3 ms·

I recently had a cardiologist wag her finger at me and tell me that recent data pretty much demonstrates that there really isn't any healthy amount of alcohol t

I recently had a cardiologist wag her finger at me and tell me that recent data pretty much demonstrates that there really isn't any healthy amount of alcohol to consume. 20 years ago, when "1 drink a day is healthiest" was all over the news, I said cheers and picked up the habit. It's kind of hard to break, considering that I really, really enjoy the flavor of alcoholic beverages. Alcohol, as a solvent, allows for flavor profiles that just water don't allow.

moi2388 1y ago
Reply to her that this is only true for populations, not individuals. Plenty of people who drink age well and plenty of people who don’t drink don’t age well. Statistics say something about aggregates, not individual data points
- kashunstva 1y ago
  So how should physicians counsel patients, given that they have neither a megaphone large enough to address entire populations nor the prescience to discern the degree to which population applies to the individual or not?
  - moi2388 1y ago
    You can’t just test their liver to see if they have alcohol damage? Generally most patient who come in present no indications of alcohol poisoning whatsoever
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      Alcohol damages more than the liver, and tests are not always accurate nor comprehensive.
      - moi2388 1y ago
        Ah yes. Tests fail to detect any of the detrimental effects of alcohol, so it’s the test that is flawed, you actually have severe damage that is somehow undetectable. Sounds legit dude
        lotsofpulp 1y ago
        My comment does not imply any amount of alcohol causes severe damage. Your comment implied that a liver test was sufficient to claim alcohol was not causing damage.
- rendaw 1y ago
  Making a statement about "plenty of people" is making a statement about an aggregate. Do you have some sources?
  - moi2388 1y ago
    Touché. My sources are the fact that some old people did drink alcohol at some point in their life.
- gwbas1c 1y ago
  I find it's best not to argue with (cough) "experts" and just use my own judgement. See my other comment in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44915807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44915807
oinfoalgo 1y ago
A few years ago, I really dug into the research to try to find things to convince my father to stop drinking but all the evidence I could find said the opposite. That not drinking is what is dangerous for longevity. Completely not what I wanted to find or was expecting. I think what is actually happening is we are becoming less of an evidence based society and more of a society based on sentiments. That is what has changed the past 20 years. It doesn't matter if the actual evidence says the opposite. We "know" drinking is bad a priori, the evidence be damned.
- gwbas1c 1y ago
  I've noticed quite a few studies where the author appears to prove their bias: Pediatricians started asking about guns because someone "proved" that if there are guns in the house, children are more likely to have a gun injury. But, dig in just a little bit and no one differentiates between households where guns are secured and households where guns aren't. My cardiologist who wagged her finger at me also brought up recent evidence about marijuana usage contributes to heart problems. I know those studies don't differentiate smoking vs edibles. Of course, smoking anything is going to have health problems; thus I'm going to conclude that the study confirms the authors' biases. I suspect the same with studies about alcohol consumption: The authors may have some kind of bias. For example, what if drinking 120-proof spirits "neat" is likely to cause esophageal cancer, but everything else is safe? That being said: We live longer than we used to. What used to kill us no longer does, so paying attention closer attention to things long-term effects of moderate alcohol consumption is more important than when we were more likely to at 45.

moi2388 1y ago

Reply to her that this is only true for populations, not individuals. Plenty of people who drink age well and plenty of people who don’t drink don’t age well. Statistics say something about aggregates, not individual data points

kashunstva 1y ago
So how should physicians counsel patients, given that they have neither a megaphone large enough to address entire populations nor the prescience to discern the degree to which population applies to the individual or not?
- moi2388 1y ago
  You can’t just test their liver to see if they have alcohol damage? Generally most patient who come in present no indications of alcohol poisoning whatsoever
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    Alcohol damages more than the liver, and tests are not always accurate nor comprehensive.
    - moi2388 1y ago
      Ah yes. Tests fail to detect any of the detrimental effects of alcohol, so it’s the test that is flawed, you actually have severe damage that is somehow undetectable. Sounds legit dude
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        My comment does not imply any amount of alcohol causes severe damage. Your comment implied that a liver test was sufficient to claim alcohol was not causing damage.
rendaw 1y ago
Making a statement about "plenty of people" is making a statement about an aggregate. Do you have some sources?
- moi2388 1y ago
  Touché. My sources are the fact that some old people did drink alcohol at some point in their life.
gwbas1c 1y ago
I find it's best not to argue with (cough) "experts" and just use my own judgement. See my other comment in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44915807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44915807

oinfoalgo 1y ago

A few years ago, I really dug into the research to try to find things to convince my father to stop drinking but all the evidence I could find said the opposite. That not drinking is what is dangerous for longevity. Completely not what I wanted to find or was expecting. I think what is actually happening is we are becoming less of an evidence based society and more of a society based on sentiments. That is what has changed the past 20 years. It doesn't matter if the actual evidence says the opposite. We "know" drinking is bad a priori, the evidence be damned.

gwbas1c 1y ago
I've noticed quite a few studies where the author appears to prove their bias: Pediatricians started asking about guns because someone "proved" that if there are guns in the house, children are more likely to have a gun injury. But, dig in just a little bit and no one differentiates between households where guns are secured and households where guns aren't. My cardiologist who wagged her finger at me also brought up recent evidence about marijuana usage contributes to heart problems. I know those studies don't differentiate smoking vs edibles. Of course, smoking anything is going to have health problems; thus I'm going to conclude that the study confirms the authors' biases. I suspect the same with studies about alcohol consumption: The authors may have some kind of bias. For example, what if drinking 120-proof spirits "neat" is likely to cause esophageal cancer, but everything else is safe? That being said: We live longer than we used to. What used to kill us no longer does, so paying attention closer attention to things long-term effects of moderate alcohol consumption is more important than when we were more likely to at 45.