4 ms·

IIRC, someone else with more expertise may show up, but the studies showing that drinking is helpful for heart disease say that this is about drinking one. Not

by pekk 12y ago

IIRC, someone else with more expertise may show up, but the studies showing that drinking is helpful for heart disease say that this is about drinking one. Not "way too much" - mortality increases dramatically if you drink way too much, over what it would be if you didn't drink at all. The advantage of drinking is completely erased by drinking too much. The message isn't as mixed as you think.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
carbocation 12y ago
This is essentially correct as far as I understand things. There is epidemiological evidence that <=2 drinks per day for men and <=1 drink per day for women is associated with a reduced risk of mortality. However, keep in mind that it is pretty difficult to isolate someone's drinking habits from the rest of their lifestyle. Although controlling for various features of lifestyle is attempted, this is a fundamental limitation of an observational study. As a physician I tell my patients that there may be a benefit from such very carefully controlled, modest drinking, but there is almost certainly a benefit from abstaining rather than over-drinking. Alcohol overuse makes you look old (yes I will appeal to vanity); it suppresses your bone marrow and makes you anemic; it causes dilated cardiomyopathy; it destroys the liver in time and will make you gut dump fluid into your belly, causing you pain until you develop liver cancer or bleed into your throat and die; it causes its own form of brain wasting; etc. It is an extraordinarily dirty drug. Most of these effects come from sustained heavy drinking, but many people can sustain this level of drinking and still be productive, so that is not a useful gauge of how heavy your drinking is.
- hunvreus 12y ago
  Same opinion here. Many possible interpretations. For example: social interaction seems related to mortality as well, and social interaction leads to the very popular activity of consuming alcohol. Moreover, alcohol acts as a social lubricant, helping to fuel back these interactions.
- conroe64 12y ago
  What do you think of the study mentioned in this article that indicates that heavy drinkers outlive abstainers? http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200,00.html http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200... Here is the study itself: http://courses.ttu.edu/jkoch/ETOH/Readings/Late_life_alcohol_consumption.pdf http://courses.ttu.edu/jkoch/ETOH/Readings/Late_life_alcohol...
  - mike_esspe 12y ago
    Looks like confounding factors are the reason. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22152665 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22152665 CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults who are moderate drinkers, the apparent unique effects of wine on longevity may be explained by confounding factors correlated with wine consumption.
    - conroe64 12y ago
      I don't understand what you are trying to show with this study. It compares moderate drinkers among themselves according to the type of alcohol consumed. It doesn't compare drinkers vs non drinkers
  - logicchains 12y ago
    Interestingly, one study has found that the reasons for abstaining actually determine whether or not it results in slightly worse health outcomes than light drinking: http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/pubs/pop/pop2012-0006.pdf http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/pubs/pop/pop2012-0006.pdf "Mortality risk is low for light drinkers and many individua ls who abstain from drinking—including those who abstain for religious and moral reasons, have a responsibility to family, were brought up not to drink, and are not social; it is higher among former, infrequent, and moderate drinkers, and individuals who abstain because they do not like the taste of alcohol, are concerned that they will lose control, or are concerned about adverse consequences. Unsurprisingly, mortality risk is by far the highest for heavy drinkers. We reveal that reasons for abstention capture heterogeneity in the risk of death among lifetime abstainers. "
  - carbocation 12y ago

by pekk 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

carbocation 12y ago

This is essentially correct as far as I understand things. There is epidemiological evidence that <=2 drinks per day for men and <=1 drink per day for women is associated with a reduced risk of mortality. However, keep in mind that it is pretty difficult to isolate someone's drinking habits from the rest of their lifestyle. Although controlling for various features of lifestyle is attempted, this is a fundamental limitation of an observational study. As a physician I tell my patients that there may be a benefit from such very carefully controlled, modest drinking, but there is almost certainly a benefit from abstaining rather than over-drinking. Alcohol overuse makes you look old (yes I will appeal to vanity); it suppresses your bone marrow and makes you anemic; it causes dilated cardiomyopathy; it destroys the liver in time and will make you gut dump fluid into your belly, causing you pain until you develop liver cancer or bleed into your throat and die; it causes its own form of brain wasting; etc. It is an extraordinarily dirty drug. Most of these effects come from sustained heavy drinking, but many people can sustain this level of drinking and still be productive, so that is not a useful gauge of how heavy your drinking is.

hunvreus 12y ago
Same opinion here. Many possible interpretations. For example: social interaction seems related to mortality as well, and social interaction leads to the very popular activity of consuming alcohol. Moreover, alcohol acts as a social lubricant, helping to fuel back these interactions.
conroe64 12y ago
What do you think of the study mentioned in this article that indicates that heavy drinkers outlive abstainers? http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200,00.html http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200... Here is the study itself: http://courses.ttu.edu/jkoch/ETOH/Readings/Late_life_alcohol_consumption.pdf http://courses.ttu.edu/jkoch/ETOH/Readings/Late_life_alcohol...
- mike_esspe 12y ago
  Looks like confounding factors are the reason. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22152665 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22152665 CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults who are moderate drinkers, the apparent unique effects of wine on longevity may be explained by confounding factors correlated with wine consumption.
  - conroe64 12y ago
    I don't understand what you are trying to show with this study. It compares moderate drinkers among themselves according to the type of alcohol consumed. It doesn't compare drinkers vs non drinkers
- logicchains 12y ago
  Interestingly, one study has found that the reasons for abstaining actually determine whether or not it results in slightly worse health outcomes than light drinking: http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/pubs/pop/pop2012-0006.pdf http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/pubs/pop/pop2012-0006.pdf "Mortality risk is low for light drinkers and many individua ls who abstain from drinking—including those who abstain for religious and moral reasons, have a responsibility to family, were brought up not to drink, and are not social; it is higher among former, infrequent, and moderate drinkers, and individuals who abstain because they do not like the taste of alcohol, are concerned that they will lose control, or are concerned about adverse consequences. Unsurprisingly, mortality risk is by far the highest for heavy drinkers. We reveal that reasons for abstention capture heterogeneity in the risk of death among lifetime abstainers. "
- carbocation 12y ago