Why do you drink alcohol?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many thanks to PP who cited the meta-analysis linked above. It is refreshing to be able to discuss based on refereed results.

From the (corrected version of the) refereed study cited above, and yes, I am cherry picking a single sentence:

"In the fully adjusted model, there was a nonsignificantly increased risk of all-cause mortality among drinkers who drank 25 to 44 g per day (RR, 1.05; P = .28)..."

One could rephrase that direct quote - without changing the meaning - as:

"In the fully adjusted model, there was no significant increased risk of all-cause mortality among drinkers who drank 25 to 44 gper day (..."

In turn, that could be phrased - without changing the meaning - as:

"Drinkers who drank 25g to 44g per day did not have significant increase in all-cause mortality." (Compared with lifetime non-drinkers.)

PP who cited the paper said that no net benefit exists from moderate drinking. The cited refereed paper indeed supports that statement from PP.

The cherry-picked sentence from that paper supports the claim that very moderate drinking does not significantly increase all-cause mortality. This means that being a very moderate drinker and a lifetime non-drinker statistically have the same risks (i.e., no significant difference in all-cause mortality risks).

Now, the cited paper also said that white males were over-represented in the original studies included in the meta-analysis. This is entirely plausible, simply because fewer medical studies are done outside US, Canada, and Europe than are done in those areas. Further, at least in the US it often is more difficult to recruit medical study participants from ethnic minorities. Studies with large populations are both more difficult and more expensive to execute, especially when trying to get a large enough sample of participants from ethnic minorities. So the original studies might (i.e., unclear; needs more research; not sure) have more validity for white males. In this case, I believe white is being used as a synonym for European ancestry.

So very moderate drinking seems fine, according to the cited study.

I’m the PP. The only thing I’d add is that for women specifically, 25g-44g/daily isn’t nonsignificant — for women, significant impact on all-cause mortality begins after 25g/daily. Otherwise, agree.

Who is measuring ANYTHING, let alone booze, in grams?

The vast majority of people in the world and every scientist.

If you want people to grasp what amounts you're talking about, you have to use measurements they are familiar with.

a glass of wine 150 grams. so 25 grams is a couple sips.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many thanks to PP who cited the meta-analysis linked above. It is refreshing to be able to discuss based on refereed results.

From the (corrected version of the) refereed study cited above, and yes, I am cherry picking a single sentence:

"In the fully adjusted model, there was a nonsignificantly increased risk of all-cause mortality among drinkers who drank 25 to 44 g per day (RR, 1.05; P = .28)..."

One could rephrase that direct quote - without changing the meaning - as:

"In the fully adjusted model, there was no significant increased risk of all-cause mortality among drinkers who drank 25 to 44 gper day (..."

In turn, that could be phrased - without changing the meaning - as:

"Drinkers who drank 25g to 44g per day did not have significant increase in all-cause mortality." (Compared with lifetime non-drinkers.)

PP who cited the paper said that no net benefit exists from moderate drinking. The cited refereed paper indeed supports that statement from PP.

The cherry-picked sentence from that paper supports the claim that very moderate drinking does not significantly increase all-cause mortality. This means that being a very moderate drinker and a lifetime non-drinker statistically have the same risks (i.e., no significant difference in all-cause mortality risks).

Now, the cited paper also said that white males were over-represented in the original studies included in the meta-analysis. This is entirely plausible, simply because fewer medical studies are done outside US, Canada, and Europe than are done in those areas. Further, at least in the US it often is more difficult to recruit medical study participants from ethnic minorities. Studies with large populations are both more difficult and more expensive to execute, especially when trying to get a large enough sample of participants from ethnic minorities. So the original studies might (i.e., unclear; needs more research; not sure) have more validity for white males. In this case, I believe white is being used as a synonym for European ancestry.

So very moderate drinking seems fine, according to the cited study.

I’m the PP. The only thing I’d add is that for women specifically, 25g-44g/daily isn’t nonsignificant — for women, significant impact on all-cause mortality begins after 25g/daily. Otherwise, agree.

Who is measuring ANYTHING, let alone booze, in grams?

The vast majority of people in the world and every scientist.

If you want people to grasp what amounts you're talking about, you have to use measurements they are familiar with.

I'm very familiar with it. I'm not the one who posted it, but have you ever taken even a HS science class?

So if someone asked you to pour 12 grams of alcohol, you could do this without any measuring equipment?

Why do you keep moving the goalposts? Do you not use a measuring cup when you cook?

But yes, I could. I've been using the metric system my whole life. However, if you haven't, you'd only need to measure it once to get a pretty good idea how much you need to pour every other time.

No, I know what 2 cups of flour looks like, etc. Very few good cooks need measuring spoons. No one measures their alcohol, so it's pointless to prattle on about "such and such grams is too much."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many thanks to PP who cited the meta-analysis linked above. It is refreshing to be able to discuss based on refereed results.

From the (corrected version of the) refereed study cited above, and yes, I am cherry picking a single sentence:

"In the fully adjusted model, there was a nonsignificantly increased risk of all-cause mortality among drinkers who drank 25 to 44 g per day (RR, 1.05; P = .28)..."

One could rephrase that direct quote - without changing the meaning - as:

"In the fully adjusted model, there was no significant increased risk of all-cause mortality among drinkers who drank 25 to 44 gper day (..."

In turn, that could be phrased - without changing the meaning - as:

"Drinkers who drank 25g to 44g per day did not have significant increase in all-cause mortality." (Compared with lifetime non-drinkers.)

PP who cited the paper said that no net benefit exists from moderate drinking. The cited refereed paper indeed supports that statement from PP.

The cherry-picked sentence from that paper supports the claim that very moderate drinking does not significantly increase all-cause mortality. This means that being a very moderate drinker and a lifetime non-drinker statistically have the same risks (i.e., no significant difference in all-cause mortality risks).

Now, the cited paper also said that white males were over-represented in the original studies included in the meta-analysis. This is entirely plausible, simply because fewer medical studies are done outside US, Canada, and Europe than are done in those areas. Further, at least in the US it often is more difficult to recruit medical study participants from ethnic minorities. Studies with large populations are both more difficult and more expensive to execute, especially when trying to get a large enough sample of participants from ethnic minorities. So the original studies might (i.e., unclear; needs more research; not sure) have more validity for white males. In this case, I believe white is being used as a synonym for European ancestry.

So very moderate drinking seems fine, according to the cited study.

I’m the PP. The only thing I’d add is that for women specifically, 25g-44g/daily isn’t nonsignificant — for women, significant impact on all-cause mortality begins after 25g/daily. Otherwise, agree.

Who is measuring ANYTHING, let alone booze, in grams?

The vast majority of people in the world and every scientist.

If you want people to grasp what amounts you're talking about, you have to use measurements they are familiar with.

a glass of wine 150 grams. so 25 grams is a couple sips.

Not 150 grams of alcohol though - that’s why abv matters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many thanks to PP who cited the meta-analysis linked above. It is refreshing to be able to discuss based on refereed results.

From the (corrected version of the) refereed study cited above, and yes, I am cherry picking a single sentence:

"In the fully adjusted model, there was a nonsignificantly increased risk of all-cause mortality among drinkers who drank 25 to 44 g per day (RR, 1.05; P = .28)..."

One could rephrase that direct quote - without changing the meaning - as:

"In the fully adjusted model, there was no significant increased risk of all-cause mortality among drinkers who drank 25 to 44 gper day (..."

In turn, that could be phrased - without changing the meaning - as:

"Drinkers who drank 25g to 44g per day did not have significant increase in all-cause mortality." (Compared with lifetime non-drinkers.)

PP who cited the paper said that no net benefit exists from moderate drinking. The cited refereed paper indeed supports that statement from PP.

The cherry-picked sentence from that paper supports the claim that very moderate drinking does not significantly increase all-cause mortality. This means that being a very moderate drinker and a lifetime non-drinker statistically have the same risks (i.e., no significant difference in all-cause mortality risks).

Now, the cited paper also said that white males were over-represented in the original studies included in the meta-analysis. This is entirely plausible, simply because fewer medical studies are done outside US, Canada, and Europe than are done in those areas. Further, at least in the US it often is more difficult to recruit medical study participants from ethnic minorities. Studies with large populations are both more difficult and more expensive to execute, especially when trying to get a large enough sample of participants from ethnic minorities. So the original studies might (i.e., unclear; needs more research; not sure) have more validity for white males. In this case, I believe white is being used as a synonym for European ancestry.

So very moderate drinking seems fine, according to the cited study.

I’m the PP. The only thing I’d add is that for women specifically, 25g-44g/daily isn’t nonsignificant — for women, significant impact on all-cause mortality begins after 25g/daily. Otherwise, agree.

Who is measuring ANYTHING, let alone booze, in grams?

The vast majority of people in the world and every scientist.

If you want people to grasp what amounts you're talking about, you have to use measurements they are familiar with.

I'm very familiar with it. I'm not the one who posted it, but have you ever taken even a HS science class?

So if someone asked you to pour 12 grams of alcohol, you could do this without any measuring equipment?

Why do you keep moving the goalposts? Do you not use a measuring cup when you cook?

But yes, I could. I've been using the metric system my whole life. However, if you haven't, you'd only need to measure it once to get a pretty good idea how much you need to pour every other time.

No, I know what 2 cups of flour looks like, etc. Very few good cooks need measuring spoons. No one measures their alcohol, so it's pointless to prattle on about "such and such grams is too much."

People are discussing a specific scientific meta analysis in the specific terms of that study. Call it pointless prattle if you wish. But… you probably have Google. You can look it up. Or not. The info is out there.

Even if people wanted to do all your homework for you, none of us know what you drink, or from what containers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many thanks to PP who cited the meta-analysis linked above. It is refreshing to be able to discuss based on refereed results.

From the (corrected version of the) refereed study cited above, and yes, I am cherry picking a single sentence:

"In the fully adjusted model, there was a nonsignificantly increased risk of all-cause mortality among drinkers who drank 25 to 44 g per day (RR, 1.05; P = .28)..."

One could rephrase that direct quote - without changing the meaning - as:

"In the fully adjusted model, there was no significant increased risk of all-cause mortality among drinkers who drank 25 to 44 gper day (..."

In turn, that could be phrased - without changing the meaning - as:

"Drinkers who drank 25g to 44g per day did not have significant increase in all-cause mortality." (Compared with lifetime non-drinkers.)

PP who cited the paper said that no net benefit exists from moderate drinking. The cited refereed paper indeed supports that statement from PP.

The cherry-picked sentence from that paper supports the claim that very moderate drinking does not significantly increase all-cause mortality. This means that being a very moderate drinker and a lifetime non-drinker statistically have the same risks (i.e., no significant difference in all-cause mortality risks).

Now, the cited paper also said that white males were over-represented in the original studies included in the meta-analysis. This is entirely plausible, simply because fewer medical studies are done outside US, Canada, and Europe than are done in those areas. Further, at least in the US it often is more difficult to recruit medical study participants from ethnic minorities. Studies with large populations are both more difficult and more expensive to execute, especially when trying to get a large enough sample of participants from ethnic minorities. So the original studies might (i.e., unclear; needs more research; not sure) have more validity for white males. In this case, I believe white is being used as a synonym for European ancestry.

So very moderate drinking seems fine, according to the cited study.

I’m the PP. The only thing I’d add is that for women specifically, 25g-44g/daily isn’t nonsignificant — for women, significant impact on all-cause mortality begins after 25g/daily. Otherwise, agree.

Who is measuring ANYTHING, let alone booze, in grams?

The vast majority of people in the world and every scientist.

If you want people to grasp what amounts you're talking about, you have to use measurements they are familiar with.

I'm very familiar with it. I'm not the one who posted it, but have you ever taken even a HS science class?

So if someone asked you to pour 12 grams of alcohol, you could do this without any measuring equipment?

Why do you keep moving the goalposts? Do you not use a measuring cup when you cook?

But yes, I could. I've been using the metric system my whole life. However, if you haven't, you'd only need to measure it once to get a pretty good idea how much you need to pour every other time.

No, I know what 2 cups of flour looks like, etc. Very few good cooks need measuring spoons. No one measures their alcohol, so it's pointless to prattle on about "such and such grams is too much."

So it's not impossible for you to fathom that some of us know how to measure in grams because we've been doing it our whole lives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many thanks to PP who cited the meta-analysis linked above. It is refreshing to be able to discuss based on refereed results.

From the (corrected version of the) refereed study cited above, and yes, I am cherry picking a single sentence:

"In the fully adjusted model, there was a nonsignificantly increased risk of all-cause mortality among drinkers who drank 25 to 44 g per day (RR, 1.05; P = .28)..."

One could rephrase that direct quote - without changing the meaning - as:

"In the fully adjusted model, there was no significant increased risk of all-cause mortality among drinkers who drank 25 to 44 gper day (..."

In turn, that could be phrased - without changing the meaning - as:

"Drinkers who drank 25g to 44g per day did not have significant increase in all-cause mortality." (Compared with lifetime non-drinkers.)

PP who cited the paper said that no net benefit exists from moderate drinking. The cited refereed paper indeed supports that statement from PP.

The cherry-picked sentence from that paper supports the claim that very moderate drinking does not significantly increase all-cause mortality. This means that being a very moderate drinker and a lifetime non-drinker statistically have the same risks (i.e., no significant difference in all-cause mortality risks).

Now, the cited paper also said that white males were over-represented in the original studies included in the meta-analysis. This is entirely plausible, simply because fewer medical studies are done outside US, Canada, and Europe than are done in those areas. Further, at least in the US it often is more difficult to recruit medical study participants from ethnic minorities. Studies with large populations are both more difficult and more expensive to execute, especially when trying to get a large enough sample of participants from ethnic minorities. So the original studies might (i.e., unclear; needs more research; not sure) have more validity for white males. In this case, I believe white is being used as a synonym for European ancestry.

So very moderate drinking seems fine, according to the cited study.

I’m the PP. The only thing I’d add is that for women specifically, 25g-44g/daily isn’t nonsignificant — for women, significant impact on all-cause mortality begins after 25g/daily. Otherwise, agree.

Who is measuring ANYTHING, let alone booze, in grams?

The vast majority of people in the world and every scientist.

If you want people to grasp what amounts you're talking about, you have to use measurements they are familiar with.

I'm very familiar with it. I'm not the one who posted it, but have you ever taken even a HS science class?

So if someone asked you to pour 12 grams of alcohol, you could do this without any measuring equipment?

Why do you keep moving the goalposts? Do you not use a measuring cup when you cook?

But yes, I could. I've been using the metric system my whole life. However, if you haven't, you'd only need to measure it once to get a pretty good idea how much you need to pour every other time.

No, I know what 2 cups of flour looks like, etc. Very few good cooks need measuring spoons. No one measures their alcohol, so it's pointless to prattle on about "such and such grams is too much."

So it's not impossible for you to fathom that some of us know how to measure in grams because we've been doing it our whole lives?

You have measured your alcohol consumption in grams your whole life? Bullshit.

[Anonymous]

To a certain degree people know how to measure their alcohol intake, they just don't realize the behind the scenes math that has been there the whole time. We use terms like ABV (alcohol by volume) all the time. This is a simple measurement of grams alcohol per unit volume, typically in things like milliliters or ounces.

You may have even heard of 1 12 oz 5% beer is the equivalent of 5oz of a 12% wine or 1.5oz of an 80 proof spirit (40% ABV). Why do we use those numbers? Well simple math shows they all come to the same amount of alcohol, 14g. There are 14 grams of alcohol in a standard drink. If the size is larger, or the percent alcohol different, then you will have more or less than 1 'drink unit'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many thanks to PP who cited the meta-analysis linked above. It is refreshing to be able to discuss based on refereed results.

From the (corrected version of the) refereed study cited above, and yes, I am cherry picking a single sentence:

"In the fully adjusted model, there was a nonsignificantly increased risk of all-cause mortality among drinkers who drank 25 to 44 g per day (RR, 1.05; P = .28)..."

One could rephrase that direct quote - without changing the meaning - as:

"In the fully adjusted model, there was no significant increased risk of all-cause mortality among drinkers who drank 25 to 44 gper day (..."

In turn, that could be phrased - without changing the meaning - as:

"Drinkers who drank 25g to 44g per day did not have significant increase in all-cause mortality." (Compared with lifetime non-drinkers.)

PP who cited the paper said that no net benefit exists from moderate drinking. The cited refereed paper indeed supports that statement from PP.

The cherry-picked sentence from that paper supports the claim that very moderate drinking does not significantly increase all-cause mortality. This means that being a very moderate drinker and a lifetime non-drinker statistically have the same risks (i.e., no significant difference in all-cause mortality risks).

Now, the cited paper also said that white males were over-represented in the original studies included in the meta-analysis. This is entirely plausible, simply because fewer medical studies are done outside US, Canada, and Europe than are done in those areas. Further, at least in the US it often is more difficult to recruit medical study participants from ethnic minorities. Studies with large populations are both more difficult and more expensive to execute, especially when trying to get a large enough sample of participants from ethnic minorities. So the original studies might (i.e., unclear; needs more research; not sure) have more validity for white males. In this case, I believe white is being used as a synonym for European ancestry.

So very moderate drinking seems fine, according to the cited study.

I’m the PP. The only thing I’d add is that for women specifically, 25g-44g/daily isn’t nonsignificant — for women, significant impact on all-cause mortality begins after 25g/daily. Otherwise, agree.

Who is measuring ANYTHING, let alone booze, in grams?

The vast majority of people in the world and every scientist.

If you want people to grasp what amounts you're talking about, you have to use measurements they are familiar with.

I'm very familiar with it. I'm not the one who posted it, but have you ever taken even a HS science class?

So if someone asked you to pour 12 grams of alcohol, you could do this without any measuring equipment?

Why do you keep moving the goalposts? Do you not use a measuring cup when you cook?

But yes, I could. I've been using the metric system my whole life. However, if you haven't, you'd only need to measure it once to get a pretty good idea how much you need to pour every other time.

No, I know what 2 cups of flour looks like, etc. Very few good cooks need measuring spoons. No one measures their alcohol, so it's pointless to prattle on about "such and such grams is too much."

So it's not impossible for you to fathom that some of us know how to measure in grams because we've been doing it our whole lives?

You have measured your alcohol consumption in grams your whole life? Bullshit.

Never said that. You're either too dumb or just plain dishonest.

Either way, I find you tiresome and boring.

[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?

Yes, because I don’t worry about dying. When I go, I’ll be fine with it because I had a good time drinking while my life lasted!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, because I don’t worry about dying. When I go, I’ll be fine with it because I had a good time drinking while my life lasted!

+1! I can’t imagine not drinking because I’m afraid of Parkinson’s. WTF. You can get Parkinson’s even without drinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many thanks to PP who cited the meta-analysis linked above. It is refreshing to be able to discuss based on refereed results.

From the (corrected version of the) refereed study cited above, and yes, I am cherry picking a single sentence:

"In the fully adjusted model, there was a nonsignificantly increased risk of all-cause mortality among drinkers who drank 25 to 44 g per day (RR, 1.05; P = .28)..."

One could rephrase that direct quote - without changing the meaning - as:

"In the fully adjusted model, there was no significant increased risk of all-cause mortality among drinkers who drank 25 to 44 gper day (..."

In turn, that could be phrased - without changing the meaning - as:

"Drinkers who drank 25g to 44g per day did not have significant increase in all-cause mortality." (Compared with lifetime non-drinkers.)

PP who cited the paper said that no net benefit exists from moderate drinking. The cited refereed paper indeed supports that statement from PP.

The cherry-picked sentence from that paper supports the claim that very moderate drinking does not significantly increase all-cause mortality. This means that being a very moderate drinker and a lifetime non-drinker statistically have the same risks (i.e., no significant difference in all-cause mortality risks).

Now, the cited paper also said that white males were over-represented in the original studies included in the meta-analysis. This is entirely plausible, simply because fewer medical studies are done outside US, Canada, and Europe than are done in those areas. Further, at least in the US it often is more difficult to recruit medical study participants from ethnic minorities. Studies with large populations are both more difficult and more expensive to execute, especially when trying to get a large enough sample of participants from ethnic minorities. So the original studies might (i.e., unclear; needs more research; not sure) have more validity for white males. In this case, I believe white is being used as a synonym for European ancestry.

So very moderate drinking seems fine, according to the cited study.

I’m the PP. The only thing I’d add is that for women specifically, 25g-44g/daily isn’t nonsignificant — for women, significant impact on all-cause mortality begins after 25g/daily. Otherwise, agree.

Who is measuring ANYTHING, let alone booze, in grams?

The vast majority of people in the world and every scientist.

If you want people to grasp what amounts you're talking about, you have to use measurements they are familiar with.

I'm very familiar with it. I'm not the one who posted it, but have you ever taken even a HS science class?

So if someone asked you to pour 12 grams of alcohol, you could do this without any measuring equipment?

Why do you keep moving the goalposts? Do you not use a measuring cup when you cook?

But yes, I could. I've been using the metric system my whole life. However, if you haven't, you'd only need to measure it once to get a pretty good idea how much you need to pour every other time.

No, I know what 2 cups of flour looks like, etc. Very few good cooks need measuring spoons. No one measures their alcohol, so it's pointless to prattle on about "such and such grams is too much."

So it's not impossible for you to fathom that some of us know how to measure in grams because we've been doing it our whole lives?

You have measured your alcohol consumption in grams your whole life? Bullshit.

DP. What’s your deal? Find a bottle on the shelf. Get the ABV. Figure out your standard pour. Use this info to look up the grams of alcohol in your drink of choice.

If you want to help others, report back. If you don’t want to be helpful, then don’t. We’re all grownups here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, because I don’t worry about dying. When I go, I’ll be fine with it because I had a good time drinking while my life lasted!

+1! I can’t imagine not drinking because I’m afraid of Parkinson’s. WTF. You can get Parkinson’s even without drinking.

Don’t know how old you are but at a certain point stuff like Parkinson’s and cancer gets real fast!