"safest level of drinking is none" - new study

Akrasia

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 ?

Yep life isn't a competition to see who lives longest. Everyone knows guinness isn't actually good for you, but there are benefits other than health benefits as long as you don't lose the run of yourself.

Akrasia

daheff wrote: »

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.

Most people who get cancer get it when they're old and most people who die from cancer are over 75

My granny is 93 and she has a 'touch of cancer' in her finger which she couldn't give a damn about because it's not likely to grow fast enough to kill her.

If you eat drink and be merry for 75 years and die of cancer when you're 80. I'd say that's a good life.

If you live a disciplined life of abstainance and self denial and die of something at 95, was that extra 15 years worth it?

eagle eye

The amount of people who seem to relate drinking alcohol to having a great life is the scary thing.
As I've said, I did it myself but I enjoy life now even more than I did then. I only drink about four or five times a year now but still have a great life. I go for meals with my wife and friends, spend lots of fun times with my son and his cousins and friends.
I never feel crappy in the morning, or all day, and I'm able to get things done at home so I can spend the rest of the day enjoying myself.

Drinking diluted poison may increase cancer risk, wow. Incredible stuff.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

jacksie66 wrote: »

Every day there's a new study saying we're gonna die from too much or too little of something. No wonder people are so paranoid and worried about ****. I know people who were raging alcoholics and lived to be in the 70s and 80s. I also know people who were fit, healthy and didn't drink or smoke. They died of cancer in their 40s.

Yeah, there’s always outliers but usually it’s the other way round. Everyone knows exceptions and they stand out because they’re rare. If you looked at the stats at a population-level, it’d likely show that heavy drinkers are much more likely to check out sooner.

Cancer is only one illness after all. What about all the other illnesses that can be caused by heavy drinking? And I believe something like 40% of cancers are lifestyle-related. So, yeah, some people are unlucky to get it but not everyone. A good chunk probably could be prevented.

eagle eye

Johnny Dogs wrote:

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.

Probably about 60% pints, Guinness and then pint bottles most if the year, go from Guinness to lager in hot weather.
Then Gin, sometimes vodka, and Brandy or whiskey on rare occasions.
I don't get the shirt comment, if it's about money I was a single man for most of it and could easily afford it.

Shenshen

The only surprising thing about these findings is how many people seem surprised about it.
If alcohol was harmless, why don't we allow children to drink it?

I can't believe that all this outrage is serious - alcohol is a poison, and if you think it's a health tonic, you need to examine your life.

But something being harmful rarely stops humans from enjoying it. We know we're killing ourselves and each other by smoking, driving around with internal combustion engines, eating food-like substances instead of food, there's a long list.
And you know what? It's your life. Do what you like with it. Just don't act the snowflake if people examining some aspects of it point out the statistical downsides of your choices.

You want to drink? Drink. But own it. Don't ask others to compliment you on your exemplary lifestyle.

McMurphy

eagle eye wrote: »

Probably about 60% pints, Guinness and then pint bottles most if the year, go from Guinness to lager in hot weather.
Then Gin, sometimes vodka, and Brandy or whiskey on rare occasions.

That's still some amount of drink, like 60 pints per weekend = 20 pints per session followed by shorts. Personally I think that's pretty close to humanly impossible/ 20 pints each session is pretty tough going. Never mind the spirits afterwards.

I don't get the shirt comment, if it's about money I was a single man for most of it and could easily afford it.

Tongue in cheek response to the legend pintman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fin-0EVuhHo

mvl

Shenshen wrote: »

The only surprising thing about these findings is how many people seem surprised about it.
If alcohol was harmless, why don't we allow children to drink it?

I can't believe that all this outrage is serious - alcohol is a poison, and if you think it's a health tonic, you need to examine your life.

There are so many other examples I don't allow my child having: drinking coffee, eating rare steak, or having a tub of ice cream instead of dinner ...

Its more to do with how the information they have provided is incomplete (what type of youngsters can get TB in first world countries these days ?!?).
In my view their statistics can be interpreted either way, once you have access to the information they used as input. But the recommendations about policies updates brings an economic factor to it and that rings some bells: it reminds me that its all about specific agendas. So would alcohol be having same fate as tobacco from tax point of view, for "health" reasons ?

I am sure all my ancestors were making&drinking wine/spirits. Now I can read papers describing how in 15 century only soldiers were drinking brandy, others were having just a small glass before a meal, or before going to work the field.
Think there is nothing wrong with veritable alcohol when used same as food, with moderation .
- Counterfeit alcohol is poisonous alright.

Shenshen

mvl wrote: »

There are so many other examples I don't allow my child having: drinking coffee, eating rare steak, or having a tub of ice cream instead of dinner ...

Its more to do with how the information they have provided is incomplete (what type of youngsters can get TB in first world countries these days ?!?).
In my view their statistics can be interpreted either way, once you have access to the information they used as input. But the recommendations about policies updates brings an economic factor to it and that rings some bells: it reminds me that its all about specific agendas. So would alcohol be having same fate as tobacco from tax point of view, for "health" reasons ?

I am sure all my ancestors were making&drinking wine/spirits. Now I can read papers describing how in 15 century only soldiers were drinking brandy, others were having just a small glass before a meal, or before going to work the field.
Think there is nothing wrong with veritable alcohol when used same as food, with moderation .
- Counterfeit alcohol is poisonous alright.

Caffeine is a poison, and sugar and fat aren't exactly healthy, either. Not sure what your problem with rare steak would be, though?

A small dose of poison is still a small dose of poison, though. And people have been using small doses of poison for the effects they have on the way they fell in all cultures, for as long as humanity has been around. That history does not mean any of them miraculously became less poisonous over the years.

So what you're saying is that your main concern is that governments would use data like this to increase taxes? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood they're doing that already anyway, in an effort to combat misuse of these drugs?
We've a higher tax on sugar now, and a minimum price for alcohol.

meeeeh

So if you question how research is communicated or interpreted you are heavy drinking alcohol apologist who lives in denial.

I'm not a heavy drinker at all but I'm not a complete moron either. And I know that there is a different likelihood of getting cancer depending how much you drink. There is research about some cardio benefits of drinking wine. So is the benefit of not getting a hart attack smaller or bigger than a chance of getting cancer because of moderate consumption of wine?

As for caffeine, the research exist coffee drinkers are healthier than those not drinking coffee. I don't know how reliable research is because I didn't pay much attention to it but it's a bit rich to claim caffeine is poison and admonish others for questioning some generalised statements made about the study.

mvl

Shenshen wrote: »

Caffeine is a poison, and sugar and fat aren't exactly healthy, either. Not sure what your problem with rare steak would be, though?

A small dose of poison is still a small dose of poison, though. And people have been using small doses of poison for the effects they have on the way they fell in all cultures, for as long as humanity has been around. That history does not mean any of them miraculously became less poisonous over the years.

So what you're saying is that your main concern is that governments would use data like this to increase taxes? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood they're doing that already anyway, in an effort to combat misuse of these drugs?
We've a higher tax on sugar now, and a minimum price for alcohol.

Children should not eat under cooked meat. You don't have kids, do you ?

But actually, by the same way you are referring to all above as poisonous, would you agree that red or more seriously, processed meat can also cause cancer - so are we referring to them as poison too ? --> just realizing there are talks about taxing red meat too, for different reason. Dreading the times when the only meat that would be accessible would be the synthetic one

I don't know if I should call it concern about taxes being increased (it would not affect my lifestyle anyway, as I am not a strong consumer); but was suggesting if the same model as for tobacco would be used, banning it could be next.
But if more governments use "independent" studies like this to help achieve their tax goal - there can be some concern there.

Shenshen

mvl wrote: »

Children should not eat under cooked meat. You don't have kids, do you ?

But actually, by the same way you are referring to all above as poisonous, would you agree that red or more seriously, processed meat can also cause cancer - so are we referring to them as poison too ?

I don't know if I should call it concern about taxes being increased (it would not affect my lifestyle anyway, as I am not a strong consumer) - but was suggesting if the same model as for tobacco would be used, banning it could be next.

No, I don't have children, why would I? But growing up my parents wouldn't have considered rare steak, or even steak tartare, as unsuitable for children.

Yes, research has shown links between red meat and particularly between smoked meats and cancer. I don't seriously believe that anyone has reduced their consumption of any type of meat because of that, nor have I heard any calls for an outright ban on them.

I had become vegetarian well before these studies were published, so I'm possibly not the best person to ask on this.

But yes, I do have a beer or two a week, and I'm fully conscious that doing so is not going to contribute positively to my overall health. Same as I eat cake knowing it isn't the healthy option. I wouldn't think of jumping down a scientist's throat for telling me that the healthiest amount of cake to consume is none at all, I already know that.

And as far as I can tell, tobacco isn't banned anywhere, far from it. It's far too much of a cash cow.

Hector Bellend

How much money was spent to uncover this pearl of wisdom?

mvl

Shenshen wrote: »

But yes, I do have a beer or two a week, and I'm fully conscious that doing so is not going to contribute positively to my overall health. Same as I eat cake knowing it isn't the healthy option. I wouldn't think of jumping down a scientist's throat for telling me that the healthiest amount of cake to consume is none at all, I already know that.

Guess its about having a balance in personal life choices.
I am intrigued about this type of information myself, but I prefer to be the one deciding what to do about such info; in this case, I need more input before deciding if measures are needed for my lifestyle. For now, I am saying the amount of wine I am drinking is as good as water .
Study is one thing, can be genuine or not; but what gets published media is just "propaganda".

meeeeh

Shenshen wrote: »

No, I don't have children, why would I? But growing up my parents wouldn't have considered rare steak, or even steak tartare, as unsuitable for children..

I have kids and mine are given rare steak. I'm happy to ignore the usual warnings around rare steaks soft eggs and similar. I only avoided those foods when they were babies.

Pauliedragon

Shenshen wrote: »

The only surprising thing about these findings is how many people seem surprised about it.
If alcohol was harmless, why don't we allow children to drink it?

I can't believe that all this outrage is serious - alcohol is a poison, and if you think it's a health tonic, you need to examine your life.

But something being harmful rarely stops humans from enjoying it. We know we're killing ourselves and each other by smoking, driving around with internal combustion engines, eating food-like substances instead of food, there's a long list.
And you know what? It's your life. Do what you like with it. Just don't act the snowflake if people examining some aspects of it point out the statistical downsides of your choices.

You want to drink? Drink. But own it. Don't ask others to compliment you on your exemplary lifestyle.

The reason alcohol is restricted to adults is because the frontal part of the brain doesn't develop until the age of 18 or 20 which also happens to be the area of the brain than alcohol affects mostly. The decision making part of the brain gets numbed by booze which is why people sometimes make stupid choices when on the piss.

eagle eye

Johnny Dogs wrote:

That's still some amount of drink, like 60 pints per weekend = 20 pints per session followed by shorts. Personally I think that's pretty close to humanly impossible/ 20 pints each session is pretty tough going. Never mind the spirits afterwards.

I'd be in the pub at 1.30 pm on a Saturday and wouldn't go home until maybe 3.00 am.
Friday was usually an 8pm kickoff and again 3am finish.
Sunday would be maybe 2.30pm start and home for 9pm.
Rarely drank during the working week.

Trigger Happy

All this talk of booze has left me with a great thirst that needs quenching. Pub time!

Shenshen

mvl wrote: »

Guess its about having a balance in personal life choices.
I am intrigued about this type of information myself, but I prefer to be the one deciding what to do about such info; in this case, I need more input before deciding if measures are needed for my lifestyle. For now, I am saying the amount of wine I am drinking is as good as water .
Study is one thing, can be genuine or not; but what gets published media is just "propaganda".

I haven't actually read up on the details of the study, but the "propaganda" headlines I've seen all simply said that there's no such thing as a "safe" amount of alcohol to consume. And all the outrage I've seen so far centred on just that.

It's not too dissimilar to saying that the only "healthy" amount of carbonmonoxide to inhale is none. That's a known fact, but there's limited calls for cars and lorries being banned from the roads and chimneys to be walled up.

The amount of panic seems a little preemptive.

mvl

Shenshen wrote: »

The amount of panic seems a little preemptive.

there is more than one article on the subject in last days.
anyway, I wouldn't' call it panic at all, cause I am not seeing panic, but rather criticism.

For example, what got my attention from the beginning is how follow up articles connect younger population TB related deaths to alcohol:

"Globally, the most common causes of alcohol-related death among those ages 15 to 49 were road injuries, self-harm and tuberculosis."
---> from https://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/no-amount-of-alcohol-is-safe-warns-new-global-study

To my knowledge on TB, ppl need to be exposed to the bacteria first, then, when having a low immune system they can get TB active later in life.
Heavy use of alcohol and other factors can contribute to the state of someones immune system, yes, but it is not the cause of TB.
Also, normal TB is very treatable (unlike some cancers) ... exception being a multi-drug resistent tuberculosis that was seen in prisons in Russia (read about it few years ago) - but this would not be general population.
So I would be keen in finding detailed statistics of what are the countries with TB deaths in younger population that are link-ed to alcohol consumption, and the background of the individuals.

Dammo

Drumpot wrote: »

It’s funny reading all the deluesional reactions to this report. Irish people in particular have such a culturaly unhealthy relationship with alcohol that they will always look to excuse anything negative towards the substance.

I work in insurance and while a lot of illnesses are gene related it doesn’t mean or smoking doesn’t affect your mortality. Some genes won’t be affected by over drinking as much as others but all people with all genes will be affected negatively, it’s just to different degrees.

When you apply for insurance you pay more as a smoker or if you drink in an unhealthy manner. There are multiple ways you can get fatty livers but binge drinking is one of them. This could cost you more for insurance.

So why does that matter? Insurance companies charge you more because statistically speaking you are more likely to claim on the policy if you do certain things or don’t take care of yourself (including drinking or smoking).

When I goto insurance seminars and they just talk of people as numbers , statistics, it’s frightening how often people get sick and how our behaviors do make a difference. People either don’t want to believe or know that their behaviors can make them ill.

I have no skin in the game on this thread and I know this will not be a popular post. But alcohol is dangerous on many levels if you don’t drink naturally drink carefully and in a balanced manner.


Most things in life are fine in moderation. I think if you follow that mantra you will usually be ok. The problem Can be that people have different views on what is moderate. If you are drinking with heavy drinkers you might be moderate in that group but still have a bad habit.

Incidentally when I see these sort of science studies come out I usually wonder where the backing for the studies came from. Dig deep enough and most of these things are prob commissioned by the alcohol industry to find the “right” results....

*hick* well **** you and the whatever you rode in on *hick*

RiderOnTheStorm

Healthy is just the slowest form of dying ...

Gimme A Pound

Dying of cancer in one's 30s and 40s having never (definitely never ever?) drunk an alcoholic drink is unusual. It doesn't prove much in relation to the greater scheme of things. And "When your number is up, your number is up"...? Serious denial to imply lifestyle choices can never directly lead to illness/early death. And that's fine, I'll still have my few drinks every week.

NIMAN

Shenshen wrote: »

I haven't actually read up on the details of the study, but the "propaganda" headlines I've seen all simply said that there's no such thing as a "safe" amount of alcohol to consume. And all the outrage I've seen so far centred on just that.

It's not too dissimilar to saying that the only "healthy" amount of carbonmonoxide to inhale is none. That's a known fact, but there's limited calls for cars and lorries being banned from the roads and chimneys to be walled up.

The amount of panic seems a little preemptive.

Yeah it is a very misleading report.

Its like saying the safest level of airplane travel is none, or safest level of car travel is none.........if you don't do something, its obviously going to reduce the risk of it causing you damage to none.

Nonsense. Its like clickbait but in report form.