"safest level of drinking is none" - new study

JMNolan

valoren wrote: »

There is a stigma attached to alcohol which fuels the cognitive dissonance as well. Whereas if someone smoked 40 cigarettes a day it is abundantly clear they are addicted to the drug nicotine. Were you to tell them they are addicted they would emphatically agree with you. There is no stigma attached to cigarettes. If the same person binge drank every weekend, or drank every evening if you tell them they are addicted to alcohol for some bizarre reason they come up with a litany of excuses in line with the dissonance to justify a pattern of addiction. Typically they become very angry about it because there is a stigma attached to the booze. Nobody wants to be labelled alcoholic.

It's common sense to see that ingesting ethanol provides no valid benefit beyond inducing a euphoric response. It is so ingrained in our society and culture that it is here to stay, no matter the studies done to confirm it is very bad for your health. It's great to get pissed now and again, it is a moreish drug after all yet it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The more studies like this proving common sensibilities as to it's negative impact on health will get more people looking at their own drinking patterns and deciding what they personally wish to do in future.

I suppose the problem with this study is that even a glass of wine a year will now cause cancer so people are a little confused.

monty_python

How in the name of **** does drinks cause TB?

valoren

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You might be getting confused with how the article is basically saying ANY form of alcohol consumption is bad - period.

Others (and myself included) point out to apparent health benefits from alcohol - but it's moderation that's key.

Who in under jaysis thinks the lad in the sleeping bag down the quays with a can of Linden Village super cider is looking healthier than their 64 year old mother in law who does Pilates/hill climbing and enjoys a glass of shiraz with her evening meal from time to time?

Moderation.

Too much of anything can kill ya.

It's crazy the mental gymnastics addicted drinkers drag up to justify their boozing.

That's the cognitive dissonance. The 'at least I'm not like that...' i.e. the bag of can merchants on the quays.

I see it in my dad. He's addicted to the booze.
My mother's grandfather had a reputation as a local troublemaker. Always getting into fights, treated the family like crap. According to my dad anyway.

He got arrested for drink driving in January. Drank a bottle of whiskey, went driving for more and got caught rotten. Now would you think he has a drinking problem? Of course he has. Does he think he has a drinking problem? Of course he doesn't. He got confronted about getting arrested was told he had a problem, needed help but he got furious and said at least he wasn't like my mother's granddad. That was his reasoning, comparing himself to a man who had died over half a century earlier. At least he wasn't like him. :pac:

Mountainsandh

eagle eye wrote: »

The reaction to the article in this thread suggests that there is a major alcohol problem with the posters.

Inaccurate.
I hardly drink ever (medication) and I'm pissed off with such articles.

Live and let live. And die. Whatever.

Life is not a safe venture.

JMNolan

valoren wrote: »

It's crazy the mental gymnastics addicted drinkers drag up to justify their boozing.

That's the cognitive dissonance. The 'at least I'm not like that...' i.e. the bag of can merchants on the quays.

I see it in my dad. He's addicted to the booze.
My mother's grandfather had a reputation as a local troublemaker. Always getting into fights, treated the family like crap. According to my dad anyway.

He got arrested for drink driving in January. Drank a bottle of whiskey, went driving for more and got caught rotten. Now would you think he has a drinking problem? Of course he has. Does he think he has a drinking problem? Of course he doesn't. He got confronted about getting arrested was told he had a problem, needed help but he got furious and said at least he wasn't like my mother's granddad. That was his reasoning, comparing himself to a man who had died over half a century earlier. At least he wasn't like him. :pac:

That's similar to the mother drinking a glass of Pinot every evening. She doesn't have a problem in her head, she's not on skid row. Yet could she not have something non-alcoholic instead?

Out of curiosity, in your opinion, is there any level of alcohol consumption that is not problematic?

sbsquarepants

You really get a pain in your arse with all this nonsense. It's all swings and roundabouts - drinking may lead to some cancers, but then it may protect against heart disease......yada yada yada. Moderation is the key to everything, a couple of pints, a couple of coffess, a couple of sausages every now and then and you'll be fine.

Drink only water, eat only organic wheatgerm, exercise daily and you'll still die at the end of it. Might as well enjoy yourself in the time you're here.

At the end of the day we are all going to end up in a box, something has to cause it!

The simple fact is that everything is poisonous - there is not any substance in the entire world that will not kill you in sufficient amounts, the only difference is the amount required. You need a microscopic amount of botulism for example as opposed to maybe couple of litres of vodka (a lot less in many cases), or a car boot full of chocolate.

Sardine

eagle eye wrote: »

The reaction to the article in this thread suggests that there is a major alcohol problem with the posters.

People like a drink. Life can be pretty sh*t, boring, pointless, listless...
Sometimes a few drinks and a laugh is great fun, the best kind of fun, and we all know we'll probably get cancer one way or another sooner or later so articles like this are just telling us stuff we already know and don't want to think about.

valoren

JMNolan wrote: »

Out of curiosity, in your opinion, is there any level of alcohol consumption that is not problematic?

I guess a litmus test would be to ask oneself if they, from tomorrow, could never consume alcohol again, period (that it was no longer available0, would they have a problem with that? If answering honestly if they could easily forego that intermittent glass of shiraz, that it wouldn't bother them in the slightest then they have no problem. If it would induce some kind of panic or anxiety then you'd have to question your drinking.

JMNolan

A comment on the research

Yet Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, sounded a note of caution about the findings.

"Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no 'safe' level does not seem an argument for abstention," he said.

"There is no safe level of driving, but the government does not recommend that people avoid driving.

"Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention."

ohnonotgmail

valoren wrote: »

I guess a litmus test would be to ask oneself if they, from tomorrow, could never consume alcohol again, period, would they have a problem with that? If answering honestly if they could easily forego the intermittent glass of shiraz, that it wouldn't bother them in the slightest then they have no problem. If it would induce some kind of panic or anxiety then you'd have to question your drinking.

Could I? Yes, i rarely drink as it is. Would i want to? absolutely not.

Mountainsandh

valoren wrote: »

I guess a litmus test would be to ask oneself if they, from tomorrow, could never consume alcohol again, period, would they have a problem with that? If answering honestly if they could easily forego the intermittent glass of shiraz, that it wouldn't bother them in the slightest then they have no problem. If it would induce some kind of panic or anxiety then you'd have to question your drinking.

Pfff... if you told me the same with chocolate or salad, I'd feel some panic or anxiety.

Do I have a salad problem ?

sbsquarepants

valoren wrote: »

I guess a litmus test would be to ask oneself if they, from tomorrow, could never consume alcohol again, period, would they have a problem with that? If answering honestly if they could easily forego the intermittent glass of shiraz, that it wouldn't bother them in the slightest then they have no problem. If it would induce some kind of panic or anxiety then you'd have to question your drinking.

Jaysus I'd have to question your thinking there, I'd hate to have to go through life without drinking again, but I don't have any drink problem.

I'd hate to have to give up tea, crisps, or sausages too but I'm also not addicted to any of those.

PlaneSpeeking

valoren wrote: »

I guess a litmus test would be to ask oneself if they, from tomorrow, could never consume alcohol again, period, would they have a problem with that? If answering honestly if they could easily forego the intermittent glass of shiraz, that it wouldn't bother them in the slightest then they have no problem. If it would induce some kind of panic or anxiety then you'd have to question your drinking.

"Spherical hairy objects that usually travel in pairs" to that.

I only drink every other weekend when I go the match, couple at the airport, few more in the pub.

Could I do the same trip without pints ? Yeah sure. But I am well over 18 and can afford it. Plus I like it.

I don't have an "alcohol problem". I have a problem with intolerant people lumping a few pints pre-game with someone stealing the kids' communion money to get Dutch Gold.

mariaalice

Why are people who clearly have no real issue with alcohol getting so hysterical?

It is possible to not be an alcoholic and still have a poor relationship with alcohol.

valoren

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

"Spherical hairy objects that usually travel in pairs" to that.

I only drink every other weekend when I go the match, couple at the airport, few more in the pub.

Could I do the same trip without pints ? Yeah sure. But I am well over 18 and can afford it. Plus I like it.

I don't have an "alcohol problem". I have a problem with intolerant people lumping a few pints pre-game with someone stealing the kids' communion money to get Dutch Gold.

Exactly. You're being honest with yourself. You could easily not drink if you so desired and the study points out that people will still drink because they wish to do so regardless of that because having a few pints every now and then or a glass of wine every now and then is an incredibly pleasurable and satisfying experience .

Franz Von Peppercorn

I don’t drink most weeks so I don’t have a horse in this race.

But the methodology sounds suspect. Alcohol causes an increase in mortality in young people via TB?

I would agree that over 50s should be careful - the breastfeeding cancer link seems incontestable.

However the Saudi life expectancy is 74, ireland is 81.

The Japanese drink a fair bit too and they live forever.

meeeeh

valoren wrote: »

I guess a litmus test would be to ask oneself if they, from tomorrow, could never consume alcohol again, period, would they have a problem with that? If answering honestly if they could easily forego the intermittent glass of shiraz, that it wouldn't bother them in the slightest then they have no problem. If it would induce some kind of panic or anxiety then you'd have to question your drinking.

Wine compliments food. I don't need alcohol but I want something decent tasting with a good meal. It's like asking could you give up meat tomorrow and if you say no I don't want then you are an addict. I'm not being apologetic, most of the wine in bottles in our house goes of before they are finished but I certainly resent people who think we drink only for the alcohol buzz.

ninebeanrows

What ground-breaking research

RayCun

monty_python wrote: »

How in the name of **** does drinks cause TB?

one google later -

There is a strong association between heavy alcohol use/alcohol use disorders (AUD) and TB. A meta-analysis on the risk of TB for these factors yielded a pooled relative risk of 2.94 (95% CI: 1.89-4.59). Numerous studies show pathogenic impact of alcohol on the immune system causing susceptibility to TB among heavy drinkers. In addition, there are potential social pathways linking AUD and TB. Heavy alcohol use strongly influences both the incidence and the outcome of the disease and was found to be linked to altered pharmacokinetics of medicines used in treatment of TB, social marginalization and drift, higher rate of re-infection, higher rate of treatment defaults and development of drug-resistant forms of TB. Based on the available data, about 10% of the TB cases globally were estimated to be attributable to alcohol.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796667/

PlaneSpeeking

mariaalice wrote: »

Why are people who clearly have no real issue with alcohol getting so hysterical?

It is possible to not be an alcoholic and still have a poor relationship with alcohol.

Because we are generally tired of being lectured by idiots who need to keep their beaks out of an activity that is legal and not problematic.

mvl

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

But the methodology sounds suspect. Alcohol causes an increase in mortality in young people via TB?

I am also confused about this part.
But ...assuming there is a link between Gates foundation and this institute ... if there was any trace of TB in the segment they've analysed, the study would have brought it up as there is a history with TB studies/trials from their side (usually involving 3rd world countries).

JMNolan

Personally I don't doubt the research. I think you can only accept risk when you are informed so it is always better to be informed. Nothing wrong with undertaking activities that have increased risk of illness or reduced health.

ohnonotgmail

RayCun wrote: »

one google later -



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796667/

There is a strong association between heavy alcohol use/alcohol use disorders (AUD) and TB.

bit of a leap from "the safest level of drinking is none" to "heavy alcohol use"

PlaneSpeeking

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

bit of a leap from "the safest level of drinking is none" to "heavy alcohol use"

Ah you forget tho, the puritans want us all to drink water.

And even then only sparingly.

B**locks to that. I'm not watching my team play sober, it's hazardous to my mental wellbeing!!!

Babooshka

GBX wrote: »

Id a heap of drink last night so far I've seen 2 news articles and now this thread warning about drink..... Its worrying me so much I'm gonna stop reading

Have a drink reading's bad for you

RayCun

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

bit of a leap from "the safest level of drinking is none" to "heavy alcohol use"

Heavy alcohol use linked to TB
Moderate alcohol use linked to other diseases

Doctor Jimbob

RayCun wrote: »

Heavy alcohol use linked to TB
Moderate alcohol use linked to other diseases

And no alcohol use is linked to other diseases.

It's no wonder people get confused in fairness.

PlaneSpeeking

RayCun wrote: »

Heavy alcohol use linked to TB
Moderate alcohol use linked to other diseases

Telling others about their alcohol use when not knowing what they are talking abut - linked to sanctimonious prigs.

meeeeh

JMNolan wrote: »

Personally I don't doubt the research. I think you can only accept risk when you are informed so it is always better to be informed. Nothing wrong with undertaking activities that have increased risk of illness or reduced health.

I'm too lazy to read the research but did they state how strong is the link when the consumption is moderate and how strong is the link when consumption is excessive? Or is this another sausages are just as dangerous as smoking? When in actual fact the link between cancer and sausages was proven as strongly as the link between smoking and cancer but the actual likelihood of getting cancer was much stronger in case of smoking.

I have no doubt alcohol has negative effect but does that mean you have same chance you'll get cancer if you drink 1 unit of alcohol per day or ten?

mariaalice

I know someone who would not drink every week but when they drink they binge drink now people associate this with teenagers but this person is a woman in her fifties and their alcohol is wine and G and T. What I find curious is the rest of their life is so controlled they keep an eye on their weight, health, exercise a lot have a corporate job, but they choose to be blind to the relationship they have with alcohol.

I find it so uncomfortable that I avoid their company after a certain point when they are drinking.

RayCun

I don't know why people ask "but they did they account for..." or "do they say..." when they can just read the article for themselves -

Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

No level of alcohol consumption improves health

on the whole thing about "yeah, you die earlier, but it's the old and sick years you miss!", studies like this factor in "disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs)" - so it isn't just a difference between death at 80 or 85, it's the difference between being reasonably healthy from 70 to 85 and spending those years hooked up to machines.

PlaneSpeeking

RayCun wrote: »

I don't know why people ask "but they did they account for..." or "do they say..." when they can just read the article for themselves -

Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

No level of alcohol consumption improves health

on the whole thing about "yeah, you die earlier, but it's the old and sick years you miss!", studies like this factor in "disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs)" - so it isn't just a difference between death at 80 or 85, it's the difference between being reasonably healthy from 70 to 85 and spending those years hooked up to machines.

Or having a ****ing good life, enjoying yourself and then off to Dignitas.

When did puritans try to suck the joy out of everyone's life to make up for having a miserable one themselves ?

ford2600

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Or having a ****ing good life, enjoying yourself and then off to Dignitas.

When did puritans try to suck the joy out of everyone's life to make up for having a miserable one themselves ?

“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” H.L. Mencken

From here
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2017/04/01/what-causes-heart-disease-part-xxix/

seamus

JMNolan wrote: »

A comment on the research

This is basically the crux of it.

There is nobody performing this research calling for abstention. There is, in fact, nobody calling for abstention on the basis of this research.

The researcher simply collects the data and publishes it without agenda.

It's the media who leap on it because they know people will get wound up if they're told, "DONT DRINK ANYTHING OR YOU'LL DIE".

Literally nobody is calling for complete elimination of alcohol on the basis of this research. The media are reporting it because they know it drives clicks to their websites and listeners to their stations.

Everything kills us, and we know this.

We know that we are effectively a burning candle. We can do things that influence whether we burn fast or slow, whether the wick will break suddenly in the middle, whether we'll burn gracefully into an elegant antique-looking candle, or whether we'll burn down along the side, flop over into an ugly mess and need someone else to keep lighting the wick to keep us going.

But sooner or later everyone's wick comes to end and we're extinguished.

This kind of research simply looks at the factors that influence how this wick burns. We can then choose to use that information to direct how our wick burns. If we enjoy burning hard and bright, we will burn faster. If we prefer keeping a low-key flame, we will last longer. But we'll all get there in the end.

The media likes to sell us the lie that the wick doesn't burn unless we set it on fire ourselves.

meeeeh

RayCun wrote: »

I don't know why people ask "but they did they account for..." or "do they say..." when they can just read the ...

You are right, I could but because I don't want to, I asked here.

Malayalam

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm a great believer in "if it's legal and makes you happy, do it!"

You could get hit by a bus tomorrow!

Why limit yourself to what's legal and makes you happy? Sometimes ''legal'' is a prejudicial random decision. Alcohol intoxicates, it undoubtetdly contributes to a level of physical (and significant societal) harm, it also feels nice sometimes and induces euphoria - just like grass, really. But a lot of people get their knickers in a knot about the latter. Shrugs.

silverharp

for some context

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/the-risks-of-alcohol-again-2ae8cb006a4a

the paper did not report any absolute risks, meaning that readers couldn’t tell how dangerous drinking alcohol really was for them. Fortunately this extraordinarily lax review process was countered by the Lancet press office who asked for absolute risk estimates from the authors. This is truly excellent practice for which the press office deserve sincere congratulations. Especially as they also headed the press release with “Peer-reviewed / Observational study / People”, an example of the new Science Media Centre/Academy of Medical Sciences guidelines for headlining press releases.

The press release reported that

Specifically, comparing no drinks with one drink a day the risk of developing one of the 23 alcohol-related health problems was 0.5% higher — meaning 914 in 100,000 15–95 year olds would develop a condition in one year if they did not drink, but 918 people in 100,000 who drank one alcoholic drink a day would develop an alcohol-related health problem in a year.

This increased to 7% in people who drank two drinks a day (for one year, 977 people in 100,000 who drank two alcoholic drinks a day would develop an alcohol-related health problem) and 37% in people who drank five drinks every day (for one year, 1252 people in 100,000 who drank five alcoholic drinks a day would develop an alcohol-related health problem).

So the information is now all there, but what does it actually mean for moderate drinkers?

Let’s consider one drink a day (10g, 1.25 UK units) compared to none, for which the authors estimated an extra 4 (918–914) in 100,000 people would experience a (serious) alcohol-related condition.

That means, to experience one extra problem, 25,000 people need to drink 10g alcohol a day for a year, that’s 3,650g a year each.

To put this in perspective, a standard 70cl bottle of gin contains 224 g of alcohol, so 3,650g a year is equivalent to around 16 bottles of gin per person. That’s a total of 400,000 bottles of gin among 25,000 people, being associated with one extra health problem. Which indicates a rather low level of harm in these occasional drinkers.

Next look at 2 drinks a day, that’s 20g, or 2.5 units, slightly above the current UK guidelines of 14 units a week for both men and women.

In this case, compared to non-drinkers an extra 63 (977–914) in 100,000 people experience a health problem each year. That means, to experience one extra problem, 1,600 people need to drink 20g alcohol a day for a year, in which case we would expect 16 instead of 15 problems between them. That’s 7.3 kg a year each, equivalent to around 32 bottles of gin per person. So a total of 50,000 bottles of gin among these 1,600 people is associated with one extra health problem. Which still indicates a very low level of harm in drinkers drinking just more than the UK guidelines.

This analysis supports the current UK guidelines as being low-risk, but perhaps would better be described as ‘very low-risk’.

Is this an argument for abstention?

The paper argues that their conclusions should lead public health bodies “to consider recommendations for abstention”.

But claiming there is no ‘safe’ level does not seem an argument for abstention. There is no safe level of driving, but government do not recommend that people avoid driving.

Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Specifically, comparing no drinks with one drink a day the risk of developing one of the 23 alcohol-related health problems was 0.5% higher — meaning 914 in 100,000 15–95 year olds would develop a condition in one year if they did not drink, but 918 people in 100,000 who drank one alcoholic drink a day would develop an alcohol-related health problem in a year.

Odd phrasing since the 914 didn't drink at all.

For a health service these numbers are sorta statistically important, for an individual not so much. And although this is presented as a 0.5% ( really 4.3%) , thats the percentage on the percentage.


You have a 0.914% chance of getting sick by acquiring one of the 23 alcohol-related health problems by not drinking and a 0.918% chance of getting sick by drinking.

Might as well drink since its almost as likely to get sick from alcohol related diseases than if you don't.

EDIT:

It is in fact "in one year". I missed that but theres really not much of a statistical increase.

Sardine

Pravda (the Indo) had a front page headline about women drinking too much. Methinks we may have a nice hike in alc prices in the coming budget masquerading at some kind of health thing!

Skelet0n

Sardine wrote: »

Pravda (the Indo) had a front page headline about women drinking too much. Methinks we may have a nice hike in alc prices in the coming budget masquerading at some kind of health thing!

You got them, the independent and the lancet medical journal got together to publish on the same day to get an alcohol tax increase in the Irish budget. Brilliant.

Amirani

Shiloh Rancid Tumor wrote: »

It's published in a reputable journal. This is the most credible source of information available.

It's not hugely surprising to hear alcohol seems to be a greater health concern than previously thought. Skepticism with this seems more likely to be because the news is unwelcome, rather than unlikely or lacking credibility.

The published journal actually breached The Lancet's guidelines on publishing relative risk figures rather than absolute risk figures - the risk levels used in the journal have no real relevance to a reader as a consequence.

This journal is not the "most credible source of information available", that's not how these studies work. As such, you don't have the study concluding that their study is correct and as such policies should be based on it. This study uses other studies to establish links between alcohol consumption and diseases and they suggest there is a relationship for 1 drink/per day and above. Firstly 1 drink per day is pretty large - it's like 16 bottles of spirits per year. Secondly, the risk increase as a result of this is very small.

Bottom line, what this study has suggested - if you took the whole population of Ireland, and they each had 1 alcoholic drink per day for a year, you'd expect 45 extra incidences of people having an alcohol related disease. That's extremely small, far less than the danger of "moderately" driving for example.

So, no, "skepticism" is not based purely on the news being unwelcome, it's that the statistical significance of it is minor.

SEPT 23 1989

Sardine wrote: »

Pravda (the Indo) had a front page headline about women drinking too much. Methinks we may have a nice hike in alc prices in the coming budget masquerading at some kind of health thing!

The first thing I thought when I saw that was the word equality

Well done girls

mvl

Sardine wrote: »

Methinks we may have a nice hike in alc prices in the coming budget masquerading at some kind of health thing!

But really Ireland doesn't seem to have a problem, based on what this study reports. Maybe having higher tolerance really is in peoples genes
Unless adding extra taxes for alcohol becomes an EU trend ...same as it was about smoking.

eagle eye

As a former regular binge drinker, I'm talking close to 100 drinks per weekend, I know there is a serious drink problem in this country. I was never alone, mostly in the same company for all my drinking. There were guys who drank a lot less but still far too much.

This research is telling me that a lot of Irish people need to cop the **** on. The guy who drinks a couple of pints every couple of weeks has nothing much to worry about but there are a hell of a lot of people who need to understand what they are doing to themselves.

s7ryf3925pivug

Amirani wrote: »

The published journal actually breached The Lancet's guidelines on publishing relative risk figures rather than absolute risk figures - the risk levels used in the journal have no real relevance to a reader as a consequence.

This journal is not the "most credible source of information available", that's not how these studies work. As such, you don't have the study concluding that their study is correct and as such policies should be based on it. This study uses other studies to establish links between alcohol consumption and diseases and they suggest there is a relationship for 1 drink/per day and above. Firstly 1 drink per day is pretty large - it's like 16 bottles of spirits per year. Secondly, the risk increase as a result of this is very small.

Bottom line, what this study has suggested - if you took the whole population of Ireland, and they each had 1 alcoholic drink per day for a year, you'd expect 45 extra incidences of people having an alcohol related disease. That's extremely small, far less than the danger of "moderately" driving for example.

So, no, "skepticism" is not based purely on the news being unwelcome, it's that the statistical significance of it is minor.

A literature review or a meta analysis is valid and credible as a form of research. You don't personally need to analyse all the sources to give it credibility. It has already been reviewed.

Don't see the issue with relative risk. 'X increases your risk of death by y%" is meaningful. It seems like the simplest way of aggregating large amounts of diverse data.

Yes the increased risk of harm associated with one drink is small, however that is criticism of the headline. It's not criticism of the paper, or even the content of the news article, where it explicitly points this out.

The paper is not advocating zero alcohol consumption. It is advocating measures to reduce consumption at population-wide levels. It points out that consumption at moderate levels does not in fact offer aggregate health benefits, which is a widely held belief.

Not sure why you're attacking the credibility of peer reviewed research. It is the most credible source of information in any practical terms. Your criticism of the paper itself seems frivolous. You're right that the headline is a little misleading, but that really supports my point about the credibility of peer reviewed research, as opposed to news headlines, for example.

Samuri Suicide

I believe that it's a lot to do with your genes.

I know some people in their mid 70s who smoke 20+ a day and have always been heavy drinkers.

It's just how it is.

McMurphy

eagle eye wrote: »

As a former regular binge drinker, I'm talking close to 100 drinks per weekend, I know there is a serious drink problem in this country. I was never alone, mostly in the same company for all my drinking. There were guys who drank a lot less but still far too much.

This research is telling me that a lot of Irish people need to cop the **** on. The guy who drinks a couple of pints every couple of weeks has nothing much to worry about but there are a hell of a lot of people who need to understand what they are doing to themselves.

Are we talking pints here?

Did you take the shirt of anyone's back by the way?

100 drinks per weekend seems like a bit of a stretch tbh.

Peatys

Peatys wrote: »

Sure what's the point then? Live long miserable life?
Fuk that.

If you genuinely believe there's no point to life if one can't drink alcohol and that not drinking alcohol equates to having a miserable life, that speaks volumes for the brainwashing of the alcohol industry and its incessant propaganda equation of alcohol with beautiful, cool people having a great time, rather than with the reality of arrant morons (at best) doing so many stupid, stupid things when they have alcohol in them.

daheff

Shiloh Rancid Tumor wrote: »

Getting cancer is like winning the lottery. Everybody gets tickets. Your genes might mean you get more or less tickets than others. What you expose yourself to in day to day life can give you additional tickets, or cancel some of them. We know some of the things that add or remove tickets but not all of them. But one way or another we all have tickets... sometimes people win the lottery even if they don't buy lots of tickets.

this is just nonsense.
Something like 1 in 4 people get cancer during their life time. Cancer is life changing.

1 in 4 people dont win life changing amounts in the lottery.

nervous_twitch

seamus wrote: »

We know that we are effectively a burning candle. We can do things that influence whether we burn fast or slow, whether the wick will break suddenly in the middle, whether we'll burn gracefully into an elegant antique-looking candle, or whether we'll burn down along the side, flop over into an ugly mess and need someone else to keep lighting the wick to keep us going.

But sooner or later everyone's wick comes to end and we're extinguished.

This kind of research simply looks at the factors that influence how this wick burns. We can then choose to use that information to direct how our wick burns.  If we enjoy burning hard and bright, we will burn faster. If we prefer keeping a low-key flame, we will last longer. But we'll all get there in the end.

The media likes to sell us the lie that the wick doesn't burn unless we set it on fire ourselves.

That was really eloquent and beautiful. It brings me comfort as a flop and fall candle.