Surgeon General links Alcohol to Cancer (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

Plus, Crème Puff, the worlds oldest cat, was fed half a dropper of red wine every other day, up to the ripe age of 38.

Legend

Stay white and floofy, Créme Puff. Stay light and floofy.

 

[3C's]

I never knew this in HS. This wasn't discussed like smoking was. And after the smoking announcement...there's been a shift in the culture about it. I had assumed this will lead to eventual shift similar to smoking.

But nobody really seems to care?

If everything causes cancer, nothing does. It's just silly at this point.

It's like the "arguments" I have with a low carb friend. You might live an extra year avoiding pizza, beer, and cake, but I'll enjoy the years I do live more than you.

The low carb friend probably isn’t living longer by virtue of a low carbohydrate diet, as both very high and low carbohydrate intake is associated with increased mortality. FTR roughly 45-55% calories from carbohydrates seems to be the longevity sweet spot, though there are outliers of long-lived populations with even higher carbohydrate consumption.

And adopting healthier (versus less healthy) lifestyle is associated not only with a decade+ longer life, but longer functional healthspan (which correlates highly with quality of life) and duration of debility at life’s end. We all will likely suffer for awhile before we die, but those with good habits suffer debility a year or two less, on average. None of that may seem like a lot now, but it’s a decision your future self may regret.

I’m not sure how much of that decade and suffering are due solely to drinking, but there’s plenty to enjoy in a no-to-low alcohol lifestyle imo.

Almost 82 miles on the bike this week, plus some rowing and elliptical. Think I'll be okay.

If I were forced to choose only one healthy behavior, habitual exercise would be it. But its not a magic bullet, as I’m reminded frequently by ex-marathoners I see in the hospital.

I'll drink to that

 

[rockaction]

I don't want to take this political, but I also think there's some degree of these days at the Surgeon General.

I’m not in disagreement with your overall point, but the liver cancer warnings and the earnest doctors pleading with me to quit my alcohol intake was a huge, huge reason why I eventually was able to do so. I mean, I would break down in almost tears upon hearing the doctor gently telling me what I needed to hear.

So I don’t think most people see this as a political act at all, and the ones who do are way more politicized than your average folk. Just look at our thread. Haven’t seen it mentioned once.

I think most people can see this for the disinterested plea that it is. Maybe that’s just me and maybe my situation is unique. In my defense, there are things I still do that have serious long-term health consequences and I don’t view the push away from those things as political (well, the beef thing can be, so I take that movement with a grain of salt and try to source the material I’m reading). And there are political things to say, but I’ll fully refrain because of not only board rules but also that I don’t think that’s from where this issue originates.

I do take your point about some degree of that among the more cable-watched or word-of-mouth among us.

 

[rockaction]

Sober February. Saving lives one hombre at a time. I’m in again this year. I wonder how St. Louis Bob is doing. God bless you, Bob. Love ya and thinking of you. Still in my thoughts.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Funny how they can figure out everything that causes cancer, but they just can’t seem to figure out a way to cure it

But they can figure out ways to prevent a lot of it, if people were receptive to the message.

We have figured out ways to cure SOME cancers, no? Breast cancer, skin cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer....if caught early, the success rate in curing these types of cancer are good, right?

I dunno, I went to a lecture 10 years ago when Phil Knight pledged $500MM to cancer research if OHSU could match his pledge and the doctor speaking was very positive about the future of cancer treatment and cited those four as cancers that are treatable. If caught early enough.

But you're of course correct that prevention is a better course of action.

You can cure just about any cancer, if you cut it out before it spreads. Our pharmacologic cures are much more limited.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Funny how they can figure out everything that causes cancer, but they just can’t seem to figure out a way to cure it

Where's the ongoing profit for big pharma if cancer is cured though?

This line of reasoning is misguided, imo.

 

[Terminalxylem]

longer functional healthspan (which correlates highly with quality of life)

honestly, I don’t care if X knocks 5 years off my lifespan. I care a lot if something knocks our quality of life.

Things that promote disease tend to lessen quality of life, which is felt disproportionately when you’re older.

Hard to predict what a regular drinking habit in middle age will result in later, or if the gained “quality” of drinking now will offset later suffering.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

You ever see the warning labels that come on a pack of cigarettes in Canada (or Mexico I'm told)? Graphic images of destroyed lungs by years of smoking with very blunt messaging. Not sure if that put a dent in sales or not but it is certainly a much stronger warning than we have in the US. I quit smoking 25 years ago but when I did smoke and traveled to Canada on business it was an eye-opener seeing that on a pack of Camels.

How could I not look this up after you posted? And apparently it happened this past year in '24

Canada becomes 1st country to have individual cigarette warnings - National | Globalnews.ca

Individual king-size cigarettes will be the first to see individual warning labels, with regular-sized cigarettes to get the labelling come 2025.

globalnews.ca

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Why your couch could be killing you: Sedentary lifestyle linked to 19 chronic conditions

Are you a couch potato? Learn how physical inactivity can lead to chronic conditions like obesity, depression, and hypertension. Find out how you can take control of your health.

studyfinds.org

Sedentary lifestyle linked to 19 chronic conditions​

1. Obesity
2. Liver disease
3. Psychoses
4. Chronic lung disease
5. Neurological seizures
6. Coagulopathy (blood clotting disorders)
7. Depression
8. Weight loss issues
9. Uncontrolled hypertension (high blood pressure)
10. Controlled hypertension
11. Uncontrolled diabetes
12. Anemia deficiency
13. Neurological disorders affecting movement
14. Peripheral vascular disease
15. Autoimmune disease
16. Drug abuse
17. Hypothyroidism
18. Congestive heart failure
19. Valvular disease (heart valve problems)

-I'll take my chances on the alcohol

 

[Terminalxylem]

Why your couch could be killing you: Sedentary lifestyle linked to 19 chronic conditions

Are you a couch potato? Learn how physical inactivity can lead to chronic conditions like obesity, depression, and hypertension. Find out how you can take control of your health.

studyfinds.org

Sedentary lifestyle linked to 19 chronic conditions​

1. Obesity
2. Liver disease
3. Psychoses
4. Chronic lung disease
5. Neurological seizures
6. Coagulopathy (blood clotting disorders)
7. Depression
8. Weight loss issues
9. Uncontrolled hypertension (high blood pressure)
10. Controlled hypertension
11. Uncontrolled diabetes
12. Anemia deficiency
13. Neurological disorders affecting movement
14. Peripheral vascular disease
15. Autoimmune disease
16. Drug abuse
17. Hypothyroidism
18. Congestive heart failure
19. Valvular disease (heart valve problems)

-I'll take my chances on the alcohol

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I bet I can list 19 diseases related to excess alcohol consumption, too.

 

[-OZ-]

-I'll take my chances on the alcohol

the risk of pointing out the obvious, I bet I can list 19 diseases related to excess alcohol consumption, too.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, this isn’t an “either / or” situation. The Venn diagram of excessive alcohol use and sedentary lifestyle probably has significant overlap.
active people drink too, but on average probably a lot less than the couch potato.

 

[-OZ-]

longer functional healthspan (which correlates highly with quality of life)

honestly, I don’t care if X knocks 5 years off my lifespan. I care a lot if something knocks our quality of life.

Things that promote disease tend to lessen quality of life, which is felt disproportionately when you’re older.

Hard to predict what a regular drinking habit in middle age will result in later, or if the gained “quality” of drinking now will offset later suffering.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I don’t think drinking improves our lives on the whole. I’m far more likely to quit by considering the improved health span than an increased lifespan.

 

[Terminalxylem]

-I'll take my chances on the alcohol

the risk of pointing out the obvious, I bet I can list 19 diseases related to excess alcohol consumption, too.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, this isn’t an “either / or” situation. The Venn diagram of excessive alcohol use and sedentary lifestyle probably has significant overlap.
active people drink too, but on average probably a lot less than the couch potato.

Yes, but I bet I can think of 19 diseases associated solely with alcohol consumption, independent of activity level.

 

[Terminalxylem]

longer functional healthspan (which correlates highly with quality of life)

honestly, I don’t care if X knocks 5 years off my lifespan. I care a lot if something knocks our quality of life.

Things that promote disease tend to lessen quality of life, which is felt disproportionately when you’re older.

Hard to predict what a regular drinking habit in middle age will result in later, or if the gained “quality” of drinking now will offset later suffering.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I don’t think drinking improves our lives on the whole. I’m far more likely to quit by considering the improved health span than an increased lifespan.

Maybe you don’t, but the idea alcohol dramatically improves quality of life seems fairly common, so much so that otherwise health-minded individuals won’t even consider giving it up.

 

[Godsbrother]

I wouldn’t say that alcohol dramatically improves quality of life but I can tell you that I derive a lot of pleasure trying out new breweries and brewing beer.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don't want to take this political, but I also think there's some degree of these days at the Surgeon General.

I’m not in disagreement with your overall point, but the liver cancer warnings and the earnest doctors pleading with me to quit my alcohol intake was a huge, huge reason why I eventually was able to do so. I mean, I would break down in almost tears upon hearing the doctor gently telling me what I needed to hear.

So I don’t think most people see this as a political act at all, and the ones who do are way more politicized than your average folk. Just look at our thread. Haven’t seen it mentioned once.

I think most people can see this for the disinterested plea that it is. Maybe that’s just me and maybe my situation is unique. In my defense, there are things I still do that have serious long-term health consequences and I don’t view the push away from those things as political (well, the beef thing can be, so I take that movement with a grain of salt and try to source the material I’m reading). And there are political things to say, but I’ll fully refrain because of not only board rules but also that I don’t think that’s from where this issue originates.

I do take your point about some degree of that among the more cable-watched or word-of-mouth among us.

Thanks. I'm not saying it's political and I wasn't clear about my point. I'm saying there's some degree of at the office of Surgeon General. Same with diet guidelines and such. Regardless of their politics. That's more in the Callie Means Good Energy type area for discussion and that can be a good discussion too.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I wouldn’t say that alcohol dramatically improves quality of life but I can tell you that I derive a lot of pleasure trying out new breweries and brewing beer.

It can be a slippery slope, but I've heard people talk about the stress reduction benefits from a moderate amount of alcohol outweighing the negatives of alcohol.

The worry of course is the amount. 1 glass of wine can turn into a bottle.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I wouldn’t say that alcohol dramatically improves quality of life but I can tell you that I derive a lot of pleasure trying out new breweries and brewing beer.

It can be a slippery slope, but I've heard people talk about the stress reduction benefits from a moderate amount of alcohol outweighing the negatives of alcohol.

The worry of course is the amount. 1 glass of wine can turn into a bottle.

Although stress does not directly cause cancer, there are studies that show it can increase the risk of several diseases, including cancer (and heart issues).

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

I don't want to take this political, but I also think there's some degree of these days at the Surgeon General.

No one even knew there was a Surgeon Gemeral until C Everett Koop.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't want to take this political, but I also think there's some degree of these days at the Surgeon General.

No one even knew there was a Surgeon Gemeral until C Everett Koop.

I had to Google who the Surgeon General even is right now. Joycelyn Elders is the last one I remember.

 

[SoBeDad]

The SG's announcement could be helpful, time will tell. I think it will have traction in the new administration. BTW, the "Sober Curious" movement is a social media positive.

I haven't followed the link between alcohol and cancer closely (strength of association, which cancers, does it explain the recent rise in cancer among young people), but at one point I followed studies of alcohol as a risk factor for dementia. There was the near concensus from many older studies that drinking a little alcohol (think of a glass of red wine per day) was better than not drinking at all, and better than heavy drinking, in regards to risk for dementia. It was called a U or J shaped relationship.

Some recent studies using large registries (UK Biobank, 300K+ people, 10+ year follow-up), have refuted that. For example, Zheng et al, 2024:

>>This study identified a positive linear causal relationship between alcohol consumption and dementia among current drinkers. The J-shaped association found in conventional epidemiological analysis was not supported by non-linear MR analyses. Our findings suggested that there was no safe level of alcohol consumption for dementia.<<

There are many confounds when examining these relationships, the study above sought to eliminate some. It still has many limitations. The investigators were from China using UK biobank data open to the world.

 

[culdeus]

One thing people don't study is the rate of consumption perh hour. 5 in 5 hours is different than 5 in one hour. Yet nobody really wants to go there.

 

[General Malaise]

One thing people don't study is the rate of consumption perh hour. 5 in 5 hours is different than 5 in one hour. Yet nobody really wants to go there.

I'd like to go there. Have you something more to add here or?

 

[culdeus]

One thing people don't study is the rate of consumption perh hour. 5 in 5 hours is different than 5 in one hour. Yet nobody really wants to go there.

I'd like to go there. Have you something more to add here or?

I mean the studies are just standard drink counts. There is no attempt to make any connection that 2 = 1 at lunch + 1 at dinner. 2 is just. 2.

There feels like there has to be more damage from exceeding 2/hr than milking 1/hr for a longer time, yet this is not clearly understood.

When this has come up before there was a piece that theorized that perhaps 1 glass of wine isn't good, but it isn't bad either, and you conflate this with people that drink wine are eating "better" it explains these studies.

I don't even know how you go about recruiting people for something like this. That's the main issue.

Diabetes has HBA1C which is more or less an integration of time and amount above a blood sugar of 140. We are starting to figure out that a quick drive to 220 and back under 140 is not as bad as staying flat at 160 all the time. The same is likely true (IMO) with booze as both are a concentration of something bad, in blood.

I guess what I'm saying is

• Total drink count per day likely doesn't matter.
• Men <1 drink/hr is probably ok.

Staying below 1/hr is hard.

 

[GenX fan]

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.

 

[MAC_32]

I never knew this in HS. This wasn't discussed like smoking was. And after the smoking announcement...there's been a shift in the culture about it. I had assumed this will lead to eventual shift similar to smoking.

But nobody really seems to care?

I'd ask a clarifying question: Does this news affect how you personally view alcohol?

Me, no.

But I'm a light drinker.

That's what I'd expect too. I'm not surprised people don't think it's a big deal.

I really must be the only one who's not heard the cancer/alcohol connection. Liver problems, bad health and decisions... Sure. But for me, never cancer. That's the part I'm most surprised about in here, especially because I thought I've been reasonably well informed about stuff. Apparently not.

I'm also a lighter drinker than most. So it shouldn't be a problem for me. If they said coffee gave me cancer (lemme guess, I'm the last to know about that too), I'd be making immediate changes to my 2 very large cups per day.

Thanks.

I think there's some fatigue too on the "this causes ________" stuff. The evils come and go it seems. Currently it's sugar. A while back, salt was evil. A while back fats were evil. I think people are tired of it.

Alcohols been around a long time and people have pretty good experiences seeing for themselves. Certainly, lots of it seems bad in a lot of different ways. But most of us also know plenty of people, maybe ourselves, who consume sensibly with no troubles.

I don't want to take this political, but I also think there's some degree of these days at the Surgeon General.

Too much sugar is bad. Too much salt is bad. Too much alcohol? You guessed it, bad.

There's an important takeaway from 2 common words above.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Plus, Crème Puff, the worlds oldest cat, was fed half a dropper of red wine every other day, up to the ripe age of 38.

Legend

Stay white and floofy, Créme Puff. Stay light and floofy.

Ironically enough, that mark above the first e is an accent grave. I don't know anything about your aigu-adorned puss poseur.

 

[Terminalxylem]

One thing people don't study is the rate of consumption perh hour. 5 in 5 hours is different than 5 in one hour. Yet nobody really wants to go there.

I'd like to go there. Have you something more to add here or?

I mean the studies are just standard drink counts. There is no attempt to make any connection that 2 = 1 at lunch + 1 at dinner. 2 is just. 2.

There feels like there has to be more damage from exceeding 2/hr than milking 1/hr for a longer time, yet this is not clearly understood.

When this has come up before there was a piece that theorized that perhaps 1 glass of wine isn't good, but it isn't bad either, and you conflate this with people that drink wine are eating "better" it explains these studies.

I don't even know how you go about recruiting people for something like this. That's the main issue.

Diabetes has HBA1C which is more or less an integration of time and amount above a blood sugar of 140. We are starting to figure out that a quick drive to 220 and back under 140 is not as bad as staying flat at 160 all the time. The same is likely true (IMO) with booze as both are a concentration of something bad, in blood.

I guess what I'm saying is

• Total drink count per day likely doesn't matter.
• Men <1 drink/hr is probably ok.

Staying below 1/hr is hard.

There certainly are relevant pharmacokinetics of alcohol metabolism, but I don't think toxicity/pathogenicity has been studied at the level of granularity you suggest. But the half life is in the neighborhood of 4-5 hours, so arbitrarily picking less than 1 drink/hr as "probably OK" doesn't seem mathematically sound.

That said, there are studies on the hazards of binge drinking, which I believe has some different effects than more regular, lower level consumption.

Also, it blows my mind drinking less than 1 alcoholic beverage/hr is considered "hard". My wife regularly nurses her single glass of red wine over a ~2hr dinner. I almost never drink more than one at a sitting, but I seldom drink more than 12 ounces of any beverage per hour.

 

[rockaction]

Plus, Crème Puff, the worlds oldest cat, was fed half a dropper of red wine every other day, up to the ripe age of 38.

Legend

Stay white and floofy, Créme Puff. Stay light and floofy.

Ironically enough, that mark above the first e is an accent grave. I don't know anything about your aigu-adorned puss poseur.

Yeah, I knew it wasn't facing the right way, but I didn't know how to get the other accent to work on my keyboard, so I went with what I know, which is "Option-E" on my Mac. I have no idea about grave and aigu. I took French for two years in high school and you can see what a load of good it did me.

"Je ne sais pas." That's what I learned.

"Je m'appelle Thomas. Et vous?"

 

[Terminalxylem]

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?

 

[Terminalxylem]

Plus, Crème Puff, the worlds oldest cat, was fed half a dropper of red wine every other day, up to the ripe age of 38.

Legend

Stay white and floofy, Créme Puff. Stay light and floofy.

Ironically enough, that mark above the first e is an accent grave. I don't know anything about your aigu-adorned puss poseur.

Yeah, I knew it wasn't facing the right way, but I didn't know how to get the other accent to work on my keyboard, so I went with what I know, which is "Option-E" on my Mac. I have no idea about grave and aigu. I took French for two years in high school and you can see what a load of good it did me.

"Je ne sais pas." That's what I learned.

"Je m'appelle Thomas. Et vous?"

Phillipe. At least that's what I was called in French class.

I only pointed it out because I know you value precise language, and I'm rarely in a position to improve upon your wordsmithing.

But you know what they say, impossible n'est pas français.

 

[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"?

 

[3C's]

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"?

Exactly. When I talk about my low carb coworker, he goes to the far extreme of low carb, nothing allowed. I say why deprive yourself of pizza and beer. That doesn't mean I'm eating pizza every day and getting bombed every night. You can partake in moderation and be fine, honestly I probably average a slice/month but I enjoy the heck out of a great NY slice. And like I said, if choosing between extending my life a year or things I enjoy in moderation , I'll choose the latter.

 

[Terminalxylem]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Terminalxylem]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Dr_Zaius]

Yeah, alcohol is effectively a poison. But like many toxins, it has a hormetic effect, where low doses stress the body to upregulate longevity-promoting mechanisms (eg. cellular housekeeping), while excess overwhelms these mechanisms to cause damage. Or maybe low doses thin the blood enough to reduce cardiovascular disease, without thinning it too much to promote bleeding, or other damage which causes cancer?

As an aside, this is nutrition research, so it’s almost never prospective, randomized control trials. With retrospective population studies, nutrient intake is often based on surveys of suspect reliability, and the data is ripe for confounders.

Good point on the actual research, as it's not like these conclusions are from RCTs. The whole alcohol debate reminds me a bit of the debate about ionizing radiation and its effects as it relates to things like radon limits. In the US they use a linear no-threshold (LNT) model, which assumes that all radiation exposure, including very low levels, is damaging. However, there is a fairly loud contingent arguing for threshold effects for damage as well as radiation hormesis. There have been several studies suggesting that low level doses of ionizing radiation may reduce cancer risk.

On the other hand, for both concerns of abuse and trolley-problem style reasoning, it's understandable that people are very reticent to want to portray either alcohol consumption or radiation exposure as beneficial. Still, the point raised by culdeus is a kind of the elephant in the room in these discussions:

One thing people don't study is the rate of consumption per hour. 5 in 5 hours is different than 5 in one hour. Yet nobody really wants to go there.

It's seems like a real stretch that for any toxin getting 10 times the does over 1/10 of the time is equivalent to the base case. And yet, one's always going to have to make simplifying assumptions to try to make sense of the limited data that you have, so I understand why most of the studies look the way they do.

 

[Terminalxylem]

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.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Yeah, alcohol is effectively a poison. But like many toxins, it has a hormetic effect, where low doses stress the body to upregulate longevity-promoting mechanisms (eg. cellular housekeeping), while excess overwhelms these mechanisms to cause damage. Or maybe low doses thin the blood enough to reduce cardiovascular disease, without thinning it too much to promote bleeding, or other damage which causes cancer?

As an aside, this is nutrition research, so it’s almost never prospective, randomized control trials. With retrospective population studies, nutrient intake is often based on surveys of suspect reliability, and the data is ripe for confounders.

Good point on the actual research, as it's not like these conclusions are from RCTs. The whole alcohol debate reminds me a bit of the debate about ionizing radiation and its effects as it relates to things like radon limits. In the US they use a linear no-threshold (LNT) model, which assumes that all radiation exposure, including very low levels, is damaging. However, there is a fairly loud contingent arguing for threshold effects for damage as well as radiation hormesis. There have been several studies suggesting that low level doses of ionizing radiation may reduce cancer risk.

On the other hand, for both concerns of abuse and trolley-problem style reasoning, it's understandable that people are very reticent to want to portray either alcohol consumption or radiation exposure as beneficial. Still, the point raised by culdeus is a kind of the elephant in the room in these discussions:

One thing people don't study is the rate of consumption per hour. 5 in 5 hours is different than 5 in one hour. Yet nobody really wants to go there.

It's seems like a real stretch that for any toxin getting 10 times the does over 1/10 of the time is equivalent to the base case. And yet, one's always going to have to make simplifying assumptions to try to make sense of the limited data that you have, so I understand why most of the studies look the way they do.

Yeah, I recently learned about radiation hormesis. Turns out, a little DNA damage and reactive oxygen species are actually good for you. This might explain why most antioxidant supplements show no clinical benefit when studied, or harm in some cases.

Maybe someone should start a cutting edge health bar, where radioisotopes are added to low ABV cocktails?

 

[Sand]

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

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[3C's]

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

MSN

www.msn.com

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

 

[Mitchie]

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

MSN

www.msn.com

Look at the before and after pics though, he looks like hell.

 

[Terminalxylem]

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

MSN

www.msn.com

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?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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)?

 

[culdeus]

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.

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

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.

I guess you have it on tap and just pull half pints.

 

[3C's]

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.

Rubber wine bottle stopper works well enough.

 

[MAC_32]

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

MSN

www.msn.com

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.

 

[3C's]

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

MSN

www.msn.com

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.