9 ms·
Study: Alcohol is never good for people under 40
- metadat 4y agoDupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32102582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32102582 (Posted yesterday; 55 points, 21 comments)
- mylons 4y agothis is never actually said in the paper.
- ineedasername 4y agoYes, it is. In the results section where they provide a differential analysis of TMREL & NDE stratified by age levels and point out an inflection point for the >= 40 ranges. The exact words are not mentioned, but that is the substantive result and analysis provided, albeit with more nuances and important points than merely this age distinction. This HN posting probably used the title it did because regular media outlets are headlining it that way. I would agree that's not the most appropriate way to title an HN submission to direct research without such a title. Generally the title on a post here should match the article, at least as much as is practical. At a minimum it could have kept in the spirit of the article to simply title the HN submission something like "Safety & benefits of alcohol consumption vary by age groups".
- mylons 4y agoso, let me repeat, this is never said in the paper.
- ineedasername 4y agoIf you are going to be so obtusely literal minded as to demand a verbatim reproduction of the headline? Fine, sure, correct. If, on the other hand, you mean whether or not the information necessary to evaluate the headline's statement is contained in the linked article, then yes it is, distinctly and clearly, in the results section.
- inasio 4y agoSince this is the original paper I'll put my comment here. I used to follow the literature on this subject up to a few years ago, the key issue was that most of the studies had bad datasets. It's one of those things where it's impossible to run a randomized controlled trial. As an example of the issues you would often find in studies, if you dug into the comparison population of non-drinkers it included people that were non drinkers because of severe health issues, severely skewing the data. The few papers that did serious data-cleaning efforts were mostly unequivocal about alcohol just being bad no matter what.
- heywoodlh 4y ago> The few papers that did serious data-cleaning efforts were mostly unequivocal about alcohol just being bad no matter what. If you strictly look at it from a biological perspective isn't alcohol consumption pretty much short-term poisoning of your body to produce temporary good feelings? Is there any time where this would be good for the body and would have data to show it? Sincerely wondering as that would be really interesting to read about. I have never really seen anything that implies it actually helps your body aside from the "drinking wine every once in a while is good for you". Note: I also feel like this "unhealthy" argument can be true of anything. I.E. video games, sports, being exposed to people at a social event, etc. So I am not trying to argue that point. Just curious if there is any evidence suggesting alcohol may be good for your body -- from a biological perspective only.
- raverbashing 4y ago> pretty much short-term poisoning Do you even know what oxygen is? It's deadly to several life-forms Exercise is short-term damage. Fever is "just a bit" of cooking you alive. "Strictly from a biological experience" humans are the mammals that have the highest tolerance from alcohol (which evolved recently).
- heywoodlh 4y agoI guess I should have clarified that I was wondering from a human's biological perspective? I don't quite understand why you are making these parallels to my question about any biological positives alcohol. Are you saying that alcohol is comparable to our need for controlled amounts of oxygen? Exercise clearly has some positive biological outcomes (stronger muscles, more resilient body systems, etc.). Does alcohol? And even with getting a fever you develop antibodies/tolerances (assuming you recover). Aside from tolerance to alcohol (which I am not sure why that would be useful) does alcohol provide any positive benefit to your body? I don't feel like any of the parallels you provided were useful to my question. Again, I want to reiterate I was asking a question focusing on its benefits of the human body -- not trying to paint a narrative that alcohol is comprehensively bad. I really vibed with another comment that said alcohol can be a social stimulant and really can help people feel connected -- that's cool and I'm all about that. But I want to reiterate my question: are there ever times when alcohol is actually good for your body?
- yomkippur 4y agoAnything in moderation.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y agoPlatitude, not useful advice. In reality, all it takes for too many people to spiral into bad habits is to have just a little taste.
- eyelidlessness 4y agoOkay, bad habits in moderation, everything else in excess.
- eikenberry 4y agoHow many is too many? I don't think adiction disorder it that common.
- yomkippur 4y agoPeople have been consuming alcohol for a very long time. What you are describing is addiction and its part of our society. If not alcohol, its something else. Hell, some people get addicted to work. Again, everything in moderation is a sound advice. If you can't drink or have reasons not to, don't. But you won' t get invited to parties if you started saying out loud what you write on HN.
- lapinot 4y agoYeah, this kind of study is for me quite at the pinnacle of the western problem with science and medicine where mental health and subtle social well-being is just pushed under the rug. Do we get the same publicity towards antibiotics, which are also like not without their big drawbacks? Or any kind of "science" stamped drugs and treatment really. Humans have been consuming what we call bad bad drugs now since i believe earlier than writing, even other animals are doing it. Maybe you know, practice and evolution, has determined it had positive effects. And perhaps (wow big idea) over-consumption of alcohol is a symptom and not an isolated problem. Oh yeah, this was financed by the B&M Gates foundation, explains some stuff about the pov. I'm not doubting the "internal" quality of this research, this is probably top notch statistics and data quality, but the philosophical ground and world view behind the institutions that produced it is so heavy at the same time.
- zagrebian 4y agoWhat about ice cream?
- boomboomsubban 4y agoCouldn't the results be worded as "older people less likely to drink dangerously?" Which makes sense. I suspect fewer 25 year olds are having a glass of wine with dinner and are more likely to go out to a bar where even if you only have one drink you're surrounded by people drinking dangerously.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- elevaet 4y agoOne possible benefit of alcohol is that it often brings people together as a social lubricant. As has become clear in studies lately, social isolation is extremely harmful to mental and even physical health. I wonder how the risk vs. reward looks for moderate drinking when you factor in the social effects. In any case the old wisdom to never drink alone, and to drink in moderation, is probably good advice to follow.
- truncate 4y agoThe way I see it as alcohol makes it easier to relax and open up social settings, but definitely not necessary. In my experience the hard part of loneliness is to get out of your house and put yourself in social situation at first place, and alcohol definitely doesn't help there.
- raverbashing 4y agoOf course Most research is blind to secondary effects and unintended consequences of removing said "bad" thing
- dr_dshiv 4y agoIt was the healthy part of cigarettes, too. Remember leaving a bar for a smoke? Cue ritual social exchange.
- elevaet 4y agoYeah it's a good point, although it does seem like the dangers of smoking are worse than drinking. I'd like to see an analysis of the risk vs. reward of drinking that factors in social effects. It would be really hard to do a good job of though, because the social effects are not linear, and you could always argue that a drinker could do something else that's social instead. Maybe smoking even comes out ahead with moderation and the right context. Precolumbian americans seemed to use tobacco in a fairly safe and socially beneficial way.
- pengaru 4y agoExcept drinking often makes people smoke, and/or engage in other unhealthy activities they otherwise don't do when sober.
- bamboozled 4y agoWhat about having fun and partying ?
- markles 4y agoYou can have fun and party without drinking. Not that alcohol can't be fun, but maybe people rely on it a bit too much to loosen things up.
- Choco31415 4y agoI’ve recently discovered Boba tea as a fun drink to get with other people.
- zwirbl 4y agoIs it the ritual making it fun with other people? I think I'd prefer some black tea or coffee over boba
- bamboozled 4y agoNot really... Of course you can, I do a lot of activities with which don't require alcohol to have fun with others, but there are some great activities which are fun with drugs and or alcohol. Dancing, karaoke, weddings, dinners... I'm happy about this study because I'm currently in a country where Marijuarna is illegal for recreational use, I hope this study helps change that. Edibles have to be more healthy than wine.
- igorkraw 4y agoI don't drink or consume any drug except caffeine, have been to all these things and had fun - sometimes more fun than the drinking participants. Alcohol is just a cheat code for lowering your inhibitions and taking yourself less seriously (because your self control is turned off). I can respect doing that, but it is not at all required to drink or partake drugs (which I'm not fundamentally averse to either, to each their own) to lower your inhibitions. It just might take therapy if for... reasons...you are particularly self conscious like me
- thepasswordis 4y agoTruly the best, and healthiest lifestyle would be to live in a climate controlled pod, alone, and eating a slurry of essential vitamins and minerals (made of bug protein, of course!).
- esalman 4y ago"Alone" is not a healthy lifestyle, sociologically speaking.
- fknorangesite 4y agoYep, you understood the comment.
- darawk 4y agoDon't forget the electroshocks to stimulate your muscles.
- phasersout 4y agoYou mean the iPod...
- FerociousTimes 4y agobug protein wouldn't be Kosher enough (animal-based), pea protein is the way tp go instead.
- nephanth 4y agoDo you mean vegan? Jews can eat meat iirc
- FerociousTimes 4y agoFiguratively speaking not literally
- nickelpro 4y agoPerhaps in the incredibly narrow view of physical health And yet, I cannot think of a single time I've consumed alcohol and thought, "I'm doing this because it's good for my physical health"
- zabzonk 4y agoOoh, that "Findings" para hurt my brain more than the G&T I am just sipping. And I think that Bill & Melinda could have spent their money better.
- braingenious 4y agoIt’s good news that if you start drinking younger and manage to keep going through your 30s that you’ll finally see the benefits of it in middle age.
- cm2187 4y agoAs a line from a Woody Allen movie goes: “study finds one can live longer by never doing anything pleasurable”.
- AlwaysRock 4y agoEveryone knows this. Most people pretend it isnt true or cling to one study that is cited often about some vague health benefits of a glass of wine a night. Poisoning your body is bad for it. End of story.
- zwirbl 4y agoFrom a strictly physical health perspective this is surely true, from a social and psychological angle it's not as black and white
- matwood 4y agoThe age old saying that “the dose makes the poison” comes to mind. Obviously binge drinking all the time is bad. Some studies have suggested any amount is bad, but the ones I’ve seen are less conclusive.
- AlwaysRock 4y agoIf you look at the "studies" there is exactly ONE that is cited over and over saying that a glass is healthy. There are dozens and dozens of studies saying no amount is healthy.
- awsrocks 4y ago
- submeta 4y agoI have been drinking way too much in my younger life, and I always thought this is the most normal thing to do because (here in Germany) everyone was seemingly doing it, at least I thought so. But in fact there are whole societies where alcohol is tabu / almost never consumed (muslim countries) Or consumed very sparingly because you cannot get it in supermarkets and usual restaurants (Turkey). One might say that those countries are dry and devoid of pleasure, and that might even be true. But I am wondering if these countries develop some deseases less often (colon cancer, high blood pressure, etc) Looking back, I should have had less alcohol in my life, but I wouldn’t want to miss it either, in moderate amounts.
- slyall 4y agoIn countries like the US around a third of the adult population rarely or never drinks alcohol. But if you are a regular drinker you won't notice them because they won't be hanging around in bars.
- olivermarks 4y agoBill '& Melinda' Gates giving alcohol consumption advice. I don't drink alcohol one year in every four, makes me appreciate booze more in the drinking years. The year off I'm usually more clear headed, probably an uptick in depressive periods depending on circumstances
- klodolph 4y agoNote that what this article is saying: > In all super-regions, among individuals aged 15–39 years, injuries accounted for the majority of alcohol-related DALYs in 2020. And if we break down by type of injury and look at the top-listed cause, > transport injuries comprised 25·9% In other words, the reason why "alcohol is never good for people under 40" is largely because young people behave poorly when drinking--and they choose to drive when drunk. A "career alcoholic" in their 40s will probably be much better at controlling their behavior than somebody who drinks the same amount in their 20s (Edit: to be clear, there can be multiple reasons for this--your brain chemistry can adapt to the alcohol, and you can also get wiser). When I see quoted figures like 1.75 standard drinks per day as being "NDE" for some people, I think, jeez, I would have problems sleeping if I did that, and I have reasonably high alcohol tolerance (due to sex, mass, and ancestry). Considering that the quoted figures are averages per day, it makes sense that a percentage of the injuries are from the days when you drink more than average. 1.75 drinks per day could mean 2 drinks during the week, and then 5 drinks on Friday and another 5 drinks on Saturday. The fact that for some people, averaging 1.75 drinks per day has the same health risk as a non-drinker is just downright mind boggling to me. My takeaway here is that because injury is such a major factor, there are a lot of other public health policies that can improve outcomes besides just controlling the amount that people drink. It is, in fact, possible to create policies that affect how people behave when they are drunk.
- awsrocks 4y ago
- hibernator149 4y agoI feel many posters here could avoid a lot of cognitive dissonance by accepting this: "Alcohol is bad for my body, but I enjoy its effects. This is my trade off to make and it is worth it to me." Instead I see a lot of rationalizations about how drinking alcohol is inherently the right choice.
- cheradenine_uk 4y agoThe story, and the study, are terrible. Chris Snowden demolishes it here: https://snowdon.substack.com/p/is-drinking-never-good-for-people https://snowdon.substack.com/p/is-drinking-never-good-for-pe... > Notice, by the way, that nobody involved in this research is recommending that teetotallers over the age of 40 should start drinking moderately, despite the study showing that this would improve their health. Even in the world of 'public health', fanaticism has its limits.
- raverbashing 4y ago> there appears to be no protective effect at moderate rates ... (because) they associate alcohol consumption at any level with tuberculosis > TB is not really an alcohol-related disease and is only viewed as such in this study because (a) drinking might weaken the immune system and (b) people who go to bars and clubs are more likely to catch an infectious disease. I kid you not. Really