"safest level of drinking is none" - new study

mvl

So there is this study I am after reading about in The Guardian from an Institute of Health Metrics
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/23/no-healthy-level-of-alcohol-consumption-says-major-study?

Intrigued about few things:
1. alcohol links to cancer in over 50, especially for women: 27.1% of cancer deaths in women and 18.9% in men over 50 were linked to their drinking habits.
2. while for younger persons doesn't seem to matter so much ?!? "younger people globally the biggest causes of death linked to alcohol were tuberculosis (1.4% of deaths), road injuries (1.2%), and self-harm (1.1%)." - interesting how TB is mentioned, but the countries that are in the top 5 are not supposedly having high incidence of TB
3. Ireland is not mentioned in the entire article
... could go on.

But I do wonder how reputable this institute is ... and since this is the first time I am seeing recommendations for measures that would reduce alcohol consumption, I do wonder if we could see in future "alcohol reduction acts" same as we have with tobacco now.
Your thoughts on this ?

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

retalivity

Ill drink what i want, smoke what i want and take what i want. It will help support another study tomorrow stating that the world is overpopulated and people are living too long.

Peatys

Sure what's the point then? Live long miserable life?
Fuk that.

Jim Bob Scratcher

Just in - Litre of whiskey a day will make you live longer

McMurphy

There was a woman lived a few houses up from us with her parents for years, died at 35.

Cancer took her, and I watched it take her, I noticed she was looking gaunt and pale weeks (months actually) before she broke the news that she had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. I watched her steadyily waste away - how she slowly progessively declined - right from losing weight to reluctantly giving up work then becoming less mobile/wheelchair bound.


35.

She neither smoked nor drank, wasn't married, didn't even have a boyfriend, you know what lads, I'd guess the poor girl was never even rode, but there you go - cancer claimed her.

Tldr.

Cancer doesn't give a fcuk whether you smoke/drink/eat fatty foods or anything else. Everything in moderation they say.

When your time is up its time to go. Simple as that.

s7ryf3925pivug

It's published in a reputable journal. This is the most credible source of information available.

It's not hugely surprising to hear alcohol seems to be a greater health concern than previously thought. Skepticism with this seems more likely to be because the news is unwelcome, rather than unlikely or lacking credibility.

s7ryf3925pivug

Getting cancer is like winning the lottery. Everybody gets tickets. Your genes might mean you get more or less tickets than others. What you expose yourself to in day to day life can give you additional tickets, or cancel some of them. We know some of the things that add or remove tickets but not all of them. But one way or another we all have tickets... sometimes people win the lottery even if they don't buy lots of tickets.

JMNolan

Who could have guessed that Demolition Man would have best predicted our future?

McMurphy

Shiloh Rancid Tumor wrote: »

It's published in a reputable journal. This is the most credible source of information available.

It's not hugely surprising to hear alcohol seems to be a greater health concern than previously thought. Skepticism with this seems more likely to be because the news is unwelcome, rather than unlikely or lacking credibility.

No one doubts the credibility of the journal and the authors behind it, no less than they might doubt similar journals or studys that tell us a daily glass of red wine or beer is good for your heart.

This journal tells us the safest level of drinking is not to drink.


Cancer doesn't kill ye, the heart will so?

Sure the lad driving the 48A might have a coughing fit and crash through the barrier of the flyover and die. Along with the 34 other passengers on board.

Atlantic Dawn

Should the wine at mass now be replaced with TK Red Lemonade?

s7ryf3925pivug

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No one doubts the credibility of the journal and the authors behind it, no less than they might doubt similar journals or studys that tell us a daily glass of red wine or beer is good for your heart.

This journal tells us the safest level of drinking is not to drink.


Cancer doesn't kill ye, the heart will so?

Sure the lad.driving the 48A might have a coughing fit and crash through the barrier of the flyover and die. Along with the 34 other passengers on board.

Doubt of its credibility is expressed in the OP

I understand that the benefits of alcohol in avoiding heart disease are greatly exaggerated.

We're all going to die. You might not even last til the end of this post. It's not really relevant though. People generally live much longer now than a couple of hundred years ago because we've increased our knowledge about how to stay healthy and alive. Some people die young in unforeseeable or unavoidable ways. One point does not negate the other.

Malayalam

Hadn't heard about the study in the OP but was genuinely surprised yesterday to hear on car radio that a study has shown that boys who drink 7 units of alcohol weekly between 15 and 19 years of age, which is not all that much really (is it?), are THREE TIMES more likely to develop the aggressive form of prostate cancer (the one that is very hard to treat). I found that quite shocking actually.
I drink very rarely but do use a bottle of red once in a blue moon to get consciously drunk. :pac: It is undoubtedly a strong drug. It has positive and negative applications. All substances have inherent toxicity at certain doses for the individual, medicinal plants tell us that. Regular food also. If these studies have merit and are supported by further work people may have to eventually acknowledge that alcohol is indeed strong medicine.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/young-male-drinkers-may-face-increased-risk-of-aggressive-prostate-cancer-1.3605521

JohnnyFlash

Plenty of cognitive dissonance going on in this thread already. The ‘sure didn’t I know a lad who drank 10 pints a day, smoked 40 woodbine, installed asbestos for a living, and lived until he was 97’ sort of stuff. Using it as a way of mentally objectifying their own patterns of behaviour.

There’s absolutely no reason to doubt the veracity of this study. Ethanol is a poison. And while some of the Irish might have replaced the binge drinking at the weekend with the bottle of wine a night, there’s no doubt that we have major issues around how much and why we drink.

mvl

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Plenty of cognitive dissonance going on in this thread already. The ‘sure didn’t I know a lad who drank 10 pints a day, smoked 40 woodbine, installed asbestos for a living, and lived until he was 97’ sort of stuff. Using it as a way of mentally objectifying their own patterns of behaviour.

There’s absolutely no reason to doubt the veracity of this study. Ethanol is a poison. And while some of the Irish might have replaced the binge drinking at the weekend with the bottle of wine a night, there’s no doubt that we have major issues around how much and why we drink.

question was about the institute being reputable, not the newspaper - its called Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) - an independent global health research center at the University of Washington ...

later edit - how silly of me: institute appears to be linked to the Gates foundation.

- and have to say was also surprised to see that Irish drinking habits didn't get on the top 10 - except for the female highest number of drinks
http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/new-scientific-study-no-safe-level-alcohol

freshpopcorn

I was expecting it to be a survey carried out by Dr Ciara Kelly.

McMurphy

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Plenty of cognitive dissonance going on in this thread already. The ‘sure didn’t I know a lad who drank 10 pints a day, smoked 40 woodbine, installed asbestos for a living, and lived until he was 97’ sort of stuff. Using it as a way of mentally objectifying their own patterns of behaviour.

There’s absolutely no reason to doubt the veracity of this study. Ethanol is a poison. And while some of the Irish might have replaced the binge drinking at the weekend with the bottle of wine a night, there’s no doubt that we have major issues around how much and why we drink.

You might be getting confused with how the article is basically saying ANY form of alcohol consumption is bad - period.

Others (and myself included) point out to apparent health benefits from alcohol - but it's moderation that's key.

Who in under jaysis thinks the lad in the sleeping bag down the quays with a can of Linden Village super cider is looking healthier than their 64 year old mother in law who does Pilates/hill climbing and enjoys a glass of shiraz with her evening meal from time to time?

Moderation.

Too much of anything can kill ya.

Atlantic Dawn

And next week some study will say a glass of wine a day cures knob rot, they are making it up as they go along.

FurBabyMomma

And on the other hand, the British Medical Journal recently published a study saying that abstaining from alcohol increases your risk of dementia :

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/08/01/middle-aged-drinking-may-reduce-dementia-risk-new-study-finds1/amp/

You can't win really.

Edit: FWIW I wouldn't be a big drinker. I just don't like the all or nothing approach over moderation.

Dtp1979

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

And next week some study will say a glass of wine a day cures knob rot, they are making it up as they go along.

No they’re not. There’s millions being spent on studies into cancer research. I thought it was common knowledge that alcohol increased your chances of cancer. Same as smoking etc.

razorblunt

Safest way to cross the road is to not cross the road too.

Drumpot

It’s funny reading all the deluesional reactions to this report. Irish people in particular have such a culturaly unhealthy relationship with alcohol that they will always look to excuse anything negative towards the substance.

I work in insurance and while a lot of illnesses are gene related it doesn’t mean drinking or smoking doesn’t affect your mortality. Some genes won’t be affected by over drinking as much as others but all people with all genes will be affected negatively, it’s just to different degrees.

When you apply for insurance you pay more as a smoker or if you drink in an unhealthy manner. There are multiple ways you can get fatty livers but binge drinking is one of them. This could cost you more for insurance.

So why does that matter? Insurance companies charge you more because statistically speaking you are more likely to claim on the policy if you do certain things or don’t take care of yourself (including drinking or smoking).

When I goto insurance seminars and they just talk of people as numbers , statistics, it’s frightening how often people get sick and how our behaviors do make a difference. People either don’t want to believe or know that their behaviors can make them ill.

I have no skin in the game on this thread and I know this will not be a popular post. But alcohol is dangerous on many levels if you don’t drink naturally drink carefully and in a balanced manner.


Most things in life are fine in moderation. I think if you follow that mantra you will usually be ok. The problem Can be that people have different views on what is moderate. If you are drinking with heavy drinkers you might be moderate in that group but still have a bad habit.

Incidentally when I see these sort of science studies come out I usually wonder where the backing for the studies came from. Dig deep enough and most of these things are prob commissioned by the alcohol industry to find the “right” results....

SeaFields

Injuries and violence seem to be included too -possibly as to why the stats have changed? I'm probably not going to get hit by a car or start a fight with a random stranger while having a bottle of beer watching netflix of a Friday night at home so I think I'll just carry on as before.

mvl

Dtp1979 wrote: »

No they’re not. There’s millions being spent on studies into cancer research. I thought it was common knowledge that alcohol increased your chances of cancer. Same as smoking etc.

I guess I would have not imagined women cancers can be linked to alcohol.
- with smoking its easier to make an association I guess.

eagle eye

The reaction to the article in this thread suggests that there is a major alcohol problem with the posters.

Badly Drunk Boy

Peatys wrote: »

Sure what's the point then? Live long miserable life?
Fuk that.

I remember reading Gulliver's Travels years ago, and one of the non-fun parts of the story that is always left out of the cartoon versions or Disney-type live action versions is Gulliver's visit to the island of Luggnagg. Here, certain people (called Struldbrugs) are immortal, but they don't have eternal youth. They just keep on getting older for eternity, suffering all the negative conditions of old age. They are declared legally dead at the age of 80, even though they're immortal.

McMurphy

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I was expecting it to be a survey carried out by Dr Ciara Kelly.

I was expecting it to have been carried out by the VFI with the added twist that it was only alcohol sold from supermarket off sales that had the cancer toxins.

Malayalam

mvl wrote: »

I guess I would have not imagined women cancers can be linked to alcohol.
- with smoking its easier to make an association I guess.

It's kind of obvious though in some ways. Throughout our history humans have had moderate intakes of substances - food, herbs, etc. - and then quite rare intake of certain special substances - stimulants, intoxicants - sometimes due to lack of availability (seasonal things etc.) but also because altered states of consciousness were ritualised. Even tobacco stimulates altered states. That's the default setting for the species. Now we have access to almost everything, all the time, in almost any amount we want. And we effectively binge. On sugar, on bread, on alcohol, on tobacco. There is nothing in the least bit ceremonial or conscious about our intake of anything - we are like great mouths moving through the world seeking pleasure constantly. And we see the results in ourselves and all around us in the species.

Peatys

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Should the wine at mass now be replaced with TK Red Lemonade?

It's replaced with blood.

super_furry

With all due respect, in the most unparliamentary language, f**k you new study! F**k you!

Peatys

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

I remember reading Gulliver's Travels years ago, and one of the non-fun parts of the story that is always left out of the cartoon versions or Disney-type live action versions is Gulliver's visit to the island of Luggnagg. Here, certain people (called Struldbrugs) are immortal, but they don't have eternal youth. They just keep on getting older for eternity, suffering all the negative conditions of old age. They are declared legally dead at the age of 80, even though they're immortal.

Nearly as bad as the promise of eternal life with your loved ones in heaven.

I can't even stand them for two days over Christmas!

verycool

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8a3W_LbKc4

silverharp

I'd imagine its very difficult to test over a lifetime between some and none, its a no brainer that binge drinking or a beer gut means you are doing it wrong but otherwise its not a factor worth worrying about

gozunda

A couple of things come to mind here


Yes and eveything has the potential to make us sick

We all have to die of something

It's not that giving up stuff helps us live longer - it just seems that way...


Until they come up with the ultimate piece of research that beats all the others I'm going to continue to enjoy my life and not be a miserable shyte ...

boombang

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You might be getting confused with how the article is basically saying ANY form of alcohol consumption is bad - period.

Others (and myself included) point out to apparent health benefits from alcohol - but it's moderation that's key.

Who in under jaysis thinks the lad in the sleeping bag down the quays with a can of Linden Village super cider is looking healthier than their 64 year old mother in law who does Pilates/hill climbing and enjoys a glass of shiraz with her evening meal from time to time?

Moderation.

Too much of anything can kill ya.

I believe the report is stating that the benefits of reduced heart disease are more than outweighed by the other health harms.

Also, I think the message of the article is that moderation is not sufficient to avoid increasing risks. However, I will still continue to enjoy moderate alcohol consumption.

Separately, I was thinking of the male daily average in Ireland of over 2 pints a day. As an individual visit to the pub that sounds really modest, but I really doubt I have every achieved that say on a weekly average basis outside of Christmas week.

frozenfrozen

ara fook off study

_Brian

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

There was a woman lived a few houses up from us with her parents for years, died at 35.

Cancer took her, and I watched it take her, I noticed she was looking gaunt and pale weeks (months actually) before she broke the news that she had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. I watched her steadyily waste away - how she slowly progessively declined - right from losing weight to reluctantly giving up work then becoming less mobile/wheelchair bound.


35.

She neither smoked nor drank, wasn't married, didn't even have a boyfriend, you know what lads, I'd guess the poor girl was never even rode, but there you go - cancer claimed her.

Tldr.

Cancer doesn't give a fcuk whether you smoke/drink/eat fatty foods or anything else. Everything in moderation they say.

When your time is up its time to go. Simple as that.

Regarding cancer it’s not just completely pot luck though.

So a portion of it is, your born with a certain likelihood of getting cancer during your lifetime, then your lifestyle choices add or detract from that likelihood.

Some people have a strong genetic resistance to it and so their lifestyle will have little effect, that’s where the stories of people who drink and smoke into their late years without problems.
Equally some have a predisposition to cancer problems and so their lifestyle has a serious impact on their chances of having problems.

None of us really know our underlying predisposition to cancer or other illnesses, but lifestyle choices are what we control. Live your life any way you want, but it’s completoy wrong to say it has no impact on your chances of getting cancer or other lifestyle related illnesses.

Look at your immediate family circle, if cancer, high blood pressure etc are prominent then potentially you need to be aware and make lifestyle choices to improve your own chances of heading these things off.

Malayalam

_Brian wrote: »

Regarding cancer it’s not just completely pot luck though.

So a portion of it is, your born with a certain likelihood of getting cancer during your lifetime, then your lifestyle choices add or detract from that likelihood.

Some people have a strong genetic resistance to it and so their lifestyle will have little effect, that’s where the stories of people who drink and smoke into their late years without problems.
Equally some have a predisposition to cancer problems and so their lifestyle has a serious impact on their chances of having problems.

None of us really know our underlying predisposition to cancer or other illnesses, but lifestyle choices are what we control. Live your life any way you want, but it’s completoy wrong to say it has no impact on your chances of getting cancer or other lifestyle related illnesses.

Look at your immediate family circle, if cancer, high blood pressure etc are prominent then potentially you need to be aware and make lifestyle choices to improve your own chances of heading these things off.

Agreed.

It's not at all about living forever either, as some are suggesting people are trying to do. Everyone knows we die and often randomly. It's also about the every day experience of living, though. How shyte does one want to feel day to day if one consumes excess substances. Time lost to physical and mental recovery, whole days or even weks feeling sub par, life slipping past with constricted breathing or a gammy stomach or low mood. I guess we get to determine how much time we want to offer to those sub optimal states of existence.

JohnnyFlash

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You might be getting confused with how the article is basically saying ANY form of alcohol consumption is bad - period.

Others (and myself included) point out to apparent health benefits from alcohol - but it's moderation that's key.

Who in under jaysis thinks the lad in the sleeping bag down the quays with a can of Linden Village super cider is looking healthier than their 64 year old mother in law who does Pilates/hill climbing and enjoys a glass of shiraz with her evening meal from time to time?

Moderation.

Too much of anything can kill ya.

Mistaking nothing dude. The study is saying that abstinence is needed. Not moderation. Zero, zilch, nada. The study is suggesting that alcohol is a carcinogen. You can dispute the science behind that and how they came to that conclusion. The study isn’t titled ‘Alcohol is really bad, unless you moderate, and go for an odd jog’. They are saying it’s bad for you fullstop.

Shiloh Rancid Tumor

Shiloh Rancid Tumor wrote: »

It's published in a reputable journal. This is the most credible source of information available.

It's not hugely surprising to hear alcohol seems to be a greater health concern than previously thought. Skepticism with this seems more likely to be because the news is unwelcome, rather than unlikely or lacking credibility.

I'm not surprised at all. I love a drink (borderline alcoholic, definite problem drinker) but was never under any illusion about it. I've been saying for years that in our lifetime information will keep coming and coming about how bad alcohol is for us.

I'm off the drink altogether for a while. Only noticing changes now, won't go into it because it's not the thread for it. :P If someone wants to drink it's their own business as far as I'm concerned but I have no issue with accurate information being put out. AFAIK the low amount being beneficial hasn't always been replicated even before now, though I'm very much open to correction on that.

beertons

Ah fu¢k off

Doctor Jimbob

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I read an article on that prostate cancer study (not sure if it's the one you linked or another one) that went on to point out that they couldn't say for certain whether the effect was due to the alcohol consumed between the ages of 15 and 19, or that people who drank a lot at that age were more likely to drink heavily later in life.

Obviously it's still better if people that age (and any age) cut down their drinking if it's excessive, but the study is potentially misleading.

the other point being that kids drinking reasonably heavily at 15-9 are not likely to be ahead of any of the long-term health curves in terms of diet, road behaviour, scrapping, smoking, whatever

no war but a class war comrades

SEPT 23 1989

more of a Monday morning thread I would have thought

Malayalam

[Deleted User] wrote: »

the other point being that kids drinking reasonably heavily at 15-9 are not likely to be ahead of any of the long-term health curves in terms of diet, road behaviour, scrapping, smoking, whatever

no war but a class war comrades

7 units a week is about 3 or 4 pints though (isn't it?) . Not really your deprived demographic hitting the drugs kind of levels. Anyway like Jimbob said maybe not wholly provable....still...

Agree about the class war though

JMNolan

If my 2.5 pints a week is going to reduce my lifespan then so be it, I consider it a fair trade off

PlaneSpeeking

JMNolan wrote: »

If my 2.5 pints a week is going to reduce my lifespan then so be it, I consider it a fair trade off

I'm with Denis Leary on his thoughts on smoking "smoking takes ten years off your life ? It's the worst ten, it's the wheelchair, adult diaper years!"

GBX

Id a heap of drink last night so far I've seen 2 news articles and now this thread warning about drink..... Its worrying me so much I'm gonna stop reading

Malayalam

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm with Denis Leary on his thoughts on smoking "smoking takes ten years off your life ? It's the worst ten, it's the wheelchair, adult diaper years!"

Haha it's true and I thought like that about my lovely weekend rollies, but in the end I thought it's not those 10 years I give a shyte about it's the 30 years before that of possible wheezing and feeling like a maggot that I don't want.

PlaneSpeeking

Malayalam wrote: »

Haha it's true and I thought like that about my lovely weekend rollies, but in the end I thought it's not those 10 years I give a shyte about it's the 30 years before that of possible wheezing and feeling like a maggot that I don't want.

I'm a great believer in "if it's legal and makes you happy, do it!"

You could get hit by a bus tomorrow!

valoren

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Plenty of cognitive dissonance going on in this thread already. The ‘sure didn’t I know a lad who drank 10 pints a day, smoked 40 woodbine, installed asbestos for a living, and lived until he was 97’ sort of stuff. Using it as a way of mentally objectifying their own patterns of behaviour.

There’s absolutely no reason to doubt the veracity of this study. Ethanol is a poison. And while some of the Irish might have replaced the binge drinking at the weekend with the bottle of wine a night, there’s no doubt that we have major issues around how much and why we drink.

There is a stigma attached to alcohol which fuels the cognitive dissonance as well. Whereas if someone smoked 40 cigarettes a day it is abundantly clear they are addicted to the drug nicotine. Were you to tell them they are addicted they would emphatically agree with you. There is no stigma attached to cigarettes. If the same person binge drank every weekend, or drank every evening if you tell them they are addicted to alcohol for some bizarre reason they come up with a litany of excuses in line with the dissonance to justify a pattern of addiction. Typically they become very angry about it because there is a stigma attached to the booze. Nobody wants to be labelled alcoholic.

It's common sense to see that ingesting ethanol provides no valid benefit beyond inducing a euphoric response. It is so ingrained in our society and culture that it is here to stay, no matter the studies done to confirm it is very bad for your health. It's great to get pissed now and again, it is a moreish drug after all yet it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The more studies like this proving common sensibilities as to it's negative impact on health will get more people looking at their own drinking patterns and deciding what they personally wish to do in future.

JMNolan

valoren wrote: »

There is a stigma attached to alcohol which fuels the cognitive dissonance as well. Whereas if someone smoked 40 cigarettes a day it is abundantly clear they are addicted to the drug nicotine. Were you to tell them they are addicted they would emphatically agree with you. There is no stigma attached to cigarettes. If the same person binge drank every weekend, or drank every evening if you tell them they are addicted to alcohol for some bizarre reason they come up with a litany of excuses in line with the dissonance to justify a pattern of addiction. Typically they become very angry about it because there is a stigma attached to the booze. Nobody wants to be labelled alcoholic.

It's common sense to see that ingesting ethanol provides no valid benefit beyond inducing a euphoric response. It is so ingrained in our society and culture that it is here to stay, no matter the studies done to confirm it is very bad for your health. It's great to get pissed now and again, it is a moreish drug after all yet it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The more studies like this proving common sensibilities as to it's negative impact on health will get more people looking at their own drinking patterns and deciding what they personally wish to do in future.

I suppose the problem with this study is that even a glass of wine a year will now cause cancer so people are a little confused.