NYTimes. 1/16 It is interesting that both cumulative drinks over time and the amount in your body cause damage. The article goes on to talk about the “benefit” from red wine was from other factors(exercising, eating better, etc) and not from wine. |
|
The article is linked in this thread:
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1106124.page |
| I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints. |
|
Only reason why serious alcohol studies are snubbed is because a) lobby is strong and has lot of money to throw on producing favorable studies and spreading them in media and b) majority drinks and makes excuses for its use. It took long time for people to accept that tobacco is harmful, its going to take longer for alcohol.
Imho tv and films really propagate drinking as social norm and stress solution, unless they take responsibility, its a lost cause. What's positive is it is now completely acceptable to not drink and there are always non-alcoholic and often healthy alternatives available everywhere so social drinking is going down. Another major argument against it doing the math of how much it costs per year. No poor or middle class person can justify it unless they are in denial. |
| I very rarely drink (never at home, rarely when socializing, mostly because I don't like the taste and am usually driving) but I think this kind of study is more harmful than helpful. Most people are not going to become teetotalers unless they have a problem with alhohol or for religious reasons or something, so people who might be willing to cut down if it's unhealthy will just throw their hands up and say if it doesn't matter, they may as well drink whatever they want; the harm is done regardless. |
| You know what else harms your health? Living. |
| "Life is emotionally abusive." Taylor Swift |
Thread title = False. If you want science, don't go to the NYT. |
From the same article:
|
| Sure and this time next year it'll be back to moderate consumption is fine. It's like keeping up with the studies on coffee drinking... |
And this is why the average American lives 5 years longer than the average Frenchie. Oh wait. |
Yeah the lower American life expectancy is not really attributable to drinking, it's about consumption of processed foods, higher salt, fat and sugar contents and less exercise. |
I think people who drink have a problem accepting what moderate consumption actually is - one drink a day (max) for women, and two (max) for men, and never/extremely rarely going above that amount. I don't say that to be judgemental - I don't drink anymore, but I remember telling a doctor that I drank 2-3 drinks a day, 2-3 times a week (it was wine), and when she asked if anyone had ever told me that was a problem I laughed and said, of course not. The truth is that any amount is harmful but if you do drink then it should me at minimal levels to keep the harm to a minimum. I agree with PPs that the alcohol industry has a vested interest in keeping you drinking and they pour into every occasion they can. I think the growth of the wine industry alone would be a fascinating case study. |
Running - knees and hips Vegetables - pesticides Gas stoves Plastic containers Driving in cars Getting pregnant |
| What is the benefit of drinking compared to risk though? Pregnancy is a personal decision of risk and reward. Driving cars are a by-product of social and economical decisions. Running has a cardio benefit even though it can be disastrous for lower leg. I personally cant think of a benefit to alcohol besides maybe resveratol in wine but intake of berries and pistachios also provide that. |