Why do you drink alcohol?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cardiologist says a glass of wine (not a bottle of wine) with dinner is a net health benefit. Disagree with OP's (false) premise that any non-zero amount of alcohol is harmful.

I’m not one of the teetotalers in this thread, but fyi I believe it recently emerged that the the study that said a glass of wine was a net benefit didn’t compare wine drinkers to non-drinkers — it compared wine-drinkers to the general population, which included many hard liquor drinkers.

I hate to say that, and I feel like the world’s biggest buzzkill. The NYT Daily podcast did an episode on the science last summer.

It was not just one study. And the quality of NYT reporting on science is abysmal. They *regularly* confound correlation with causation.

If there is a specific study you are reading from a refereed journal please do post a full citation so I can get a copy. (I have access to a good quality science library through work.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its just sad how people try to defend a toxic habit.

There is no safe amount of driving. But everyone here still drives. And the negative impact of that on others is huge - pollution, risk of killing others etc. Yet you don't get sanctimonious about that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its just sad how people try to defend a toxic habit.

There is no safe amount of driving. But everyone here still drives. And the negative impact of that on others is huge - pollution, risk of killing others etc. Yet you don't get sanctimonious about that?

Good point.

Only people against alcohol are the religious cults pushing the prohibition narrative. It's like early 1900s all over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With all the information about alcohol causing cancer, Parkinson’s, wrinkles, anxiety, why do you still drink it? What makes you risk your health? Does it make you feel so good that it’s worth the risks?

I would also add high blood pressure even from occasional drinking as the recent research indicates. That made me stop drinking completely.

[Anonymous]

I quit drinking a couple of months ago. My glass of wine with dinner became 2-3 glasses on a weeknight and that wine amount plus 2-3 cocktails each night on weekends over the course of 25 years. I wish I could have a glass of wine and not want another.

I think some people can drink and not have issues with it. I have friends that never have more than 1 drink. Maybe they find other things in live tough and even addictive that I wouldn’t. For example, I can’t imagine ever being addicted to marijuana or gambling. It doesn’t do anything for me.

I think there is likely a significant number of people who can drink without a problem and would be able to incorporate it into a healthy lifestyle. Your body is able to handle most things in moderation. But there is a segment of population that is susceptible, genetics being a factor, to alcohol addiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beer sales are in a free fall. The bourbon trend is dead. Wine is also in a free fall. Once boomers die off, alcohol sales will be in the grave. Notice the alcohol ads targeting Hispanics and urban blacks. Yuppy white people are sobering up.

Sidebar: I think the non-alcoholic sugary drinks are just as bad. Sugar bombs for $12. Total scam and super unhealthy.

The younger people are more sober - but they might be vaping some mj in it's place.

This. They’ve just replaced alcohol with weed and now they’re antisocial and weird. I’ll take a generation of young people out drinking in bars and spending time together over ones who are just sitting in their couches playing video games.

Same here! And what all the anti-alcohol sheep are too narrow-minded and easily manipulated to realize is where all these studies about the "new" risks of alcohol are coming from. Moderate drinking is no less safe than living life daily.

Thank you! Everytime I see an anti-alcohol post I think to myself "there's a marijuana lobbyist earning their paycheck."

[Anonymous]

It helps numb the existential dread of being alive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It helps numb the existential dread of being alive.

That sounds like depression and alcohol can make that worse. It’s a depressant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its just sad how people try to defend a toxic habit.

Look, we were minding our own business until Miss Carrie Nation (AKA OP) asked "WhY do YOu DrInK?" Then we answered. Then the Teetotal Brigade burst in writing 5 paragraph screeds of their opinions based on some research they read. Guess what, we read all those New York Times articles, too, and made a different risk assessment. That's our prerogative, so just leave us alone. Don't ask questions solely so you can lecture us. We didn't write asking why you don't drink.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cardiologist says a glass of wine (not a bottle of wine) with dinner is a net health benefit. Disagree with OP's (false) premise that any non-zero amount of alcohol is harmful.

I’m not one of the teetotalers in this thread, but fyi I believe it recently emerged that the the study that said a glass of wine was a net benefit didn’t compare wine drinkers to non-drinkers — it compared wine-drinkers to the general population, which included many hard liquor drinkers.

I hate to say that, and I feel like the world’s biggest buzzkill. The NYT Daily podcast did an episode on the science last summer.

It was not just one study. And the quality of NYT reporting on science is abysmal. They *regularly* confound correlation with causation.

If there is a specific study you are reading from a refereed journal please do post a full citation so I can get a copy. (I have access to a good quality science library through work.)

PP. Okay, I went back to the data, and I slightly misremembered the sampling problem, though not the gist. The multiple studies showing that people who consumed small amount of alcohol were healthier than non-drinkers (i.e. the "glass of wine a day is good for you" studies) have been confounded by several issues with study design -- one of which is that the "non-drinkers" category often included not merely lifetime abstainers, but also those who had previously been drinkers then quit (including people with addiction issues or health problems that prompted them to stop drinking). There also were other confounding factors, as well - for example light/moderate drinkers tend to be healthier as a population than non-drinkers.

The NY Times study I remembered seemed to be this 2023 meta-analysis of 107 studies, collectively including 4+ million people, that reassessed the data to adjust for some of these issues: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2802963

If I'm reading this right, the meta analysis found zero protective benefit to drinking at any level, a nonsignificant increase in all-cause mortality at low levels of drinking, and a significant increase at higher levels, with women showing significant effects at lower daily intake than men.

"Adjustment of cohort samples to make them more representative has been shown to eliminate apparent protective associations. Mendelian randomization studies that control for the confounding effects of sociodemographic and environmental factors find no evidence of cardioprotection...
"In the fully adjusted model, mortality RR estimates increased for all drinking categories, becoming nonsignificant for low-volume drinkers (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.01; P = .07), occasional drinkers (>0 to <1.3 g of ethanol per day; RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.06; P = .41), and drinkers who drank 25 to 44 g per day (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.96-1.14; P = .28). There was a significantly increased risk among drinkers who drank 45 to 64 g per day (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.32; P < .001) and 65 or more grams (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.23-1.47; P < .001)." (emphasis mine)

Note: I do not work for the marijuana industry, and I love a glass of wine. So this really was a bummer for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cardiologist says a glass of wine (not a bottle of wine) with dinner is a net health benefit. Disagree with OP's (false) premise that any non-zero amount of alcohol is harmful.

I’m not one of the teetotalers in this thread, but fyi I believe it recently emerged that the the study that said a glass of wine was a net benefit didn’t compare wine drinkers to non-drinkers — it compared wine-drinkers to the general population, which included many hard liquor drinkers.

I hate to say that, and I feel like the world’s biggest buzzkill. The NYT Daily podcast did an episode on the science last summer.

It was not just one study. And the quality of NYT reporting on science is abysmal. They *regularly* confound correlation with causation.

If there is a specific study you are reading from a refereed journal please do post a full citation so I can get a copy. (I have access to a good quality science library through work.)

PP. Okay, I went back to the data, and I slightly misremembered the sampling problem, though not the gist. The multiple studies showing that people who consumed small amount of alcohol were healthier than non-drinkers (i.e. the "glass of wine a day is good for you" studies) have been confounded by several issues with study design -- one of which is that the "non-drinkers" category often included not merely lifetime abstainers, but also those who had previously been drinkers then quit (including people with addiction issues or health problems that prompted them to stop drinking). There also were other confounding factors, as well - for example light/moderate drinkers tend to be healthier as a population than non-drinkers.

The NY Times study I remembered seemed to be this 2023 meta-analysis of 107 studies, collectively including 4+ million people, that reassessed the data to adjust for some of these issues: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2802963

If I'm reading this right, the meta analysis found zero protective benefit to drinking at any level, a nonsignificant increase in all-cause mortality at low levels of drinking, and a significant increase at higher levels, with women showing significant effects at lower daily intake than men.

"Adjustment of cohort samples to make them more representative has been shown to eliminate apparent protective associations. Mendelian randomization studies that control for the confounding effects of sociodemographic and environmental factors find no evidence of cardioprotection...
"In the fully adjusted model, mortality RR estimates increased for all drinking categories, becoming nonsignificant for low-volume drinkers (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.01; P = .07), occasional drinkers (>0 to <1.3 g of ethanol per day; RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.06; P = .41), and drinkers who drank 25 to 44 g per day (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.96-1.14; P = .28). There was a significantly increased risk among drinkers who drank 45 to 64 g per day (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.32; P < .001) and 65 or more grams (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.23-1.47; P < .001)." (emphasis mine)

Note: I do not work for the marijuana industry, and I love a glass of wine. So this really was a bummer for me.

I agree with your conclusions, but I'll point out the NYT did no study. They just reported what other people's studies found, and more importantly, they reported that the pre-Trump Surgeon General found the research concerning, was pulling the government position that booze can be heart healthy and was planning on issuing tobacco style warnings for booze bottles.

So, literally, the authority figure that we, as a nation, have for helping us examine the results of medical research and implement policies back these findings.

The booze industry does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cardiologist says a glass of wine (not a bottle of wine) with dinner is a net health benefit. Disagree with OP's (false) premise that any non-zero amount of alcohol is harmful.

I’m not one of the teetotalers in this thread, but fyi I believe it recently emerged that the the study that said a glass of wine was a net benefit didn’t compare wine drinkers to non-drinkers — it compared wine-drinkers to the general population, which included many hard liquor drinkers.

I hate to say that, and I feel like the world’s biggest buzzkill. The NYT Daily podcast did an episode on the science last summer.

It was not just one study. And the quality of NYT reporting on science is abysmal. They *regularly* confound correlation with causation.

If there is a specific study you are reading from a refereed journal please do post a full citation so I can get a copy. (I have access to a good quality science library through work.)

PP. Okay, I went back to the data, and I slightly misremembered the sampling problem, though not the gist. The multiple studies showing that people who consumed small amount of alcohol were healthier than non-drinkers (i.e. the "glass of wine a day is good for you" studies) have been confounded by several issues with study design -- one of which is that the "non-drinkers" category often included not merely lifetime abstainers, but also those who had previously been drinkers then quit (including people with addiction issues or health problems that prompted them to stop drinking). There also were other confounding factors, as well - for example light/moderate drinkers tend to be healthier as a population than non-drinkers.

The NY Times study I remembered seemed to be this 2023 meta-analysis of 107 studies, collectively including 4+ million people, that reassessed the data to adjust for some of these issues: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2802963

If I'm reading this right, the meta analysis found zero protective benefit to drinking at any level, a nonsignificant increase in all-cause mortality at low levels of drinking, and a significant increase at higher levels, with women showing significant effects at lower daily intake than men.

"Adjustment of cohort samples to make them more representative has been shown to eliminate apparent protective associations. Mendelian randomization studies that control for the confounding effects of sociodemographic and environmental factors find no evidence of cardioprotection...
"In the fully adjusted model, mortality RR estimates increased for all drinking categories, becoming nonsignificant for low-volume drinkers (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.01; P = .07), occasional drinkers (>0 to <1.3 g of ethanol per day; RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.06; P = .41), and drinkers who drank 25 to 44 g per day (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.96-1.14; P = .28). There was a significantly increased risk among drinkers who drank 45 to 64 g per day (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.32; P < .001) and 65 or more grams (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.23-1.47; P < .001)." (emphasis mine)

Note: I do not work for the marijuana industry, and I love a glass of wine. So this really was a bummer for me.

I agree with your conclusions, but I'll point out the NYT did no study. They just reported what other people's studies found, and more importantly, they reported that the pre-Trump Surgeon General found the research concerning, was pulling the government position that booze can be heart healthy and was planning on issuing tobacco style warnings for booze bottles.

So, literally, the authority figure that we, as a nation, have for helping us examine the results of medical research and implement policies back these findings.

The booze industry does not.

PP. No, the NYT did no study. (Did I suggest somewhere that they did?) I just happened to hear about the study on their Daily podcast when it came out last year -- I mentioned that episode in case anyone wanted to listen as a starting point. I'll probably still have a glass of wine a night or two a week, for the same reason that I take road trips and sometimes eat ice cream. Life is for living, too, not just managing risk.

[Anonymous]

Because *gestures around at the dumpster fire the world is in at the moment*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because *gestures around at the dumpster fire the world is in at the moment*

I get that, alcohol is getting you through life's difficulties. That is a valid reason. However, the people who claim they consume alcohol because it's good for health, are lying to themselves.

[Anonymous]

Once I realized I have less total fun when I drink than when I don’t drink, I stopped.