I quit drinking and have experienced no discernable benefit

Anonymous
Can someone better versed in the literature than I please tell me how to interpret this 2023 Lancet paper, “Health and cancer risks associated with low levels of alcohol consumption,” if not as evidence that light to moderate drinking appears to be causative for some cancers? Literally, it says:

“Alcohol, as classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, is a toxic, psychoactive, and dependence-producing substance and a Group 1 carcinogen that is causally linked to seven types of cancer, including oesophagus, liver, colorectal, and breast cancers. Alcohol consumptions is associated with 740 000 new cancer cases each year globally.”

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(22)00317-6/fulltext

I’m willing to accept that I’m missing something but I’d love to know what.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I agree PP. the people calling this a conspiracy are simply addicted to alcohol and are afraid of evolving.


People believed the truth about cigarettes because it comported with their lived experiences - smoke cigarettes and you DO see how it impacts your health - directly. There are literally no long-term smokers who look good, are active, healthy, disease free.

But wine is different. My aunt drinks a bottle of wine a night, and has for TWENTY years. She’s almost 70. No health problems, no cancer, looks really good for her age. She eats well and exercises every day. Great lifestyle.



Your aunt is an alcoholic with a physiological dependency on alcohol. If she were to suddenly stop drinking, she will experience withdrawal, which is no fun at all.

This moment in time does remind me of smoking. Everyone knew smoking was bad for them - just like alcohol - but they did it anyway because it was a social norm. A very high percentage of people smoked from roughly 1940 to 2000. And then suddenly, smoking was deemed trashy and people stopped smoking cigarettes and young people didn't pick it up. I think a similar moment is happening with alcohol. People are increasingly aware that alcohol is a sledgehammer to every organ in their body. It's sugar and empty calories and it takes a long time to recover, particularly as you get older. More and more people are deciding the buzz isn't worth the costs - whether its health or the behavioral issues that sometimes arise with drinking.

But I don't think people are necessarily embracing 100 percent sobriety. It's not a coincidence that the turn away from alcohol is happening just as cannabis is becoming widely available and socially acceptable. Instead of drinks at the end of the day, people are taking a gummy instead. California sober will increasingly become the norm, particularly among the young. Plus bars are really expensive these days. A gummy costs approximately two dollars. Whereas two mixed drinks at a bar can easily run 40 dollars with tip. The trend lines are very clear. Young people can't afford to drink. And older people are increasingly concerned about their health.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This snobby no alcohol trend began out West - tech hubs Seattle and Silicon Valley. But you also have Mormon hub Utah right there. “Wholesome” and aspirational Mormon content viral on social media last few years.


So interesting because it seems more and more Mormons have gone ALL IN on sugar (e.g. Crumbl) and caffeine (e.g. all the Mormon soda shops).



They always have been! They swill morning dew like water
Anonymous
OP I drink for two months of the year (more than 2 drinks). It used to be wine but now it is bloody Mary’s.
I too thought when I went to this life style I would lose 10lb from alcohol alone. It did not work that way for me either.
It did quickly lower my blood pressure I noticed.
For a few years I have been very into exercise and some old people body building competitions.
When I come off my two months of drinking it takes about 3-4 weeks for my body to reset, bp to drop, and “fog” of alcohol brain.
Anonymous
Yeah I quit smoking and felt no physical difference. Actually back then (on my 20s) I was running 20 miles a week. Socially though fewer people are grossed out by me.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Can someone better versed in the literature than I please tell me how to interpret this 2023 Lancet paper, “Health and cancer risks associated with low levels of alcohol consumption,” if not as evidence that light to moderate drinking appears to be causative for some cancers? Literally, it says:

“Alcohol, as classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, is a toxic, psychoactive, and dependence-producing substance and a Group 1 carcinogen that is causally linked to seven types of cancer, including oesophagus, liver, colorectal, and breast cancers. Alcohol consumptions is associated with 740 000 new cancer cases each year globally.”

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(22)00317-6/fulltext

I’m willing to accept that I’m missing something but I’d love to know what.


I don’t think anyone sensible denies higher risk cancer of some cancers. The effect from light drinking is not huge. That 740,000 cases needs to be put in the context of 8 billion people, some of whom are heavy drinkers. And there are also (probably) benefits in terms of stroke and other cardiovascular diseases from light drinking that may (partially) offset the risks.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Can someone better versed in the literature than I please tell me how to interpret this 2023 Lancet paper, “Health and cancer risks associated with low levels of alcohol consumption,” if not as evidence that light to moderate drinking appears to be causative for some cancers? Literally, it says:

“Alcohol, as classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, is a toxic, psychoactive, and dependence-producing substance and a Group 1 carcinogen that is causally linked to seven types of cancer, including oesophagus, liver, colorectal, and breast cancers. Alcohol consumptions is associated with 740 000 new cancer cases each year globally.”

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(22)00317-6/fulltext

I’m willing to accept that I’m missing something but I’d love to know what.


I don’t think anyone sensible denies higher risk cancer of some cancers. The effect from light drinking is not huge. That 740,000 cases needs to be put in the context of 8 billion people, some of whom are heavy drinkers. And there are also (probably) benefits in terms of stroke and other cardiovascular diseases from light drinking that may (partially) offset the risks.


Well, to be fair a pp did say “Smoking was proven to directly cause cancer. Moderate drinking has not been so definitevely. You have to read the studies with just a tiny bit of care to understand this. But you read shallow articles and get your information from DCUM and Instagram and simply don't understand the facts.”
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Same. I quit drinking too (with the help of naltrexone, which has been incredibly helpful. More doctors should do more to help patients. No one even knows about it).

I will say that not only do I not see any benefits, my life is also less enjoyable now. After a long day with the kids, there's nothing to look forward to when they go to bed. But I do plan on sticking with it. I don't think I could get more Nal out of my doctor and I don't think I could have stopped without it. I tried many times over the years.


Really, why? What’s the point of long life if you’re not enjoying it? I’d rather have a slightly shorter life that’s fun, than a longer one with few pleasures.


You really “enjoy” and “cherish” alcohol every time you drink it? I doubt that. In hindsight I’d say most of my drinking was just a waste. It didn’t make the dinner or a trip or sitting on the couch watching a ball game or movie with my husband any better. The wines weren’t memorable. Any brief buzz didn’t create some super fun night. It was just pointless empty calories.


Who are you quoting? I’m the PP you’re responding to and I didn’t use the word cherish. Don’t put words in my mouth. All it does is cheapen and invalidate your argument.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:OP I drink for two months of the year (more than 2 drinks). It used to be wine but now it is bloody Mary’s.
I too thought when I went to this life style I would lose 10lb from alcohol alone. It did not work that way for me either.
It did quickly lower my blood pressure I noticed.
For a few years I have been very into exercise and some old people body building competitions.
When I come off my two months of drinking it takes about 3-4 weeks for my body to reset, bp to drop, and “fog” of alcohol brain.


This is bizarre. For 2 months a year you drink bloody marys, then you don't drink the rest of the year?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I agree PP. the people calling this a conspiracy are simply addicted to alcohol and are afraid of evolving.


People believed the truth about cigarettes because it comported with their lived experiences - smoke cigarettes and you DO see how it impacts your health - directly. There are literally no long-term smokers who look good, are active, healthy, disease free.

But wine is different. My aunt drinks a bottle of wine a night, and has for TWENTY years. She’s almost 70. No health problems, no cancer, looks really good for her age. She eats well and exercises every day. Great lifestyle.



Your aunt is an alcoholic with a physiological dependency on alcohol. If she were to suddenly stop drinking, she will experience withdrawal, which is no fun at all.

This moment in time does remind me of smoking. Everyone knew smoking was bad for them - just like alcohol - but they did it anyway because it was a social norm. A very high percentage of people smoked from roughly 1940 to 2000. And then suddenly, smoking was deemed trashy and people stopped smoking cigarettes and young people didn't pick it up. I think a similar moment is happening with alcohol. People are increasingly aware that alcohol is a sledgehammer to every organ in their body. It's sugar and empty calories and it takes a long time to recover, particularly as you get older. More and more people are deciding the buzz isn't worth the costs - whether its health or the behavioral issues that sometimes arise with drinking.

But I don't think people are necessarily embracing 100 percent sobriety. It's not a coincidence that the turn away from alcohol is happening just as cannabis is becoming widely available and socially acceptable. Instead of drinks at the end of the day, people are taking a gummy instead. California sober will increasingly become the norm, particularly among the young. Plus bars are really expensive these days. A gummy costs approximately two dollars. Whereas two mixed drinks at a bar can easily run 40 dollars with tip. The trend lines are very clear. Young people can't afford to drink. And older people are increasingly concerned about their health.


No, this is simply an American bugbear. I am in Europe right now and everyone is drinking wine, lunch and dinner, young and old. I sat next to a table of 70 year olds knocking back wine at lunch yesterday.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:We have long known that processed meat - bacon, sausage, pepperoni, as well as red meat is a carcinogen and it has been recognized as such and due to the industry you never ever hear about avoiding it on a regular basis whereas right now, huge alcohol is the devil message everywhere.


What's your gut instinct about why the focus is alcohol now vs red meat, processed food, environmental factors, etc?


DP here. It’s two things: the cannabis lobby and further testing by government to see how messaging works to change society. Will enough of society stop thinking critically and follow the herd if the right messaging is repeated over and over? For the last year, the answer was largely yes, but I think people are finally starting to wake up.


+1 I'm really starting to buy into the conspiracy theory that the cannabis lobby is behind the recent negative messaging around alcohol. Even in DCUM you had a post immediately after the surgeon general's recommendation asking for recommendations of gummies or a THC drink to replace alcohol.


You think the cannabis lobby is more powerful than the booze lobby? Come on.


OP here. You've summarized my take. Something seems off-normal and coordinated about the campaign to tell us that our skin, sleep, and spirit will improve with no alcohol. And it also seems that there's a lot of cannabis ads. But I would be surprised if cannabis is better organized than alcohol. Maybe cannabis is being bought up by powerful companies? On its face, it doesn't seem like this is the likely reason for all of this.


There is simply something going on here. In the NYT This Morning email there was a link to yet ANOTHER article about cutting back on alcohol. After just running one on Monday. One commenter on this article--because again, at least a few are starting to ask why, NYT--one person said they think it's Biden's last-ditch effort to make some kind of difference. That may be a stretch, and it's pretty pathetic. But something is up. This just doesn't make sense. Article after article, with nothing new.


I think the main thing that’s going on is that they reassessed the study/studies that suggested wine had any health benefits — turns out the benefits were relative only; wine drinkers weren’t being compared to non-drinkers, only to drinkers of hard liquors. Then the more they looked at the data using real controls, the worse it seemed.

Did people assume “something was up” when the media started discussing the harms of cigarettes, I wonder? It feels comparable — something that most of us do, that humans have done forever, that’s a source of real pleasure, that we assume probably isn’t great but can’t be *that* bad. If anyone remembers the anti-smoking shift, I’d be curious if the conversation/skepticism feels similar.


None of what you say is accurate. That's the problem. It's so easy for the government and media to fear-monger because they know they majority of people do not or are not able to understand the science behind it. Read the studies. Smoking was proven to directly cause cancer. Moderate drinking has not been so definitevely. You have to read the studies with just a tiny bit of care to understand this. But you read shallow articles and get your information from DCUM and Instagram and simply don't understand the facts.


I think it’s all these apps the techies use. We are all quickly able to see alcohol’s impact on heart rate, sleep, calories, weight, etc.

Plus everyone uses social media and zoom, so your weight and puffy face has more permanency than ever before.

Plus everyone uses those workout apps which share all of your physical activities.

It’s become really sad and cringe, for lack of a better word, to be seen as some lazy and puffy boozer. Eating cleanly. Living cleanly. Walking around in form-fitting workout clothes and yoga pants. Hiking.

Boozing just isn’t trendy and cool anymore. Boozing after work and happy hours are seen as like a boomer thing. Having lots of will-power to be a teetotaler is cool now.
Anonymous
Beer, wine and spirits are for dumb boomers.

Ambitious, smart and competitive young professionals are into adderall, zyn and testosterone replacement therapy.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Can someone better versed in the literature than I please tell me how to interpret this 2023 Lancet paper, “Health and cancer risks associated with low levels of alcohol consumption,” if not as evidence that light to moderate drinking appears to be causative for some cancers? Literally, it says:

“Alcohol, as classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, is a toxic, psychoactive, and dependence-producing substance and a Group 1 carcinogen that is causally linked to seven types of cancer, including oesophagus, liver, colorectal, and breast cancers. Alcohol consumptions is associated with 740 000 new cancer cases each year globally.”

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(22)00317-6/fulltext

I’m willing to accept that I’m missing something but I’d love to know what.


Well, you only read the conclusion and didn’t look at the data yourself. Instead of cutting and pasting the conclusion, paste the data that proves its causative and not correlative. Furthermore, even if it’s causative, I notice what you paste doesn’t show what it causes. And what that is, is a small increase in one’s risk. When the risk is already under .40 for even the most common, a slight increase in risk still doesn’t lead to a cancer warning. But again, read the data, not the opinions.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:OP I drink for two months of the year (more than 2 drinks). It used to be wine but now it is bloody Mary’s.
I too thought when I went to this life style I would lose 10lb from alcohol alone. It did not work that way for me either.
It did quickly lower my blood pressure I noticed.
For a few years I have been very into exercise and some old people body building competitions.
When I come off my two months of drinking it takes about 3-4 weeks for my body to reset, bp to drop, and “fog” of alcohol brain.


This is bizarre. For 2 months a year you drink bloody marys, then you don't drink the rest of the year?


Yes, 10 months out of the year I am in training. I probably only drink a few times a week in my off months but it is just bloody Mary’s and occasionally a beer or glass of wine.

Bloody Mary is one of the “healthiest” drinks actually. Not as good as vodka tonic or something but I like bloody Mary’s more and am going to indulge in my off time.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:We have long known that processed meat - bacon, sausage, pepperoni, as well as red meat is a carcinogen and it has been recognized as such and due to the industry you never ever hear about avoiding it on a regular basis whereas right now, huge alcohol is the devil message everywhere.


What's your gut instinct about why the focus is alcohol now vs red meat, processed food, environmental factors, etc?


DP here. It’s two things: the cannabis lobby and further testing by government to see how messaging works to change society. Will enough of society stop thinking critically and follow the herd if the right messaging is repeated over and over? For the last year, the answer was largely yes, but I think people are finally starting to wake up.


+1 I'm really starting to buy into the conspiracy theory that the cannabis lobby is behind the recent negative messaging around alcohol. Even in DCUM you had a post immediately after the surgeon general's recommendation asking for recommendations of gummies or a THC drink to replace alcohol.


You think the cannabis lobby is more powerful than the booze lobby? Come on.


OP here. You've summarized my take. Something seems off-normal and coordinated about the campaign to tell us that our skin, sleep, and spirit will improve with no alcohol. And it also seems that there's a lot of cannabis ads. But I would be surprised if cannabis is better organized than alcohol. Maybe cannabis is being bought up by powerful companies? On its face, it doesn't seem like this is the likely reason for all of this.


There is simply something going on here. In the NYT This Morning email there was a link to yet ANOTHER article about cutting back on alcohol. After just running one on Monday. One commenter on this article--because again, at least a few are starting to ask why, NYT--one person said they think it's Biden's last-ditch effort to make some kind of difference. That may be a stretch, and it's pretty pathetic. But something is up. This just doesn't make sense. Article after article, with nothing new.


I think the main thing that’s going on is that they reassessed the study/studies that suggested wine had any health benefits — turns out the benefits were relative only; wine drinkers weren’t being compared to non-drinkers, only to drinkers of hard liquors. Then the more they looked at the data using real controls, the worse it seemed.

Did people assume “something was up” when the media started discussing the harms of cigarettes, I wonder? It feels comparable — something that most of us do, that humans have done forever, that’s a source of real pleasure, that we assume probably isn’t great but can’t be *that* bad. If anyone remembers the anti-smoking shift, I’d be curious if the conversation/skepticism feels similar.


None of what you say is accurate. That's the problem. It's so easy for the government and media to fear-monger because they know they majority of people do not or are not able to understand the science behind it. Read the studies. Smoking was proven to directly cause cancer. Moderate drinking has not been so definitevely. You have to read the studies with just a tiny bit of care to understand this. But you read shallow articles and get your information from DCUM and Instagram and simply don't understand the facts.


I think it’s all these apps the techies use. We are all quickly able to see alcohol’s impact on heart rate, sleep, calories, weight, etc.

Plus everyone uses social media and zoom, so your weight and puffy face has more permanency than ever before.

Plus everyone uses those workout apps which share all of your physical activities.

It’s become really sad and cringe, for lack of a better word, to be seen as some lazy and puffy boozer. Eating cleanly. Living cleanly. Walking around in form-fitting workout clothes and yoga pants. Hiking.

Boozing just isn’t trendy and cool anymore. Boozing after work and happy hours are seen as like a boomer thing. Having lots of will-power to be a teetotaler is cool now.


No matter how many times you repeat this, it doesn’t take away from the fact that the world’s bars in large urban centers are packed with young, attractive people, drinking alcohol.
post reply Forum Index » Off-Topic
Message Quick Reply
Go to: