Even a Little Alcohol Can Harm Your Health

[Anonymous]

Alcohol consumption has been a central feature of almost every human society since the invention of agriculture. It clearly has some kind of societal benefit that outweighs its costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Notably, none of the experts we spoke to called for abstaining completely, unless you have an alcohol use disorder or are pregnant.”

I mean, the main message here is what we have heard from the medical profession for a long time - stick to the drinking guidelines or abstain.

That is the messaging, but the reality is that any alcohol can harm your health. Public health authorities can't say everyone should stop drinking. But you should not try to convince yourself that alcohol is harmless or beneficial. It isn't. Drinking is a health decisions, just like eating doughnuts or drinking soda.

I just posted, but this message is the kind of all or nothing thinking that’s not helpful, from a public health perspective. Someone having, for example, one drink per month is not meaningfully harming your health. We need to be thinking about regular behaviors, not occasional ones. Health communications shows that messaging like “any alcohol can harm your health” often ends up pushing people to heavier drinking, because they think well, f it, rather than thinking, less alcohol is better than more. Think of it as harm reduction vs. abstinence.

'

That's my point. From a public health perspective, you can't tell people to abstain. It doesn't work. But just because public health official aren't saying abstain, it doesn't mean that alcohol isn't harmful or is beneficial. I agree that the public health messaging has to focus on harm reduction, but people shouldn't misinterpret that messaging to mean that light alcohol consumption has no negative effects.

Sure you can and cigarettes are the perfect example. But it was a change that took more than a generation to gain acceptance. And now the idea of anyone smoking in our presence is an alien concept.

Alcohol is different - for reasons already stated - but the only thing stopping public health from starting a campaign to advocate abstinence or minimal drinking is the mindset that they can't.

Of course, I don't think the public is going to take you seriously when you've got a doctor at the end of your article entitled, "Even a Little Alcohol Can Harm Your Health" scoffing at the idea of advocating abstinence.

But you can't make the argument, right now, that alcohol is the direct cause of 80-90% of cases of the the most deadly type of cancer. All we can say is it increases the risk of some cancers. And personally I've never gotten the impression I would be missing out on much by not smoking. Alcohol is different, it is just so much more a part of how people enjoy themselves. Would we be better off as a society of nobody drank? Sure. I think though that you're being overoptimistic in what is achievable based on what the science says right now and the role that alcohol plays in our society.

Everyone I know who got lung cancer smoked, Everyone I know with breast cancer was an alcolholic, everyone I know who died of an ovrdose was a drug addict but it doesn't prove that Everyone who smokes, drinks or.abuses drugs will die that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It tastes good. Paired properly, it enhances the flavor of a meal.

That is your personal choice. I can enjoy a good dinner without alcohol.

[Anonymous]

So many people are just desperate to numb themselves with alcohol.

Quit drinking for a few months and then go back to it - you'll realize how much better you feel every single day without alcohol. I firmly believe that feeling healthier, which includes more energy to exercise and less desire for crappy food the day after drinking, day-to-day vastly outweighs the hour or two of a pleasant buzz.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alcohol consumption has been a central feature of almost every human society since the invention of agriculture. It clearly has some kind of societal benefit that outweighs its costs.

Lol. Or it’s addictive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alcohol consumption has been a central feature of almost every human society since the invention of agriculture. It clearly has some kind of societal benefit that outweighs its costs.

I posted this article previously on this thread or the Dry January one - this exact issue is addressed by this article:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/-dry-january-challenge-2023-drinking-meaning-benefits/672695/

The author talks to Edward Slingerland, who wrote a book about the value of drinking in society. Basically, he argues that historically there were guardrails around alcohol - it wasn't as strong as the distilled spirits we can now obtain, and it wasn't as easy to obtain/you did not drink in isolation. It was a social tool that regular people didn't drink all the time in the privacy of their own homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alcohol consumption has been a central feature of almost every human society since the invention of agriculture. It clearly has some kind of societal benefit that outweighs its costs.

I posted this article previously on this thread or the Dry January one - this exact issue is addressed by this article:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/-dry-january-challenge-2023-drinking-meaning-benefits/672695/

The author talks to Edward Slingerland, who wrote a book about the value of drinking in society. Basically, he argues that historically there were guardrails around alcohol - it wasn't as strong as the distilled spirits we can now obtain, and it wasn't as easy to obtain/you did not drink in isolation. It was a social tool that regular people didn't drink all the time in the privacy of their own homes.

I'd recommend a fantastic book, "Drunk: How we sipped, danced, and stumbled our way to civilization." (https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/55643282).

"Drawing on evidence from archaeology, history, cognitive neuroscience, psychopharmacology, social psychology, literature, and genetics, Slingerland shows that our taste for chemical intoxicants is not an evolutionary mistake, as we are so often told. In fact, intoxication helps solve a number of distinctively human challenges: enhancing creativity, alleviating stress, building trust, and pulling off the miracle of getting fiercely tribal primates to cooperate with strangers. Our desire to get drunk, along with the individual and social benefits provided by drunkenness, played a crucial role in sparking the rise of the first large-scale societies. We would not have civilization without intoxication."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alcohol consumption has been a central feature of almost every human society since the invention of agriculture. It clearly has some kind of societal benefit that outweighs its costs.

I posted this article previously on this thread or the Dry January one - this exact issue is addressed by this article:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/-dry-january-challenge-2023-drinking-meaning-benefits/672695/

The author talks to Edward Slingerland, who wrote a book about the value of drinking in society. Basically, he argues that historically there were guardrails around alcohol - it wasn't as strong as the distilled spirits we can now obtain, and it wasn't as easy to obtain/you did not drink in isolation. It was a social tool that regular people didn't drink all the time in the privacy of their own homes.

I'd recommend a fantastic book, "Drunk: How we sipped, danced, and stumbled our way to civilization." (https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/55643282).

"Drawing on evidence from archaeology, history, cognitive neuroscience, psychopharmacology, social psychology, literature, and genetics, Slingerland shows that our taste for chemical intoxicants is not an evolutionary mistake, as we are so often told. In fact, intoxication helps solve a number of distinctively human challenges: enhancing creativity, alleviating stress, building trust, and pulling off the miracle of getting fiercely tribal primates to cooperate with strangers. Our desire to get drunk, along with the individual and social benefits provided by drunkenness, played a crucial role in sparking the rise of the first large-scale societies. We would not have civilization without intoxication."

Whoops, meant to say "recommend *his* fantastic book." It's Slingerland's book.

[Anonymous]

I like this passage from the Slingerland interview:

Nyce: If you were to create a user guide to alcohol, what would be in it?

Slingerland: Mimic healthy cultures. So there are some cultures that have healthier drinking practices than others. Anthropologists refer to Northern versus Southern European drinking cultures. Northern drinking cultures tend to be binge drinkers; they drink hard alcohol primarily, often in groups of just men by themselves, women by themselves. Alcohol is forbidden to kids. It’s kind of taboo. The purpose of drinking is to get drunk.

Anglophone college culture is kind of the worst version of this, because it’s kids without fully developed prefrontal cortices doing it, and they’re drinking distilled liquors. If you want to design the unhealthiest drinking culture possible, it would be college drinking culture.

Whereas if you look at Southern European cultures like Italy or Spain, they’re drinking primarily wine and beer. They’re always drinking in the context of a meal, so it’s always around a meal table. It’s in mixed company—kids and grandparents and parents. To drink to the point of being visibly drunk is embarrassing and actually kind of shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like this passage from the Slingerland interview:

Nyce: If you were to create a user guide to alcohol, what would be in it?

Slingerland: Mimic healthy cultures. So there are some cultures that have healthier drinking practices than others. Anthropologists refer to Northern versus Southern European drinking cultures. Northern drinking cultures tend to be binge drinkers; they drink hard alcohol primarily, often in groups of just men by themselves, women by themselves. Alcohol is forbidden to kids. It’s kind of taboo. The purpose of drinking is to get drunk.

Anglophone college culture is kind of the worst version of this, because it’s kids without fully developed prefrontal cortices doing it, and they’re drinking distilled liquors. If you want to design the unhealthiest drinking culture possible, it would be college drinking culture.

Whereas if you look at Southern European cultures like Italy or Spain, they’re drinking primarily wine and beer. They’re always drinking in the context of a meal, so it’s always around a meal table. It’s in mixed company—kids and grandparents and parents. To drink to the point of being visibly drunk is embarrassing and actually kind of shameful.

And this is why we can't have nice things.

We can't do anything just a little. It's all or nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like this passage from the Slingerland interview:

Nyce: If you were to create a user guide to alcohol, what would be in it?

Slingerland: Mimic healthy cultures. So there are some cultures that have healthier drinking practices than others. Anthropologists refer to Northern versus Southern European drinking cultures. Northern drinking cultures tend to be binge drinkers; they drink hard alcohol primarily, often in groups of just men by themselves, women by themselves. Alcohol is forbidden to kids. It’s kind of taboo. The purpose of drinking is to get drunk.

Anglophone college culture is kind of the worst version of this, because it’s kids without fully developed prefrontal cortices doing it, and they’re drinking distilled liquors. If you want to design the unhealthiest drinking culture possible, it would be college drinking culture.

Whereas if you look at Southern European cultures like Italy or Spain, they’re drinking primarily wine and beer. They’re always drinking in the context of a meal, so it’s always around a meal table. It’s in mixed company—kids and grandparents and parents. To drink to the point of being visibly drunk is embarrassing and actually kind of shameful.

And this is why we can't have nice things.

We can't do anything just a little. It's all or nothing.

Americans do love their binaries. All-in or all-out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It tastes good. Paired properly, it enhances the flavor of a meal.

That is your personal choice. I can enjoy a good dinner without alcohol.

Same. Pellegrino also enhances a meal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Notably, none of the experts we spoke to called for abstaining completely, unless you have an alcohol use disorder or are pregnant.”

I mean, the main message here is what we have heard from the medical profession for a long time - stick to the drinking guidelines or abstain.

That is the messaging, but the reality is that any alcohol can harm your health. Public health authorities can't say everyone should stop drinking. But you should not try to convince yourself that alcohol is harmless or beneficial. It isn't. Drinking is a health decisions, just like eating doughnuts or drinking soda.

I just posted, but this message is the kind of all or nothing thinking that’s not helpful, from a public health perspective. Someone having, for example, one drink per month is not meaningfully harming your health. We need to be thinking about regular behaviors, not occasional ones. Health communications shows that messaging like “any alcohol can harm your health” often ends up pushing people to heavier drinking, because they think well, f it, rather than thinking, less alcohol is better than more. Think of it as harm reduction vs. abstinence.

'

That's my point. From a public health perspective, you can't tell people to abstain. It doesn't work. But just because public health official aren't saying abstain, it doesn't mean that alcohol isn't harmful or is beneficial. I agree that the public health messaging has to focus on harm reduction, but people shouldn't misinterpret that messaging to mean that light alcohol consumption has no negative effects.

Sure you can and cigarettes are the perfect example. But it was a change that took more than a generation to gain acceptance. And now the idea of anyone smoking in our presence is an alien concept.

Alcohol is different - for reasons already stated - but the only thing stopping public health from starting a campaign to advocate abstinence or minimal drinking is the mindset that they can't.

Of course, I don't think the public is going to take you seriously when you've got a doctor at the end of your article entitled, "Even a Little Alcohol Can Harm Your Health" scoffing at the idea of advocating abstinence.

But you can't make the argument, right now, that alcohol is the direct cause of 80-90% of cases of the the most deadly type of cancer. All we can say is it increases the risk of some cancers. And personally I've never gotten the impression I would be missing out on much by not smoking. Alcohol is different, it is just so much more a part of how people enjoy themselves. Would we be better off as a society of nobody drank? Sure. I think though that you're being overoptimistic in what is achievable based on what the science says right now and the role that alcohol plays in our society.

Everyone I know who got lung cancer smoked, Everyone I know with breast cancer was an alcolholic, everyone I know who died of an ovrdose was a drug addict but it doesn't prove that Everyone who smokes, drinks or.abuses drugs will die that way.

Well your sample is skewed. The leading cause of non-small cell lung cancer is actually radon, and plenty of non drinkers get breast cancer. Ever heard of BRCA genes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alcohol consumption has been a central feature of almost every human society since the invention of agriculture. It clearly has some kind of societal benefit that outweighs its costs.

So has murder and so have smoking and drugs, doesn’t mean they’re good for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Recent research makes it clear that any amount of drinking can be detrimental.
Sorry to be a buzz-kill, but that nightly glass or two of wine is not improving your health. After decades of confusing and sometimes contradictory research (too much alcohol is bad for you but a little bit is good; some types of alcohol are better for you than others; just kidding, it’s all bad), the picture is becoming clearer: Even small amounts of alcohol can have health consequences…

… When experts talk about the dire health consequences linked to excessive alcohol use, people often assume that it’s directed at individuals who have an alcohol use disorder. But the health risks from drinking can come from moderate consumption as well.

“Risk starts to go up well below levels where people would think, ‘Oh, that person has an alcohol problem,’” said Dr. Tim Naimi, director of the University of Victoria’s Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research. “Alcohol is harmful to the health starting at very low levels.”..

… There is also emerging evidence “that there are risks even within these levels, especially for certain types of cancer and some forms of cardiovascular disease,” said Marissa Esser, who leads the alcohol program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The recommended daily limits are not meant to be averaged over a week, either. In other words, if you abstain Monday through Thursday and have two or three drinks a night on the weekend, those weekend drinks count as excessive consumption. It’s both the cumulative drinks over time and the amount of alcohol in your system on any one occasion that can cause damage…
… When you drink alcohol, your body metabolizes it into acetaldehyde, a chemical that is toxic to cells. Acetaldehyde both “damages your DNA and prevents your body from repairing the damage,” Dr. Esser explained. “Once your DNA is damaged, then a cell can grow out of control and create a cancer tumor.”

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.

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'd wager it's mostly the f*ed up healthcare system and raging inequality. The "haves" (my community included) live pretty fantastic lives, while black mothers giving birth in DC are dying at such rates that they had to close down an entire hospital. Yes, i have a source: https://dcist.com/story/22/04/28/dc-maternal-mortality-study-2022/