Anonymous wrote:I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is very vague as to what it is we know and what we don't know. For example is there any known harm from one drink per week? How do the effects of alcohol compare to the effects of highly processed foods? At the bottom they say nobody's saying you shouldn't drink at all but clearly that is the message the headline is conveying. It's very alarmist with no context. We eat, drink and do things that have proven harms all the time, but I feel like we still have these prohibition-era attitudes that put alcohol in a different category in terms of how it is messaged.

Yes, I would like to see the risk of 1 glass of wine as compared to 1 bag of potato chips or a bowl of ice cream.

Anonymous wrote:This article is very vague as to what it is we know and what we don't know. For example is there any known harm from one drink per week? How do the effects of alcohol compare to the effects of highly processed foods? At the bottom they say nobody's saying you shouldn't drink at all but clearly that is the message the headline is conveying. It's very alarmist with no context. We eat, drink and do things that have proven harms all the time, but I feel like we still have these prohibition-era attitudes that put alcohol in a different category in terms of how it is messaged.

Anonymous wrote:This article is very vague as to what it is we know and what we don't know. For example is there any known harm from one drink per week? How do the effects of alcohol compare to the effects of highly processed foods? At the bottom they say nobody's saying you shouldn't drink at all but clearly that is the message the headline is conveying. It's very alarmist with no context. We eat, drink and do things that have proven harms all the time, but I feel like we still have these prohibition-era attitudes that put alcohol in a different category in terms of how it is messaged.

Anonymous wrote:This article is very vague as to what it is we know and what we don't know. For example is there any known harm from one drink per week? How do the effects of alcohol compare to the effects of highly processed foods? At the bottom they say nobody's saying you shouldn't drink at all but clearly that is the message the headline is conveying. It's very alarmist with no context. We eat, drink and do things that have proven harms all the time, but I feel like we still have these prohibition-era attitudes that put alcohol in a different category in terms of how it is messaged.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not to mention the French have universal health care coverage.

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.

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.

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.

This is like asking "What is the benefit of visiting DCUM compared to risk though?"

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.

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.

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.