
Major study debunks myth that moderate drinking can be healthy - Ultramanoid
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-alcohol-stroke-idUSKCN1RG2ZI
======
headShrinker
As I tried to point out in another thread, the WHO, AMA, AHA, etc in 2005
designated alcohol as the next target to reduce disease. Those 3-letter
acronyms are funding majority negative alcohol effect study as it agrees with
their literal ‘global agenda’. That’s why researchers are producing negative
alcohol effect studies and why they are so popular. Researchers want to get
published. It’s also clear that much of the work is meta study or simple
questionnaire. In other words, much of the new negative alcohol publications
aren’t based on actual science. See? No tin-foil hats required

As for this study...

> Between April 1993 and December 1998, 63 257 individuals completed an in-
> person interview that included questions on usual diet, demographics, height
> and weight, use of tobacco, usual physical activity, menstrual and
> reproductive history (women only), medical history, and family history of
> cancer. The institutional review boards at the National University of
> Singapore and the University of Minnesota approved this study.

They asked people a bunch of questions about their behavior and “usual diet”
in actuality exact diet would be a more accurate indicator of disease
precursors... diet controls so much of everyone’s lives and deaths more than
any other modern daily life input. Unless they are consuming large amounts of
alcohol aka heavy drinkers.

Source study:
[https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/circulationaha....](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/circulationaha.111.048843)

~~~
theNJR
What is this literal global agenda?

I love a good weekend drink as much as the next person but it’s very obvious
that alcohol is literal poison and best to be avoided. That conclusion doesn’t
require a bunch of health organizations to conspire.

~~~
headShrinker
> and best to be avoided

In any quantity? Prove it

The problem is everything is a poison in quantity. Moderation is key with
anything.

The agenda was clearly indicated. Please reread my parent post, Reduce alcohol
consumption.

We consume many extremely dangerous poisons throughout the day and there is
not a ton of research of the effects of those molecules. Or there is and
almost no follow up action.

~~~
theNJR
I guess my point is the risk of alcohol consumption is incredibly high and the
reward is incredibly low. It’s an irrational game we play (myself included, my
wife and I will surely share a bottle of wine tonight at dinner).

~~~
headShrinker
I get your point but like it or not alcohol is very complex and has many
benefits as well as deficits. What organizations are doing now to alcohol with
their studies is the equivalent of what people did to marijuana in the 40s and
50s. They decided alcohol was bad and then they went about producing
propaganda and attributing science fortify their claims. In limited quantities
alcohol has been shown to improve sleep, reduce stress, thin blood, and
increase social behaviors. All of these are huge markers for life longevity
and lower mortality. If you’re really concerned about poisons and risk factors
you would look at the American diet and realize just what havoc it’s wreaking
on its population, i.e. diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and heart
disease. Statistically you will likely die of one of them

~~~
theNJR
Alcohol DESTROYS sleep. You wont like any of the studies that google comes up
with, so do what I did. Buy an Oura ring, get your baseline sleep data, then
have just two glasses of wine and see what happens. It's crazy what just a
little alcohol does to the quality of your sleep.

Any increase in social behaviors are vastly outweighed by anti-social
behavior.

I agree with you on stress reduction but that is a dangerous, dangerous game.

~~~
headShrinker
In limited quantities it can be a sleep ad. Anti-social is drinking too much.
Stop conflating over drinking affects with moderate drinking affects.

> DESTROYS

Stop with the hyperbole. No it doesn’t and google doesn’t bring up good sound
science, it brings up clickbait, “experts”, and tons of hearsay/case study.
Real science on moderate drinking is hard to perform, because there are so
many other factors at play..... such as genetics, diet, exercise, smoking, air
pollution, water pollution, antibiotics, The proliferation of sugar and
refined grains, the over use of pharmaceuticals, persistent inorganic
compounds, insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, growth hormones, and
radiation. But concentrate on negative aspects of alcohol because it seems to
fit your agenda. Meanwhile there are millions of happy people who have good
friends, sleep well, have a great job, eat healthy, have decent monetary
stream and can have a drink or two without turning in to a sloppy abusive
mess. People who drink alcohol in moderation tend with live longer than
abstinent sober people... how do I know that? I googled it

~~~
scruple
> In limited quantities it can be a sleep ad.

But it's not a sleep aid. Seriously. The idea of a nightcap has been
thoroughly debunked.

Alcohol is a sedative, being sedated is _not_ the same as being asleep. I'd
suggest looking in to Dr. Matthew Walker's research on the effects of alcohol
and sleep if you want to have a clearer picture.

~~~
theNJR
Conveniently linked above, both his book and a podcast interview :)

------
propter_hoc
FWIW, I've been struggling with gallstone issues recently, and my doctor
actually advised me to have a glass of wine a night.

Here are two recent studies on the topic.

[1] Alcohol consumption and risk of gallstone disease: a meta-analysis.

Wang J, et al. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27926662/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27926662/)

"A linear dose-response relationship was found between alcohol consumption and
gallstone disease risk and the risk of gallstone disease decreased by 12%
(RR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.84-0.92; Pnonlinearity=0.079) for each 10 g/day increment
in alcohol consumption. This meta-analysis suggests that alcohol consumption
is associated with significantly decreased risk of gallstone disease."

[2] Alcohol Consumption Can Reduce the Risk of Gallstone Disease: A Systematic
Review with a Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Case-Control and Cohort Studies.

Cha BH, et al. Gut Liver. 2019.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30665280/?i=6&from=/27...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30665280/?i=6&from=/27926662/related)

"In this systematic review with meta-analysis, alcohol consumption could
decrease the risk of GSD, and the dose-response analysis revealed a dose-
dependent linear risk reduction and a weakened linear trend between alcohol
consumption levels less than and greater than 28 g/day."

------
partiallypro
"The research, which used data from a 160,000-strong cohort of Chinese adults,
many of whom are unable to drink alcohol due to genetic intolerance"

That seems like a pretty big flaw in the study, no?

~~~
tlamponi
If you had read all:

> This [..] study [..] focused on people of East Asian descent, many of whom
> have genetic variants that limit alcohol tolerance. > Because the variants
> have specific and large effects on alcohol, but do not effect other
> lifestyle factors such as diet, smoking, economic status or education, they
> can be used by scientists to nail down causal effects of alcohol intake

and

> The research team - including scientists from Oxford and Peking universities
> and the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, said it would be impossible to
> do a study of this kind in Western populations, since almost no-one there
> has the relevant alcohol-intolerance gene variants.

it's the base pillar of their study..

~~~
wodenokoto
So the alcohol intolerant are the control group?

------
unseenbastiat
Unfortunately, one study cannot “debunk” anything.

Between the state of conflicting information in epidemiology, the replication
crisis in science in general, self reporting methodology, publication bias,
etc . . . there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical. That’s not even a
remark on the findings; even if the findings were the opposite, all these
undermining factors would remain.

------
RickJWagner
To each their own, but I decided to quit drinking about 20 years ago and
haven't missed it a bit. I feel healthier, I have more money, and best of all
I am proud to say I've always been sober in front of my kids.

------
inciampati
> Because the variants have specific and large effects on alcohol, but do not
> effect other lifestyle factors such as diet, smoking, economic status or
> education, they can be used by scientists to nail down causal effects of
> alcohol intake.

Well, yes, but only in people with a similar genetic background. Using this as
a kind of instrumental variable assumes an additive or linear model of genome
environment interactions which is about as realistic as a flat Earth model. It
may be that this study is being oversold.

------
jimhefferon
The article seems to say that it is the blood pressure that statistically
causes strokes, and that even moderate drinking statistically raises blood
pressure. Is that a fair summary?

~~~
WalterSear
They keep mentioning the two, but never explicitly state the connection.

------
mnm1
No shit. The only reason people think that moderate consumption is healthy is
because of widely publicized studies by the alcohol industry that were
manipulated to create the illusion that moderate consumption is healthy. And
because they want to rationalize their own behavior.

------
resource0x
I can confirm that. Moved from moderate to heavy drinking lately - feeling
much better ever since.

------
coldtea
Yeah, and the next study will re-instate that drinking can be healthy.

Until those studies have been going on for decades, with counter studies, and
criticism, etc, and end up part of conventional 101 university curriculum, any
individual study (even meta-study, also shoddily done more often than not) is
not worth the paper they are printed on for the average reader.

~~~
feinmann
You cannot criticize academic studies here. You see, everything has to be
evaluated on its own merit, so you have to read all 535.134 pro and 611.232
contra studies and have time to debate them, just like a bureaucrat.

Alternatively, quote a rogue authority, like Feynman:

"A committee is twelve people doing the work of one".

