Hangover. Drinking sucks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention it causes cancer. The less you drink, the better. I have wine once or twice a year and never more than two glasses.

That’s not what the data show. What was shown was there was “no safe level” shown in retrospective observational studies. You won’t really be able to establish a safe level without a prospective study with a control arm. So it’s unremarkable they weren’t able to establish a safe level.

As for the connection to cancer, they can correlate higher alcohol use with higher cancer incidence but they can’t isolate alcohol as the cause vs other lifestyle factors.

All things being equal, you can drink more than 4 glasses of wine a year without increasing your cancer risk. M

The link between cigarettes and cancer is far better established and, if not addictive, you could have several cigarettes a year without a meaningful impact on your overall health.

The concept of “no safe level” bleeding into news as entertainment and reporting on complex science without explaining study design is deleterious to society. There’s a safe level of every substance. It could be microscopic but nothing is toxic at *any* level. There’s a maximum level of uranium exposure in drinking water yet people think alcohol has no safe level.

Interestingly, I know 3 people in their 80s who were daily smokers since their teens and they are all still alive while the daily wine drinkers I know all somehow ended up with breast cancer. Most are dead now (died in their 60s or 70s from cancer).

Alcohol is a known carcinogen.

Wow very compelling you should see about getting that published in NEJM.

🤔

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention it causes cancer. The less you drink, the better. I have wine once or twice a year and never more than two glasses.

That’s not what the data show. What was shown was there was “no safe level” shown in retrospective observational studies. You won’t really be able to establish a safe level without a prospective study with a control arm. So it’s unremarkable they weren’t able to establish a safe level.

As for the connection to cancer, they can correlate higher alcohol use with higher cancer incidence but they can’t isolate alcohol as the cause vs other lifestyle factors.

All things being equal, you can drink more than 4 glasses of wine a year without increasing your cancer risk. M

The link between cigarettes and cancer is far better established and, if not addictive, you could have several cigarettes a year without a meaningful impact on your overall health.

The concept of “no safe level” bleeding into news as entertainment and reporting on complex science without explaining study design is deleterious to society. There’s a safe level of every substance. It could be microscopic but nothing is toxic at *any* level. There’s a maximum level of uranium exposure in drinking water yet people think alcohol has no safe level.

Overthinking it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention it causes cancer. The less you drink, the better. I have wine once or twice a year and never more than two glasses.

That’s not what the data show. What was shown was there was “no safe level” shown in retrospective observational studies. You won’t really be able to establish a safe level without a prospective study with a control arm. So it’s unremarkable they weren’t able to establish a safe level.

As for the connection to cancer, they can correlate higher alcohol use with higher cancer incidence but they can’t isolate alcohol as the cause vs other lifestyle factors.

All things being equal, you can drink more than 4 glasses of wine a year without increasing your cancer risk. M

The link between cigarettes and cancer is far better established and, if not addictive, you could have several cigarettes a year without a meaningful impact on your overall health.

The concept of “no safe level” bleeding into news as entertainment and reporting on complex science without explaining study design is deleterious to society. There’s a safe level of every substance. It could be microscopic but nothing is toxic at *any* level. There’s a maximum level of uranium exposure in drinking water yet people think alcohol has no safe level.

Overthinking it

They aren't. The most conservative model is LNT, linear no threshold. It assumes that any dose of unsafe to some degree. However, that's often not true. You probably ingest a more-than-zero amount of alcohol incidentally. Mouthwash, liquid medications, vanilla extract, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention it causes cancer. The less you drink, the better. I have wine once or twice a year and never more than two glasses.

That’s not what the data show. What was shown was there was “no safe level” shown in retrospective observational studies. You won’t really be able to establish a safe level without a prospective study with a control arm. So it’s unremarkable they weren’t able to establish a safe level.

As for the connection to cancer, they can correlate higher alcohol use with higher cancer incidence but they can’t isolate alcohol as the cause vs other lifestyle factors.

All things being equal, you can drink more than 4 glasses of wine a year without increasing your cancer risk. M

The link between cigarettes and cancer is far better established and, if not addictive, you could have several cigarettes a year without a meaningful impact on your overall health.

The concept of “no safe level” bleeding into news as entertainment and reporting on complex science without explaining study design is deleterious to society. There’s a safe level of every substance. It could be microscopic but nothing is toxic at *any* level. There’s a maximum level of uranium exposure in drinking water yet people think alcohol has no safe level.

Wrong. Alcohol is a proven carcinogen. Numerous studies have shown this and it is an established scientific fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention it causes cancer. The less you drink, the better. I have wine once or twice a year and never more than two glasses.

That’s not what the data show. What was shown was there was “no safe level” shown in retrospective observational studies. You won’t really be able to establish a safe level without a prospective study with a control arm. So it’s unremarkable they weren’t able to establish a safe level.

As for the connection to cancer, they can correlate higher alcohol use with higher cancer incidence but they can’t isolate alcohol as the cause vs other lifestyle factors.

All things being equal, you can drink more than 4 glasses of wine a year without increasing your cancer risk. M

The link between cigarettes and cancer is far better established and, if not addictive, you could have several cigarettes a year without a meaningful impact on your overall health.

The concept of “no safe level” bleeding into news as entertainment and reporting on complex science without explaining study design is deleterious to society. There’s a safe level of every substance. It could be microscopic but nothing is toxic at *any* level. There’s a maximum level of uranium exposure in drinking water yet people think alcohol has no safe level.

Interestingly, I know 3 people in their 80s who were daily smokers since their teens and they are all still alive while the daily wine drinkers I know all somehow ended up with breast cancer. Most are dead now (died in their 60s or 70s from cancer).

Alcohol is a known carcinogen.

Wow very compelling you should see about getting that published in NEJM.

PP doesn’t need to. Here’s an article in the NEJM about the carcinogenic effects of alcohol.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2507457#:~:text=Both%20the%20National%20Academies%20review,breast%20cancer%20and%20colon%20cancer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - you sound like a bizarrely fragile person.

If you can't handle a single, fun night out with friends without feeling weak and sick, I'm guessing you wither in the face of any tough demands life throws your way.

What a strange post. You ok?

I've noticed that any alcohol-related post brings out the most vile people. OP started a fun post. She rarely dinks, she drank too much, she's reminded why she doesn't drink. All fine. And them somebody posts that she needs to be on a 48-hour mental health hold somewhere.

Anyway, good reminder for OP and the rest of us occasional drinkers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention it causes cancer. The less you drink, the better. I have wine once or twice a year and never more than two glasses.

That’s not what the data show. What was shown was there was “no safe level” shown in retrospective observational studies. You won’t really be able to establish a safe level without a prospective study with a control arm. So it’s unremarkable they weren’t able to establish a safe level.

As for the connection to cancer, they can correlate higher alcohol use with higher cancer incidence but they can’t isolate alcohol as the cause vs other lifestyle factors.

All things being equal, you can drink more than 4 glasses of wine a year without increasing your cancer risk. M

The link between cigarettes and cancer is far better established and, if not addictive, you could have several cigarettes a year without a meaningful impact on your overall health.

The concept of “no safe level” bleeding into news as entertainment and reporting on complex science without explaining study design is deleterious to society. There’s a safe level of every substance. It could be microscopic but nothing is toxic at *any* level. There’s a maximum level of uranium exposure in drinking water yet people think alcohol has no safe level.

Wrong. Alcohol is a proven carcinogen. Numerous studies have shown this and it is an established scientific fact.

So is arsenic yet it’s in all sorts of vegetables. Toxicity level matters. All sorts of things are probably carcinogenic at the right level.

[Anonymous]

I go months, sometimes a year without the hooch. Then I have some for a few days after dunking on people 20 years younger than me in a middle or long course triathlon.

It’s all in moderation. Enjoy it for what it is, drink some water, and realize it’s poison. Some of the most rad things in life hurt temporarily.