“Health benefits” of moderate drinking disappear when controlling for wealth(theconversation.com)
theconversation.com
“Health benefits” of moderate drinking disappear when controlling for wealth
http://theconversation.com/maybe-moderate-drinking-isnt-so-good-for-you-after-all-72266
133 comments
The headline looks like another entry in the endless "x is good for you / x is bad for you" genre of science journalism, but the article is actually a valuable object lesson in the complexities of trying to control for variables in any study. It's also a timely reminder of how socioeconomic factors remain one of the biggest predictors of health outcomes.
I always just took them as a fun excuse for that glass of wine with dinner (that I would have had anyway). The pre-altfact alternative fact if you will.
Excuse me while I go eat some chocolate "for Alzheimer's prevention". ;)
Excuse me while I go eat some chocolate "for Alzheimer's prevention". ;)
It is, but it's a good read because it reminds you to avoid the reductionist "eat this, don't eat that" thinking. Just because you find a little less cardiovascular disease or something, it doesn't mean that the overall effects on health are positive, and your correlation might be specious anyway.
It's really not based on a lot of data though. 2,908 people for 10 years while removing several groups and apparent health benefit is much reduced in women So, it still links drinking with health benefits even after splitting those people into a lot of small groups.
If anything it demonstrates how a bias may influence study design and reporting.
If anything it demonstrates how a bias may influence study design and reporting.
No!
For some time now we've thought that moderate drinking does not provide any health advantages[1] except to older women, and that it provides a small health advantage to those women.
This research just tells us that moderate drinking isn't useful to older women either.
[1] there are some advantages but these are outweighed by the disadvantages.
For some time now we've thought that moderate drinking does not provide any health advantages[1] except to older women, and that it provides a small health advantage to those women.
This research just tells us that moderate drinking isn't useful to older women either.
[1] there are some advantages but these are outweighed by the disadvantages.
This research really does not provide significant evidence for that idea. I realize your preconceived ideas align with this idea, but there is no evidence of harm from this study!
It also does show evidence of heath benefit for women. It's likely that men also benifit though to a lesser degree, which is to small to show in this data. Remember westerners had daily alcohol intake for a very long time. Much like Milk it's negative effects on that population are likely reduced.
PS: This is also analyzing 3rd party data for heath effects which is a very low order of evidence. https://xkcd.com/882/
It also does show evidence of heath benefit for women. It's likely that men also benifit though to a lesser degree, which is to small to show in this data. Remember westerners had daily alcohol intake for a very long time. Much like Milk it's negative effects on that population are likely reduced.
PS: This is also analyzing 3rd party data for heath effects which is a very low order of evidence. https://xkcd.com/882/
Not to mention it's a sobering view into the world of science. Disappointing that nobody thought of this correlation for tens of years.
I just stopped reading after this sentence:
> We split the adults aged 50 or older into groups reflecting their average level of drinking, from non-drinkers through to those drinking three or more drinks a day.
The decision to split a naturally continuous or interval variable into discrete groups and then compare those groups has no valid statistical purpose. It serves no advantage over the regression alternative but it does lower the power of the analysis. ANOVA really just needs to die already. It became popular in the social sciences because it was a feasible way of doing inferential statistics back when computations were done with a pen and paper. Now we have computers and there's no excuse not to use better methods, an obvious alternative being linear regression.
Boycott bad stats. If you are a reviewer then hold the field to a higher standard.
> We split the adults aged 50 or older into groups reflecting their average level of drinking, from non-drinkers through to those drinking three or more drinks a day.
The decision to split a naturally continuous or interval variable into discrete groups and then compare those groups has no valid statistical purpose. It serves no advantage over the regression alternative but it does lower the power of the analysis. ANOVA really just needs to die already. It became popular in the social sciences because it was a feasible way of doing inferential statistics back when computations were done with a pen and paper. Now we have computers and there's no excuse not to use better methods, an obvious alternative being linear regression.
Boycott bad stats. If you are a reviewer then hold the field to a higher standard.
And here I am, not believing their statistical prowess because their pages don't use HTTPS
This comment is so securely crafted sir.
[deleted]
A lot of research has shown supposed health benefits of alcohol, but it all has something in common: it's based entirely on observational data, with no intervention performed. Observational studies have an extremely poor track record in health and especially in nutrition, and are not experiments, but they get reported as though they were science. So we get reversals like this one. (Which was entirely expected.)
Thank you, I hadn't known there was a distinction between "observational" and "interventional" studies, but now it seems like an important idea I could use to parse all the pop science that people talk about all day.
http://www.isupportresearch.com/whats-the-difference-between... (short definitions)
http://www.isupportresearch.com/whats-the-difference-between... (short definitions)
I like this link better:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4083571/
The short definitions from your link seem to say that interventional studies are ones with interventions, and observational studies don't have interventions except when they do. This is pretty confusing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4083571/
The short definitions from your link seem to say that interventional studies are ones with interventions, and observational studies don't have interventions except when they do. This is pretty confusing.
There is some interventional research on the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption like the one listed below. I have no idea what the quality is, but just wanted to point out there is some non-observational evidence.
Moderate-dose Regular Lifelong Alcohol Intake Changes the Intestinal Flora, Protects against Aging, and Keeps Spatial Memory in the Senescence-accelerated Mouse Prone 8 (SAMP8) Model.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28057167
Moderate-dose Regular Lifelong Alcohol Intake Changes the Intestinal Flora, Protects against Aging, and Keeps Spatial Memory in the Senescence-accelerated Mouse Prone 8 (SAMP8) Model.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28057167
There's much better research than that. Try "Effects of Initiating Moderate Alcohol Intake on Cardiometabolic Risk in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A 2-Year Randomized, Controlled Trial" https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yftach_Gepner/publicati... , Gepner et al 2015
Wow, this is really interesting (at my quick glance). I'm concerned that they don't state that they clearly isolated to what degree the alcohol vs. other compounds specific to wine had which effects.
Thanks that is indeed far better research.
Do you have any tips on finding good research quickly? Is it just getting more familiar with the pubmed filters?
Do you have any tips on finding good research quickly? Is it just getting more familiar with the pubmed filters?
Feynman actually has a good piece on "science" like this.
The CDC and ODPHP (US agency that sets dietary guidelines) do not recommend non-drinkers start drinking moderately, which is in line with the research which shows no health benefit to drinking alcohol. It's a bit scary how research+media+people's love of alcohol work together to spread the fiction of alcohol health benefits.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/ Appendix 9 or https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/ Appendix 9 or https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
My impression is that these agencies don't recommend non-drinkers start drinking because of the risks, not because they believe that there is no benefit.
The great Lewis Black has some wonderfully relevant commentary:
"The people who told us about sun block were the same people who told us, when I was a kid, that eggs were good. So I ate a lot of eggs. Ten years later they said they were bad. I went, "Well, I just ate the eggs!" So I stopped eating eggs, and ten years later they said they were good again! Well, then I ate twice as many, and then they said they were bad. Well, now I'm really fucked! Then they said they're good, they're bad, they're good, the whites are good, th-the yellows - make up your mind! It's breakfast I've gotta eat!"
"The people who told us about sun block were the same people who told us, when I was a kid, that eggs were good. So I ate a lot of eggs. Ten years later they said they were bad. I went, "Well, I just ate the eggs!" So I stopped eating eggs, and ten years later they said they were good again! Well, then I ate twice as many, and then they said they were bad. Well, now I'm really fucked! Then they said they're good, they're bad, they're good, the whites are good, th-the yellows - make up your mind! It's breakfast I've gotta eat!"
[deleted]
OK, so moderate drinking is not good for you, it's just that being wealthier and better educated makes people more likely to be moderate drinkers.
So, hopefully the causal explanation is that drinking moderately makes you smarter and richer, and eventually healthier.
So, hopefully the causal explanation is that drinking moderately makes you smarter and richer, and eventually healthier.
Causation likely runs the other way. If you are economically comfortable, you are less likely to have problems that you would be tempted to "drink away", and so are more likely to be able to occasionally have a drink without it reaching the level of problem drinking. The article indicated that almost all of the health benefits of moderate drinking vs non-drinking were accounted for by the presence of "sick former drinkers", who were lumped in with non-drinkers in the original studies but had previously had a problem with alcohol abuse that they had been forced to kick for health reasons.
Given that wealth is correlated with your ability to network and connect to other people, sounds there might be some truth to it
I don't drink a lot, so I guess I should focus on increasing my wealth.
>OK, so moderate drinking is not good for you, it's just that being wealthier and better educated makes people more likely to be moderate drinkers.
Or, rather, that's what a single, recent, and not battle tested, study claims.
It will take a lot more studies, and meta-studies to come to any such conclusion -- even assuming this one got it right.
Or, rather, that's what a single, recent, and not battle tested, study claims.
It will take a lot more studies, and meta-studies to come to any such conclusion -- even assuming this one got it right.
Well, I know that drinking any alcohol is bad for me personally. Of course this does not apply in general, but even after a single drink I feel a little depressed and anxious the next day. The more I drink the worse I feel and the longer I need to recover.
Stop drinking was the single best thing I did to recover from depression and anxiety.
Stop drinking was the single best thing I did to recover from depression and anxiety.
Perhaps you're a reasonable wealthy person with a reasonably stable life, and so not a lot of demons that need silencing. So when your body tells you to not drink, you can fairly easily respond by simply not drinking, which a less fortunate person might find harder to do.
This kind of behaviour is consistent with the finding in article.
This kind of behaviour is consistent with the finding in article.
I tend not to put too much inportance on these generic health statements because of this. I could care less if alcohol has health benefits if i personally experience ill results from drinking.
the same can be said of statements like "coffee has health benefits" when it can cause acid reflux for me and others who are susceptible.
everyone needs to evaluate general health suggestions against their personal health history. personally i find them marginally useless.
the same can be said of statements like "coffee has health benefits" when it can cause acid reflux for me and others who are susceptible.
everyone needs to evaluate general health suggestions against their personal health history. personally i find them marginally useless.
Mendelian randomization studies also support the notion that less alcohol intake is probably better for everyone (from a strictly cardiovascular health standpoint):
http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4164
http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4164
Isn't Mendelian Randomization prone to pleiotropy?
I've never understood how people can control for that without a complete understanding of the genome.
Yes, MR is prone to biased estimates due to pleiotropy. Attempting to unbias the estimators is a relatively hot topic right now.
I believe that acetate is actually at the heart of the health benefits of ethanol. Acetate has been shown to have many health benefits, and pretty much all ethanol is metabolized to acetate before being further broken down. Wine and herbal spirits may have some additional benefits due to compounds in the plants they are produced from.
On the other hand, it seems clear that ethanol itself isn't healthy. Thus, if you want the health benefits, skip the wine and use wine vinegar. Use alcohol for the pleasure it provides.
On the other hand, it seems clear that ethanol itself isn't healthy. Thus, if you want the health benefits, skip the wine and use wine vinegar. Use alcohol for the pleasure it provides.
1- the differences between various types of ETOH is one major confounding variable. The benefits of red wine vs. moonshine, both in "moderate" amount, are likely to be widely different.
2- If you control for wealth, you also likely inject all the other variables associated with wealth, such as likely lower stress level, better health-care, etc., thus mainly demonstrating, again, that being poor is "not so good" for you.
3- Although not in the range of the study, the subjective element, as usual, is missing. How to quantify the temporary relief, the feeling of happiness, control or whatever, offered by drugs/alcohol, even in the face of long-term lack of benefit or even negative consequences? Would moments of happiness count in a life of misery? Could such moments postpone the onset of health issues?
4- I believe that the intent of a statistical study needs to be initially defined. I believe there needs to be a broad "idea" prior to formulating a hypothesis and churning numbers. If it is not stated, it becomes implicit and open the results to endless discussion, thereby, in effect, negating the scientific (i.e. quantitative) aspect.
2- If you control for wealth, you also likely inject all the other variables associated with wealth, such as likely lower stress level, better health-care, etc., thus mainly demonstrating, again, that being poor is "not so good" for you.
3- Although not in the range of the study, the subjective element, as usual, is missing. How to quantify the temporary relief, the feeling of happiness, control or whatever, offered by drugs/alcohol, even in the face of long-term lack of benefit or even negative consequences? Would moments of happiness count in a life of misery? Could such moments postpone the onset of health issues?
4- I believe that the intent of a statistical study needs to be initially defined. I believe there needs to be a broad "idea" prior to formulating a hypothesis and churning numbers. If it is not stated, it becomes implicit and open the results to endless discussion, thereby, in effect, negating the scientific (i.e. quantitative) aspect.
I have no scientific basis for this, this is just an idea: all alcohol consumption might be bad for our health, but moderate alcohol might relax people enough to make up for the little harm done from consumption.
I would be interested to see a study that compared the health of moderate drinkers with similar people who didn't drink but did some meditation, yoga, or anything else that makes people more relaxed.
I would be interested to see a study that compared the health of moderate drinkers with similar people who didn't drink but did some meditation, yoga, or anything else that makes people more relaxed.
Social correlates probably play a significant role. Moderate drinking may be correlated with sociality and preparing meals for one's family/ friends. Strong social ties and attention to diet are both correlated with good health outcomes. I think we see a hint of these lifestyle correlates in the findings that red wine is the best vehicle for alcohol consumption. The alcohol itself might be mildly harmful, but for people who are able to moderate their intake, the pleasure of imbibing and its associated rituals more than makes up for it.
I had also read elsewhere that the worse health of non-drinkers (relative to moderate drinkers) could be explained by the fact that many non-drinkers are recovering alcoholics, and had already trashed their bodies pretty badly. A study (can't find link) controlled for this and found that non-drinkers are healthier than moderate drinkers, even without controlling for wealth.
This study has accounted for what they call "sick quitters" and those lifelong abstainers. This is entertaining, to me, because it seems that they have arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion: when controlling for overall intake, and then controlling for wealth, moderate drinkers fare better than non-drinkers.
Since we're talking health outcomes here, how prudent is it to measure these outcomes based on respondents' self assessments of how healthy they are, as this study does, rather than empirically measuring those outcomes?
If they're all sober the people who are just in a bad mood because they're sober and give a low rating probably magnify the variance /s
Moderate drinking -> 2 drinks/day -> 14 drinks per person per week -> 30 pack week for a couple -> $20 per week (assuming cans and light beer)
It kinda makes sense that as people marry and settle down that the people who think $20/week on booze while raising children are either well off or consider booze to be a high priority. The latter former is healthier in general and the latter probably makes other questionable decisions that affect their health.
It kinda makes sense that as people marry and settle down that the people who think $20/week on booze while raising children are either well off or consider booze to be a high priority. The latter former is healthier in general and the latter probably makes other questionable decisions that affect their health.
With all the qualifiers I am tempted to interpret the study as, you can be as healthy as a moderate drinker even without alcohol. (I am only half joking, there are just so many variables and number-of-variables-squared trade offs involved in these health and food studies that one wonders how they ever established a link between arsenic and poor health.)
>But our latest research challenges this view
Well, it's still a single research. Let's wait 5-10 years for it to be criticized by other studies, replicated, further proved and all that.
Until then it's just noise as far as any layperson is concerned.
Well, it's still a single research. Let's wait 5-10 years for it to be criticized by other studies, replicated, further proved and all that.
Until then it's just noise as far as any layperson is concerned.
"Moderate drinking" is working class phenomena in the first place, especially in cold climates - cheap, easily available almost instant gratification (of being happy with oneself) and better than church socialization with fellow men for those who have very little spare time and money. And, of course, there are negative "health benefits" in the long run.
I don't understand what you saying. That the rich and the poor don't drink moderately? That it's related to climate? The study was done near where I live. Church going is relatively low by world standards and it isn't a cold climate. Women and men had outcomes measured and this is discussed. Can you further explain your point?
According to the very article we comment on, moderate drinking is wealthy person thing. Which is according to article why moderate drinkers are are healthier - they are wealthy.
Also, alcohol makes you happy with oneself? It makes you forget if you drink enough of it ...
Also, alcohol makes you happy with oneself? It makes you forget if you drink enough of it ...
> moderate drinking is wealthy person thing
Cross-culturally? Would the similar results be obtained in Ireland, Poland, Russia? Perhaps my generalizations are somehow better match to reality?
You're probably unaware, but some regions has tradition of alcohol consumption deep in their culture and even national identity and nearly everyone consumes alcohol to various degrees.
Cross-culturally? Would the similar results be obtained in Ireland, Poland, Russia? Perhaps my generalizations are somehow better match to reality?
You're probably unaware, but some regions has tradition of alcohol consumption deep in their culture and even national identity and nearly everyone consumes alcohol to various degrees.
> some regions has tradition of alcohol consumption deep in their culture and even national identity
New Zealand is one of those places.
> nearly everyone consumes alcohol to various degrees.
That's the point of the study. Wealthy people consume alcohol in moderate amounts, the working class are likely:
1) Consuming it in much greater amounts, or
2) Abstaining from alcohol entirely. Perhaps because of previous problems with alcohol abuse, strict religious adherence, etc. You can think of multiple reasons that might explain seeing such a class disparity.
New Zealand is one of those places.
> nearly everyone consumes alcohol to various degrees.
That's the point of the study. Wealthy people consume alcohol in moderate amounts, the working class are likely:
1) Consuming it in much greater amounts, or
2) Abstaining from alcohol entirely. Perhaps because of previous problems with alcohol abuse, strict religious adherence, etc. You can think of multiple reasons that might explain seeing such a class disparity.
New Zealand is one of those places.
Heaven forbid this news got out there and the alcohol companies had to fund more studies telling us all to have 2 beers a day. Because that's why this was teh going wisdom...
Dang it. Now what am I supposed to do with the 3000+ bottles of wine I have collected!
We (family) pretty much have a glass of wine with dinner every night and no we are not French.
We (family) pretty much have a glass of wine with dinner every night and no we are not French.
I've never drank before, so I'm a terrible person to comment about this: but what exactly is the supposed benefit of drinking? I go to dinner parties, clubs, etc. and it seems that alcohol is everywhere.
People mention that its social lubricant, but I just don't get it. I've had great times with groups that don't drink any alcohol: sometimes we just eat great food, play games, etc. I've had similar experiences with mixed groups of drinkers and nondrinkers.
Interestingly, when I'm in a group where everyone is drinking (except for myself) it seems like the entire interaction has moved to another dimension. Everyone just seems quiet.
---
I guess I should also clarify: when I say benefits, I mean in comparison to other beverages. For example, tea is arguably the healthiest thing you can drink in moderate quantities, short of water [1]. There are obviously more reasons to eat and drink other than health, but for a health minded person, is there any reason to start drinking?
[1] http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/04/13-reasons-to-love-tea...
People mention that its social lubricant, but I just don't get it. I've had great times with groups that don't drink any alcohol: sometimes we just eat great food, play games, etc. I've had similar experiences with mixed groups of drinkers and nondrinkers.
Interestingly, when I'm in a group where everyone is drinking (except for myself) it seems like the entire interaction has moved to another dimension. Everyone just seems quiet.
---
I guess I should also clarify: when I say benefits, I mean in comparison to other beverages. For example, tea is arguably the healthiest thing you can drink in moderate quantities, short of water [1]. There are obviously more reasons to eat and drink other than health, but for a health minded person, is there any reason to start drinking?
[1] http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/04/13-reasons-to-love-tea...
Not sure what your point is here. You've never tried it, so you don't know why people enjoy it? So why don't you try it and find out? There's a reason drinking is a popular activity all over the world. It's a lot of fun.
There's no point to be made: it's just a question. Though, your logic doesn't seem to make sense to me: would you encourage people to try everything to find out for themselves as opposed to asking people who've tried it before? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
>>It's a lot of fun.
I quit drinking about 6 months ago and I couldn't feel better. I have a lot of fun with my drinking and non-drinking friends.
I quit drinking about 6 months ago and I couldn't feel better. I have a lot of fun with my drinking and non-drinking friends.
There's a huge difference between not drinking because you quit and never having tried it.
There is no doubt that you can have fun without drinking. The problem with never trying it is that you close yourself off to a massive part of the Western human experience. It is baked into the culture and is also a huge part of business relations. Being a lifelong teetotaller is in some ways tantamount to being a virgin.
There is no doubt that you can have fun without drinking. The problem with never trying it is that you close yourself off to a massive part of the Western human experience. It is baked into the culture and is also a huge part of business relations. Being a lifelong teetotaller is in some ways tantamount to being a virgin.
and this my friends is the face of addiction.
I don't know why you've been downvoted. This comment is depressing but it is at least partially true. I wouldn't go as far as the 'virgin' part, but there are definitely people in the UK who view teetotallers with some suspicion.
I'm not sure why you're being down voted, but I generally agree. And I'm not passing judgement either - there is nothing wrong inherently wrong with drinking or chastity - but it is an undeniable part of our culture.
As a non drinker you probably don't like the taste of any or most alcoholic beverages. Whether it is conditioning or not, I do enjoy the taste of a good beer. There is not more 'benefit' to it than eating good food.
Yeah, I also enjoy a good beer and also a nice glass of wine with a meal. Wine in particular does a great job at complementing food.
I also have the self discipline to have one beer or one glass of wine, while many do not. If one beer always led to a 6-pack I would stop drinking.
I also have the self discipline to have one beer or one glass of wine, while many do not. If one beer always led to a 6-pack I would stop drinking.
What's your favourite beer?
For me, the answer is it depends.
What I buy depends on the context. If it's the middle of summer and I'm at a baseball game, I'll always get a hot dog and Budweiser.
Tonight I'm going to grill something and I'll have a Shiner Bock with it. Right now in my fridge I have two cans of Guinness (the doo hickey in the can always impresses me).
What I buy depends on the context. If it's the middle of summer and I'm at a baseball game, I'll always get a hot dog and Budweiser.
Tonight I'm going to grill something and I'll have a Shiner Bock with it. Right now in my fridge I have two cans of Guinness (the doo hickey in the can always impresses me).
Guiness is too thick for me. I'm Molson or Sam Adams or Miller Lite, on a hot day.
Beer has good health benefits. It doesn't have sugar in it, so it's something you can drink without damaging your teeth. It doesn't have caffeine, so it's not going to stop you sleeping (hence why people meet for a coffee during the day and a 'drink' in the evening). Apparently it helps your cholesterol. It also kills germs/bacteria - when I was in India I tried to drink beer every day and I never got sick.
In terms of taste, I think it becomes much more appealing in hot weather, as a chilled beer is very refreshing. Also, it's something you tend to sip gradually, which lends itself to situations where you are sitting with friends for extended periods. Similarly with wine.
It does seem to cause people to lower their inhibitions which leads to easier conversation. Drunk people are very tiresome though.
In terms of taste, I think it becomes much more appealing in hot weather, as a chilled beer is very refreshing. Also, it's something you tend to sip gradually, which lends itself to situations where you are sitting with friends for extended periods. Similarly with wine.
It does seem to cause people to lower their inhibitions which leads to easier conversation. Drunk people are very tiresome though.
It's a bit unfair to only list the health benefits of beer and the downsides of other beverages.
Alcohol is also a carcinogen and even if you stop drinking the effects still lingers for at least 15 years: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...
Alcohol is also a carcinogen and even if you stop drinking the effects still lingers for at least 15 years: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...
As a home brewer, I'd dispute "doesn't have sugar in it".
The wort is stuffed with maltose, dextrose before fermentation.
The yeast turns most of the fermentable sugars into alcohol, true, but some are left, and some are required.
The yeast cannot work above a certain level of alcohol (%ABV), so any sugars added above that will not be fermented.
Some styles have added non fermentables (lactose) to add sweetness.
Also in cold weather, a mulled ale is amazing. :-)
The wort is stuffed with maltose, dextrose before fermentation.
The yeast turns most of the fermentable sugars into alcohol, true, but some are left, and some are required.
The yeast cannot work above a certain level of alcohol (%ABV), so any sugars added above that will not be fermented.
Some styles have added non fermentables (lactose) to add sweetness.
Also in cold weather, a mulled ale is amazing. :-)
>It doesn't have sugar in it, so it's something you can drink without damaging your teeth.
I'm keeping this in my mental file cabinet for the semi-weekly "beer, wine or vodka and fruit juice" debate.
>It also kills germs/bacteria
I'd wager that moonshine kills them deader.
>I think it becomes much more appealing in hot weather, as a chilled beer is very refreshing.
>Also, it's something you tend to sip gradually
Those aren't the same drink. Beer can be downed rapidly after finishing a laborious task. IPAs and other "beer inspired" substances are what you slowly sip when you have a lot of time on your hands.
I'm keeping this in my mental file cabinet for the semi-weekly "beer, wine or vodka and fruit juice" debate.
>It also kills germs/bacteria
I'd wager that moonshine kills them deader.
>I think it becomes much more appealing in hot weather, as a chilled beer is very refreshing.
>Also, it's something you tend to sip gradually
Those aren't the same drink. Beer can be downed rapidly after finishing a laborious task. IPAs and other "beer inspired" substances are what you slowly sip when you have a lot of time on your hands.
Can confirm. Being the only nondrinket at a party sucks. Everyone becomes a strange kind of boring where the stupidest things entertain them and you just can't see it.
Happens to me a lot because I don't like wine and beer and it seems that in the US people really really don't like to drink spirits socially. Or even to mix their own cocktails.
Sometimes I miss parties with my slavic friends where we go through bottles of gin and vodka and such things. Def don't miss the next day hangover tho :D
And yes it IS a social lubricant. Lowers inhibitions.
Edit: on second thought, maybe avoiding spirits at parties isn't a US thing. Maybe I'm just getting older and people around me no longer enjoy getting smashed
Happens to me a lot because I don't like wine and beer and it seems that in the US people really really don't like to drink spirits socially. Or even to mix their own cocktails.
Sometimes I miss parties with my slavic friends where we go through bottles of gin and vodka and such things. Def don't miss the next day hangover tho :D
And yes it IS a social lubricant. Lowers inhibitions.
Edit: on second thought, maybe avoiding spirits at parties isn't a US thing. Maybe I'm just getting older and people around me no longer enjoy getting smashed
Not sure where you got the idea that in the US people really really don't like to drink spirits socially. I'm sure it's different around the country but that's not the case anywhere I've been.
I find that they drink them at clubs but not at home parties. Should've been more clear.
And anyway it probably has more to do with age than geography. People don't get as smashed in their late 20's as they do in high school and college when drinking is more like a competition on who can get the most drunk the fastest.
Or maybe I'm just going to the wrong parties. You're right, geography is prob a correlation.
And anyway it probably has more to do with age than geography. People don't get as smashed in their late 20's as they do in high school and college when drinking is more like a competition on who can get the most drunk the fastest.
Or maybe I'm just going to the wrong parties. You're right, geography is prob a correlation.
Next time you go to a party at a friend's home, offer to bring some spirits and mixers. Most people stick to beer/wine at self-hosted parties because anything else is a PITA, not because they don't like spirits.
Bring some ice too.
> For example, tea
Honestly, as a tea lover it baffles me how people can prefer alcohol at parties. A high quality sencha can make you "tea drunk" which is what I prefer over being ordinary drunk. The magical combination of caffeine and l-theanin (and maybe some unknown stuff) can put you in a relaxed, slightly euphoric state with a thirst for action. Oddly enough, at times it can even reduce the power negative feelings have on me. Alcohol, otoh, makes me feel rather ... numb.
Honestly, as a tea lover it baffles me how people can prefer alcohol at parties. A high quality sencha can make you "tea drunk" which is what I prefer over being ordinary drunk. The magical combination of caffeine and l-theanin (and maybe some unknown stuff) can put you in a relaxed, slightly euphoric state with a thirst for action. Oddly enough, at times it can even reduce the power negative feelings have on me. Alcohol, otoh, makes me feel rather ... numb.
I am the same exact way. Can you please recommend where to buy the teas you recommend for the stated effects?
I buy at some (local) German stores so these are probably out of the question for you. But I think any serious tea dealer (they know which region their teas are from, what cultivar they are etc...) will do. However, r/tea (reddit's tea community) has a list of their favorite vendors. Maybe you find something good there.[0] I think Ocha is rather popular over there.
As far as the tea is concerned, tea starting at roughly 12 (€|$) / 100g (maybe a little cheaper if you're lucky) tends to have this effect. Furthermore, the effect also depends on finding the right steeping time, water temperature and tea-leaves/water ratio for each individual tea. Moreover, I suspect different teas work for different people. If you're "seriously" into Sencha it's advisable to get a Kyusu which is a traditional Japanese teapot that helps bringing out the best flavor.
Incidentally, I find tolerance builds, unfortunately, rather quickly when I drink Sencha very frequently. So at times it seems like a good idea to skip it for a few days.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/tea/wiki/vendors/page_01
As far as the tea is concerned, tea starting at roughly 12 (€|$) / 100g (maybe a little cheaper if you're lucky) tends to have this effect. Furthermore, the effect also depends on finding the right steeping time, water temperature and tea-leaves/water ratio for each individual tea. Moreover, I suspect different teas work for different people. If you're "seriously" into Sencha it's advisable to get a Kyusu which is a traditional Japanese teapot that helps bringing out the best flavor.
Incidentally, I find tolerance builds, unfortunately, rather quickly when I drink Sencha very frequently. So at times it seems like a good idea to skip it for a few days.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/tea/wiki/vendors/page_01
Alcoholic drinks taste great (some), but the important bit is alcohol makes you feel really good. Temporarily.
It also helps people who struggle with small talk, or interacting with others in general, to relax and loosen up.
It also helps people who struggle with small talk, or interacting with others in general, to relax and loosen up.
I second randlet's and aetherson's posts.
A warning ( and possible reason to _never_ drink): some who have a tendency toward alcoholism may enjoy drinking much more than the rest of us. Some alcoholic authors' descriptions of the allure of alcohol are quite striking.
My experience: one drink relaxes me - more makes me ill. I enjoy a drink in social company. My linguistic faculty (esp. foreign languages)(no pun intended) _seem_ to improve under the influence, but maybe that's the liquor speaking! I like many of the sayings associated with social drinking, e.g.,
"In vino veritas!"
A warning ( and possible reason to _never_ drink): some who have a tendency toward alcoholism may enjoy drinking much more than the rest of us. Some alcoholic authors' descriptions of the allure of alcohol are quite striking.
My experience: one drink relaxes me - more makes me ill. I enjoy a drink in social company. My linguistic faculty (esp. foreign languages)(no pun intended) _seem_ to improve under the influence, but maybe that's the liquor speaking! I like many of the sayings associated with social drinking, e.g.,
"In vino veritas!"
There's probably no good health reason to consume alcohol. If you haven't started drinking, it's probably best to never try it, from a health perspective.
Nobody is saying you should start drinking if you don't want to, but there are definitely some benefits for social drinking. Lower inhibitions, feeling more relaxed, getting rid of anxiety or just enjoying a good drink. Again, not for everyone, but it works for a lot of people.
Replace alcoholic drinks with a good pizza, and you might answer your own question.
Replace alcoholic drinks with a good pizza, and you might answer your own question.
It creates a feeling of mild euphoria.
It's a "social lubricant" because it helps people relax their inhibitions and social anxieties.
Most people experience some form of anxiety when socializing.
Other things can help, like familiarity (groups that know each other well) and structure (e.g. playing a game together).
On balance, there does not seem to be any direct health benefit to drinking. Or the upsides are nullified by the downsides, but there may be indirect benefits depending on who you are. Just a course example: if not drinking leads to social isolation, there are well known health risks associated with isolation.
Most people experience some form of anxiety when socializing.
Other things can help, like familiarity (groups that know each other well) and structure (e.g. playing a game together).
On balance, there does not seem to be any direct health benefit to drinking. Or the upsides are nullified by the downsides, but there may be indirect benefits depending on who you are. Just a course example: if not drinking leads to social isolation, there are well known health risks associated with isolation.
It makes me a better dancer and singer.
I don't drink either, but I can see the benefit of something that lowers inhibitions. Especially for professionals, we kind of learn to be somewhat guarded and uptight all the time.
I know when I'm very tired (from being up late or exercising a ton) I get somewhat loopy and it seems to have a similar effect on my inhibitions.
I know when I'm very tired (from being up late or exercising a ton) I get somewhat loopy and it seems to have a similar effect on my inhibitions.
Red wine has long been believed to be good for the heart, whether that's true or not is very debatable. As for the believed benefits of moderate drinking, many believe moderate drinking reduces stress. Reduced stress leads to better health.
I've tried once(Vodka), and i regret it. awful taste. vomits everywhere, felt bad, the next day is a mess.
I'll stack with weed. (especially that i am from Morocco, we have good weed and Hash)
You clearly didn't just 'try' Vodka if you were vomiting. You drank to excess.
5 small cups... i don't think it's excess.
but maybe because it was my first time, i was worried of losing control (i remember i did 40 pushups to prove to my friend i still in control).
Anyway never tried again. i hate it
5 small cups... i don't think it's excess.
That sounds like a lot of vodka, especially for a first-time drinker! Depending on the size of the cup, that was likely at least 5 drinks, and likely more (1 drink of spirits is usually less than you think, and almost always less than what you see poured on TV).
Given that it is also easier to drink liquor faster than something like beer, you likely had quite a bit of alcohol in a pretty short time. I'd be sick, too.
That sounds like a lot of vodka, especially for a first-time drinker! Depending on the size of the cup, that was likely at least 5 drinks, and likely more (1 drink of spirits is usually less than you think, and almost always less than what you see poured on TV).
Given that it is also easier to drink liquor faster than something like beer, you likely had quite a bit of alcohol in a pretty short time. I'd be sick, too.
>Given that it is also easier to drink liquor faster than something like beer,
The kind of vodka that someone having their first drink does not go down quicker than beer unless you're already drunk.
The kind of vodka that someone having their first drink does not go down quicker than beer unless you're already drunk.
In a bar in Britain, 5 single vodkas (35ml each) is half the maximum recommended weekly consumption of alcohol. One additional vodka takes you over the official amount for "binge drinking", drinking a lot in a short period in order to get drunk -- and that's for someone who probably consumes alcohol regularly.
Measures poured at someone's home tend to be more than 35ml.
Measures poured at someone's home tend to be more than 35ml.
Mow the lawn on a hot day then have an APA in the shower. It's truely life changing. No sarcasm or anything, it really is.
How do you explain psychedelics? Alcohol is a terrible drug as those go, but it is legal, so you might as well try once.
Works wonders for my depression.
I'm sorry to hear that you're depressed. If you don't mind sharing, what else have you tried? Isn't alcohol a depressant? I'm no psychiatrist but it seems paradoxical that alcohol would help with depression
Isn't depressant just the opposite of stimulant? I don't think it has anything to do with depression the syndrome.
It doesn't, but there is a connection: for people who have a predisposition, alcohol is risky in that it can trigger a depressive episode. Typically one of the first things a psychiatrist or therapist will tell you to do in such a situation is to stop drinking. The GP's experience (that alcohol helps their depression) is not typical, but everyone is different.
Things feel more fun when you're drunk with other people. Having a drink or two isn't. In that case its just kind of relaxing. Takes the edge off if you are feeling anxious or stressed about the earlier work day for example.
Honestly, with all this stuff about whether drinking or whatever is or isn't good for you, part of me wonders why I should even care any more.
I mean, it's pretty clear that genetics have a huge impact in how long you live regardless of what your lifestyle is like, and it's also clear that the advice seems to change every few years anyway.
May as well just live how you like and deal with things as they come. And if that's a short life... well at least it was an enjoyable one till that point.
I mean, it's pretty clear that genetics have a huge impact in how long you live regardless of what your lifestyle is like, and it's also clear that the advice seems to change every few years anyway.
May as well just live how you like and deal with things as they come. And if that's a short life... well at least it was an enjoyable one till that point.
> it's pretty clear that genetics have a huge impact in how long you live regardless of what your lifestyle is like
Because healthy eating and habits improve the quality of the life during the quantity your genetics give you.
Because healthy eating and habits improve the quality of the life during the quantity your genetics give you.
If you are predisposed to some genetic condition (say cancer), healthy living (excersize, eating right) can help delay the onset and improve outcomes. (s.o. is nurse and sees that stuff all the time, fwiw)
Isn't this a given though...? Exercise and eating right will improve outcomes no matter what genetics you have.
What if you don't like exercise and like to eat?
A lifetime of forcing oneself to do something unappealing and then topping it off with denial of things one likes doesn't sound like a overall good trade, even if you live longer.
A lifetime of forcing oneself to do something unappealing and then topping it off with denial of things one likes doesn't sound like a overall good trade, even if you live longer.
What if you don't like exercise and like to eat?
That's me in a nutshell. There are lots of ways to get exercise without "exercising". Personally I tend to get off the bus a few stops early each morning and walk the last 30 minutes to work. Great way to some exercise in and a great way to start the morning. Another example, my closest food store is 1.5 km down the road. If I know I only need a few things I'll walk instead of taking the car.
On the food front I eat most of what I used to eat but less, compensating with getting higher quality products. I also started to get much more adventurous with my eating trying all kinds of different ingredients and cooking techniques, not because they where healthy, but for the love of food. It turned out that some of those things that where pretty delicious also had the side benefit of apparently being healthy as well (who knew). So I slowly started to phase those things more into my diet. Over the course of a handful of years I managed to greatly improve my diet without feeling like I was giving up on anything or denying myself anything I wanted.
That's me in a nutshell. There are lots of ways to get exercise without "exercising". Personally I tend to get off the bus a few stops early each morning and walk the last 30 minutes to work. Great way to some exercise in and a great way to start the morning. Another example, my closest food store is 1.5 km down the road. If I know I only need a few things I'll walk instead of taking the car.
On the food front I eat most of what I used to eat but less, compensating with getting higher quality products. I also started to get much more adventurous with my eating trying all kinds of different ingredients and cooking techniques, not because they where healthy, but for the love of food. It turned out that some of those things that where pretty delicious also had the side benefit of apparently being healthy as well (who knew). So I slowly started to phase those things more into my diet. Over the course of a handful of years I managed to greatly improve my diet without feeling like I was giving up on anything or denying myself anything I wanted.
The open question is, what constitutes "eating right" and how can one do so cheaply?
The blue zone diets, and to a lesser degree the diets of natural bodybuilders provide a fairly good answer to this question.
Lots of vegetables, lots of legumes, fermented food products, and moderate consumption of animal products with an emphasis on fish. Eat enough so you don't feel weak, but limit consumption to stay fairly lean at the same time.
Lots of vegetables, lots of legumes, fermented food products, and moderate consumption of animal products with an emphasis on fish. Eat enough so you don't feel weak, but limit consumption to stay fairly lean at the same time.
Yes, which is why you might consider caring, as the original comment asked.
Individual DNA analysis is on the way, so hopefully health science can start to study what might best work for you, individually. Maybe for now just weigh the health advise of your genetic ancestors more than some study on millions of people that show only small differences of outcome.
You should care.
The issue is to be able to indulge in a bit of self experimentation. You eat and drink what you enjoy, and do regular checks.
If you change what you eat and drink, the checks will tell you if it is good or not for you.
The issue is to be able to indulge in a bit of self experimentation. You eat and drink what you enjoy, and do regular checks.
If you change what you eat and drink, the checks will tell you if it is good or not for you.
Some things are proven to be very bad, like cigarettes or morbid obesity. There's really no question that those things kill people, and will drastically affect your life expectancy.
Or maybe moderate alcohol makes you wealthy, thereby making you healthier ;)
It's interesting that the drugs society accepts (caffeine, alcohol, tobacco) all help you cope with excessive work whereas the ones we ban all have a negative impact on work.
Tolerance for tobacco is teetering where I am. Marijuana seems more acceptable though.
I hear LSD boosts productivity.
It's almost as if doing something that is generally proven to be unhealthy is unhealthy?
I loathe this kind of headline, claiming to have the authority to tell me what to do or what is good or bad for me. How presumptuous.
This feels like it was written by a temperance researchers who is manipulating his result. I understand drinking's a problem for a subset of our population and results in early deaths, but they've clearly identified it's the subset of heavy drinker but constantly preach to the people who aren't in that subset.
In this instance, he lied twice.
First the article content doesn't support the title's claim at all.
In idiomatic english, something being "not so good for you" implies it's bad for you. For example the synonyms "not so good" on thesaurus.com are "bad" & "poor".
That errant "so", obviously deliberately chosen, is a lie.
They didn't find that at all. They're actually found moderate drinking has no discernible consequence on health and only heavy drinkers are at risk.
But even that is a lie, that they admit themselves. There's this gem:
In women, moderate alcohol use was still linked with a health benefit, but given the few women drinking moderately (4%) this effect was questionable.
So the researcher has actually decide to ignore his own results! Either it's mathematically significant or not significant. You can't just discard results that don't agree with your temperance stance.
In this instance, he lied twice.
First the article content doesn't support the title's claim at all.
In idiomatic english, something being "not so good for you" implies it's bad for you. For example the synonyms "not so good" on thesaurus.com are "bad" & "poor".
That errant "so", obviously deliberately chosen, is a lie.
They didn't find that at all. They're actually found moderate drinking has no discernible consequence on health and only heavy drinkers are at risk.
But even that is a lie, that they admit themselves. There's this gem:
In women, moderate alcohol use was still linked with a health benefit, but given the few women drinking moderately (4%) this effect was questionable.
So the researcher has actually decide to ignore his own results! Either it's mathematically significant or not significant. You can't just discard results that don't agree with your temperance stance.