3 ms·

>At lower levels of alcohol consumption, it brings improvements in social life whose health benefits outweigh the health costs of consumption Patently false, a

by snvzz 3y ago

>At lower levels of alcohol consumption, it brings improvements in social life whose health benefits outweigh the health costs of consumption Patently false, as we know today that the level of alcohol consumption that's best for you is ZERO.

whywhywhywhy 3y ago
French people seem evidence against that.
- dagw 3y ago
  In what way? There has been plenty of studies on this and the general consensus is that while there may be certain health benefits to alcohol under certain conditions, in aggregate alcohol in any amount does not have a net positive effect on overall health.
- Theodores 3y ago
  French people are adopting the Western diet in considerable numbers with all of the fast food chains getting in there. Obesity is on the rise. I have not been there recently but I expect to see things have changed across all demographics apart from the elderly. France cannot be used for comparison studies when it comes to diet and alcohol in the way it used to be.
  - whywhywhywhy 3y ago
    I'm obviously talking about the ones that eat the traditional diet, not American fake food
- rmast 3y ago
  The counter argument for the J curve/French Paradox study is that their data for people who don’t drink is biased — it doesn’t distinguish between people who never drink because they don’t want to, and those who stopped due to underlying health conditions (thus making it appear as if mortality among those who don’t drink is higher).
exitb 3y ago
That's the current WHO position apparently, but it's only motivated by lack of evidence of a threshold below which alcohol is safe. I find that approach actually harmful, as it creates an impression that there's little difference depending on the amount consumed, when in reality it's the amount that makes ALL the difference.
- shrubby 3y ago
  I'm thinking about substance use in general that it might even have some benefits but with each repetition the problem use threshold is getting closer. And we have no way of knowing where the threshold is for each of us. It might be ten reps or ten thousand, but even considering the genetics, trauma, etc we cannot know whether the next rep is going to be over the threshold. In addition the threshold in most cases becomes visible after a long time it's been crossed.
  - exitb 3y ago
    The same thing applies to things like chocolate. Yet no one says that since we can't pinpoint a threshold of chocolate consumption harmfulness, we need to assume it's ZERO.
- caeril 3y ago
  I think it's likely that the WHO is considering people like me in their recommendation. I have friends who can drink a beer, maybe two, and be quite happy and satisfied. This is a phenomenon I have never been able to understand, because even a small amount of alcohol switches my reward system to REQUIRE more. If I have zero alcohol, I'm fine. But if I have one beer, I WILL have 7 more. For some portion of the human population (I've seen estimates at 15-20%), the concept of moderation is impossible - and for us, zero is the correct amount. If the WHO said "drink moderately if you don't experience dopaminergic response to ethanol, but drink zero if you do", it would be more nuanced and accurate, but public health organizations need to target their recommendations to the LCD, as simply as possible. It's the same as dietary cholesterol and salt. No health organization is going to say "run a double-blind study on yourself to find out if you are part of the population for whom dietary cholesterol impacts serum cholesterol, or sodium intake affects blood pressure, then consult this chart to see what our recommendation is for you" Instead they'll just say GROG SAY SALT AND EGGS BAD, NO EAT.
mrighele 3y ago
That would be "the level of alcohol consumption that's best for your _health_"
lurking15 3y ago
First off, what's "best for me" is subjective and as CS Lewis describes in "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment", the pathologizing of my own conditions that I don't myself regard as pathology is a form of despotism. There's just one thing after another: your rude, brusque dismissal "Patently false" and then appealing to false consensus "as we know today" (sorry you don't know this, there's some isolated recent evidence of alcohol being harmful to health, but hardly anyone actually abstains completely in such a puritanical manner, and LIVING is harmful to health at the end of the day).

by snvzz 3y ago

whywhywhywhy 3y ago

French people seem evidence against that.

dagw 3y ago
In what way? There has been plenty of studies on this and the general consensus is that while there may be certain health benefits to alcohol under certain conditions, in aggregate alcohol in any amount does not have a net positive effect on overall health.
Theodores 3y ago
French people are adopting the Western diet in considerable numbers with all of the fast food chains getting in there. Obesity is on the rise. I have not been there recently but I expect to see things have changed across all demographics apart from the elderly. France cannot be used for comparison studies when it comes to diet and alcohol in the way it used to be.
- whywhywhywhy 3y ago
  I'm obviously talking about the ones that eat the traditional diet, not American fake food
rmast 3y ago
The counter argument for the J curve/French Paradox study is that their data for people who don’t drink is biased — it doesn’t distinguish between people who never drink because they don’t want to, and those who stopped due to underlying health conditions (thus making it appear as if mortality among those who don’t drink is higher).

exitb 3y ago

That's the current WHO position apparently, but it's only motivated by lack of evidence of a threshold below which alcohol is safe. I find that approach actually harmful, as it creates an impression that there's little difference depending on the amount consumed, when in reality it's the amount that makes ALL the difference.

shrubby 3y ago
I'm thinking about substance use in general that it might even have some benefits but with each repetition the problem use threshold is getting closer. And we have no way of knowing where the threshold is for each of us. It might be ten reps or ten thousand, but even considering the genetics, trauma, etc we cannot know whether the next rep is going to be over the threshold. In addition the threshold in most cases becomes visible after a long time it's been crossed.
- exitb 3y ago
  The same thing applies to things like chocolate. Yet no one says that since we can't pinpoint a threshold of chocolate consumption harmfulness, we need to assume it's ZERO.
caeril 3y ago
I think it's likely that the WHO is considering people like me in their recommendation. I have friends who can drink a beer, maybe two, and be quite happy and satisfied. This is a phenomenon I have never been able to understand, because even a small amount of alcohol switches my reward system to REQUIRE more. If I have zero alcohol, I'm fine. But if I have one beer, I WILL have 7 more. For some portion of the human population (I've seen estimates at 15-20%), the concept of moderation is impossible - and for us, zero is the correct amount. If the WHO said "drink moderately if you don't experience dopaminergic response to ethanol, but drink zero if you do", it would be more nuanced and accurate, but public health organizations need to target their recommendations to the LCD, as simply as possible. It's the same as dietary cholesterol and salt. No health organization is going to say "run a double-blind study on yourself to find out if you are part of the population for whom dietary cholesterol impacts serum cholesterol, or sodium intake affects blood pressure, then consult this chart to see what our recommendation is for you" Instead they'll just say GROG SAY SALT AND EGGS BAD, NO EAT.

mrighele 3y ago

That would be "the level of alcohol consumption that's best for your _health_"

lurking15 3y ago

First off, what's "best for me" is subjective and as CS Lewis describes in "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment", the pathologizing of my own conditions that I don't myself regard as pathology is a form of despotism. There's just one thing after another: your rude, brusque dismissal "Patently false" and then appealing to false consensus "as we know today" (sorry you don't know this, there's some isolated recent evidence of alcohol being harmful to health, but hardly anyone actually abstains completely in such a puritanical manner, and LIVING is harmful to health at the end of the day).