5 ms·

My understanding is that the latest biological research is pretty clear: no amount of alcohol is better than none.

by cl42 3y ago

malcolmgreaves 3y ago
Why did you decide to respond to my post without addressing the point of my comment?
- cl42 3y ago
  You state there are benefits to alcohol. I specifically state there aren't based on the biological research I've read. That is directly addressing your point. EDIT: I don't see a 'reply' button beside those replying to me below. I am 100% open to being convinced of the benefits of alcohol -- especially psychological, social, etc. Please feel free to post papers that scientifically show that alcohol is beneficial. Would love to read them.
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    Who said the benefits are biological?
  - joebob42 3y ago
    They means social benefits, not health ones. They even say so in their post.
  - malcolmgreaves 3y ago
    Is there a single work that attempts to, for example, answer the emotional affects that come from recreational drug use? You claim that "there aren't based on the biological research" you've read. I do believe you here. However, have you ever stopped to think that that perhaps the benefits that one derives from consuming alcohol, or other recreational drugs, are outside the realm of what biological sciences can answer? Maybe another field is better positioned to provide you with an illuminating alternative perspective.
  - lrvick 3y ago
    The increased dopamine and reduced anxiety resulting from occasional alcohol consumption in moderation is pretty useful in some situations, just like caffeine is useful in others. Relying on either every day however has dramatically diminishing returns that can quickly become a net negative.
npsimons 3y ago
This was also my understanding - the WHO classified alcohol as a carcinogen[0], and the statement "No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health" appears to be true. [0] - https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-...
- tarboreus 3y ago
  OK, but no amount of crossing the street is safe for your health, either. Low to moderate drinkers have better health outcomes than teetotalers. That's probably because unhealthy people are less likely to drink alcohol, but it also suggests that most people using alcohol are not exactly having their lives ruined. Futher, loneliness is epidemic in the modern west, and alcohol is a patently social drug. If drinking 4-5 beers a week gets you out of the house and talking to people twice, that might actually be a health win in the current environment.
joebob42 3y ago
He means social benefits. At least for me they absolutely are real and we're valuable to bring me out of my shell in college. Don't need it as much anymore, but drinking a bit in college had a transformatively positive experience for me socially.
ls612 3y ago
The latest research also does a lot of data shenanigans to avoid getting a statistical null for lower quantities. For instance, the famous lancet study that started this all corrected for the fact that some of the non-drinkers were former drinkers who quit drinking due to health reasons (increasing percieved risk), but didn't correct for the fact that heavy drinkers often lie to medical professionals about their drinking (which would decrease perceived risk). They also counted harms from drunk driving and synergistic harms from alcohol and tobacco use as harms from alcohol alone when both are 100% avoidable even if you drink. And even after doing this consistently they still had p values very close to 0.05 for 1 and 2 drinks per day on average.
Spivak 3y ago
And no amount of chili cheese fries is better than none either. Caffeine is bad for your heart, red meat is bad for your arteries, refined sugar is bad for your everything but especially pancreas, loud music is bad for your ears, ballet is horrible for your feet, high impact sports (like running not just football) are bad for your joints, sun is bad for your skin, reading and coding are bad for your eyes. I'm trying to only count things that are "cumulative" damage and not only bad for you in high doses. You can't count only biological benefits when balancing the scales because then most things humans do is only bad for you.

My understanding is that the latest biological research is pretty clear: no amount of alcohol is better than none.

by cl42 3y ago

My understanding is that the latest biological research is pretty clear: no amount of alcohol is better than none.

malcolmgreaves 3y ago

Why did you decide to respond to my post without addressing the point of my comment?

cl42 3y ago
You state there are benefits to alcohol. I specifically state there aren't based on the biological research I've read. That is directly addressing your point. EDIT: I don't see a 'reply' button beside those replying to me below. I am 100% open to being convinced of the benefits of alcohol -- especially psychological, social, etc. Please feel free to post papers that scientifically show that alcohol is beneficial. Would love to read them.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  Who said the benefits are biological?
- joebob42 3y ago
  They means social benefits, not health ones. They even say so in their post.
- malcolmgreaves 3y ago
  Is there a single work that attempts to, for example, answer the emotional affects that come from recreational drug use? You claim that "there aren't based on the biological research" you've read. I do believe you here. However, have you ever stopped to think that that perhaps the benefits that one derives from consuming alcohol, or other recreational drugs, are outside the realm of what biological sciences can answer? Maybe another field is better positioned to provide you with an illuminating alternative perspective.
- lrvick 3y ago
  The increased dopamine and reduced anxiety resulting from occasional alcohol consumption in moderation is pretty useful in some situations, just like caffeine is useful in others. Relying on either every day however has dramatically diminishing returns that can quickly become a net negative.

npsimons 3y ago

This was also my understanding - the WHO classified alcohol as a carcinogen[0], and the statement "No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health" appears to be true. [0] - https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-...

tarboreus 3y ago
OK, but no amount of crossing the street is safe for your health, either. Low to moderate drinkers have better health outcomes than teetotalers. That's probably because unhealthy people are less likely to drink alcohol, but it also suggests that most people using alcohol are not exactly having their lives ruined. Futher, loneliness is epidemic in the modern west, and alcohol is a patently social drug. If drinking 4-5 beers a week gets you out of the house and talking to people twice, that might actually be a health win in the current environment.

joebob42 3y ago

He means social benefits. At least for me they absolutely are real and we're valuable to bring me out of my shell in college. Don't need it as much anymore, but drinking a bit in college had a transformatively positive experience for me socially.

ls612 3y ago

The latest research also does a lot of data shenanigans to avoid getting a statistical null for lower quantities. For instance, the famous lancet study that started this all corrected for the fact that some of the non-drinkers were former drinkers who quit drinking due to health reasons (increasing percieved risk), but didn't correct for the fact that heavy drinkers often lie to medical professionals about their drinking (which would decrease perceived risk). They also counted harms from drunk driving and synergistic harms from alcohol and tobacco use as harms from alcohol alone when both are 100% avoidable even if you drink. And even after doing this consistently they still had p values very close to 0.05 for 1 and 2 drinks per day on average.

Spivak 3y ago

And no amount of chili cheese fries is better than none either. Caffeine is bad for your heart, red meat is bad for your arteries, refined sugar is bad for your everything but especially pancreas, loud music is bad for your ears, ballet is horrible for your feet, high impact sports (like running not just football) are bad for your joints, sun is bad for your skin, reading and coding are bad for your eyes. I'm trying to only count things that are "cumulative" damage and not only bad for you in high doses. You can't count only biological benefits when balancing the scales because then most things humans do is only bad for you.