11 ms·

I fit into the 10% category for years while building my first start-up age ~22 - 30. I realized at some point it was out of control and I couldn't stop. The de

I fit into the 10% category for years while building my first start-up age ~22 - 30. I realized at some point it was out of control and I couldn't stop. The details are as ugly as anybodys addiction story but to most everybody else I managed to externally look "fine". I am the biggest contrarian and skeptic in the world, eventually sought out medical help and was referred to AA which I was very leery of. But I did it and recently celebrated year 2 of sobriety along with a way to address the stress, fear, loneliness of startup life. Not trying to hijack a data-thread into self-help but when I was out drinking I loved consuming these articles to feel like I wasn't the only one. Having spent some time in AA there are are a LOT of developers, entrepreneurs, hackers that are working the program too, if you're struggling with the alcohol monkey like I was it's a safe thing to at least check out.

niix 12y ago
Congrats! I often question my incline of drinking between 1 and 2 glasses of beer, wine or whisky a night. At this point I've become so used to it that I feel like it's part of my normal routine, which is a bit scary.
- jarin 12y ago
  That's actually the recommended amount of alcohol intake though. Clearly, alcoholics shouldn't be drinking, but for non-alcoholics there are significant health benefits to having a couple of drinks every day (to the point where NOT drinking is actually considered a risk factor for heart disease). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC28294/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC28294/
  - redthrowaway 12y ago
    Alcohol's also very good at preventing dementia later in life. If you can't drink, then don't, but if you can then moderate drinking is far better for you than not drinking at all.
    - ekianjo 12y ago
      > Alcohol's also very good at preventing dementia later in life. Source?
  - mahyarm 12y ago
    6 years ago, a med school student friend had a really detailed powerpoint presentation showing actually, yes, drinking no alcohol is far better for you. I think this edge case benefit is just promoted by people wanting to feel better about their alcohol consumption, and not to mention pushed as a repetitive PR point by alcohol companies.
    - smokeyj 12y ago
      Links would be helpful.
    - chriskanan 12y ago
      A lot of research disagrees with that claim as a general assertion. This site summarizes that research: http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html#.VCS34fmzG8o http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html#.VCS34...
    - wes-exp 12y ago
      promoted by people wanting to feel better about their alcohol consumption Maybe, but this works in reverse too. There is a bias towards assuming that behavior perceived as sinful must also be harmful. This manifests in bad science in any number of examples: meat consumption, fat consumption, and yes, alcohol consumption. The USDA food pyramid (1992 one) came out against sinful fats and guess what happened? A low-fat/high-carb craze that was completely ruinous to public health.
  - dfc 12y ago
    Dr. Jarin, the American Heart Association has a slightly different take on alcohol consumption. For starters they recommend that women do not exceed 1 drink per day. Most importantly they do not seem to think that abstaining from alcohol is considered a risk factor: > How alcohol or wine affects cardiovascular risk merits > further research but right now the American Heart Association > does not recommend drinking wine or any other form of alcohol > to gain these potential benefits http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Alcohol-and-Heart-Health_UCM_305173_Article.jsp http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter...
    - wes-exp 12y ago
      Keep in mind that almost no organization (outside alcohol sellers) can "recommend" alcohol consumption for the simple reason that alcohol is extremely negative for certain cohorts (i.e., alcoholics). Therefore, even if there are demonstrated benefits for the majority of the healthy population, no one wants to be seen as supporting the harms, which, in fairness, are often extremely bad. That said, even your quoted text admits that there may be potential health benefits to alcohol consumption in moderation.
      - dfc 12y ago
        Keep in mind that a "potential benefit of moderate alcohol consumption" is not the same thing as "NOT drinking is actually considered a risk factor." If the science clearly indicated that "NOT drinking is actually considered a risk factor for heart diseasee" do you think AHA would: (A) Refrain from mentioning the risk factor. (B) Present the risk factor with a stipulation that individuals "consult your doctor on the benefits and risks of consuming alcohol in moderation"
        wes-exp 12y ago
        I agree that it is silly to think that not drinking is actually a risk factor for heart disease. I was never trying to support that claim. I was just trying to point out the institutional biases that may be at play when AHA makes recommendations about alcohol consumption. I would also like to point out that the very AHA page you linked to states "The incidence of heart disease in those who drink moderate amounts of alcohol (no more than two drinks per day for men or one drink per day for women) is lower than in nondrinkers." So there may be a potential benefit there that AHA acknowledges.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    It is not the recommended amount of alcohol. Please do not mix the serving sizes people use with "one drink". You have no idea how much wine goes into the glass, not the strength of that wine. A standard drink of wine is 125 ml at an ABV (alcohol by volume) of 8%. Most people pour more than that, and most wine is stronger than that. 175 ml at 12% would be 2 units; 2 glasses of that is 4 units. See how easy it is to drink double the recommended limit?
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    The heart disease benefits are far from being proven, and besides alcohol consumption is directly linked to cancer risk. There is no safe amount of alcohol to drink, and the cancer risk certainly makes all benefit/risk ratio close to nil. Net, if you care about your health in the long term, just don't drink. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/824237 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/824237
    - wes-exp 12y ago
      Don't single out cancer without considering all-cause mortality. A number of studies show that moderate alcohol consumption results in overall less death even if cancer risk is increased. "The beneficial effects of alcohol are not only evident in cardiovascular disease, but also in reducing mortality from all causes." http://www.medhelp.org/heart-disease/articles/Alcohol-Consumption-Can-We-Safely-Toast-to-Our-Health-/593 http://www.medhelp.org/heart-disease/articles/Alcohol-Consum...
      - ekianjo 12y ago
        There is no cardiovascular benefit for alcohol intake. The only evidence for this is an observational study, which does not prove causation at all and is heavily disputed. It would not be the first time that observational studies are proven wrong in actual trials : > In recent years we have seen that the results of similar “observational” studies were disproved when subjected to a “randomized controlled trial”—the standard bearer of scientific proof. A good example of this is female hormone replacement. For decades it was believed that female hormone replacement was beneficial. But a randomized controlled trial, called the Women’s Health Initiative, demonstrated that the exact opposite was true. The study was stopped in 2002 because women taking the study pills of estrogen plus progestin were developing heart disease and breast cancer at increased rates compared to those taking the placebo or inactive pills." http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/01/red-wine-good-heart-brain.html http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/01/red-wine-good-heart-brai...
        jholman 12y ago
        The concern about drawing conclusions from correlation is legitimate, but it's more than "an" (i.e. one) observational study. http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html That page cites 188 articles, almost all of them finding health benefits to drinking alcohol. Without having gone into all of them to look for methodological flaws, that hints at a very consistent pattern of correlation. That page alleges that it is maintained by a professor emeritus, who at least at this time, does not have nor need any funding from e.g. the alcohol industry. That's far from an exhaustive proof that he's free of bias, but it clears the most obvious source.
martin1975 12y ago
When you graduate from AA, come check out my group... SA.
MudAndGears 12y ago
Congratulations! I was in the same position for most of my twenties. I did well at work, was in (mostly) good physical shape, and didn’t have any trouble rehearsing/gigging with my band. I really thought I just “liked to go out;” I’d drink when I had band practice or a gig (2-3 nights a week), then would go out on Friday and Saturday nights with my friends. That only left two nights a week to hang out with my girlfriend, so of course we’d go out to dinner or make something to eat at home and end up at a bar. I honestly didn’t understand what denial was until I woke up one morning and realized I was an alcoholic. I quit drinking 6 years ago and could not be happier with my decision.
- analyst74 12y ago
  Well, if drinking was not causing any problems for you in life, then the action itself cannot be a problem, no? Isn't being a functioning alcoholic the same as, um, say, a foodie? or anyone with a dedicated hobby?
  - UVB-76 12y ago
    > Isn't being a functioning alcoholic the same as, um, say, a foodie? or anyone with a dedicated hobby? Alcoholism tends to have a far more damaging long-term effect on a person's health than most other hobbies.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Being a "functioning alcoholic" means you are i) addicted to alcohol and thus likely to be drinking much more than is healthy. Long term heavy drinking is associated with a bunch of health risks (the obvious being cirrhosis and the less obvious being some cancers). I guess it depends how you define "alcoholic".
  - plaguuuuuu 12y ago
    "functional" is a low bar - impairment in memory and cognition creeps up on you, and it's possible to boil like a frog until the onset of liver failure and permanent neurological damage (eg delirium tremens) dispels that illusion.
zafka 12y ago
Good Job!
kelnos 12y ago
I'm going to try to write this without being inflammatory or sounding insensitive, which I absolutely don't intend to be, but I'm very sorry if this post comes off that way. I'm sure my tone will be lost to the cold, hard text of a web page. First off, congratulations on turning your situation around and maintaining your sobriety for 2 years. I can't imagine how much work that must have been. I've never really understood the whole "alcoholic vs. sobriety" thing. Is it not possible to "learn" to drink less? I see time and again the idea of being "out of control, unable to stop". Why is complete sobriety the only answer? Can varying levels of control truly not be learned? Or is the prevailing mindset that it's "easier" (while I'm sure still very difficult) to just go down to zero and maintain that, rather than learn moderation? I wonder if there are any studies or evidence to back that up, if that's the case. Also a question about AA itself, if you're ok answering it. My understanding is that AA is very faith-based (many steps of the 12-step process invoking a deity), and that a big part of it involves opening yourself to God and Jesus to help. Is that universal, or are there non-religious versions of AA? I know if I (an atheist) ever got into a situation where I needed something like AA, I would be very uncomfortable with the religious aspects.
- beachstartup 12y ago
  drinking less is extremely difficult because at first it goes really well, but then it gradually increases, and then all of a sudden you're drinking to excess again. the term "slippery slope" applies here. saying no to the 3rd drink is MUCH harder than saying no to the 1st - that's why lots of problem drinkers (i'm intentionally not using the word 'alcoholic' here) just stop completely, or drink one glass of wine at thanksgiving per year or whatever. heavy drinkers find drinking intensely enjoyable - and (subtle difference here...) not displeasurable in any way whatsoever until hangover/puke. if you aren't the kind of person who's ever drank 15+ drinks in a single night, you just have no ability to comprehend this. it's not within your realm of understanding - your personality is just completely different. or your brain chemistry is such that after 3-4 drinks, you feel terrible. if so, be thankful.
  - kelnos 12y ago
    I have had 15+ drinks in a single night before, but probably only on 2-3 occasions in my life (one of them being my 30th birthday, where a mostly-sober friend was keeping track until 23 drinks). So I at least know what that's like, in isolation. But my personality doesn't push me to just go and go and go. I'm not saying there isn't a slippery slope, but I personally cannot imagine my life without at least some alcohol. I assume for the case of someone where their (excessive) alcohol intake has a huge negative impact on their life, zero alcohol sounds like a much better deal than drinking a lot. But I still question the accepted "fact" that this is really a fixed "personality" thing. We humans have extraordinary brains and have the power to -- possibly with help -- change a lot of things about our personality and emotional state. It seems hard to believe that "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" is actually absolutely true.

niix 12y ago

Congrats! I often question my incline of drinking between 1 and 2 glasses of beer, wine or whisky a night. At this point I've become so used to it that I feel like it's part of my normal routine, which is a bit scary.

jarin 12y ago
That's actually the recommended amount of alcohol intake though. Clearly, alcoholics shouldn't be drinking, but for non-alcoholics there are significant health benefits to having a couple of drinks every day (to the point where NOT drinking is actually considered a risk factor for heart disease). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC28294/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC28294/
- redthrowaway 12y ago
  Alcohol's also very good at preventing dementia later in life. If you can't drink, then don't, but if you can then moderate drinking is far better for you than not drinking at all.
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    > Alcohol's also very good at preventing dementia later in life. Source?
- mahyarm 12y ago
  6 years ago, a med school student friend had a really detailed powerpoint presentation showing actually, yes, drinking no alcohol is far better for you. I think this edge case benefit is just promoted by people wanting to feel better about their alcohol consumption, and not to mention pushed as a repetitive PR point by alcohol companies.
  - smokeyj 12y ago
    Links would be helpful.
  - chriskanan 12y ago
    A lot of research disagrees with that claim as a general assertion. This site summarizes that research: http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html#.VCS34fmzG8o http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html#.VCS34...
  - wes-exp 12y ago
    promoted by people wanting to feel better about their alcohol consumption Maybe, but this works in reverse too. There is a bias towards assuming that behavior perceived as sinful must also be harmful. This manifests in bad science in any number of examples: meat consumption, fat consumption, and yes, alcohol consumption. The USDA food pyramid (1992 one) came out against sinful fats and guess what happened? A low-fat/high-carb craze that was completely ruinous to public health.
- dfc 12y ago
  Dr. Jarin, the American Heart Association has a slightly different take on alcohol consumption. For starters they recommend that women do not exceed 1 drink per day. Most importantly they do not seem to think that abstaining from alcohol is considered a risk factor: > How alcohol or wine affects cardiovascular risk merits > further research but right now the American Heart Association > does not recommend drinking wine or any other form of alcohol > to gain these potential benefits http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Alcohol-and-Heart-Health_UCM_305173_Article.jsp http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter...
  - wes-exp 12y ago
    Keep in mind that almost no organization (outside alcohol sellers) can "recommend" alcohol consumption for the simple reason that alcohol is extremely negative for certain cohorts (i.e., alcoholics). Therefore, even if there are demonstrated benefits for the majority of the healthy population, no one wants to be seen as supporting the harms, which, in fairness, are often extremely bad. That said, even your quoted text admits that there may be potential health benefits to alcohol consumption in moderation.
    - dfc 12y ago
      Keep in mind that a "potential benefit of moderate alcohol consumption" is not the same thing as "NOT drinking is actually considered a risk factor." If the science clearly indicated that "NOT drinking is actually considered a risk factor for heart diseasee" do you think AHA would: (A) Refrain from mentioning the risk factor. (B) Present the risk factor with a stipulation that individuals "consult your doctor on the benefits and risks of consuming alcohol in moderation"
      - wes-exp 12y ago
        I agree that it is silly to think that not drinking is actually a risk factor for heart disease. I was never trying to support that claim. I was just trying to point out the institutional biases that may be at play when AHA makes recommendations about alcohol consumption. I would also like to point out that the very AHA page you linked to states "The incidence of heart disease in those who drink moderate amounts of alcohol (no more than two drinks per day for men or one drink per day for women) is lower than in nondrinkers." So there may be a potential benefit there that AHA acknowledges.
- DanBC 12y ago
  It is not the recommended amount of alcohol. Please do not mix the serving sizes people use with "one drink". You have no idea how much wine goes into the glass, not the strength of that wine. A standard drink of wine is 125 ml at an ABV (alcohol by volume) of 8%. Most people pour more than that, and most wine is stronger than that. 175 ml at 12% would be 2 units; 2 glasses of that is 4 units. See how easy it is to drink double the recommended limit?
- ekianjo 12y ago
  The heart disease benefits are far from being proven, and besides alcohol consumption is directly linked to cancer risk. There is no safe amount of alcohol to drink, and the cancer risk certainly makes all benefit/risk ratio close to nil. Net, if you care about your health in the long term, just don't drink. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/824237 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/824237
  - wes-exp 12y ago
    Don't single out cancer without considering all-cause mortality. A number of studies show that moderate alcohol consumption results in overall less death even if cancer risk is increased. "The beneficial effects of alcohol are not only evident in cardiovascular disease, but also in reducing mortality from all causes." http://www.medhelp.org/heart-disease/articles/Alcohol-Consumption-Can-We-Safely-Toast-to-Our-Health-/593 http://www.medhelp.org/heart-disease/articles/Alcohol-Consum...
    - ekianjo 12y ago
      There is no cardiovascular benefit for alcohol intake. The only evidence for this is an observational study, which does not prove causation at all and is heavily disputed. It would not be the first time that observational studies are proven wrong in actual trials : > In recent years we have seen that the results of similar “observational” studies were disproved when subjected to a “randomized controlled trial”—the standard bearer of scientific proof. A good example of this is female hormone replacement. For decades it was believed that female hormone replacement was beneficial. But a randomized controlled trial, called the Women’s Health Initiative, demonstrated that the exact opposite was true. The study was stopped in 2002 because women taking the study pills of estrogen plus progestin were developing heart disease and breast cancer at increased rates compared to those taking the placebo or inactive pills." http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/01/red-wine-good-heart-brain.html http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/01/red-wine-good-heart-brai...
      - jholman 12y ago
        The concern about drawing conclusions from correlation is legitimate, but it's more than "an" (i.e. one) observational study. http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html That page cites 188 articles, almost all of them finding health benefits to drinking alcohol. Without having gone into all of them to look for methodological flaws, that hints at a very consistent pattern of correlation. That page alleges that it is maintained by a professor emeritus, who at least at this time, does not have nor need any funding from e.g. the alcohol industry. That's far from an exhaustive proof that he's free of bias, but it clears the most obvious source.

martin1975 12y ago

When you graduate from AA, come check out my group... SA.

MudAndGears 12y ago

Congratulations! I was in the same position for most of my twenties. I did well at work, was in (mostly) good physical shape, and didn’t have any trouble rehearsing/gigging with my band. I really thought I just “liked to go out;” I’d drink when I had band practice or a gig (2-3 nights a week), then would go out on Friday and Saturday nights with my friends. That only left two nights a week to hang out with my girlfriend, so of course we’d go out to dinner or make something to eat at home and end up at a bar. I honestly didn’t understand what denial was until I woke up one morning and realized I was an alcoholic. I quit drinking 6 years ago and could not be happier with my decision.

analyst74 12y ago
Well, if drinking was not causing any problems for you in life, then the action itself cannot be a problem, no? Isn't being a functioning alcoholic the same as, um, say, a foodie? or anyone with a dedicated hobby?
- UVB-76 12y ago
  > Isn't being a functioning alcoholic the same as, um, say, a foodie? or anyone with a dedicated hobby? Alcoholism tends to have a far more damaging long-term effect on a person's health than most other hobbies.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Being a "functioning alcoholic" means you are i) addicted to alcohol and thus likely to be drinking much more than is healthy. Long term heavy drinking is associated with a bunch of health risks (the obvious being cirrhosis and the less obvious being some cancers). I guess it depends how you define "alcoholic".
- plaguuuuuu 12y ago
  "functional" is a low bar - impairment in memory and cognition creeps up on you, and it's possible to boil like a frog until the onset of liver failure and permanent neurological damage (eg delirium tremens) dispels that illusion.

zafka 12y ago

Good Job!

kelnos 12y ago

I'm going to try to write this without being inflammatory or sounding insensitive, which I absolutely don't intend to be, but I'm very sorry if this post comes off that way. I'm sure my tone will be lost to the cold, hard text of a web page. First off, congratulations on turning your situation around and maintaining your sobriety for 2 years. I can't imagine how much work that must have been. I've never really understood the whole "alcoholic vs. sobriety" thing. Is it not possible to "learn" to drink less? I see time and again the idea of being "out of control, unable to stop". Why is complete sobriety the only answer? Can varying levels of control truly not be learned? Or is the prevailing mindset that it's "easier" (while I'm sure still very difficult) to just go down to zero and maintain that, rather than learn moderation? I wonder if there are any studies or evidence to back that up, if that's the case. Also a question about AA itself, if you're ok answering it. My understanding is that AA is very faith-based (many steps of the 12-step process invoking a deity), and that a big part of it involves opening yourself to God and Jesus to help. Is that universal, or are there non-religious versions of AA? I know if I (an atheist) ever got into a situation where I needed something like AA, I would be very uncomfortable with the religious aspects.

beachstartup 12y ago
drinking less is extremely difficult because at first it goes really well, but then it gradually increases, and then all of a sudden you're drinking to excess again. the term "slippery slope" applies here. saying no to the 3rd drink is MUCH harder than saying no to the 1st - that's why lots of problem drinkers (i'm intentionally not using the word 'alcoholic' here) just stop completely, or drink one glass of wine at thanksgiving per year or whatever. heavy drinkers find drinking intensely enjoyable - and (subtle difference here...) not displeasurable in any way whatsoever until hangover/puke. if you aren't the kind of person who's ever drank 15+ drinks in a single night, you just have no ability to comprehend this. it's not within your realm of understanding - your personality is just completely different. or your brain chemistry is such that after 3-4 drinks, you feel terrible. if so, be thankful.
- kelnos 12y ago
  I have had 15+ drinks in a single night before, but probably only on 2-3 occasions in my life (one of them being my 30th birthday, where a mostly-sober friend was keeping track until 23 drinks). So I at least know what that's like, in isolation. But my personality doesn't push me to just go and go and go. I'm not saying there isn't a slippery slope, but I personally cannot imagine my life without at least some alcohol. I assume for the case of someone where their (excessive) alcohol intake has a huge negative impact on their life, zero alcohol sounds like a much better deal than drinking a lot. But I still question the accepted "fact" that this is really a fixed "personality" thing. We humans have extraordinary brains and have the power to -- possibly with help -- change a lot of things about our personality and emotional state. It seems hard to believe that "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" is actually absolutely true.