6 ms·

The benefits of light to moderate drinking might have been exaggerated

38 points by acsillag 12y ago

dspillett 12y ago
So I need to go back to heavy drinking then? Fair enough, if I have to...!
- Kenji 12y ago
  Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess. - Oscar Wilde
michas 12y ago
Casuality is exactly reverse here: people are not healthy because they drink, but they drink because they are healthy (and, of course, because they like alcohol). Once your health starts to break (with age and with every gram of alcohol drunk) doctor forbids you to drink, so you become abstinent.
vegancap 12y ago
The trouble is, alcohol is addictive, so the tendency; health benefits or otherwise is not to drink in moderation. The tendency is to drink more and more.
- raverbashing 12y ago
  Yay for generalization
  - vegancap 12y ago
    I said 'the tendency'. Also are you suggesting that alcohol isn't in anyway physiologically or psychologically addictive?
    - raverbashing 12y ago
      > Also are you suggesting that alcohol isn't in anyway physiologically or psychologically addictive? Point to me where I said that. Oh and by the way, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park, it's in the front page of HN today
    - DanBC 12y ago
      Most people who drink problem do mot have any addiction to alcohol. That includes many of the people with increased risk drinking. ("Increased risk" is an English health thing. It includes men who drink more than about 21 to 28 units per week but less than 50 units per week; and women who drink more than about 14 to 21 units per week but less than 50 units per week. Four bottles of wine (with an ABV of 13%) would be 39 units.) I'm not sure that the tendency is for people to increase their alcohol level over time. (Apart from the obvious increase after they start drinking at about 18).
Marwy 12y ago
That's great news actually, and I hope scientist will keep studying this topic. We need less drinkers, not more, even if the dosage is moderate.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Why do we need fewer drinkers?
  - dingaling 12y ago
    > Why do we need fewer drinkers? “We know that alcohol-fuelled harm costs society about £21 billion a year and are determined to reduce this burden to taxpayers. The rise in admissions is very concerning and we are taking action to tackle cheap and harmful alcohol.” UK Department of Health, October 2014 Total NHS budget in 2014 was around £104 billion. For comparison, UK defence budget was £33 billion.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      So we need fewer drinkers at the high risk end (more than 50 units per week) and fewer drinkers at the increased risk end (less than 50 but more than about 21 units per week). Neither of these are light to moderate, which is what the title is talking about. You said that we need fewer moderate deinkers. So, why do we need fewer moderate drinkers?
      - shawabawa3 12y ago
        I would guess because almost all heavy drinkers used to be moderate drinkers edit: Not siding with him, just guessing his opinion
        pfortuny 12y ago
        Yep, but remember that all heavy drinkers used to be milk-only drinkers also.
    - deleted 12y ago
Scea91 12y ago
Funny ambiguous title. Until I've opened the article I thought that light somehow helps to moderate drinking. I haven't thought about it before but it could make some sense too, considering that most of us drink at night when it's darker.
mhd 12y ago
I think the general conclusion isn't just "If something looks too good to be true, it should be treated with great caution" but "If it relates to food or drink, we know diddly squat". And even less if the purveyor of said knowledge is not even a full-time research scientist. Or heck, not a scientist at all. Sadly that seems to be the source of 90% of diet "wisdom". Now let us get back to honestly saying that we like to drink to get sloshed, without any excuses of health or even just taste.
- T-hawk 12y ago
  My general conclusion is more like, if it relates to food or drink, there's both positives and negatives that can be spun either way. Take eggs, an easy example. The protein is good for muscles, but the cholesterol is bad for arteries. A scientific study will balance these variables in depth. But the clickbait headlines that filter up to public internet visibility will polarize on one or the other because that's what gets the clicks and attention. Moderate drinking: good for stress, bad for the liver. Easy to frame a headline to highlight either aspect. Agreed that the real problem is 90% of diet "wisdom" coming from clickbait headlines rather than seriously considered science.
  - mhd 12y ago
    Bad science reporting is yet another bad commercial exploitation of the scientific data, but quite often you don't even have to go that far. We're talking about really long-term effects and lots of variables. It's quite rare that you can just watch something happen metabolically and draw your conclusions from that. Most of the time, we're talking about surveys or small studies. And it's not like the people surveyed are getting in-depth tests every single day. Then add some bad statistics and interest groups on top of that. Your example ain't that easy, either.
mekazu 12y ago
I don't know of anyone who drinks because they think it's healthy.
- julius 12y ago
  Larry King drinks wine (1-2 glasses/day) because his doctor told him, it is good for him...
- code_duck 12y ago
  I know some older people who justify drinking wine because of the stories of how it is good for heart health.
- dagw 12y ago
  I do however know of several people who justify their drinking by claiming it's healthy
- DanBC 12y ago
  Here are a selection of headlines from one (low quality) daily UK newspaper. It wouldn't surprise me if, in the face of this flood of low quality reporting, people got the wrong messages about alcohol. "Why is red wine good for you?" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-200858/Factfile-red-wine-good-you.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-200858/Factfile-red-... "So how good is wine for your health?" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-107073/So-good-wine-health.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-107073/So-good-win... first paragraph of article "Wine drinkers have never had it so good. Not only does a glass or two, or even three, taste rather good, it's remarkably healthy, too, protecting against a whole range of diseases." Cardiologist precribes red wine http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2661296/The-cardiologist-prescribes-RED-WINE-Doctor-claims-two-glasses-day-halve-risk-heart-attack.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2661296/The-cardio... Patients prescribed red wine http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-187164/Patients-prescribed-red-wine.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-187164/Patients-pr... Red wine is slimming http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2945133/How-glass-red-wine-slimming-Chemical-grapes-slows-growth-existing-fat-cells-formation-new-ones.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2945133/How-glass-... -- first bold bullet point "Drinking red wine could improve conditions such as fatty liver disease" Red wine not just good for your heart but may prevent deafness http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2282268/Red-wine-isnt-just-good-heart--experts-say-prevent-HEARING-LOSS.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2282268/Red-wine-i...
mikecmpbll 12y ago
Am I the only one who thinks this article contradicts itself? Starts off leading towards some great conclusion that any amount of alcohol is bad for you, then tails off with this: "The team found there's at best a small decline in mortality rates for men aged 50 to 64 and women aged 65 and older. Former drinkers, meanwhile, had somewhat higher mortality rates than others, suggesting that past claims light drinking was good for your heart were based on faulty comparisons. After all, some of those who'd quit were probably heavy drinkers in the past, and, compared to them, light drinkers had likely done less damage to their hearts." In summary, it appears to be saying that there's a small benefit in light to moderate alcohol consumption but heavy drinking is probably bad ... uh no shit, that's what people have been saying for years?
- DanBC 12y ago
  For years we've known that people who drink no alcohol at all have worse outcomes than people who drink some alcohol. We also thought that drinking a very small amount of alcohol - a glass or two of wine per week - was protective but we didn't think more alcohol than that was protective. Recently a study was released and heavily reported. One reason we thought that tee-totalers had worse health outcomes was the number of people with alcoholism in that group or people with other severe health problems. This new study claimed to have corrected for that and only included healthy people in the teetotal group. The study then said that drinking no alcohol was associated with dying sooner than drinkin alcohol. The curve they released showed most benefit to people drinking one drink a day, but showed benefits over not drinking at upto about 5 drinks a day. That was different to what we thought before. It turns out this new study has a bunch of flaws. There are some interesting effects. Older women who drink do see some protective benefits. But the health benefits of moderate drinking for most people are not at all clear. It's pretty important to publicise the corrections because of the heavy reporting of that flawed research, and because of the misunderstanding (that you repeat) that moderate drinking provides health benefits.
  - drcomputer 12y ago
    Have they ever done this study on people who have never drank alcohol and are healthy? It seems biased that the only group of 'non-drinkers' are people that are former drinkers.
otakucode 12y ago
I've never understood how something that interferes directly with GABAminergic parts of the brain was supposed to be beneficial.

38 points by acsillag 12y ago

dspillett 12y ago

So I need to go back to heavy drinking then? Fair enough, if I have to...!

Kenji 12y ago
Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess. - Oscar Wilde

michas 12y ago

Casuality is exactly reverse here: people are not healthy because they drink, but they drink because they are healthy (and, of course, because they like alcohol). Once your health starts to break (with age and with every gram of alcohol drunk) doctor forbids you to drink, so you become abstinent.

vegancap 12y ago

The trouble is, alcohol is addictive, so the tendency; health benefits or otherwise is not to drink in moderation. The tendency is to drink more and more.

raverbashing 12y ago
Yay for generalization
- vegancap 12y ago
  I said 'the tendency'. Also are you suggesting that alcohol isn't in anyway physiologically or psychologically addictive?
  - raverbashing 12y ago
    > Also are you suggesting that alcohol isn't in anyway physiologically or psychologically addictive? Point to me where I said that. Oh and by the way, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park, it's in the front page of HN today
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Most people who drink problem do mot have any addiction to alcohol. That includes many of the people with increased risk drinking. ("Increased risk" is an English health thing. It includes men who drink more than about 21 to 28 units per week but less than 50 units per week; and women who drink more than about 14 to 21 units per week but less than 50 units per week. Four bottles of wine (with an ABV of 13%) would be 39 units.) I'm not sure that the tendency is for people to increase their alcohol level over time. (Apart from the obvious increase after they start drinking at about 18).

Marwy 12y ago

That's great news actually, and I hope scientist will keep studying this topic. We need less drinkers, not more, even if the dosage is moderate.

DanBC 12y ago
Why do we need fewer drinkers?
- dingaling 12y ago
  > Why do we need fewer drinkers? “We know that alcohol-fuelled harm costs society about £21 billion a year and are determined to reduce this burden to taxpayers. The rise in admissions is very concerning and we are taking action to tackle cheap and harmful alcohol.” UK Department of Health, October 2014 Total NHS budget in 2014 was around £104 billion. For comparison, UK defence budget was £33 billion.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    So we need fewer drinkers at the high risk end (more than 50 units per week) and fewer drinkers at the increased risk end (less than 50 but more than about 21 units per week). Neither of these are light to moderate, which is what the title is talking about. You said that we need fewer moderate deinkers. So, why do we need fewer moderate drinkers?
    - shawabawa3 12y ago
      I would guess because almost all heavy drinkers used to be moderate drinkers edit: Not siding with him, just guessing his opinion
      - pfortuny 12y ago
        Yep, but remember that all heavy drinkers used to be milk-only drinkers also.
  - deleted 12y ago

Scea91 12y ago

Funny ambiguous title. Until I've opened the article I thought that light somehow helps to moderate drinking. I haven't thought about it before but it could make some sense too, considering that most of us drink at night when it's darker.

mhd 12y ago

I think the general conclusion isn't just "If something looks too good to be true, it should be treated with great caution" but "If it relates to food or drink, we know diddly squat". And even less if the purveyor of said knowledge is not even a full-time research scientist. Or heck, not a scientist at all. Sadly that seems to be the source of 90% of diet "wisdom". Now let us get back to honestly saying that we like to drink to get sloshed, without any excuses of health or even just taste.

T-hawk 12y ago
My general conclusion is more like, if it relates to food or drink, there's both positives and negatives that can be spun either way. Take eggs, an easy example. The protein is good for muscles, but the cholesterol is bad for arteries. A scientific study will balance these variables in depth. But the clickbait headlines that filter up to public internet visibility will polarize on one or the other because that's what gets the clicks and attention. Moderate drinking: good for stress, bad for the liver. Easy to frame a headline to highlight either aspect. Agreed that the real problem is 90% of diet "wisdom" coming from clickbait headlines rather than seriously considered science.
- mhd 12y ago
  Bad science reporting is yet another bad commercial exploitation of the scientific data, but quite often you don't even have to go that far. We're talking about really long-term effects and lots of variables. It's quite rare that you can just watch something happen metabolically and draw your conclusions from that. Most of the time, we're talking about surveys or small studies. And it's not like the people surveyed are getting in-depth tests every single day. Then add some bad statistics and interest groups on top of that. Your example ain't that easy, either.

mekazu 12y ago

I don't know of anyone who drinks because they think it's healthy.

julius 12y ago
Larry King drinks wine (1-2 glasses/day) because his doctor told him, it is good for him...
code_duck 12y ago
I know some older people who justify drinking wine because of the stories of how it is good for heart health.
dagw 12y ago
I do however know of several people who justify their drinking by claiming it's healthy
DanBC 12y ago
Here are a selection of headlines from one (low quality) daily UK newspaper. It wouldn't surprise me if, in the face of this flood of low quality reporting, people got the wrong messages about alcohol. "Why is red wine good for you?" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-200858/Factfile-red-wine-good-you.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-200858/Factfile-red-... "So how good is wine for your health?" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-107073/So-good-wine-health.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-107073/So-good-win... first paragraph of article "Wine drinkers have never had it so good. Not only does a glass or two, or even three, taste rather good, it's remarkably healthy, too, protecting against a whole range of diseases." Cardiologist precribes red wine http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2661296/The-cardiologist-prescribes-RED-WINE-Doctor-claims-two-glasses-day-halve-risk-heart-attack.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2661296/The-cardio... Patients prescribed red wine http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-187164/Patients-prescribed-red-wine.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-187164/Patients-pr... Red wine is slimming http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2945133/How-glass-red-wine-slimming-Chemical-grapes-slows-growth-existing-fat-cells-formation-new-ones.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2945133/How-glass-... -- first bold bullet point "Drinking red wine could improve conditions such as fatty liver disease" Red wine not just good for your heart but may prevent deafness http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2282268/Red-wine-isnt-just-good-heart--experts-say-prevent-HEARING-LOSS.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2282268/Red-wine-i...

mikecmpbll 12y ago

Am I the only one who thinks this article contradicts itself? Starts off leading towards some great conclusion that any amount of alcohol is bad for you, then tails off with this: "The team found there's at best a small decline in mortality rates for men aged 50 to 64 and women aged 65 and older. Former drinkers, meanwhile, had somewhat higher mortality rates than others, suggesting that past claims light drinking was good for your heart were based on faulty comparisons. After all, some of those who'd quit were probably heavy drinkers in the past, and, compared to them, light drinkers had likely done less damage to their hearts." In summary, it appears to be saying that there's a small benefit in light to moderate alcohol consumption but heavy drinking is probably bad ... uh no shit, that's what people have been saying for years?

DanBC 12y ago
For years we've known that people who drink no alcohol at all have worse outcomes than people who drink some alcohol. We also thought that drinking a very small amount of alcohol - a glass or two of wine per week - was protective but we didn't think more alcohol than that was protective. Recently a study was released and heavily reported. One reason we thought that tee-totalers had worse health outcomes was the number of people with alcoholism in that group or people with other severe health problems. This new study claimed to have corrected for that and only included healthy people in the teetotal group. The study then said that drinking no alcohol was associated with dying sooner than drinkin alcohol. The curve they released showed most benefit to people drinking one drink a day, but showed benefits over not drinking at upto about 5 drinks a day. That was different to what we thought before. It turns out this new study has a bunch of flaws. There are some interesting effects. Older women who drink do see some protective benefits. But the health benefits of moderate drinking for most people are not at all clear. It's pretty important to publicise the corrections because of the heavy reporting of that flawed research, and because of the misunderstanding (that you repeat) that moderate drinking provides health benefits.
- drcomputer 12y ago
  Have they ever done this study on people who have never drank alcohol and are healthy? It seems biased that the only group of 'non-drinkers' are people that are former drinkers.

otakucode 12y ago

I've never understood how something that interferes directly with GABAminergic parts of the brain was supposed to be beneficial.