Any level of alcohol consumption increases risk of dementia(ox.ac.uk)
ox.ac.uk
Any level of alcohol consumption increases risk of dementia
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2025-09-24-any-level-alcohol-consumption-increases-risk-dementia
51 comments
The way I see it anything short of habitual or occupational exposure to "things known to be bad, but not so bad you can tell without statistics" is probably less bad for me than whatever my blood pressure would be if I gave a crap about everything that's statistically bad.
Also probably a higher net positive to go out and make some friends and have a drink than sit at home and watching YouTube nonsense.
Hyperoptimizing your life without looking at the big picture is nicely explained in The Burnout Society by Byung-Chul Han.
Hyperoptimizing your life without looking at the big picture is nicely explained in The Burnout Society by Byung-Chul Han.
Eating chocolate doesn't hijack your prefrontal cortex, leading to more chocolate consumption. Alcoholism is a slippery slope.
I'm not arguing one over the other, I'm saying that I'd like to see that based on the research, the risk elements quantified and visualised. Alcoholism is a slippery slope just like eating fast food everyday, however its impacts are likely quantified differently and have different mortalities.
And yes, there is evidence to show that your pre-frontal cortex surrounding impulse control can be weakened by high sugar and high fat diets. Eating indulgent sugary foods absolutely contributes to you wanting more of them.
And yes, there is evidence to show that your pre-frontal cortex surrounding impulse control can be weakened by high sugar and high fat diets. Eating indulgent sugary foods absolutely contributes to you wanting more of them.
I dunno, usually when I eat chocolate it makes me want to eat more chocolate. What is the mechanism for this?
Available data makes causality hard to get right. This paper is trying to get around known constraints with observational data (e.g., some people stop drinking when they start having noticeable problems). Mendelian randomization tries to infer how much a person drinks from their genetic variants. However, the genetic tendency to drink might be associated with the same variants related to dementia. The summary doesn't make it clear if this was addressed.
These reports always highlight the relative risk, not the absolute risk.
Over the course of the study the absolute risk was 2.5%.
While this reinforces the dangers of alcohol consumption the actual increase in risk is significant but small.
Over the course of the study the absolute risk was 2.5%.
While this reinforces the dangers of alcohol consumption the actual increase in risk is significant but small.
A good anchor here is that cigarette smokers are 15-30 times more likely to get or die from lung cancer compared to non-smokers.
Effect size and baseline risk matter a lot, and while the idea that alcohol was pro-health always felt a little suspect, I don't think this kind of risk profile is at all significant enough for people to change their habits for.
I didn't also read too much into this study, but there is a stark difference between old age dementia and younger dementia. My mom contracted dementia symptoms at 58, which is so much more devastating than another family member who started showing symptoms at 97.
Effect size and baseline risk matter a lot, and while the idea that alcohol was pro-health always felt a little suspect, I don't think this kind of risk profile is at all significant enough for people to change their habits for.
I didn't also read too much into this study, but there is a stark difference between old age dementia and younger dementia. My mom contracted dementia symptoms at 58, which is so much more devastating than another family member who started showing symptoms at 97.
[deleted]
Look, you're going to die of something. If you want to give up every little source of joy to eke out an extra year or two of lifespan or healthspan in extreme old age, go for it. I'll have the glass of wine now while I can still enjoy and comprehend that I'm enjoying it.
Avoiding dementia seems like a worthwhile quest. It's less about increasing lifespan and more about increasing quality of life at the end.
But I already don't drink, because it's not a source of joy. If you enjoy it, you do you.
But I already don't drink, because it's not a source of joy. If you enjoy it, you do you.
Alcohol is intimately integrated into our social fabric. I don't know how many gatherings I've been to in my 73 years, but I bet I could count on one hand the number where booze was not served.
When you stop drinking it’s shockingly visible how pervasive it is. That said, never less so than these days.
This study manages to find that drinking exponentially more per week is probably bad for you. I think that falls under 'no shit'.
The main aim seems to be to refute previous "U-shaped" and "J-shaped" studies that suggested a moderate amount of drinking was good because there was a dip in the distribution. Going so far as to suggest that moderate drinking must somehow be 'protective'. The explanation for that seems to be that those studies collected _current_ drinking use only, when presumably a history of binge drinking would still be quite relevant. This would artificially inflate the 'non-drinking' category with people who actually did have a history of drinking, while also deflating the moderate category. Apparently to the point that the moderate drinking levels looked even safer than non-drinking - which probably should've been a clue. In other words the data was probably pretty flawed, and garbage-in garbage-out.
As for this study...
"Genetically-predicted drinks per week" - are we serious with this?? Maybe they're claiming that their 'predicted models' align well with the smaller amount of surveyed self-reported data but that's hard to find in the paper.
They seem to bend over backwards to make alcohol causal, even going so far as to suggest that a decline in drinking behavior over the years may just be reverse-caused by the future dementia. And for higher incidence of dementia in non-drinkers - seemingly the opposite of the conclusion - that's explained away by suggesting those people may have just had a hypothetical prior heavy use, therefore the "reverse causation is further supported". Pretty circular...
I'm not sure how much more can be reasonably concluded from this other than health risks probably scale with drug use in some fashion. The data, methodology, and modeling seem far far too hand-wavy to suggest any kind of definitive explanation. The results barely even exclude 'no effect' in a 95% CI.
I would not be surprised for a second if effects like early cognitive decline correlate with decreased drinking habits, but I just don't see how you can conclude any of that from this.
I suppose if we're getting off the apparently very loosely suggested 'moderate drinking is good' myth, that's still progress, but...
The main aim seems to be to refute previous "U-shaped" and "J-shaped" studies that suggested a moderate amount of drinking was good because there was a dip in the distribution. Going so far as to suggest that moderate drinking must somehow be 'protective'. The explanation for that seems to be that those studies collected _current_ drinking use only, when presumably a history of binge drinking would still be quite relevant. This would artificially inflate the 'non-drinking' category with people who actually did have a history of drinking, while also deflating the moderate category. Apparently to the point that the moderate drinking levels looked even safer than non-drinking - which probably should've been a clue. In other words the data was probably pretty flawed, and garbage-in garbage-out.
As for this study...
"Genetically-predicted drinks per week" - are we serious with this?? Maybe they're claiming that their 'predicted models' align well with the smaller amount of surveyed self-reported data but that's hard to find in the paper.
They seem to bend over backwards to make alcohol causal, even going so far as to suggest that a decline in drinking behavior over the years may just be reverse-caused by the future dementia. And for higher incidence of dementia in non-drinkers - seemingly the opposite of the conclusion - that's explained away by suggesting those people may have just had a hypothetical prior heavy use, therefore the "reverse causation is further supported". Pretty circular...
I'm not sure how much more can be reasonably concluded from this other than health risks probably scale with drug use in some fashion. The data, methodology, and modeling seem far far too hand-wavy to suggest any kind of definitive explanation. The results barely even exclude 'no effect' in a 95% CI.
I would not be surprised for a second if effects like early cognitive decline correlate with decreased drinking habits, but I just don't see how you can conclude any of that from this.
I suppose if we're getting off the apparently very loosely suggested 'moderate drinking is good' myth, that's still progress, but...
I found it very odd that their study basically says that people who currently drink 7-14 drinks per week have the lowest chance of dementia even lower than the “never drinkers”.
While I somewhat understand that those who are heavy drinkers (>40 drinks per week) would have a greater dementia risk, and that current low/no drinkers may have been heavy drinkers in the past so would also increase their risk, how does the 7-14 DPW group having a much lower risk than the “never drinkers” in this study make sense given what they’re trying to say here?
If any amount of alcohol intake increases risk then all the cohorts should carry a higher risk then the never drinker group but it does not.
While I somewhat understand that those who are heavy drinkers (>40 drinks per week) would have a greater dementia risk, and that current low/no drinkers may have been heavy drinkers in the past so would also increase their risk, how does the 7-14 DPW group having a much lower risk than the “never drinkers” in this study make sense given what they’re trying to say here?
If any amount of alcohol intake increases risk then all the cohorts should carry a higher risk then the never drinker group but it does not.
Previously with 25 upvotes and 9 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45366455
We are ultimately all going to die of something. The answer is to make informed risk decisions so as to enjoy life, not wrap yourself up in a bubble and do nothing fun for 100 years. Alcohol increases your dementia risk. Tasty food increases your heart disease risk. Live long enough and you're probably guaranteed to get cancer.
Everything in moderation, including moderation.
Everything in moderation, including moderation.
I agree. But it's important to debunk the myth that drinking wine is good for your health.
It's fine to drink to have fun or enjoy it, even if unhealthy. It's not fine to drink thinking it's good for your health.
It's fine to drink to have fun or enjoy it, even if unhealthy. It's not fine to drink thinking it's good for your health.
I don't think that the "I drink wine because it is healthy", is the main driver of people's drinking--not even the fifth.
After all, I have yet to see a sober person picking up drinking wine because it is good for their health.
Let's have a sober conversation on this: I drink a glass or half a glass of wine most nights because I like it.
I think some people who like wine, would drink less often if they considered it bad for you. But since "it's good" you might as well drink every night.
I have never heard of them, those are the mythical beings nobody has ever seen.
If it were true, the opposite would be likely true as well (I don't like red wine, but I drink if because it is good for my health).
The negative effects one could operate on are putting on weight, not sleeping as well at night, bad breath, sleepiness, but not a fear-mongering article in which it is said that any amount of alcohol increases the risk of dementia. I am talking about a glass of wine; if the current regime is a bottle of wine a day, the whole equation changes.
The negative effects one could operate on are putting on weight, not sleeping as well at night, bad breath, sleepiness, but not a fear-mongering article in which it is said that any amount of alcohol increases the risk of dementia. I am talking about a glass of wine; if the current regime is a bottle of wine a day, the whole equation changes.
It's the same as cigarette taxes, abortion laws, and so on. People claim nobody changes their mind because of it, but statistically the impact is significant.
You cannot compare the cigarette tax to a study saying that even minimal alcohol consumption increases the risk of dementia. If you increase the price of wine 5x, I am sure fewer people would drink, but that's a very wild extrapolation, context-wise, of this conversation.
The same applies to abortion laws: not even in my wildest dreams would I compare their effects on abortion rates to the effects on behavior that the results of the study discussed in this thread would cause.
The same applies to abortion laws: not even in my wildest dreams would I compare their effects on abortion rates to the effects on behavior that the results of the study discussed in this thread would cause.
>I have never heard of them, those are the mythical beings nobody has ever seen.
Cue my father-in-law.
Cue my father-in-law.
I guess I was imprecise with my language and did not think about the father-in-law effect. He surely responded extremely quickly to the study just published. However, I would advise waiting for further studies, replications, etc.
Let me rephrase it: I doubt that the results of this study will change the minds of a significant number of people who enjoy drinking a glass of wine every now and then.
Let me rephrase it: I doubt that the results of this study will change the minds of a significant number of people who enjoy drinking a glass of wine every now and then.
And occasionally having a cigar is associated with ever so slightly lower rates of lung cancer.
Being rich enough to buy luxuries is good for your health.
Being rich enough to buy luxuries is good for your health.
I think the reason why wine/alcohol was deemed good for health was that the study was on US population who are generally overweight, and thus usually have arterial plaque narrowing their arteries.
Alcohol acts as a blood thinner, thus it was healthy for the unhealthy. But it was not, and has never been, healthy for the healthy.
Alcohol acts as a blood thinner, thus it was healthy for the unhealthy. But it was not, and has never been, healthy for the healthy.
[deleted]
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-red-wine-good-actuall...
Moderate drinking — defined as one drink per day for healthy women and two drinks per day for healthy men — is widely considered safe. But to date, the health effects of alcohol have never been tested in a long-term, randomized trial.
that sentence was written as skepticism of the health benefits to drinking wine. But if the health effects of alcohol have never been studied long term, I don't see how you can claim health benefits are a myth.
Moderate drinking — defined as one drink per day for healthy women and two drinks per day for healthy men — is widely considered safe. But to date, the health effects of alcohol have never been tested in a long-term, randomized trial.
that sentence was written as skepticism of the health benefits to drinking wine. But if the health effects of alcohol have never been studied long term, I don't see how you can claim health benefits are a myth.
This is about alcohol and dementia, not wine. It is certainly still possible that wine in moderation is good for cardiac health.
But wine has alcohol. And even if it actually were good for cardiac health, people should be aware that they are trading cardiac health for dementia risk.
>It is certainly still possible that wine in moderation is good for cardiac health.
Fairly sure that is mostly debunked, or at least grossly misleading, as the quantity of wine required to see cardiovascular benefit is high enough that any benefit is outweighed by the negative effects of the large quantity of wine required.
Fairly sure that is mostly debunked, or at least grossly misleading, as the quantity of wine required to see cardiovascular benefit is high enough that any benefit is outweighed by the negative effects of the large quantity of wine required.
Everything in moderation is a strategy to minimize risks with limited information.
When you have information, you probably wouldn't say "cigarettes in moderation". You'd say "avoid smoking" as much as possible. It looks like alcohol is headed in that direction.
You are welcomed to wait for more data, or to choose to continue to drink (to your chosen level of "in moderation") with or without more data. But the guidelines are probably going to end up being "avoid drinking alcohol".
When you have information, you probably wouldn't say "cigarettes in moderation". You'd say "avoid smoking" as much as possible. It looks like alcohol is headed in that direction.
You are welcomed to wait for more data, or to choose to continue to drink (to your chosen level of "in moderation") with or without more data. But the guidelines are probably going to end up being "avoid drinking alcohol".
The things that we enjoy in life are mostly driven by habit. Best to drive your habits to things that are good for you.
Also, the world has changed so much in the last 5 years. It's not clear to me that radical life extension won't happen in the next 50 years. Best to get on the right side of the escape velocity.
Also, the world has changed so much in the last 5 years. It's not clear to me that radical life extension won't happen in the next 50 years. Best to get on the right side of the escape velocity.
To be fair, there are many things which are enjoyable and have very low hazard, or perhaps even positive effects. Exercising and socializing with friends are the ones that most stick out to me.
As long as your socializing isn’t online, which apparently is very toxic :)
Right, and for us to make "informed" risk decisions we should see articles like this one that provide the information with which to make decisions. I don't understand why you're using such a passive aggressive tone since this fits with your vision.
Nah im sorry. First: Any amount is bad. DO NOT DRINK.
Second, and this comment highlights it perfectly: The more serious problem is not the wine glass per week, it's that drinkers instantly try to "put things into perspective" regarding their own consumption. There are 0 addicts that tell you their honest consumption amount and thus it will continue to rise until you are at serious health hazards.
If you enjoy tricking your brain into releasing endorphins to feel good take up sports, watch a horror movie or engage in any kind of challenge.
Alcohol is poison and will cripple you.
Second, and this comment highlights it perfectly: The more serious problem is not the wine glass per week, it's that drinkers instantly try to "put things into perspective" regarding their own consumption. There are 0 addicts that tell you their honest consumption amount and thus it will continue to rise until you are at serious health hazards.
If you enjoy tricking your brain into releasing endorphins to feel good take up sports, watch a horror movie or engage in any kind of challenge.
Alcohol is poison and will cripple you.
My dad has one gin every day and he’s 92 and a beautiful brain still writing academic articles on how the brain works.
Any old folks home worth their salt has a bar in it.
And lots of old people having hanky panky.
One of the few things they have left to live for, a lot of times. They're not going to be out hiking the Appalachian Trail.
And lots of old people having hanky panky.
One of the few things they have left to live for, a lot of times. They're not going to be out hiking the Appalachian Trail.
Found the anecdata thread! My grandpa had a 20cl cup of red wine at lunch every day and died at 87 with cancer AND dementia.
Yeah, I have a 2 grandmas that didn't drink and both died in their 90s. One with dementia the other without. One grandpa died in his late 80s and I think he drank. The other died in his 90s. Neither had dementia.
What lesson can I draw from any of this? Dementia really sucks for the families. It's not so bad for the person who's brain is turning to mush.
What lesson can I draw from any of this? Dementia really sucks for the families. It's not so bad for the person who's brain is turning to mush.
> It's not so bad for the person who's brain is turning to mush
Well Alzheimer’s was torture for my father every single day before he passed. My grandmother had it too and all throughout the beginning he knew what was coming and how difficult it was going to be for both him and all of us. Even through to the end during the fleeting moments of almost clarity, he agonized over “not being able to think like I used to”
If you could ask someone who has it, I seriously doubt their answer would be “it’s not so bad”.
Well Alzheimer’s was torture for my father every single day before he passed. My grandmother had it too and all throughout the beginning he knew what was coming and how difficult it was going to be for both him and all of us. Even through to the end during the fleeting moments of almost clarity, he agonized over “not being able to think like I used to”
If you could ask someone who has it, I seriously doubt their answer would be “it’s not so bad”.
[deleted]
Don't lots of foods have alcohols, just not ethanol?
I do not regret the (tiny amount of) narazuke I ate when I was younger.
Don't do anything as it could increase your risk of X. Sometimes you need to live your life in the present. If somebody wants to smoke then leave them alone.
[deleted]
I've no doubt scientifically that drinking any alcohol increases my risk of something. But it would be great to see it in proportion to other risk factors. Everything is a risk, but somethings are a much greater risk that I might choose to avoid altogether.