I think I see the cancer link anecdotally in my family. But it's hard to tell. So much gives us cancer, the family members who were the heaviest drinkers also grew up in a small industrial town and probably got exposed to all kinds of awful stuff

I have found the alcohol is very inflammatory for me now that I’m over 40. It doesn’t work well with any amount of serious exercise or training for endurance events and that sort of thing. It also does a number on my sleep unless it’s a very small amount and after a long day of other activities - like walking all over Manhattan or something like that.

I drank quite a bit for a long time, so I’ve certainly had my share. I think I’m done with alcohol. Time will tell if I can keep it off my plate.

We don't need a study to tell us this. I can look around my life and see people who drink/drank booze on the regular. They age worse, get cancer more, more problems with fertility, have more heart disease and they die younger. There are a few exceptions of people who live into their 80-90's with good health. But those people are rare and probably have great genes.

Everything is a choice and a tradeoff. It's personal choice. Drink or don't, but don't lie to yourself.

Anonymous wrote:Only reason why serious alcohol studies are snubbed is because a) lobby is strong and has lot of money to throw on producing favorable studies and spreading them in media and b) majority drinks and makes excuses for its use. It took long time for people to accept that tobacco is harmful, its going to take longer for alcohol.

Imho tv and films really propagate drinking as social norm and stress solution, unless they take responsibility, its a lost cause.

What's positive is it is now completely acceptable to not drink and there are always non-alcoholic and often healthy alternatives available everywhere so social drinking is going down.

Another major argument against it doing the math of how much it costs per year. No poor or middle class person can justify it unless they are in denial.

Well said.

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.

Prohibition and the War on Drugs both went so well! More of that!

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that it’s individual-specific but we don’t yet understand how exactly. For me, even one glass of wine inhibits deep sleep. I’m already insulin resistant and one poor night of sleep messes with insulin further, which is only bad. But that’s a snapshot of my specific health concerns and may not be relevant to anyone else. I still drink on occasion but it’s not harmless.

I agree that encouraging women of childbearing age to abstain feels paternalistic, but the health of our potential children really matters. I didn’t know I was pregnant until 10 weeks on two occasions (anovulation the first time and minor hemorrhage mimicking period the second). I drank moderately the first time, regretted it once I knew I was pregnant and then abstained until done having kids. Many, many women have similar stories.

You’re extrapolating your situation onto other people. For most people, having a single drink say, once a month or even once a week actually is harmless, especially in the context of everything else they do (or don’t do).

The fact that SO many women have the experience of drinking very early in pregnancy - and then stopping for the duration - tells you that doing so is, if not 100% harmless, fairly close to that. I mean, if we’re going to scream at women who are TTC for drinking, we should also be screaming at them for eating a crappy diet, not exercising, etc., while pregnant. And we don’t do that because it’s paternalistic.

Again, I’m not advocating that anyone start drinking or that alcohol is harmless. It’s not. But asserting that light drinking is harmful for most people also isn’t accurate. Maybe the better message for healthcare professionals to give people is that if an individual notices negative consequences, they should abstain. That’s not the same as “light drinking is harmful, I’m just not telling you it is.”

+1 I think there are good reasons to advise women not to drink during pregnancy. Just because we don't have proof of negative effects on the fetus from small amounts, doesn't mean there aren't any. So we should say that - we don't know if there's any level that is safe in pregnancy, so you are best off not drinking at all. But we also shouldn't be alarmist about small amounts of alcohol, and be honest that known FASD occurs from large amounts of alcohol. Saying that women who are TTC can't have a cocktail at brunch after their period comes just in case it's not actually their period but a freak hemorrhage is ridiculous and feeds into not only alarmism but also the criminalization of pregnancy.

I don't want to live to 90, so maybe I should have another glass.

The US does much worse in health metrics than many countries with heavier drinking.

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that it’s individual-specific but we don’t yet understand how exactly. For me, even one glass of wine inhibits deep sleep. I’m already insulin resistant and one poor night of sleep messes with insulin further, which is only bad. But that’s a snapshot of my specific health concerns and may not be relevant to anyone else. I still drink on occasion but it’s not harmless.

I agree that encouraging women of childbearing age to abstain feels paternalistic, but the health of our potential children really matters. I didn’t know I was pregnant until 10 weeks on two occasions (anovulation the first time and minor hemorrhage mimicking period the second). I drank moderately the first time, regretted it once I knew I was pregnant and then abstained until done having kids. Many, many women have similar stories.

You’re extrapolating your situation onto other people. For most people, having a single drink say, once a month or even once a week actually is harmless, especially in the context of everything else they do (or don’t do).

The fact that SO many women have the experience of drinking very early in pregnancy - and then stopping for the duration - tells you that doing so is, if not 100% harmless, fairly close to that. I mean, if we’re going to scream at women who are TTC for drinking, we should also be screaming at them for eating a crappy diet, not exercising, etc., while pregnant. And we don’t do that because it’s paternalistic.

Again, I’m not advocating that anyone start drinking or that alcohol is harmless. It’s not. But asserting that light drinking is harmful for most people also isn’t accurate. Maybe the better message for healthcare professionals to give people is that if an individual notices negative consequences, they should abstain. That’s not the same as “light drinking is harmful, I’m just not telling you it is.”

If you have a specific health issue or take medication that makes small amounts of alcohol truly bad for you that sounds like something your doctor should definitely discuss with you. Blanket "Alcohol is bad!" messages are not going to do any good for those individuals.

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that it’s individual-specific but we don’t yet understand how exactly. For me, even one glass of wine inhibits deep sleep. I’m already insulin resistant and one poor night of sleep messes with insulin further, which is only bad. But that’s a snapshot of my specific health concerns and may not be relevant to anyone else. I still drink on occasion but it’s not harmless.

I agree that encouraging women of childbearing age to abstain feels paternalistic, but the health of our potential children really matters. I didn’t know I was pregnant until 10 weeks on two occasions (anovulation the first time and minor hemorrhage mimicking period the second). I drank moderately the first time, regretted it once I knew I was pregnant and then abstained until done having kids. Many, many women have similar stories.

How did you get pregnant if you didn't ovulate?

If you are tracking your cycles and taking pregnancy tests regularly (you can order a bunch really cheaply online) it's not hard to know when you are not pregnant. Many women TTC do this. And if you are not TTC, then birth control is probably wise (which would exempt you from the CDC's guidance).

The reason it feels paternalistic is because it is. It assumes women can't possibly understand their reproductive systems on their own. They should just have said simply, if there's a possibility you might be pregnant, don't drink alcohol. Here are some signs you might be pregnant. If have irregular cycles, be extra cautious. Instead they said :

"We really urge women, and their partners and friends — to be supportive of that idea: I'm not going to drink for a while because I'm thinking of getting pregnant," said the CDC's Anne Schuchat during a briefing announcing the new guidance.

Bear in mind that many women, including the vast majority of my friends, have had to TTC for over a year before they got pregnant. To encourage society to collectively monitor any woman who has stupidly revealed to other people that she is TTC, to shame her for drinking, which is essentially what this is (and what my friends did to me), is ridiculous and unhelpful.

The problem is that it’s individual-specific but we don’t yet understand how exactly. For me, even one glass of wine inhibits deep sleep. I’m already insulin resistant and one poor night of sleep messes with insulin further, which is only bad. But that’s a snapshot of my specific health concerns and may not be relevant to anyone else. I still drink on occasion but it’s not harmless.

I agree that encouraging women of childbearing age to abstain feels paternalistic, but the health of our potential children really matters. I didn’t know I was pregnant until 10 weeks on two occasions (anovulation the first time and minor hemorrhage mimicking period the second). I drank moderately the first time, regretted it once I knew I was pregnant and then abstained until done having kids. Many, many women have similar stories.

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.

Joy? Happiness? Community?

I mean life is not all about Living Perfectly.

You can get all those things without drinking alcohol. Or having one glass at a party. If day-to-day joy & happiness must be served with alcohol, that's problem drinking.

DP you are reading into the PP that they are only experiencing happiness when they drink, which would be problematic. But if they are having a couple of glasses of wine at a weekend dinner party, and the buzz helps them enjoy the evening, then who cares? If I am socializing with people I don't know that well, a little buzz is helpful. It doesn't mean I can't experience enjoyment without it, but it does add something for me in certain situations (situations I encounter once every couple of weeks if that). If it doesn't for you that's fine! But raising your eyebrows because someone says they enjoy alcohol from time to time is pretty silly.