Surgeon General links Alcohol to Cancer (1 Viewer)

[Terminalxylem]

This poor guy has only made it to 106 while drinking for the last 80 years.

MSN

I have no desire to make it to 106, much less 90, "healthy" or not.

You wouldn’t want to live to 90, even if fully functional, with no uncontrolled medical problems?

I understand most 90+ year olds aren’t riding their mountain bikes, but I’d gladly take healthy functionality at that age.

What’s your target lifespan then?

When I was younger the target was 50 (hope I die before I get old ). When I got to 50 I bumped it up to 65. Now that I'm approaching that I'm thinking about 80. 85 tops.

Spent a lot of time in an assisted living place lately and I have no desire for that life, even fully functional.

Hmmm…After revising the target multiple times, maybe you should consider getting old isn’t as bad as your younger self assumes?

For starters, a fully functional nonagenarian wouldn’t require assisted living

Personally, my 50’s have been great. A little less physically/mentally sharp, but free from health problems, and able to do just about anything I want. I’d be ecstatic to be 3/4 this level at age 90, which I think is achievable, if I take care of myself, plus a little luck.

And that assumes no meaningful medical advances in the next four decades. Heck, HIV went from a death sentence to chronic illness like diabetes in less than half that time. Who’s to say there won’t be breakthroughs in functional longevity in our lifetime?

 

[Terminalxylem]

This poor guy has only made it to 106 while drinking for the last 80 years.

MSN

I have no desire to make it to 106, much less 90, "healthy" or not.

You wouldn’t want to live to 90, even if fully functional, with no uncontrolled medical problems?

I understand most 90+ year olds aren’t riding their mountain bikes, but I’d gladly take healthy functionality at that age.

What’s your target lifespan then?

Even if I took perfect care of myself I wouldn't expect to be the sorta 90+ yr old you're describing. I'll consider it a success if I get to 80 with most of my marbles and the ability to still do some rec activity.

No guarantee, of course, but I see little harm in erring on the side of optimism, and acting accordingly. It’s the healthy lifestyle equivalent of Pascal’s wager, except you’re nearly certain to improve your quality, if not quantity of life.

 

[Terminalxylem]

That said, more carefully controlled population studies do show a mortality sweet spot around 1/2 drink per day.

Thanks for posting this. I hadn't seen it. So 3-4 drinks a week and it seems like any harm is at least offset by the benefits? Does that apply to all alcohol (beer, wine, bourbon, tequila)?

Don’t think it’s specified. Here is the article, with the usual caveats.

Objectives​

The aim of this study was to examine the association between alcohol consumption and risk of mortality from all causes, cancer, and CVD in U.S. adults.

Methods​

Data were obtained by linking 13 waves of the National Health Interview Surveys (1997 to 2009) to the National Death Index records through December 31, 2011. A total of 333,247 participants ≥18 years of age were included. Self-reported alcohol consumption patterns were categorized into 6 groups: lifetime abstainers; lifetime infrequent drinkers; former drinkers; and current light, moderate, or heavy drinkers. Secondary exposure included participants’ binge-drinking status. The main outcome was all-cause, cancer, or CVD mortality.

Results​

After a median follow-up of 8.2 years (2.7 million person-years), 34,754 participants died of all causes (including 8,947 CVD deaths and 8,427 cancer deaths). Compared with lifetime abstainers, those who were light or moderate alcohol consumers were at a reduced risk of mortality for all causes (light—hazard ratio

---

: 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76 to 0.82; moderate—HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.82) and CVD (light—HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.80; moderate—HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.78), respectively. In contrast, there was a significantly increased risk of mortality for all causes (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.19) and cancer (HR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.42) in adults with heavy alcohol consumption. Binge drinking ≥1 d/week was also associated with an increased risk of mortality for all causes (HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.23) and cancer (HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.41).

Conclusions​

Light and moderate alcohol intake might have a protective effect on all-cause and CVD-specific mortality in U.S. adults. Heavy or binge drinking was associated with increased risk of all-cause and cancer-specific mortality.

---

 

[Terminalxylem]

That said, more carefully controlled population studies do show a mortality sweet spot around 1/2 drink per day.

Thanks for posting this. I hadn't seen it. So 3-4 drinks a week and it seems like any harm is at least offset by the benefits? Does that apply to all alcohol (beer, wine, bourbon, tequila)?

There is some complexity in actually achieving 1/2 drink of beer. Don't really have a way to save it.

Share it.

 

[jhib]

That said, more carefully controlled population studies do show a mortality sweet spot around 1/2 drink per day.

Thanks for posting this. I hadn't seen it. So 3-4 drinks a week and it seems like any harm is at least offset by the benefits? Does that apply to all alcohol (beer, wine, bourbon, tequila)?

There is some complexity in actually achieving 1/2 drink of beer. Don't really have a way to save it.

Share it.

And chances are one doesn't usually hit whole number of "drinks" of beer anyway, with variable ABV #s.

 

[thecatch]

Emily Oster, is, as usual, worth reading about this.

There are people who say that the key to a long life is extreme calorie restriction. That might be true, but most of us wouldn’t choose it because, honestly, what would be the point?

Agree 100%. Alcohol can help me relax and make me happy. I could live to the age of 110 without it, but why would I want to do that.

What if you died 10+ years prematurely, and had reduced functionality for another decade due to drinking?

Those numbers aren't scientifically derived, but certainly could result from prolonged, heavy alcohol consumption.

How many functional years would you trade to get your drink on? How much extra suffering at life's end?

Why are you assuming he's referring to "prolonged, heavy alcohol consumption"?

I’m not.

But moderation isn’t easy, and many people don’t know, or scoff at cut-offs for what is considered excessive consumption. I mean, we've had posters admit regularly drinking entire bottles of wine, and proclaiming it difficult to limit oneself to one drink per hour, and no one bats an eye. Abusing alcohol isn’t universal, of course, but it’s common enough to think twice about any drinking.

I also dislike the false dichotomy of living to 110, vs.deriving happiness from alcohol. The whole concept of proactively relinquishing something you’ve yet to experience is absurd imo.

You responded to him with a hypothetical that assumed he was a heavy drinker, so yes, you did. The article isn’t talking about people who abuse alcohol excessively.

I communicated poorly then, as I have no idea how much he drinks, and wasn’t assuming he drank heavily.

I just wanted clarification what kind of trade-offs GenX would make, but the question applies to anyone in the crowd.

Personally, I’d never drink alcohol again, if I thought my consumption would shorten life at all. Not worth it imo, but booze neither relaxes nor makes me happy, so giving up a mixed drink here and there isn’t much of a sacrifice.

If it neither relaxes you nor makes you happy, abstention is a no brainer. Personally, a little helps me relax and stress is a more pressing health problem for me. As Oster notes, I have yet to see any unimpeachable evidence that that level of drinking is clearly harmful anyway.

To be clear, you haven't elaborated what constitutes "a little"*, so it's hard to know how much that relaxation will cost you.

Although it would be nice, I don't think we need a randomized controlled trial to deduce regular alcohol consumption is harmful. What's less clear is the net impact of infrequent, low volume drinking, though it probably isn't a issue.

But if you want a be a stickler about ironclad data, even defining "stress" is problematic, let alone showing cause-and-effect, with any disease.

*It's none of my business, of course, but this thread shows me how one defines "moderation" is all over the map.

ETA From Dr. Z's post above, you can see I don't accept nutrition data as gospel. I also don't agree with throwing out scientifically plausible, observable trends, even if causality isn't assured.

No, and I'm not going to get into that for fear of derailing the thread. And there's far more data showing certain types of conditions are stress-related than there is data showing low amounts of alcohol consumption is taking years off your life.

 

[MAC_32]

No guarantee, of course, but I see little harm in erring on the side of optimism, and acting accordingly. It’s the healthy lifestyle equivalent of Pascal’s wager, except you’re nearly certain to improve your quality, if not quantity of life.

My mom is currently the 2nd oldest person that's ever lived in her family. She's 75. Her mom made it longer (80something), but was physically a mess for the last decade. Mom's really slowed down the last 2-3 years and is now battling heart problems. My dad is also currently the 2nd oldest person that's ever lived in his family. He's 73. His mom made it longer (80), but her last decade was spent battling dementia. And dad? He's currently amidst rapid mental decline. Not comfortable unpacking specifics, but he's progressed beyond assisted living and I'm fairly sure he has no new memories in at least the last 2 years.

Now, I get it- time's are different now vs then. I've also taken much better care of myself than just about everyone else in my family. That said, I watched what happened to each of my grandma's. And I'm neck deep in it now with my folks. I don't want to get to my 70's and put our kids in the same position my parents are doing to us and their parents did to them. Only so much you can fight genes though. I'm committed to be better prepared than them (finances / logistics / my wishes) and won't plan much beyond age 80. We'll get a trust locked up early, exhaust the retirement fund around then, and if we still have our faculties will do what we can with our decent sized pension from that point forward, assuming we see these jobs to 65*

This plan is why I really want to get a lake house in about 5 years. With that timeline we can pay it off by age 65, enjoy 3+ decades of it, and it'll offer an outlet come age 80 if we're not ready to slow down but are low on cash. Don't need much $ to fire up some tunes, go for a float on my boat, and have the time of my life...

 

[Terminalxylem]

-snip-

I’m not familiar with that data, at least not in reputable, peer-reviewed medical literature. And considering there isn’t a standardized definition of stress, or objective way to measure it, I’d be surprised if any of those studies stand up to scientific scrutiny.

That’s not to say stress is healthy, but it is certainly a lot more difficult to quantify than alcohol consumption.

 

[Terminalxylem]

No guarantee, of course, but I see little harm in erring on the side of optimism, and acting accordingly. It’s the healthy lifestyle equivalent of Pascal’s wager, except you’re nearly certain to improve your quality, if not quantity of life.

My mom is currently the 2nd oldest person that's ever lived in her family. She's 75. Her mom made it longer (80something), but was physically a mess for the last decade. Mom's really slowed down the last 2-3 years and is now battling heart problems. My dad is also currently the 2nd oldest person that's ever lived in his family. He's 73. His mom made it longer (80), but her last decade was spent battling dementia. And dad? He's currently amidst rapid mental decline. Not comfortable unpacking specifics, but he's progressed beyond assisted living and I'm fairly sure he has no new memories in at least the last 2 years.

Now, I get it- time's are different now vs then. I've also taken much better care of myself than just about everyone else in my family. That said, I watched what happened to each of my grandma's. And I'm neck deep in it now with my folks. I don't want to get to my 70's and put our kids in the same position my parents are doing to us and their parents did to them. Only so much you can fight genes though. I'm committed to be better prepared than them (finances / logistics / my wishes) and won't plan much beyond age 80. We'll get a trust locked up early, exhaust the retirement fund around then, and if we still have our faculties will do what we can with our decent sized pension from that point forward, assuming we see these jobs to 65*

This plan is why I really want to get a lake house in about 5 years. With that timeline we can pay it off by age 65, enjoy 3+ decades of it, and it'll offer an outlet come age 80 if we're not ready to slow down but are low on cash. Don't need much $ to fire up some tunes, go for a float on my boat, and have the time of my life...

They say longevity is only 20-30% genetically determined. Now that number goes up at the extremes, especially centarians and super centarians, but the point is, a lot of it is modifiable via lifestyle.

And I wouldn’t underestimate what medicine may be capable of by the time we’re 80+ years old.

 

[MAC_32]

No guarantee, of course, but I see little harm in erring on the side of optimism, and acting accordingly. It’s the healthy lifestyle equivalent of Pascal’s wager, except you’re nearly certain to improve your quality, if not quantity of life.

My mom is currently the 2nd oldest person that's ever lived in her family. She's 75. Her mom made it longer (80something), but was physically a mess for the last decade. Mom's really slowed down the last 2-3 years and is now battling heart problems. My dad is also currently the 2nd oldest person that's ever lived in his family. He's 73. His mom made it longer (80), but her last decade was spent battling dementia. And dad? He's currently amidst rapid mental decline. Not comfortable unpacking specifics, but he's progressed beyond assisted living and I'm fairly sure he has no new memories in at least the last 2 years.

Now, I get it- time's are different now vs then. I've also taken much better care of myself than just about everyone else in my family. That said, I watched what happened to each of my grandma's. And I'm neck deep in it now with my folks. I don't want to get to my 70's and put our kids in the same position my parents are doing to us and their parents did to them. Only so much you can fight genes though. I'm committed to be better prepared than them (finances / logistics / my wishes) and won't plan much beyond age 80. We'll get a trust locked up early, exhaust the retirement fund around then, and if we still have our faculties will do what we can with our decent sized pension from that point forward, assuming we see these jobs to 65*

This plan is why I really want to get a lake house in about 5 years. With that timeline we can pay it off by age 65, enjoy 3+ decades of it, and it'll offer an outlet come age 80 if we're not ready to slow down but are low on cash. Don't need much $ to fire up some tunes, go for a float on my boat, and have the time of my life...

They say longevity is only 20-30% genetically determined. Now that number goes up at the extremes, especially centarians and super centarians, but the point is, a lot of it is modifiable via lifestyle.

And I wouldn’t underestimate what medicine may be capable of by the time we’re 80+ years old.

Then I'll enjoy those bonus years floating on the water rather than exploring the world as I hope to do the 10-15 years beforehand

 

[3C's]

This poor guy has only made it to 106 while drinking for the last 80 years.

MSN

I have no desire to make it to 106, much less 90, "healthy" or not.

You wouldn’t want to live to 90, even if fully functional, with no uncontrolled medical problems?

I understand most 90+ year olds aren’t riding their mountain bikes, but I’d gladly take healthy functionality at that age.

What’s your target lifespan then?

When I was younger the target was 50 (hope I die before I get old ). When I got to 50 I bumped it up to 65. Now that I'm approaching that I'm thinking about 80. 85 tops.

Spent a lot of time in an assisted living place lately and I have no desire for that life, even fully functional.

Hmmm…After revising the target multiple times, maybe you should consider getting old isn’t as bad as your younger self assumes?

For starters, a fully functional nonagenarian wouldn’t require assisted living

Personally, my 50’s have been great. A little less physically/mentally sharp, but free from health problems, and able to do just about anything I want. I’d be ecstatic to be 3/4 this level at age 90, which I think is achievable, if I take care of myself, plus a little luck.

And that assumes no meaningful medical advances in the next four decades. Heck, HIV went from a death sentence to chronic illness like diabetes in less than half that time. Who’s to say there won’t be breakthroughs in functional longevity in our lifetime?

The adjustments were mostly based around "major" events; getting married, having kids, and now a grandkid. Not expecting any further major events so I've likely reached the final adjustment.

 

[Terminalxylem]

This poor guy has only made it to 106 while drinking for the last 80 years.

MSN

I have no desire to make it to 106, much less 90, "healthy" or not.

You wouldn’t want to live to 90, even if fully functional, with no uncontrolled medical problems?

I understand most 90+ year olds aren’t riding their mountain bikes, but I’d gladly take healthy functionality at that age.

What’s your target lifespan then?

When I was younger the target was 50 (hope I die before I get old ). When I got to 50 I bumped it up to 65. Now that I'm approaching that I'm thinking about 80. 85 tops.

Spent a lot of time in an assisted living place lately and I have no desire for that life, even fully functional.

Hmmm…After revising the target multiple times, maybe you should consider getting old isn’t as bad as your younger self assumes?

For starters, a fully functional nonagenarian wouldn’t require assisted living

Personally, my 50’s have been great. A little less physically/mentally sharp, but free from health problems, and able to do just about anything I want. I’d be ecstatic to be 3/4 this level at age 90, which I think is achievable, if I take care of myself, plus a little luck.

And that assumes no meaningful medical advances in the next four decades. Heck, HIV went from a death sentence to chronic illness like diabetes in less than half that time. Who’s to say there won’t be breakthroughs in functional longevity in our lifetime?

The adjustments were mostly based around "major" events; getting married, having kids, and now a grandkid. Not expecting any further major events so I've likely reached the final adjustment.

I guess divorce, remarriage, kids having more grandkids, and great-grandkids are all inconceivable.

I’ll check back in twenty years from now though, as I fully expect you, like most people, will find reasons not to curtail your golden years, despite the suffering. But who knows, by then we may have cyborg bodies, or such awesome virtual reality our original equipment becomes vestigial? What if we discover better treatments for pain, dementia, or aging itself?

 

[3C's]

This poor guy has only made it to 106 while drinking for the last 80 years.

MSN

I have no desire to make it to 106, much less 90, "healthy" or not.

You wouldn’t want to live to 90, even if fully functional, with no uncontrolled medical problems?

I understand most 90+ year olds aren’t riding their mountain bikes, but I’d gladly take healthy functionality at that age.

What’s your target lifespan then?

When I was younger the target was 50 (hope I die before I get old ). When I got to 50 I bumped it up to 65. Now that I'm approaching that I'm thinking about 80. 85 tops.

Spent a lot of time in an assisted living place lately and I have no desire for that life, even fully functional.

Hmmm…After revising the target multiple times, maybe you should consider getting old isn’t as bad as your younger self assumes?

For starters, a fully functional nonagenarian wouldn’t require assisted living

Personally, my 50’s have been great. A little less physically/mentally sharp, but free from health problems, and able to do just about anything I want. I’d be ecstatic to be 3/4 this level at age 90, which I think is achievable, if I take care of myself, plus a little luck.

And that assumes no meaningful medical advances in the next four decades. Heck, HIV went from a death sentence to chronic illness like diabetes in less than half that time. Who’s to say there won’t be breakthroughs in functional longevity in our lifetime?

The adjustments were mostly based around "major" events; getting married, having kids, and now a grandkid. Not expecting any further major events so I've likely reached the final adjustment.

I guess divorce, remarriage, kids having more grandkids, and great-grandkids are all inconceivable.

I’ll check back in twenty years from now though, as I fully expect you, like most people, will find reasons not to curtail your golden years, despite the suffering. But who knows, by then we may have cyborg bodies, or such awesome virtual reality our original equipment becomes vestigial? What if we discover better treatments for pain, dementia, or aging itself?

Divorce and remarriage are a definite no, especially remarriage. Possible we'll have one more grandkid but that won't change anything. Not at all concerned about great grandkids, I'll be too old to care.

 

[3C's]

This poor guy has only made it to 106 while drinking for the last 80 years.

MSN

I have no desire to make it to 106, much less 90, "healthy" or not.

You wouldn’t want to live to 90, even if fully functional, with no uncontrolled medical problems?

I understand most 90+ year olds aren’t riding their mountain bikes, but I’d gladly take healthy functionality at that age.

What’s your target lifespan then?

When I was younger the target was 50 (hope I die before I get old ). When I got to 50 I bumped it up to 65. Now that I'm approaching that I'm thinking about 80. 85 tops.

Spent a lot of time in an assisted living place lately and I have no desire for that life, even fully functional.

Hmmm…After revising the target multiple times, maybe you should consider getting old isn’t as bad as your younger self assumes?

For starters, a fully functional nonagenarian wouldn’t require assisted living

Personally, my 50’s have been great. A little less physically/mentally sharp, but free from health problems, and able to do just about anything I want. I’d be ecstatic to be 3/4 this level at age 90, which I think is achievable, if I take care of myself, plus a little luck.

And that assumes no meaningful medical advances in the next four decades. Heck, HIV went from a death sentence to chronic illness like diabetes in less than half that time. Who’s to say there won’t be breakthroughs in functional longevity in our lifetime?

The adjustments were mostly based around "major" events; getting married, having kids, and now a grandkid. Not expecting any further major events so I've likely reached the final adjustment.

I guess divorce, remarriage, kids having more grandkids, and great-grandkids are all inconceivable.

I’ll check back in twenty years from now though, as I fully expect you, like most people, will find reasons not to curtail your golden years, despite the suffering. But who knows, by then we may have cyborg bodies, or such awesome virtual reality our original equipment becomes vestigial? What if we discover better treatments for pain, dementia, or aging itself?

Divorce and remarriage are a definite no, especially remarriage. Possible we'll have one more grandkid but that won't change anything. Not at all concerned about great grandkids, I'll be too old to care.

But I guess I'm on the way to cyborg body with the new metal I got.