4 ms·

This is not a direct response to this article, but related to the topic of not drinking. I'm usually a follower of the latest data and such but I am highly skep

This is not a direct response to this article, but related to the topic of not drinking. I'm usually a follower of the latest data and such but I am highly skeptical of all the recent news about how drinking isn't safe in any quantity. The latest data can be wrong. No different than how there was a period of time where UV light was considered this evil to avoid, and now we know it's actually pretty critical to get sunlight in moderation (and completely avoiding UV causes its own issues). This seems to be a problem with US health science where they will find something bad like partially hydrogenated fats (a terrible man made substance), and then go on to claim "fats are bad" (this is back in the 90s ish). The health system just ignored the long history of diets that were relatively high in fats (actual good natural fats), and tried to use "data". Ultimately data is only as good as our ability to measure, which is limited with something like the human body. That overcorrection has since come back to a more reasonable middle point but still has some issues. It's undisputed that drinking a lot of alcohol is bad for you, but I don't see clear data for the grey area. If I fed a rat a whole bunch of vinegar day after day in large quantities it would get health problems, yet drinking a bit of apple cider vinegar, salt and vinegar chips, etc. are all fine, likely beneficial (pickled vegetables are good for you). I'm not saying that there's any proof that alcohol is beneficial yet, but the lack of clear data for that grey area of risk is interesting. In Japan for example it's believed that drinking sake in moderate quantities has health benefits. I guess going back to the sunlight analogy, it's hard to believe that a substance that has been around as long as alcohol has could be so toxic that occasional consumption has any meaningful negative effect.

francisofascii 1y ago
I hope you are right, but honestly I think alcohol is negative for your health in any quantity. I think there are indirect benefits, like socialization, bonding, etc. But it really is a poison that your body has to metabolize. It majorly disrupts your sleep which causes all sorts of health issues. Your body needs sunlight, but it doesn't need alcohol. I drank two beers a night for years, and I wish I hadn't. I still plan on drinking on occasion, but never plan to go back to habitually drinking.
- OneMorePerson 1y ago
  To be fair I've also cut way back from where I used to be in terms of alcohol consumption, and I could be wrong. I've just seeing this pattern repeat too many times where people find out a substance has a negative effect in some area and then decide it's universally bad. Back to my prior example, there was a time when US health science said "saturated fats are bad", I think they went even so far as to say trans fats are good. The reality is that saturated fats affect cholesterol but aren't objectively bad. We know NOW that your body needs sunlight, but there was a time when people were all the way to the other side, sunlight avoidant and using sunscreen all the time. I think I'm sensitive to this because of the bullshit science around salt and high blood pressure as another example. Its finally been recently debunked that salt doesn't permanently affect blood pressure, but an elderly family member of mine was told by a doctor that eating salt would increase their already high blood pressure, and it led them to being hospitalized in bad condition because they stopped eating any salts at all. As a side comment it's interesting that you used the word 'poison'. I have been seeing that word thrown around a lot in the articles too and it seems like a stretch, like a word used to try to scare people. Technically spicy food is a poison (your body is telling you to not eat that thing), there's even literal poisons like certain sushi (blowfish) that are used to create a unique taste by eating just enough of it. I don't have a background for the technical classification of substances, but the word poison for alcohol kinda feels like calling weed a neurotoxin.
- applied_heat 1y ago
  Tell me about your experience and regrets with two beers a night please.
theshackleford 1y ago
> No different than how there was a period of time where UV light was considered this evil to avoid, and now we know it's actually pretty critical to get sunlight in moderation (and completely avoiding UV causes its own issues). The real issue isn’t that we “didn’t know” sunlight has benefits, we’ve known that for ages. Just as we know too much sun has downsides. The problem is that people can’t (or won’t) tailor advice to their own context. What counts as “moderation” in one place looks very different in another. That’s why I’m healthy and look a decade younger than my age, while my younger sister already looks older than me and has had five skin cancers cut out. Where I live, 5–10 minutes of sun a day is plenty. Where you live, you might need hours. So “avoid the sun” means radically different things depending on where you are.

francisofascii 1y ago

I hope you are right, but honestly I think alcohol is negative for your health in any quantity. I think there are indirect benefits, like socialization, bonding, etc. But it really is a poison that your body has to metabolize. It majorly disrupts your sleep which causes all sorts of health issues. Your body needs sunlight, but it doesn't need alcohol. I drank two beers a night for years, and I wish I hadn't. I still plan on drinking on occasion, but never plan to go back to habitually drinking.

OneMorePerson 1y ago
To be fair I've also cut way back from where I used to be in terms of alcohol consumption, and I could be wrong. I've just seeing this pattern repeat too many times where people find out a substance has a negative effect in some area and then decide it's universally bad. Back to my prior example, there was a time when US health science said "saturated fats are bad", I think they went even so far as to say trans fats are good. The reality is that saturated fats affect cholesterol but aren't objectively bad. We know NOW that your body needs sunlight, but there was a time when people were all the way to the other side, sunlight avoidant and using sunscreen all the time. I think I'm sensitive to this because of the bullshit science around salt and high blood pressure as another example. Its finally been recently debunked that salt doesn't permanently affect blood pressure, but an elderly family member of mine was told by a doctor that eating salt would increase their already high blood pressure, and it led them to being hospitalized in bad condition because they stopped eating any salts at all. As a side comment it's interesting that you used the word 'poison'. I have been seeing that word thrown around a lot in the articles too and it seems like a stretch, like a word used to try to scare people. Technically spicy food is a poison (your body is telling you to not eat that thing), there's even literal poisons like certain sushi (blowfish) that are used to create a unique taste by eating just enough of it. I don't have a background for the technical classification of substances, but the word poison for alcohol kinda feels like calling weed a neurotoxin.
applied_heat 1y ago
Tell me about your experience and regrets with two beers a night please.

theshackleford 1y ago

> No different than how there was a period of time where UV light was considered this evil to avoid, and now we know it's actually pretty critical to get sunlight in moderation (and completely avoiding UV causes its own issues). The real issue isn’t that we “didn’t know” sunlight has benefits, we’ve known that for ages. Just as we know too much sun has downsides. The problem is that people can’t (or won’t) tailor advice to their own context. What counts as “moderation” in one place looks very different in another. That’s why I’m healthy and look a decade younger than my age, while my younger sister already looks older than me and has had five skin cancers cut out. Where I live, 5–10 minutes of sun a day is plenty. Where you live, you might need hours. So “avoid the sun” means radically different things depending on where you are.