4 ms·

So the TLDR is if youre >= 65, decrease alcohol consumption. If you're <65 optimal range is 15-20 units per week, better if it's even consumption per day. "On

So the TLDR is if youre >= 65, decrease alcohol consumption. If you're <65 optimal range is 15-20 units per week, better if it's even consumption per day. "One unit of alcohol is about equal to: half a pint of ordinary strength beer, lager or cider (3-4% alcohol by volume); or. a small pub measure (25 ml) of spirits (40% alcohol by volume); or. a standard pub measure (50 ml) of fortified wine such as sherry or port (20% alcohol by volume)"[1] So in short: have 2 weak pints of beer xor 1 strong pint of beer xor 150ml of 13% wine. Can someone confirm,refute this understanding of the text. [1]:http://www.patient.co.uk/health/Recommended-Safe-Limits-of-Alcohol.htm http://www.patient.co.uk/health/Recommended-Safe-Limits-of-A...

JeremyNT 12y ago
The study is suggesting that the heretofore observed beneficial effects of moderate alcohol consumption (the "J" curve wherein there appears to be a "sweet spot" for health benefits at moderate consumption levels) may be greatly exaggerated thanks to selection bias and failure to account for confounders in prior studies. That is, the benefits of any alcohol consumption may be greatly exaggerated (if not completely nonexistent) for most of the population. The BMJ has an editorial on this topic[0] which is entitled "Alcohol’s evaporating health benefits" and refers to this study (I figured people on HN would be more interested in the study itself). That editorial heavily implies that the prior (potentially flawed) studies received widespread notoriety due to the alcohol industry's media influence. [0] http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h407 http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h407
- shamney 12y ago
  why would the bmj take such a strong stance when they simply don't have the evidence to back it up? the linked study does not show that moderate consumption is harmful or demonstrate that previous results are exaggerated...
losvedir 12y ago
Did you read the article? The whole point seems to be the opposite of this. There was some small benefit to drinking alcohol to women over 65, none in other groups.
- maerF0x0 12y ago
  I did, hence my ability to quote very specific stats from it. I will admit that 1) my article reading skills are not strong and 2) I was hurried this morning.
- circlefavshape 12y ago
  Not none "Among younger men, the range of protective effects was minimal, with a significant reduction in hazards present only among those who reported consuming 15.1-20.0 units/average week (hazard ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.91) or 0.1-1.5 units on the heaviest day (0.43, 0.21 to 0.87)" A hazard ratio of 0.49 means your chance of dying is halved. That seems like a very significant benefit to me. As a comparison in this study the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality for engaging in a very high volume of exercise is 0.65 http://www.hivdent.org/_nutrition_/2011/PIIS01406736116074962.pdf http://www.hivdent.org/_nutrition_/2011/PIIS0140673611607496... (the 95% confidence interval for the exercise study is much narrower though)

JeremyNT 12y ago

The study is suggesting that the heretofore observed beneficial effects of moderate alcohol consumption (the "J" curve wherein there appears to be a "sweet spot" for health benefits at moderate consumption levels) may be greatly exaggerated thanks to selection bias and failure to account for confounders in prior studies. That is, the benefits of any alcohol consumption may be greatly exaggerated (if not completely nonexistent) for most of the population. The BMJ has an editorial on this topic[0] which is entitled "Alcohol’s evaporating health benefits" and refers to this study (I figured people on HN would be more interested in the study itself). That editorial heavily implies that the prior (potentially flawed) studies received widespread notoriety due to the alcohol industry's media influence. [0] http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h407 http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h407

shamney 12y ago
why would the bmj take such a strong stance when they simply don't have the evidence to back it up? the linked study does not show that moderate consumption is harmful or demonstrate that previous results are exaggerated...

losvedir 12y ago

Did you read the article? The whole point seems to be the opposite of this. There was some small benefit to drinking alcohol to women over 65, none in other groups.

maerF0x0 12y ago
I did, hence my ability to quote very specific stats from it. I will admit that 1) my article reading skills are not strong and 2) I was hurried this morning.
circlefavshape 12y ago
Not none "Among younger men, the range of protective effects was minimal, with a significant reduction in hazards present only among those who reported consuming 15.1-20.0 units/average week (hazard ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.91) or 0.1-1.5 units on the heaviest day (0.43, 0.21 to 0.87)" A hazard ratio of 0.49 means your chance of dying is halved. That seems like a very significant benefit to me. As a comparison in this study the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality for engaging in a very high volume of exercise is 0.65 http://www.hivdent.org/_nutrition_/2011/PIIS01406736116074962.pdf http://www.hivdent.org/_nutrition_/2011/PIIS0140673611607496... (the 95% confidence interval for the exercise study is much narrower though)