinking-nih https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/21/17139036/he... Alcohol industry involvement in science: A systematic review of the perspectives of the alcohol research community https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6055701/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6055701/
• asdfsd234234444 5y ago
  This has been obvious for a long time.
• llamajams 5y ago
  Yeah but it's good for the mind .
• entropicgravity 5y ago
  A room full of cardiologists will raise a glass to that.
• Cupertino95014 5y ago
  I agree with solox3 about the need to cite the evidence, not just say "studies show." That said, my doctor asked how much I drank, and I said about four drinks a week. She said "that's too much." So now I have a pretty strict limit of two per week, and "a glass of wine with dinner" does count towards that. I think she was more in tune with ALL the evidence, not just the articles that tell everyone what they want to hear. People really don't like to hear that two-per-week thing. The beer or glass of wine with friends is a pretty important part of society. In fact, I really think you only live once, and what's the point if you never have the things you really love? But don't delude yourself that it's healthy; it's not. That said: I lost a brother to alcohol & cigarettes, so it's a little more personal with me.
• oversocialized 5y ago
  reminds me of when the WHO said fertile aged women should not drink any alcohol and the wine aunts had a meltdown while also citing WHO as a source for anything covid related. hypocrisy at its finest.
  • easton 5y ago
    I was unfamiliar with the term, so from the Urban Dictionary: > wine aunt: An aunt with little to no interest in having children. Has much more interest in having a free and carefree life than the responsibilities of a family.
• hbarka 5y ago
  What do the French have to say about that? France is one of the countries in the world with the highest life expectancy.
• dghughes 5y ago
  This is as bad as the disastrous Wakefield Autism "study". People will deny alcohol is bad for them for the next 100 years even with multiple studies showing the results.
• 1970-01-01 5y ago
  Counter-point: Alcohol was key in the creation of the United States. "In the drink, a dream; and in the dream, a spark."[1] "...the Founding Fathers despised each other. Like, these bros couldn’t stand the sight of one another and it’s a goddamn miracle our country ever came to be, that’s how much they hated one another."[2] In 1787, two days before they signed off on the Constitution, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention partied at a tavern. According to the bill preserved from the evening, they drank 54 bottles of Madeira, 60 bottles of claret, eight of whiskey, 22 of porter, eight of hard cider, 12 of beer and seven bowls of alcoholic punch.[2] [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=s3SqDAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT9&ots=RHCHonuLQg&dq=%22In%20the%20drink%2C%20a%20dream%3B%20and%20in%20the%20dream%2C%20a%20spark.%22&pg=PT6#v=onepage&q=%22In%20the%20drink,%20a%20dream;%20and%20in%20the%20dream,%20a%20spark.%22&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=s3SqDAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT9&ots=R... [2] https://brobible.com/life/article/america-founding-fathers-bar-tab-alcohol/ https://brobible.com/life/article/america-founding-fathers-b...
  • Clubber 5y ago
    >Counter-point: Alcohol was key in the creation of the United States. Some people theorize it was one of the main driving forces for agriculture and civilization itself. https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2018/09/12/crafting-beer-lereal-cultivation/ https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2018/09/12/crafting...
    • iKlsR 5y ago
      A bit related, I can't remember the exact details but I read or watched somewhere recently that it was key in taking over some regions. They would gift village chiefs alcohol and have them sign away rights to their land under the influence.
  • tsol 5y ago
    How is that a counter to to claims about its health effects? They're not saying alcohol has no positives and it's for terrible people, just that it has negative effects on health.
• pmdulaney 5y ago
  They're focused on heart health so they don't address the fact that alcohol is also a carcinogen. This is sort of a "The sky is falling!" kind of article, but it comes down to, as always: Be aware of the risks in some intuitive way and decide what you want to do.
• known 5y ago
• thehappypm 5y ago
  Tangent but I started a “sober January” and the benefits to my life are so striking I don’t intend to ever drink again.
• Ensorceled 5y ago
  I drink in moderation. I eat good, dark chocolate in moderation. I have a dessert occasionally. I over indulge in rich foods sometimes. MANY things are in the category of "No Amount is Good for ...". This is NOT a useful categorization.
• tombert 5y ago
  I've completely cut my drinking down to "only on holidays where I'm expected to", and even then I don't get "drunk". While I never got to a point of drinking where anyone would call it a "problem", I realized that any amount of alcohol probably isn't great for my depression, and I also realized that I actually didn't enjoy being drunk all that much. I don't really miss it much, though it was a little difficult to quit cold turkey a few years ago when I did it.
  • globular-toast 5y ago
    You're expected to drink? For religious reasons? I've found it incredibly easy to stop drinking entirely. Nobody has ever questioned why I don't drink alcohol let alone expect me to drink. I figure there are enough people who don't do for religious/cultural reasons that it would be silly to ask and offensive to expect. Even though I probably don't look like someone who abstains for religious/cultural reasons and only do so for personal reasons.
    • tombert 5y ago
      > You're expected to drink? For religious reasons? Nah, I won't even say "peer pressure" either, but more of a "fuck it it's New Years" attitude. Not uncommon (at least amongst my friend group) to have a shot of whisky or something at midnight on NYE. Again though, it's on the order of 1-2 shots, and I'm a pretty tall guy, so it's certainly not enough to get me intoxicated or anything like that.
• AlwaysRock 5y ago
  Everyone knows this. Some choose to believe the 1 or 2 debunked and unrepeatable studies that show small amounts of alcohol is good for you rather than the mountain of evidence that says it isnt. If you want to drink alcohol, that is fine. But pretending its healthy in some way is lying to yourself.
• oicu812 5y ago
  "No amount of alcohol is safe, however it's the dose that makes the poison." [1] "for every 100,000 people who consume one drink per day, 918 will have an alcohol-related problem per year. But if the same 100,000 people drank nothing at all, 914 would still have one of those same problems. That’s only 4 more people per year (per 100,000) who will have a problem that’s attributable to alcohol—that’s tiny. But it’s also not zero." [2] [1] https://peterattiamd.com/qualy-1-what-are-peters-thoughts-on-alcohol-consumption-and-health/ https://peterattiamd.com/qualy-1-what-are-peters-thoughts-on... [2] https://www.popsci.com/moderate-drinking-benefits-risks/#page-2 https://www.popsci.com/moderate-drinking-benefits-risks/#pag...
• sharno 5y ago
  "They ask you about wine and gambling. Say, In both there is great sin, and some benefits for people. And their sin is greater than their benefit ...” Quran (2:219)
• greenyoda 5y ago
  Big discussion of original source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30009882 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30009882
  • dang 5y ago
    Comments moved thither. Thanks! Edit: actually, this submission was posted first, plus the Bloomberg article seems a bit more informative than the press release, so I think we'll merge hither instead.
• kwhitefoot 5y ago
  > The Eurasian Economic Union’s technical regulation mandates provision of an ingredients list, health information, and an additional message of “recommendatory nature” to be put on all types of alcoholic beverages intended for human use. Eurasian Economic Union? Have I slipped down the wrong trousers of time?
• iooi 5y ago
  Anyone else interested by the wording here? "No amount of alcohol is good for the heart" is not exactly the same as saying "Any amount of alcohol is bad for the heart". The former statement is hardly a surprise, but I think it will be harder to prove the latter statement.
  • tomtheelder 5y ago
    They mostly do make the stronger version of the claim: > The evidence is clear: any level of alcohol consumption can lead to loss of healthy life. Studies have shown that even small amounts of alcohol can increase a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease, including coronary disease, stroke, heart failure, hypertensive heart disease, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, and aneurysm. It's honestly pretty clear that this is true if you dig into the research a bit. I say this as a regular drinker, by the way. I don't think the takeaway should be to drink zero, just that we (and doctors particularly!) should not be fooled into believing that there is a quantity of alcohol consumption that is entirely risk free, or even beneficial.
• helloworld11 5y ago
  Aside from the still dubious "certainty" of this clinical conclusion, there are far too man y puritans on this comment threat hoping to optimize every last possible, squeezable ounce of supposed health from life by railing against alcohol as well. Quite simply, some things have social, personal and emotional benefits that might just be worth a bit more in the long run than being an absolutist who weighs the most minimal uncertainties of pleasurable acts at all times. To each their own, but what a terrible way to live a life, and especially with the full knowledge that many previous health studies by many large organizations have frequently fucked up in their claims that X or Y is bad or good, only to later change their tunes with new evidence.
  • helloworld11 5y ago
    Instead of downvoting, why not someone justify with a decent counterargument that goes beyond simply "alcohol is unsafe!"? Life comes with risk, many pleasurable activities come with risk. It's possible to balance between enjoying oneself and moderating one's behavior without sinking into a morass of absolutist, puritanical and medically ambiguous health "optimization".
• softwarebeware 5y ago
  Many of the comments focus on the individual. There should also be consideration for societal concerns and overall public health.
• darthrupert 5y ago
  I don't consume alcohol because I think it's healthy, I consume it because it tastes sometimes good and because it feels good. So the real question is: is some amount of alcohol neutral or not health-wise?
  • jjice 5y ago
    It's a good question. Without any research, I'm going to continue to have a few drinks every week since it's been done for centuries just fine.
• nitwit005 5y ago
  I doubt advice about moderate drinking influences behavior, outside perhaps where pregnancy is concerned. Pretty much everyone at least occasionally eats food they know isn't good for them.
• azth 5y ago
  > They ask you about wine (khamr) and gambling. Say, "In them is great sin and [yet, some] benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit." https://quran.com/2/219 https://quran.com/2/219 > O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants (khamr), gambling, [sacrificing on] stone altars [to other than God], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful. https://quran.com/5/90 https://quran.com/5/90
  • selimthegrim 5y ago
    This might lead one to the reading that intoxication rather than alcohol is prohibited.
    • azth 5y ago
      That's correct, all intoxicants are prohibited in Islam. The word (khamr) refers to any substance that masks a person's thinking ability (the word "khimaar" is a face veil, and both khimaar and khamr derive from the same root). And it's not a reading as much as an explicit text: > "Every intoxicant is Khamr and every intoxicant is unlawful." https://sunnah.com/nasai:5699 https://sunnah.com/nasai:5699
  • redisman 5y ago
    I guess I need to try that sacrificing at a stone altar thing next
• tyronehed 5y ago
  This should have been obvious to anyone who has ever gotten drunk. Alcohol is a poison. To think otherwise is wishful thinking.
• quantumloophole 5y ago
  great, now they will want to ban alcohol
• xyzzy21 5y ago
  There's generally "No Safe Level of Living in the World" either.
• tedmiston 5y ago
  For anyone curious to collect, explore, and becoming mindful of their own personal data more, there's a nice free alcohol tracker app called Less (iOS only) [1][2] from the same company that created the fasting app Zero. [1]: https://lessdrinks.com/ https://lessdrinks.com/ [2]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/less-alcohol-tracker/id1484828892 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/less-alcohol-tracker/id1484828...
• neonate 5y ago
  https://archive.is/0vqdW https://archive.is/0vqdW
• Damogran6 5y ago
  Can we have the heart people and the liver people duke it out, because the liver people seem to think a little low grade abuse was good for the liver.
• Elizer0x0309 5y ago
  Islam is always right about everything Hamdou'Allah
• Bud 5y ago
  Side note: in a related story, the Don't Go Stark Raving Mad During A Pandemic Foundation issued a statement saying that large amounts of alcohol are definitely sometimes good for not completely losing your shit during accursed times such as these.
• jasonhansel 5y ago
  In this thread: a lot of people trying to justify their preexisting choice to drink or remain sober.
  • tapas73 5y ago
    Sane people find arguments for stuff they do. If they don't have reasoning (scientific or emotional) for their behaviour, they either change or they aren't sane.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • pcrh 5y ago
    Also many pointing out that the notion that avoiding any consumption of alcohol is a ridiculous notion, as implied by the article, given that it's a common component of many foods.
    • quickthrower2 5y ago
      Are you talking about trace amounts though. Or something that might add up to say a unit per week?
      • pcrh 5y ago
        On reflection, I think the original study intended to say that "no amount of alcohol improves health". This is a different conclusion from "any amount of alcohol degrades health", which is how it has understood by many commentators. It's quite possible for low alcohol consumption to have no effect on health, while also concluding it doesn't improve health.
• dmz73 5y ago
  The article seems to cherry pick official statements to support the title. "Studies have shown that even small amounts of alcohol can increase a person's risk of cardiovascular disease, including coronary disease, stroke, heart failure, hypertensive heart disease, cardiomyopathy (heart muscle disease), atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), and aneurysm. "To date, no reliable correlation has been found between moderate alcohol consumption and a lower risk of heart disease." "Studies that claim otherwise are based on purely observational research, which fails to account for other factors, such as pre-existing conditions and a history of alcoholism in those considered to be 'abstinent'. So they claim their research shows increased risk, not stating by how much - there is difference between 0.5% and 15% and 50%, across a broad range of conditions. The only counterpoint mentioned is that there is no reliable correlation between moderate (no mention of what that is) consumption and lower risk of heart disease - what about all the other conditions? Finally there is a quote dismissing other research because it fails to account for other factor but there is hardly any mention on what factors have been accounted for in the current research. The whole thing seems poorly written and seems to preach instead of document and explain. Consumption of any substance in sufficient quantities will cause harm - you can drown by drinking too much water in too short of a period of time but no one is going to suggest that because of that there isn't any quantity of water is safe to consume.
  • IshKebab 5y ago
    Yeah, maybe there's no evidence that a small amount of alcohol helps in any way, but "any level of alcohol consumption can lead to loss of healthy life" is pure alarmism. Along the same lines as "any level of fat consumption can make you fatter". Technically true but also irrelevant. > It is important not to exaggerate the risk of moderate drinking and unduly alarm responsible consumers Ha, yeah maybe you should have thought about more before talking to the press.
• univalent 5y ago
  Meh, we are going to keep drinking anyway
• atarian 5y ago
  Glad to see them calling it out but let’s be honest.. we all knew it was BS.
• hidudeurcool 5y ago
• jaimex2 5y ago
  Isn't the oldest person in the world an old lady who is a daily vodka drinker?
• area51org 5y ago
  I can't wait until they announce that DHMO (dihydrogen monoxide) is unsafe because it can so easily lead to death in children and adults. Perhaps no amount of DHMO is safe. http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
• zarzavat 5y ago
  My favourite quote on the matter: But claiming there is no ‘safe’ level does not seem an argument for abstention. There is no safe level of driving, but government do not recommend that people avoid driving. Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention. https://medium.com/wintoncentre/the-risks-of-alcohol-again-2ae8cb006a4a https://medium.com/wintoncentre/the-risks-of-alcohol-again-2... I understand why they want to dispel the persistent myth that alcohol can be good for you, but do they have to do it by employing their own vacuous statements? Tell people what the extra risk of drinking a daily glass of wine is, then they can make their own mind up on whether to take that risk or not. Such empty discourse absent of falsifiable statements is more damaging to our society than a glass of wine ever could be.
  • nanis 5y ago
    > Such empty discourse absent of falsifiable statements is more damaging to our society than a glass of wine ever could be. Hear, hear. Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend, Before we too into the Dust Descend; Dust into Dust, and under Dust, to lie, Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer and—sans End! The textbook I used when I was teaching "Economics of Regulation"[1] emphasizes the fact that trying to drive individual risks to zero (acting, in the process, as if there is never a cost to trying to reduce risk) is a fool's errand. Viscusi's "Pricing Lives"[2] is a great work. "VSL (value of a statistical life) is the risk-reward trade-off that people make about their health when considering risky job choices." Once you understand that, you understand how one ought to reason about whether one policy is better than another. Once you understand that, you come to the realization that the actual policies implemented bear no resemblance to the policies that ought to have been implemented in light of a rational cost-benefit calculation. [1]: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/economics-regulation-and-antitrust-fifth-edition https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/economics-regulation-and-anti... [2]: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691208596/pricing-lives https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691208596/pr...
  • azth 5y ago
    > But claiming there is no ‘safe’ level does not seem an argument for abstention. There is no safe level of driving, but government do not recommend that people avoid driving. False equivalence. Drinking is not necessary for life (and it's harmful as we see here), but driving is required for many people's livelihood.
• karaterobot 5y ago
  We often say "trust the science" when we agree with the conclusions of a study, and "question authority" when we don't. The phrase "trust, but verify" is an appealing middle ground, but isn't it really a euphemism for "I don't believe you yet"?
• stjohnswarts 5y ago
  And in 10 years they'll find out they're wrong, but that's the way this stuff goes.
• plazmatic 5y ago
• drewcon 5y ago
  Honestly. So what. Human beings have lived with alcohol during all of civilization. If it’s bad for me…so be it. Not rationalizing or endorsing just saying maybe a little recklessness is bad for the individual and good for the species.
• tacoluv 5y ago
  People like you are why the rest of us drink
• Ice_cream_suit 5y ago
  "Alcohol consumption increases the risk of CVD(20). In the Global Action Plan for Prevention and Control of NCDs, the World Health Organization (WHO) calls for a 10% relative reduction in the per capita use of alcohol between 2013- 2030 (21). Based on recent evidence, it has been concluded that there is “no safe level of alcohol consumption”(5). Risks attributable to alcohol use increase for all the major categories of CVD(20). Thus, alcohol increases the risk for hypertensive heart disease, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation and flutter, and strokes. In moderate drinkers, the risk of stroke is 1.14 times greater (95% CI, 1.10-1.17); coronary disease (excluding myocardial infarction) is 1.06 (95% CI, 1.00 – 1.11); heart failure is 1.09 (95% CI, 1.03- 1.15); fatal hypertensive disease 1.24 (95% CI, 1.15-1.33) and fatal aortic aneurysm is 1.15 times greater (95% CI, 1.03-1.28)(20) than for non-drinkers. It has been argued that people with moderate consumption and no binge episodes may appear to have a slightly lower risk of ischaemic heart disease (IHD), but the protective effect of moderate alcohol consumption for IHD has been challenged as the evidence is based entirely upon non-randomized studies(22)" An increase in high-density lipo-protein (HDL) cholesterol has been the most compelling potential source of biologic plausibility for how alcohol might help prevent CVD. However, the cardioprotective effect of HDL is under challenge: many studies find no effect from increased HDL levels on reducing the risk for myocardial infarction(23)(24)(25). Other proposed cardioprotective biological mechanisms have also been shown to be inconsistent with sound epidemiologic studies. These include coronary calcification and carotid intima-media thickness, where alcohol consumption is associated with worse vascular health(26)(27). Contrary to popular opinion, alcohol is not good for the heart. This directly contradicts the common message over the past three decades from some researchers, the alcohol industry, and the media that alcohol prolongs life, chiefly by reducing the risk of CVD. For example, the use of red wine has been promoted through various diets as a “heart-healthy” beverage for the longest time. The presence of resveratrol in wine has been known for its cardioprotective characteristics in light to moderate drinkers. However, there are multiple reasons that the belief that alcohol is good for cardiovascular health is no longer acceptable: • Such evidence has been based on observational studies • No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have confirmed health benefits of alcohol • The presence of unaccounted confounding factors further weakens the quality of evidence • Studies misclassify unhealthy ex-drinkers as abstainers • Most evidence is observed only in the Caucasian population • Studies that show positive effects are funded by the alcohol industry.* Research in the latest decade has led to major reversals in the perception of alcohol in relation to health in general and CVD in particular. These developments have prompted health authorities in a number of countries, e.g. the Netherlands(28), England(29) and Australia(30), to lower their recommended amount of alcohol for low-risk drinking. The alcohol industry has also perpetuated misleading information about the benefits of drinking alcohol. This interference by the alcohol industry closely reflects the universally vilified activities of tobacco companies. Alcohol industries deceptively promote their products under the labels of “healthy” and “safe”. Portrayal of alcohol in print and electronic media as necessary for a vibrant social life has diverted attention from the harms of alcohol use. Youth-targeted advertisement and encouraging alcohol as “heart-healthy” have created a conducive environment for young adults to relate alcohol with ‘having a good time’. Contrary to this belief, evidence from all around the world exists to link alcohol with a range of noncommunicable and infectious diseases." https://world-heart-federation.org/wp-content/uploads/WHF-Policy-Brief-Alcohol.pdf https://world-heart-federation.org/wp-content/uploads/WHF-Po...
• vladcodes 5y ago
  Cheers. Also, don’t eat the yellow snow.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• jrm4 5y ago
  No amount of World Heart Federation is necessary for human survival, so there's that...
• GekkePrutser 5y ago
  So what. I have to die of something. Let me have my glass of wine or beer.
• kmstout 5y ago
  A poet once said, “The whole universe is in a glass of wine.” We will probably never know in what sense he meant that, for poets do not write to be understood. But it is true that if we look at a glass of wine closely enough we see the entire universe. There are the things of physics: the twisting liquid which evaporates depending on the wind and weather, the reflections in the glass, and our imagination adds the atoms. The glass is a distillation of the earth’s rocks, and in its composition we see the secrets of the universe’s age, and the evolution of stars. What strange array of chemicals are in the wine? How did they come to be? There are the ferments, the enzymes, the substrates, and the products. There in wine is found the great generalization: all life is fermentation. Nobody can discover the chemistry of wine without discovering, as did Louis Pasteur, the cause of much disease. How vivid is the claret, pressing its existence into the consciousness that watches it! If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts—physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on—remember that nature does not know it! So let us put it all back together, not forgetting ultimately what it is for. Let it give us one more final pleasure: drink it and forget it all! --Richard Feynman
• piyushpr134 5y ago
  And yet they won't say anything about how they have been wrong about fat for so long. How about sugar ? Anything against that ?
• fortran77 5y ago
  As is no amount of obesity. But it’s easier to demonize alcohol.
• ergljlkjlkerg 5y ago
• bjoyx 5y ago
  Unscientific propaganda. The best scientific evidence we have suggests moderate consumption of alcohol protects the heart. From the Harvard School of Public Health: > More than 100 prospective studies show an inverse association between light to moderate drinking and risk of heart attack, ischemic (clot-caused) stroke, peripheral vascular disease, sudden cardiac death, and death from all cardiovascular causes. [20] The effect is fairly consistent, corresponding to a 25-40% reduction in risk. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/drinks-to-consume-in-moderation/alcohol-full-story/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/...
  • maxbond 5y ago
    Pardon, I'm perplexed here. When you say this is propaganda, what I take that to mean is that it's framed to serve a certain agenda at the expense of the truth, that is, that it isn't merely erroneous but that it is manipulative to serve a certain interest. Do you mean something different than that? If not, what agenda do you propose is served by this? Cui bono? I don't know what the truth is here, and the article you cited doesn't have a date on it, but the sources it cites are pretty old - flipping through them, the most recent seems to be 2017. The source that's cited in that quote you posted is 20 years old. Nutrition is a notoriously difficult field to study. It's easier for me to believe that the consensus has shifted, and is perhaps not yet stable, than that there is an organization which stands to benefit from people believing alcohol is a modicum more harmful than it is.
• mise_en_place 5y ago
  I don't think the article is stating anything controversial here. The position that any amount of alcohol is harmful is not contradictory with the position that alcohol is beneficial in reducing cardiovascular risk. In other words, the framing effect is leading to a cognitive bias. One position is framed in terms of negative outcomes, while the other is framed in terms of positive outcomes. Hence the visceral reaction to the article.
  • machinelearning 5y ago
    Actually the headline implies that there is no cardiovascular benefit. “Studies have shown that even small amounts of alcohol can increase a person's risk of cardiovascular disease” “To date, no reliable correlation has been found between moderate alcohol consumption and a lower risk of heart disease”
    • mise_en_place 5y ago
      Yes, relative to abstaining. If there's a 40% risk reduction in cardiovascular mortality in moderate drinkers, then there will be a 60% increase in risk for the moderate drinking, relative to someone who abstains.
      • bjoyx 5y ago
      • machinelearning 5y ago
        Not sure I follow, what group are they comparing the 40% risk reduction to?
• acosmism 5y ago
  this might be just me - i find people that alebriate every once in a while more normal than those who claim otherwise
• _robbywashere 5y ago
  Loneliness is also detrimental to the heart.
• estaseuropano 5y ago
  Somewhat related: what have you found to be a good replacement for alcohol as a habit/relaxation device? I enjoy my evening wine, but I slowly realised I mainly crave flavour (sorry hydrohomies). I don't want to do the sugary drink/juice route so am attempting to replace wine with roiboos tea or similar infusions, but I haven't found the right spot yet. Maybe it just takes more habituation or there is some element that simply doesn't bring me the same enjoyment/pleasure as unwinding with a glass of merlot or primitivo.
• dusted 5y ago
  Studying the effects of alcohol and pornography consumption is difficult because they're so widespread within some cultures, that you can't have a representative control group.
• bananatype 5y ago
• greggman3 5y ago
  I forgot which podcast but someone mentioned it was their opinion that alcohol is a social lubricant and that without it we'd be waring and fight more. IIRC the podcast was talking about research in Asia, China in particular, where people gather after work at the drinking place (bar, tavern, whatever) and via alcohol they open up, negotiate, apologize, learn details and reasons that weren't spoken at work. The point being, if true, maybe the without alcohol the world will go to shit (unless we find substitutes).
• PraetorianGourd 5y ago
  God I can’t fucking wait until we’ve moved on from this world where maximizing health outcomes overrides all other considerations. Living in a bubble where I eat a perfectly balanced diet of Soylent and refuse to interact with anyone will probably add to a miserable existence where I’d rather fucking kill myself.