6 ms·

While the grains thing was particularly stupid advice, recommendations haven’t changed as much as you’d think. The guidelines from reputable sources as far back

While the grains thing was particularly stupid advice, recommendations haven’t changed as much as you’d think. The guidelines from reputable sources as far back as the 60s and 70s were fine. They didn’t understand how deadly refined carbs were, but recommended eating fruits, vegetables while limiting desserts and too much fatty meat; now you might be eating a bit too much carbs without understanding the risks, but you should be perfectly fine with that diet. People have been making noise about this issue for a very long time. Doctors know this stuff is poison and causes cancer. It’s always seemed silly that just the right amount of poison is good somehow. Of course, you don’t know without study, but experienced people can see areas where the data doesn’t seem to make sense. I remember hearing about this stuff a few years ago and it was nothing new, even then. We know that early studies looked good because many “sick quitters” stop drinking due to their failing health. This makes non-drinkers look less healthy. Now this stuff is still actively studied and many of the pro-alcohol people insist it’s still healthy, but the writing has been on the wall for at least 5-10 years; no amount of alcohol is “healthy”.

tharne 5y ago
> It’s always seemed silly that just the right amount of poison is good somehow Why is it silly? A lot of things are dose dependent. A small amount of tylenol makes you head feel better. A lot of tylenol kills you. Lifting weights is very good for your health, but if you overdo it, you can get seriously hurt. A stressful day here and there is harmless, but if you're under constant, chronic, stress, your health will deteriorate. Four hours of sleep will leave you feeling terrible, 7-8 hours will leave you feeling rested, and 14 hours will likely leave you feeling terrible. I could go on, but I'd argue that dose-dependency is the rule rather than the exception.
- P_I_Staker 5y ago
  It’s not dose dependent though, it’s a dangerous poison that causes cancer. Your other examples are completely different. Tylenol is closest, but you’re really talking about overdose. Drinking a couple of glasses of wine a day isn’t an overdose. Yes, there may be some nasty chronic effects of tylenol too, but I think you’re trying really hard to fit a square peg in a round hole.
  - orblivion 5y ago
    Is there a specific definition of poison you're working with? You say that there's obviously no amount of poison that's good for you, but by that model of poison why do you assume that alcohol is a poison? Doesn't that become the question at hand?
    - P_I_Staker 5y ago
      I meant it more as a figure of speech. Nobody is trying to shoehorn health into random poisons. BTW there are allowable amounts to many poisons. There aren't allowable amounts of things like lead and butane. The question is why we're trying so hard to make something healthy. The answer is obvious, because we like it. You don't see doctors trying to come up with justifications for why we should drink arsenic or cyanide, just as long as it's tiny amounts. Alcohol causes cancer, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, anxiety, and many nasty things. It may be one thing to tell people that their glass of wine a day is OKAY, but we shouldn't be telling them it's "healthy" without good reason. The better analogy is smoking, because the harms are more similar than people think.
      - orblivion 5y ago
        > I meant it more as a figure of speech. I sort of figured, but then it wouldn't be much of an argument to claim that it can't be beneficial. But fair enough, I misunderstood your argument. Your argument is actually that any claims of a fun "poison" being beneficial are highly suspect. To that end - that would make sense for novel poisons or poisons that are rarely consumed. But this is one that's been consumed by many successful cultures for thousands of years. Animals get drunk on fermented fruit. That makes it seem more plausible to me that there could be something beneficial to it. Perhaps it was only beneficial in the days of unclean drinking water (unless that one is also not actually true! It's hard to believe anything anymore.).

tharne 5y ago

> It’s always seemed silly that just the right amount of poison is good somehow Why is it silly? A lot of things are dose dependent. A small amount of tylenol makes you head feel better. A lot of tylenol kills you. Lifting weights is very good for your health, but if you overdo it, you can get seriously hurt. A stressful day here and there is harmless, but if you're under constant, chronic, stress, your health will deteriorate. Four hours of sleep will leave you feeling terrible, 7-8 hours will leave you feeling rested, and 14 hours will likely leave you feeling terrible. I could go on, but I'd argue that dose-dependency is the rule rather than the exception.

P_I_Staker 5y ago
It’s not dose dependent though, it’s a dangerous poison that causes cancer. Your other examples are completely different. Tylenol is closest, but you’re really talking about overdose. Drinking a couple of glasses of wine a day isn’t an overdose. Yes, there may be some nasty chronic effects of tylenol too, but I think you’re trying really hard to fit a square peg in a round hole.
- orblivion 5y ago
  Is there a specific definition of poison you're working with? You say that there's obviously no amount of poison that's good for you, but by that model of poison why do you assume that alcohol is a poison? Doesn't that become the question at hand?
  - P_I_Staker 5y ago
    I meant it more as a figure of speech. Nobody is trying to shoehorn health into random poisons. BTW there are allowable amounts to many poisons. There aren't allowable amounts of things like lead and butane. The question is why we're trying so hard to make something healthy. The answer is obvious, because we like it. You don't see doctors trying to come up with justifications for why we should drink arsenic or cyanide, just as long as it's tiny amounts. Alcohol causes cancer, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, anxiety, and many nasty things. It may be one thing to tell people that their glass of wine a day is OKAY, but we shouldn't be telling them it's "healthy" without good reason. The better analogy is smoking, because the harms are more similar than people think.
    - orblivion 5y ago
      > I meant it more as a figure of speech. I sort of figured, but then it wouldn't be much of an argument to claim that it can't be beneficial. But fair enough, I misunderstood your argument. Your argument is actually that any claims of a fun "poison" being beneficial are highly suspect. To that end - that would make sense for novel poisons or poisons that are rarely consumed. But this is one that's been consumed by many successful cultures for thousands of years. Animals get drunk on fermented fruit. That makes it seem more plausible to me that there could be something beneficial to it. Perhaps it was only beneficial in the days of unclean drinking water (unless that one is also not actually true! It's hard to believe anything anymore.).