# Alcohol is more dangerous than we thought



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

And seems to cause cancer, too. The new guidelines suggest far less drinks than before.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/drinking-health-risks-study-1.6565723


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

No issue for me (don't drink) but what doesn't cause cancer nowadays?

I did have a good laugh at the mixed messaging ....

Title of video -> *New alcohol guidelines suggest no amount is safe*

In the article -> *They found that health risks are negligible or low with two or fewer glasses of wine per week *


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

cainvest said:


> Title of video -> *New alcohol guidelines suggest no amount is safe*
> 
> In the article -> *They found that health risks are negligible or low with two or fewer glasses of wine per week *


Clickbait!

What's wrong with a few glasses of fermented grapes 🤷‍♂️ Everything in moderation

Meanwhile kombucha is sold as the cure-all-miracle drink - fermented black tea and sugar


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

m3s said:


> Clickbait!
> 
> What's wrong with a few glasses of fermented grapes 🤷‍♂️ Everything in moderation
> 
> Meanwhile kombucha is sold as the cure-all-miracle drink - fermented black tea and sugar


Not to mention kombucha generally contains alcohol, at low <1% concentrations.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I plan to continue having one or two glasses of wine a week.

What do you folks do when you open a bottle of wine, if you don't have enough people to finish it? Put in a plastic stopper and then move it to the fridge I presume?

Or do you keep the plugged-up wine bottle at room temp in the following days?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> Put in a plastic stopper and then move it to the fridge I presume?


That's what my wine drinking friends do.


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

White: stopper and put in fridge
Red: stopper and leave on counter


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Rubber stopper, suck out the air with a gizmo. Sits on the counter. Lasts four days unless we are cooking with it.

White is mostly for cooking seafood and for meat marinades. And for guests. Kept in the fridge.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

"no safe amount"... I've known that for several years. Even posted to this forum years ago.

Obviously the risk is small with one or two drinks a week, but many people drink one a day. (Small doesn't mean "no risk" like some people seem to think.)


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

james4beach said:


> And seems to cause cancer, too. The new guidelines suggest far less drinks than before.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/drinking-health-risks-study-1.6565723


Happened to me. I made my own wine and always had 2 glasses of wine before dinner. I am athletic and very physically fit and am very active.(former marathon runner, competitive badminton, skiing, hiking, etc) and my weight and eating habits are good. Was out of town visiting family and my heart started to beat very quickly and I went to emergency and was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation. My GP referred me to a heart specialist and I had an Echo scan of my heart and also a stress test. The Echo showed some irregularities and I got an A+ on the stress test. My doc could not figure it out. He eventually asked me if I drank and I said yes, 14 glasses of wine a week. He responded "thats it"! Of course I quit drinking and things fortunately improved and returned to normal over the next 2-3 yrs. In talking to the doc and questioning the wine he said "alcohol affects different people in different ways". I now probably drink 8 oz a year by way of about an ounce for a toast on special occasions. Glad I had a good doc. One thing that I always questioned was the old saying that a daily glass or 2 of wine was good for you. Certainly wasn't for me.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

_Margaritas. They're not just for breakfast anymore._


----------



## Thal81 (Sep 5, 2017)

I'm at 6 drinks a week so I guess I'm at the upper limit. We'll all die of something, right?


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

"Having more than six drinks per week leads to an increased risk of a host of health issues, including cancer, according to new proposed guidelines published Monday."


This CBC article is based on "proposed guidelines". It is not the result of some study.

It's a fluff piece, pretending to be informative.


BTW, I haven't had a drink in 35 years so booze has zero allure to me. My primary interest in this is how someone could read this article and curate it as information.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I had atrial fib for 30 years until they perfected cardiac ablation.

Alcohol can cause AF.

Mine was caused by inhaling contact cement in a small room.

If anyone has AF….talk to your doc about a cardiac ablation to fix it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I had a hospital roommate last time I was in for surgery.

She was mid 30s and had liver failure due to alcohol.

You don’t have to be old to suffer damage from alcohol.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

sags said:


> Alcohol can cause AF.


Certainly, alcohol is expensive AF on our healthcare system.

Anyone who has worked in healthcare knows a significant percentage of hospital overhead can be directly attributed to alcohol. The victims of drunk driving in the ER are the tip of a massive ice berg, when it comes to the cost of alcohol on society.

We have decided to pay for it. I don't drink and I'm OK with that but only because I have no confidence we could implement an equitable system to weed out abuse. A universal system is the only just way that I can see but I have certainly considered other ideas.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> No issue for me (don't drink) but what doesn't cause cancer nowadays?
> 
> I did have a good laugh at the mixed messaging ....
> 
> ...


I'd read the actual research paper, I bet it is somewhat more nuanced.

Scientific reporting is horrible. If you're really interested there are some good resources on how to read scientific papers.
Also once you get in the rabbit hole of scientific publications you have to deal with publication bias and the replication crisis, and the other issues in the sciences.

But even ignoring those deeper issues, mainstream reporting is IMAO trash.

In My Arrogant Opinion, because lets be honest, casting doubt on an entire industry isn't in any way humble.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

You guys are missing the point if you think this is fluff journalism or subjective reporting.

The analysis was done by a group of experts at the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction. They review a large amount of scientific work, and they are the ones saying that much lower thresholds of alcohol are dangerous / cancer-causing.

I agree that the journalists aren't very clear about the reporting, but the basic message comes from the experts: alcohol isn't safe. If you're going to consume alcohol you must aim for a very small number of drinks per week.



MrMatt said:


> I'd read the actual research paper, I bet it is somewhat more nuanced.


There isn't one paper. There are a large number of studies, and experts looked at the evidence that's come out over the years.

Then, they tell us their findings. They have told us their findings and it's reported by the journalists.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

The CBC has a litany of unobjective and just plain misleading reporting. You cite the CBC in your initial post, as though they are a credible source.

You haven't cited the study.

My wife's father was a physician (he has passed). Physicians we know have varying opinions from alcohol being highly dangerous to no big deal for most people. It is a polarized topic.

We need data. Anything else is the definition of hearsay. Someone's interpretation of data is not data.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

TomB16 said:


> We need data. Anything else is the definition of hearsay.


Yeah I know this mentality, that you want to play amateur analyst and sift through the data yourself... boy has that become popular over the years.

The journalists are simply saying that the expert group has reviewed the literature and has new / updated findings.

If you want the actual report, what was written by the experts, here are the two documents they produced:



https://www.ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2022-08/CCSA-LRDG-Evidence-Review-Technical-Report-en.pdf



Second one might be more useful



https://www.ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2022-08/CCSA-LRDG-Update-of-Canada%27s-LRDG-Final-report-for-public-consultation-en.pdf


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Here is the text, straight from the horse's mouth for all of you who don't trust journalists.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> If you want the actual report, what was written by the experts, here it is.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2022-08/CCSA-LRDG-Evidence-Review-Technical-Report-en.pdf


Would have been better just to lead with that link over the CBC one IMO. 

Since these finding have no effect on me I won't dig any deeper BUT first thing I'd look for is did they normalize their data for other risk factors? 

I'll go out on a limb here (no research, just my opinion) and say many moderate to heavy drinkers likely have a number of strikes against them already (smoking, high BMI, little exercise, etc) that'll skew the results.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

james4beach said:


> Yeah I know this mentality, that you want to play amateur analyst and sift through the data yourself... boy has that become popular over the years.


My gawd... what a bunch of balloon juice.

The reason I have been right and way ahead of everyone else in the COVID thread is because I read studies and data. It isn't that hard. There is a ton of opinion floating around, pretending to be fact. You are just figuring out that your immunity actually goes down following a vaccination. Guess who has been writing about that for months? Me. I didn't create the data. I just read it from the most objective perspective I could manage. It's not that hard.

Alcohol is a highly charged public topic. People who don't use alcohol are few but we tend to hate it and see it as a blight. Do you suppose we are objective? Seems unlikely. People who regularly use alcohol are just about everyone. Do you suppose that group is objective? Seems unlikely. With a highly subjective topic like this, we need data. The data will probably offend us, so nearly everyone will reject it, but objective data will cut through the nonsense.

As for amateur, how do you know that? You are attempting to weaponize ignorance. I am not going to post my accreditation in this group, as I could care less what the vast majority of CMFers think about me, but you are declaring knowledge which you do not have so let's just leave this in the forum for all to see.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

james4beach said:


> Here is the text, straight from the horse's mouth for all of you who don't trust journalists.


Data, James. Data.

Guidance is not data. Guidance is not the objective study of a subject.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Further, a study is not factual proof. If the study is found to be objective, after it has been peer reviewed of process and methods, it becomes a data point. It is not a data point the moment it is published. Openness and peer review are required as part of the scientific method.

Even further, a study which is peer reviewed and found credible is also not fact. It joins a body of work which is the most objective information we have on a subject but it is not fact. Studies are found to be wrong in a massive number of cases. Sometimes, studies are found to be correct and repeatable by objective 3rd parties. This adds further credibility.

This is literally taught in grade school.

Look at industry funded studies on smoking, climate change, etc. which were published and immediately picked up by media as message support as proof. They were never proof.

For that matter, I'm not sure we can absolutely prove that smoking causes cancer. The data does seem overwhelming but I'm not aware of a direct, scientific, connection. The connection is statistical and, yes, overwhelming. Climate change studies are more credible, as carbon dioxide has been demonstrated to be an insulator, but that doesn't mean either topic has been 100% resolved.

It's the tree of knowledge. There are going to be some dead limbs.

Why do people declare the end of discussion on topics when they find something that supports their point of view? What about credible studies which undermine the point of view? They are just as important.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

TomB16 said:


> Data, James. Data.
> 
> Guidance is not data. Guidance is not the objective study of a subject.


I linked to the technical reports, over 200 pages. You are welcome to pull up the hundred (or perhaps thousands) of research studies they looked at. I believe they mention their methodology, including which databases to use.

If you really have this kind of problem with expert analysis then by all means, re-do the massive literature review yourself. Nobody's stopping you.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

james4beach said:


> I linked to the technical reports, over 200 pages. You are welcome to pull up the hundred (or perhaps thousands) of research studies they looked at. I believe they mention their methodology, including which databases to use.
> 
> If you really have this kind of problem with expert analysis then by all means, re-do the massive literature review yourself. Nobody's stopping you.


You are working really hard to distort my position and try to assign a false, straw-man argument to me. That is a sign of someone in an inferior position.

I have not written this study is wrong. I have applied relative merit to this data point on a topic which has a lot of data points.

Again, I do not drink and could care less about many aspects of alcohol and it's uses.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> There isn't one paper. There are a large number of studies, and experts looked at the evidence that's come out over the years.
> 
> Then, they tell us their findings. They have told us their findings and it's reported by the journalists.


My point is that the journalists often do a VERY BAD job reporting science.
In this case I think the study authors did some slight overreach.

For example, some of the headlines.
*There's No 'Safe' Level of Alcohol Consumption, Global Study Finds*


https://www.livescience.com/63420-alcohol-no-safe-level.html



Secondly their summary table is very nice, believable and likely directionally correct.
However their data doesn't actually show that all levels of alcohol consumption has some risks, they even claim that 0-2 is negligible-low risk.

I think the case that heavy drinking causes problems, and that even moderate drinking has issues.
I don't think that unless it was specifically measured that you can claim low levels of consumption are problematic.

I don't see them banning white bread because of the dangerous non-zero alcohol content.

FYI, not finding a safe level isn't the same as there not being a safe level.

Secondly a lot of the negative impacts are based on bad decision making "related" to alcohol.
I'd suggest that people who get drunk and make bad decisions are likely making bad decisions even before they're intoxicated.
That's an obvious confound, I think it is nearly impossible to properly address and would be listed as a limitation in all the applicable studies.
The problem in that case is bad decisions, I'd say that alcohol is at most an accelerant of sorts.

Secondly most people I know who drink heavily also have lower physical activity and poor diets.

There is an odd exception, a lot of serious runners, seem to drink a LOT of beer. I can't explain that.
This is oddly prevalent “A Drinking Club with a Running Problem.” is a common phrase, and many races used to contain beer tickets and start/end in bars.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Even further to the further, further wise.

Data analysis should be the keystone of business analysis. As a group, investors should be experts in objectivity and data analysis.

Telling an investor analyze data hardly a threat or off-putting in any way.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_Why do people declare the end of discussion on topics when they find something that supports their point of view? What about credible studies which undermine the point of view? They are just as important._

Gotta make a decision sooner or later and their butts hurt from sitting on the fence.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> I don't see them banning white bread because of the dangerous non-zero alcohol content.
> 
> FYI, not finding a safe level isn't the same as there not being a safe level.


Trying to find a completely safe level isn't really productive. Sure, maybe one or two sips is 100% safe (or maybe not), but it's more realistic to look at the typical serving size.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

nathan79 said:


> Trying to find a completely safe level isn't really productive. Sure, maybe one or two sips is 100% safe (or maybe not), but it's more realistic to look at the typical serving size.


Yeah, and that advisory group came up with a recommendation based on this kind of continuum of risk. Which is very sensible I think.

They suggest that up to 2 drinks per week is negligible/low risk, for healthy individuals. So I think I'll stick with this myself, max 2.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> Yeah, and that advisory group came up with a recommendation based on this kind of continuum of risk. Which is very sensible I think.
> 
> They suggest that up to 2 drinks per week is negligible/low risk, for healthy individuals. So I think I'll stick with this myself, max 2.


Not long ago the info below was promoted as ok ... note the bolded text below.

The truth about red wine and heart health
If you already drink red wine, do so in moderation. For healthy adults, that means:

Up to one drink a day for women of all ages.
Up to one drink a day for men older than age 65.
*Up to two drinks a day for men age 65 and younger*. The limit for men is higher because men generally weigh more than women and have more of an enzyme that metabolizes alcohol.
I sometimes find these new recommendations (of course based on studies) a little hard to swallow ... pun intended.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

On the topic of health studies, here is another one that just came out ...
Exercise 2-4x more than the HHS recommends to achieve maximum benefit, says new study

US Health and Human Services recommends 150 minutes of moderate activity per week.

A new Hardvard study is saying, based on a survey of 100,000 adults from1988 to 2018, that exercising 2-4x that amount gives significant benefits ...

_Results showed that people who completed 300 to 600 minutes, which is 5 to 10 hours, of moderate physical activity per week had 26% to 31% lower all-cause mortality._

So my question ... is it really "just" the increased activity or are the people who are putting in the 5-10 hours a week generally just living a healthier (normal BMI, non-smokers, non-drinkers) overall lifestyle?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

What counts as moderate activity? I usually do 5 hours of 160 BPM cardio per week.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> What counts as moderate activity? I usually do 5 hours of 160 BPM cardio per week.


Depends on your heart rate, I'd do a resting/max heart rate calculator.
But I'd say that's pretty good, nicely into a healthy level of physical activity. Its way more than the vast majority of the population gets.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> On the topic of health studies, here is another one that just came out ...
> Exercise 2-4x more than the HHS recommends to achieve maximum benefit, says new study
> 
> US Health and Human Services recommends 150 minutes of moderate activity per week.
> ...


The reason they dropped to 150 minutes, or 20 minutes a day is because the real recommendation was seen as unachievable, and many people were simply giving up.
So many people are doing NOTHING, that to even get them moving for 5-10 minutes/day would be a massive improvement.

As an on again off again serious runner, I think 20 minutes of sweat level excercise is a good minimum target. If you do 20 minutes of sweating (even if it's like 1 minute jog, 2 minute walk) you'll see initial improvements really quickly. 10 minute workouts don't cause the same adaptation, longer workouts are too much for people who aren't used to them.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

andrewf said:


> What counts as moderate activity? I usually do 5 hours of 160 BPM cardio per week.


You're good. 160 bpm is vigorous, and they recommend 150 minutes of vigorous or 300-600 of moderate.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

andrewf said:


> What counts as moderate activity? I usually do 5 hours of 160 BPM cardio per week.


Here is their guidelines,
https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Activity_Guidelines_2nd_edition.pdf

I believe brisk walking counts as moderate activity.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

cainvest said:


> Here is their guidelines,
> https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Activity_Guidelines_2nd_edition.pdf
> 
> I believe brisk walking counts as moderate activity.


Zone 2 cardio:

Zone 2 training: Definition and benefits | Live Science 

The Many Benefits from "ZONE 2" Training - Fit Stop Human Performance Lab (fitstop-lab.com)


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

The point I was making with these recommendations, whether it be for alcohol or exercise, is the comparisons don't take all factors into consideration. In other words, someone who is drinking a fair bit will most likely not be living a healthy lifestyle overall. Same for exercise, a person doing 5+ hours a week of vigorous activity is likely taking care of themselves in other areas. So when these recommendations state an increase of say 30% in cancer ... is that attributed only to the alcohol use or lack of exercise alone?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> The point I was making with these recommendations, whether it be for alcohol or exercise, is the comparisons don't take all factors into consideration. In other words, someone who is drinking a fair bit will most likely not be living a healthy lifestyle overall. Same for exercise, a person doing 5+ hours a week of vigorous activity is likely taking care of themselves in other areas. So when these recommendations state an increase of say 30% in cancer ... is that attributed only to the alcohol use or lack of exercise alone?


It should be due to just the factor they are measuring.
The statistical methods being used are actually quite powerful and quite robust. Done properly I believe that they likely can mostly isolate these factors, though it can be difficult to get a dataset with sufficient resolution to distinguish some factors.
For example there is going to be a tight correlation between many of the healthy lifestyle aspects, ie diet, exercise etc.


Event he techniques for missing data analysis are honestly quite impressive.
That being said the actual analysis strategies and IMO ethics are somewhat lacking.
People will take a dataset, run an analysis then try to weave a story out of correlations they find, which is a bit problematic.

Also now that these powerful tools are much easier (not quite point and click but getting there), people are "performing analysis" that they don't quite understand.
For Engineers, it's the equivalent of doing a FEA without considering boundry conditions. 
For non engineers, it's like calculating the stability of a bridge, without considering if the supports are on bedrock, sand, or floating on a barge. The numbers might be correct, but they might also be completely wrong.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> It should be due to just the factor they are measuring.


And that is what I wonder about, especially with meta-analyses studies.

From one of the PDFs j4b linked stated,

_Still, there were important limitations with the research evidence used developing the 2011 LRDGs. In the LRDG technical report (Butt et al., 2011), the working group noted the under-reporting of personal alcohol use in self-reported surveys, the failure to take account of heavy drinking episodes in many epidemiological studies, the misclassification of former and occasional drinkers as lifetime abstainers, and the failure to control for confounding effects of personality and lifestyle factors independent of alcohol. In its quality appraisal, using the AGREE II instrument, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) further noted limitations, particularly with respect to the rigour of development and editorial independence, two domains that did not receive the minimum acceptable score of 60%. Consequently, the 2011 LRDGs received an overall assessment of 60.7% and so did not meet the criteria for high quality guidelines. They were recommended for use with modifications, and since then, it has been known that careful consideration would need to be paid to these limitations when developing alcohol guidelines._

Makes one wonder if future reports will look back at this one with the same results.

Just to note, I don't disagree with their recommendations but in the end I think common sense should easily cover usage amounts. I see the problem is that many people just don't care, or will even know about, these guidelines.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> And that is what I wonder about, especially with meta-analyses studies.


The problem with a meta analysis is literally garbage in, garbage out.
They propagate the worst flaws of the underlying studies.

There are a LOT of flaws in the world of scientific papers. 
Mainstream reporting of them is even worse.

That being said, I think that published papers are useful, you just have to be aware of the flaws, and take them with the appropriate grain of salt.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

Alcohol is highly addictive and neurotoxic. It's a significant burden on our health care system, affects workplace productivity, increases absenteeism, involved in marital spats, abuse, etc. It's a drug that allows people to escape, cope, etc. It's also a gateway into other bad behaviors, other substance abuse, etc. It's been known for years that even a small amount is not good for you.

I get a kick out of the studies that promote heart health (antioxidants in red wine), etc. Eat some blueberries and go for a walk!

It's common sense, it's not healthy. You don't need a study to figure that one out.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> The problem with a meta analysis is literally garbage in, garbage out.


Not exactly. Instead of looking at only one study while hoping there isn't any flaw in that study, you instead look at a meta-analysis of say 100 studies, maybe 20 are flawed, 50 are average and 30 are good and from all that information you can make you can make an analysis for better conclusions.

That's called _wisdom of the crowd_.


----------



## Gator13 (Jan 5, 2020)

I would encourage those of you who are going to give up drinking due the findings of this recent study, to drop off all your wine (red & white), scotch, bourbon, etc at my house. I will take on the daunting task of disposing of it. Just trying to do my part to make the world a better place.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Not exactly. Instead of looking at only one study while hoping there isn't any flaw in that study, you instead look at a meta-analysis of say 100 studies, maybe 20 are flawed, 50 are average and 30 are good and from all that information you can make you can make an analysis for better conclusions.
> 
> That's called _wisdom of the crowd_.


Every study has limitations, it is the most important part of the study.


That's called _wisdom of the crowd_.
Ahh yes, because _mob rule _is guaranteed to provide a good result!


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> That's called _wisdom of the crowd_.
> Ahh yes, because _mob rule _is guaranteed to provide a good result!


Guaranteed, no, but more often than not.

What do you believe in, then? That a single source of information should be guaranteed to be the best? That's how you build your opinions?



MrMatt said:


> Every study has limitations, it is the most important part of the study.


Yup, that's why there's meta-analysis to summarize all the limitations of multiple studies and help building a better conclusion.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Guaranteed, no, but more often than not.
> 
> What do you believe in, then? That a single source of information should be guaranteed to be the best? That's how you build your opinions?


Reading the study with a heavy dose of skepticism.



> Yup, that's why there's meta-analysis to summarize all the limitations of multiple studies and help building a better conclusion.


That's actually the PROBLEM.
A meta analysis is a summary, it cuts out details to take dozens, hundreds, or thousands of studies and consolidating that into a single paper, with a single paragraph of findings.
You've just thrown out THOUSANDS OF PAGES of details.

It's not a "better conclusion", it's just a summary of those other papers.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> A meta analysis is a summary, it cuts out details to take dozens, hundreds, or thousands of studies and consolidating that into a single paper, with a single paragraph of findings.
> You've just thrown out THOUSANDS OF PAGES of details.


Definitely not, the meta-analysis has gathered all of them so you can willingly read them all as you wish and compare your own conclusion to the meta-analysis conclusion if you believe you are the better expert. And I expect that you always believe you are the better expert, the more rational, more reasonable, the all-mighty, all-knowing.



MrMatt said:


> heavy dose of skepticism.


Sure I have no doubt on this, skepticism is all you can do, unless it confirms your biased beliefs.

You surely had no skepticism when you've read somewhere that Freeland was a Nazi supporter, huh.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Sure I have no doubt on this, skepticism is all you can do, unless it confirms your biased beliefs.


Yes, I've very skeptical.



> You surely had no skepticism when you've read somewhere that Freeland was a Nazi supporter, huh.


Actually I think it's a rather interesting situation considering the context.
But this really belongs in the politics thread, not here. So I'll put my real response there. 


Secondly why are you chasing me around trying to inject the political discussion of one thread into another?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> What do you believe in, then? That a single source of information should be guaranteed to be the best? That's how you build your opinions?


Depends if you can properly validate the accuracy of the source data when you were not directly involved in the process of gathering it. Some data may be rather easy to get (death/hospital records) with only a few inaccuracies while other data (surveys, self-reporting) may have unseen bias tilting the data set. 

I'm sure meta-analyses has a place and it's likely cheaper to do as much of the leg work (data gathering) is already done for them.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Synergy said:


> Alcohol is highly addictive and neurotoxic. It's a significant burden on our health care system, affects workplace productivity, increases absenteeism, involved in marital spats, abuse, etc. It's a drug that allows people to escape, cope, etc. It's also a gateway into other bad behaviors, other substance abuse, etc. It's been known for years that even a small amount is not good for you.
> 
> I get a kick out of the studies that promote heart health (antioxidants in red wine), etc. Eat some blueberries and go for a walk!
> 
> It's common sense, it's not healthy. You don't need a study to figure that one out.


Those were some of the very same arguments used when the United States enacted the prohibition act in 1924. That law almost ripped the country apart.

Listen guys. No argument from me that alcohol is bad for you, especially in large quantities, like the amount I will probably consume this long weekend. The problem is this. We all want to live a happy and long life. When those two characteristics, happy and long, oppose each other, like they do with alcohol, we are forced to choose. We ask ourselves, how happy compared to how much longer. Obviously those are personal questions with personal answers, but for the vast majority of the world's population, they have chosen happiness ahead of longevity when the alcohol tradeoff is questioned.

You can say what you want about alcohol but again, for the vast majority of the population happiness is usually just a couple drinks away with much more certainty then other less effective methods at providing the same amount of cheer.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

I think the other interesting question is what is the alternative?
Drink water?

Maybe a bit of damage to our health for pleasure is ok. How much is a personal decision.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Maybe a bit of damage to our health for pleasure is ok.


The question is: why is alcohol associated with pleasure and seen as a good thing. It does have a temporary effect on happiness. So does many other drugs...


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> I think the other interesting question is what is the alternative?
> Drink water?


Water is good! 



MrMatt said:


> Maybe a bit of damage to our health for pleasure is ok. How much is a personal decision.


Absolutely. I think it does some good to point out risk factors, even though most are likely ignored by the public.

Of course if you like drinking on occasion maybe this will help ...
Exercise can cancel out the booze, says study | CNN


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> The question is: why is alcohol associated with pleasure and seen as a good thing. It does have a temporary effect on happiness. So does many other drugs...


Yes, it can have a positive effect on happiness... That's it.
No great mystery.

I personally find other things have a higher happiness/impact ratio, but alcohol has it's place.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Water is good!
> 
> 
> Absolutely. I think it does some good to point out risk factors, even though most are likely ignored by the public.
> ...


Like I said, I'm quite aware of the "Drinking club with a running problem"
FYI, those guys are typically quite a bit of fun.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> Like I said, I'm quite aware of the "Drinking club with a running problem"


Ya, I know those people as well. At least they are hopefully countering the ill effects with good ones.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> Those were some of the very same arguments used when the United States enacted the prohibition act in 1924. That law almost ripped the country apart.
> 
> Listen guys. No argument from me that alcohol is bad for you, especially in large quantities, like the amount I will probably consume this long weekend. The problem is this. We all want to live a happy and long life. When those two characteristics, happy and long, oppose each other, like they do with alcohol, we are forced to choose. We ask ourselves, how happy compared to how much longer. Obviously those are personal questions with personal answers, but for the vast majority of the world's population, they have chosen happiness ahead of longevity when the alcohol tradeoff is questioned.
> 
> You can say what you want about alcohol but again, for the vast majority of the population happiness is usually just a couple drinks away with much more certainty then other less effective methods at providing the same amount of cheer.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convince anyone not to drink, to reduce their consumption, etc. I was just pointing out a few facts. Alcohol creates a ton of jobs in more ways than one and helps to keep the economy chugging along. If we didn't have alcohol people would move to some other substance, potentially something much more harmful.

We could have a similar discussion on coffee. Its more harmful than most people think. It is however a much better drug than alcohol.. It's extremely addictive but has less side affects and much less negative health consequences. Most people are walking around in a state of withdrawal until they get their morning cup of Java. Great business model!


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Synergy said:


> We could have a similar discussion on coffee. Its more harmful than most people think. It is however a much better drug than alcohol.. It's extremely addictive but has less side affects and much less negative health consequences. Most people are walking around in a state of withdrawal until they get their morning cup of Java.


And thankfully you can safely down 4 cups of coffee a day ... so they say.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

One thing we can safely assume is that the science is not settled. Are the climate alarmists paying attention ?


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

Too much of anything is bad for you; even water.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Retired Peasant said:


> even water


Yup, just not the same ratio. 2 liters of wine per _week_ is not recommended. 2 liters of water per _day_ is recommended. 2 liters of water per _hour_ is deadly.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

People have a fetish for self destruction that defies logic.

When the drug "crocodile" first came to North America, I thought it was the stupidest thing I had ever heard. You inject it and the injection site becomes so necrotic that a little chunk falls out of your arm (or wherever) a few days later. That's why they call it "crocodile"; it takes a bite out of the user. I knew no one would try it, never mind becoming addicted to it.

Imagine my consternation to learn crocodile has a non-trivial North American user base.


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

MrBlackhill said:


> Yup, just not the same ratio.


Well, doh.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

cainvest said:


> And thankfully you can safely down 4 cups of coffee a day ... so they say.


My teenager tried to do that stat on me (she drinks too much coffee). It's up to 4 regular size cups which is consider 6-8 ounces. Even a small is slightly larger than the recommended size. If you get an XL that is 2-3 coffees.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Plugging Along said:


> My teenager tried to do that stat on me (she drinks too much coffee). It's up to 4 regular size cups which is consider 6-8 ounces. Even a small is slightly larger than the recommended size. If you get an XL that is 2-3 coffees.


Actually I think the stat to go by, instead of cups of coffee, is 400mg of caffeine per day IIRC. Of course there are many other things people throw into coffee that can make it less healthy as well.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

It seems that current science is that everything we consume is harmful. It's a matter of degree. Where does each item fall on the badness scale? Of late, the "War on Wheat" and monographs such as "Wheat Belly" tell us for forsake any grain or derivative. Bread of any sort is lethal. Ditto for pasta, etc. Then that follows into just about any carbohydrate. Rice is out to get you. A potato famine is nature's way of trying to protect us. 

I grew up being told that fruit and fruit juice is good. No more. The juice is definitely off limits and fruit must only be consumed in tiny amounts. It all contains sugar, which is a toxin of the highest order. Of course, there are subcategories within that deadly sphere, with HFCS being off the scale in terms of the harm it will wreak.

And, for goodness sake, check the ingredient labels and shun anything that has been anywhere near vegetable oil. You might just as well use 200 proof (U.S. scale) vodka as a replacement.

Also, I grew up leaning that "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" and from that flowed a litany of ills for those who did not heed that advice. We were told especially true for kids and how they cannot think or function at all at school sans breakfast. Now, we are told the opposite and how "3 squares a day" equates to 3 coffin nails a day. We must engage in intermittent fasting and nirvana will be achieved by those who train themselves to fast for a lifetime. If you never eat or drink, you'll be safe. I eat only once a day and I feel guilty that I can manage a 2-day fast only about once in 2 weeks. I have not tried my first 3-day yet, but a munificent reward of autophagy awaits me when I get there.

My parents both lived past age 95 and lived independently in their own home until very close to the end. They drank 2 glasses of wine every day, probably for 50 years. They started the day, for the same years, with a glass of orange juice. Apart from that glass of juice and the wine, my mother drank only coffee. Never anything else. Never a glass of water. My father had a breakfast every day before heading to the office. It consisted of the mandatory glass of orange juice, 2 slices of white toast (ugh) with margarine (how scary is that?) and jam (sweet death in a jar), cereal (such as Post Grape Nuts Flakes...yikes!) and 2 cups of coffee. I am amazed he managed to hobble out to his car after that deadly assault on his physiology. Too bad my folks were ignorant as to current protocols. They might have lived to 200. 

Seems that today, everyone is either diabetic (type 2), pre-diabetic or afflicted by galloping "metabolic syndrome", a term I had never come across before 2019. 

And now, I am going to walk up the road and attend to the neighbour's animals, ducks and chickens. They have taken off in their boat for a few days. For doing so, I am welcome to bring home some eggs (we are not here enough in winter to keep our own chickens these days). Seems now, eggs are okay again, after being on the avoid due to cholesterol list for so long. BUT, they have invited me to take home some corn, which is now coming to maturity (the early ones here). I really like fresh corn, but not healthy. Maybe I'll pass. They said there are carrots, kale, beets, various beans and cucumbers I can harvest. Maybe some of that can be taken in small doses. The beans might be an issue. The main course will be a chinook salmon I caught this morning and, with its omega-3, it's on the lower level of the badness scale. I'll just bake fillets coated with olive oil, to keep down the level of harm. 

Does anyone host dinner parties anymore? Seems to have lapsed into history. Small wonder. There's the dreaded risk of covid and the greater risk of just what the heck is in everything being served. There would have to be warnings, ingredient labels, etc. at each place setting. Full and frank disclosure. A fiduciary duty. And perish the thought of offering a pre-dinner libation or a glass of wine with dinner. Who needs an attempted murder charge?


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

A beer or 2 a day won't hurt you if you

#1 keep a normal weight

#2 get plenty of fresh air and exercise

#3 avoid all transfats hydrogenated products artificial sweeteners and high fructose cornsyrup.

.......and #4 get a dog(s) and walk them a couple of times a day.

It's worked for the Zippers.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Mukhang pera said:


> It seems that current science is that everything we consume is harmful.


I think the issue is most studies are science based but far from complete to draw conclusions.

Look at the link on the previous page for drinking & exercise where it says,

_Because it is an observational study, the results only “suggest a relationship” between exercise, drinking and health benefits, said Michael Hyek, senior director of OhioHealth’s McConnell Heart Health Center. _

But many people take this info (or just the headlines) and just believe it to be complete.



Mukhang pera said:


> Does anyone host dinner parties anymore?


Sure do, all the time. Had our BBQ whistle dog pool party last week. In the next 3 weeks we'll host the annual BLT dinner when the oxheart tomatoes are ready and following that is the smoked brisket & beans at a friends house.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

Retired Peasant said:


> Too much of anything is bad for you; even water.


Here's another saying that helps justify one's actions.

"Everything in moderation"


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Synergy said:


> Here's another saying that helps justify one's actions.
> 
> "Everything in moderation"


Everything in moderation...including moderation 🍻


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

cainvest said:


> But many people take this info (or just the headlines) and just believe it to be complete.


I read a study that small quantities of cocaine are not harmful. I haven't been as productive as I would like since retiring so I started running a couple of rails with morning coffee. Even my wife commented on my increased stamina.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

As someone who drinks 20+ drinks a week...

I guess I'm in deep trouble 😂


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

KaeJS said:


> As someone who drinks 20+ drinks a week...
> 
> I guess I'm in deep trouble 😂


Working 100h/week reduces life expectancy by a couple of years.
Drinking 20+ drinks a week reduces life expectancy by a couple of years.

Luckily, you will retire early! If your life expectancy is reduced by a total of 10 years, I hope you will retire at least 10 years earlier!  

I'm teasing you. You do whatever you believe to be the best for you.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

MrBlackhill said:


> Working 100h/week reduces life expectancy by a couple of years.
> Drinking 20+ drinks a week reduces life expectancy by a couple of years.
> 
> Luckily, you will retire early! If your life expectancy is reduced by a total of 10 years, I hope you will retire at least 10 years earlier!
> ...


You're probably right 😂
But that won't keep me from doing it.

When I'm gone, I'm gone. It will be what it will be regardless.


----------

