4 ms·

Hmm.. maybe better to avoid alcohol completely, or stick to other less harmful recreational drugs and pastimes?

commandlinefan 4y ago
Figure 3 seems to suggest that as long as you average < 1 drink/day, you're doing (very very slightly) better than somebody who averages 0.
- gruez 4y ago
  The standard response to that is 0 drinks per day includes abstainers who might be former alcoholics and therefore might be dragging the average down. Some of the data tables have a separate category for "excluding abstainers", but there's no line graph that has abstainers excluded.
  - theGnuMe 4y ago
    I would imagine they controlled for that or it’s insignificant.
    - aplusbi 4y ago
      Doesn't sound like they controlled for it or even considered it. While they did have a control group that excluded non-drinkers and heavy drinkers, that was solely to control for bias at the extreme ends, and not to control for sober alcoholics or health problems that preclude drinking. > Our analyses comprise models that include two different sets of control variables. The standard set includes standardized age, standardized age squared standardized height, handedness (right/left/ambidextrous; dummy-coded), sex (female:0, male:1), current smoker status, former light smoker, former heavy smoker, and standardized Townsend index of social deprivation measured at the zip code level62. To control for genetic population structure, the models also include the first 40 genetic principal components63 and county of residence (dummy-coded)62. A second set of extended control variables includes all standard control variables and in addition standardized BMI, standardized educational attainment64, and standardized weight. To determine whether observations at the extreme ends of the drinking distribution bias the estimates of the relationship between alcohol intake and IDPs, we also estimate a model that excludes abstainers and a model that excludes heavy drinkers (i.e., women who reported consuming more than 18 units/week and men who consumed more than 24 units/week), both with standard controls. Here they talk about the different groupings: > we bin participants in the following six categories based on average alcohol intake: (1) abstainers, (2) individuals who drank less than one unit/day, (3) individuals who drank between one (included) and two (excluded) units/day (recommended maximal alcohol consumption based on the UK Chief Medical Officers “low-risk” guidelines32), (4) individuals who drank between two (included) and three (excluded) units/day, (5) individuals who drank between three (included) and four (excluded) units/day, and (6) individuals who drank at least four units/day. Again no mention of sober alcoholics or health problems. This study: https://www.massgeneral.org/news/press-release/large-study-challenges-the-theory-that-light-alcohol-consumption-benefits-heart-health https://www.massgeneral.org/news/press-release/large-study-c... found that while moderate drinkers had better cardiovascular health than non-drinkers, this was due to other lifestyle factors associated with moderate drinking, not the drinking itself.
      - theGnuMe 4y ago
        There are way fewer alcoholics than any other category so even if you factor in sober alcoholics you are dominated by people who drank less and now abstain or have never drunk.
    - epolanski 4y ago
      I would've found abstainers vs non-abstainers more interesting.
ramesh31 4y ago
This is pretty much why I became a nondrinker. Alcohol makes you dumb. It impairs thinking, and thinking is the most pleasurable thing in the world.
- pstuart 4y ago
  > Alcohol makes you dumb So does canabis (albeit in a rather creative way). I love the stuff but it's definitely better in smaller and infrequent doses.
  - thefaux 4y ago
    Yeah, proper dosing of cannabis is tricky. I think used sparingly and in small doses it can be helpful for many creative practices. It is very easy to take too much or use it too often because the feeling of being high can be so pleasurable (except when you get paranoid and it's the absolute worst). It also can make you feel very inflated, which is a great feeling in the moment, but kind of embarrassing when you look back at the reduced quality of what you actually produce when high. Still, I think there is value in it since I have had useful insights while high that motivated me when I sobered up and was better able to execute on my inflated ambitions. Alcohol, on the other hand, I have really not found especially helpful for creativity. YMMV.
    - pstuart 4y ago
      Oh, the flights of fancy that cannabis inspires is painful because once the haze clears it's not likely to ever go further than that peak moment (all talk, no walk -- at least for myself)
- throwayyy479087 4y ago
  Ehhh - having a whiskey on a porch in the mountains in the fall is up there
  - christophilus 4y ago
    Throw in a cigar or pipe, and it’s my favorite guilty pleasure.
rosywoozlechan 4y ago
it's a cross-sectional study and thus cannot be used to infer causality, so it doesn't warrant behavioral changes?
- potatototoo99 4y ago
  That's one way to rationalize your addiction.
  - iwillbenice 4y ago
  - rosywoozlechan 4y ago
    I don't drink alcohol
luxuryballs 4y ago
Even if we could be certain that the results of this study were infallible and meaningful it still ultimately depends on your goals and values, best possible health at all costs including the cost of enjoyment… I mean we’re all going to die no matter what, it’s really up to you. I could die next year or even tomorrow and not cracking a few cold ones would have zero impact on that. I don’t mean this as an endorsement for endless boozing either, just sharing some perspective.
tejtm 4y ago
And a carcinogen, metabolizes to aldehyde, causes increased double strand DNA breaks which normally get repaired right until they don't.

Figure 3 seems to suggest that as long as you average < 1 drink/day, you're doing (very very slightly) better than somebody who averages 0.

gruez 4y ago
The standard response to that is 0 drinks per day includes abstainers who might be former alcoholics and therefore might be dragging the average down. Some of the data tables have a separate category for "excluding abstainers", but there's no line graph that has abstainers excluded.
- theGnuMe 4y ago
  I would imagine they controlled for that or it’s insignificant.
  - aplusbi 4y ago
    Doesn't sound like they controlled for it or even considered it. While they did have a control group that excluded non-drinkers and heavy drinkers, that was solely to control for bias at the extreme ends, and not to control for sober alcoholics or health problems that preclude drinking. > Our analyses comprise models that include two different sets of control variables. The standard set includes standardized age, standardized age squared standardized height, handedness (right/left/ambidextrous; dummy-coded), sex (female:0, male:1), current smoker status, former light smoker, former heavy smoker, and standardized Townsend index of social deprivation measured at the zip code level62. To control for genetic population structure, the models also include the first 40 genetic principal components63 and county of residence (dummy-coded)62. A second set of extended control variables includes all standard control variables and in addition standardized BMI, standardized educational attainment64, and standardized weight. To determine whether observations at the extreme ends of the drinking distribution bias the estimates of the relationship between alcohol intake and IDPs, we also estimate a model that excludes abstainers and a model that excludes heavy drinkers (i.e., women who reported consuming more than 18 units/week and men who consumed more than 24 units/week), both with standard controls. Here they talk about the different groupings: > we bin participants in the following six categories based on average alcohol intake: (1) abstainers, (2) individuals who drank less than one unit/day, (3) individuals who drank between one (included) and two (excluded) units/day (recommended maximal alcohol consumption based on the UK Chief Medical Officers “low-risk” guidelines32), (4) individuals who drank between two (included) and three (excluded) units/day, (5) individuals who drank between three (included) and four (excluded) units/day, and (6) individuals who drank at least four units/day. Again no mention of sober alcoholics or health problems. This study: https://www.massgeneral.org/news/press-release/large-study-challenges-the-theory-that-light-alcohol-consumption-benefits-heart-health https://www.massgeneral.org/news/press-release/large-study-c... found that while moderate drinkers had better cardiovascular health than non-drinkers, this was due to other lifestyle factors associated with moderate drinking, not the drinking itself.
    - theGnuMe 4y ago
      There are way fewer alcoholics than any other category so even if you factor in sober alcoholics you are dominated by people who drank less and now abstain or have never drunk.
  - epolanski 4y ago
    I would've found abstainers vs non-abstainers more interesting.

ramesh31 4y ago

This is pretty much why I became a nondrinker. Alcohol makes you dumb. It impairs thinking, and thinking is the most pleasurable thing in the world.

pstuart 4y ago
> Alcohol makes you dumb So does canabis (albeit in a rather creative way). I love the stuff but it's definitely better in smaller and infrequent doses.
- thefaux 4y ago
  Yeah, proper dosing of cannabis is tricky. I think used sparingly and in small doses it can be helpful for many creative practices. It is very easy to take too much or use it too often because the feeling of being high can be so pleasurable (except when you get paranoid and it's the absolute worst). It also can make you feel very inflated, which is a great feeling in the moment, but kind of embarrassing when you look back at the reduced quality of what you actually produce when high. Still, I think there is value in it since I have had useful insights while high that motivated me when I sobered up and was better able to execute on my inflated ambitions. Alcohol, on the other hand, I have really not found especially helpful for creativity. YMMV.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    Oh, the flights of fancy that cannabis inspires is painful because once the haze clears it's not likely to ever go further than that peak moment (all talk, no walk -- at least for myself)
throwayyy479087 4y ago
Ehhh - having a whiskey on a porch in the mountains in the fall is up there
- christophilus 4y ago
  Throw in a cigar or pipe, and it’s my favorite guilty pleasure.

rosywoozlechan 4y ago

it's a cross-sectional study and thus cannot be used to infer causality, so it doesn't warrant behavioral changes?

potatototoo99 4y ago
That's one way to rationalize your addiction.
- iwillbenice 4y ago
- rosywoozlechan 4y ago
  I don't drink alcohol

luxuryballs 4y ago

Even if we could be certain that the results of this study were infallible and meaningful it still ultimately depends on your goals and values, best possible health at all costs including the cost of enjoyment… I mean we’re all going to die no matter what, it’s really up to you. I could die next year or even tomorrow and not cracking a few cold ones would have zero impact on that. I don’t mean this as an endorsement for endless boozing either, just sharing some perspective.

tejtm 4y ago

And a carcinogen, metabolizes to aldehyde, causes increased double strand DNA breaks which normally get repaired right until they don't.