161–170 of 250 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a 5 year old (saw the Terrence Tao of dexterity) could theoretically use a circular saw. a saw isn't inherently bad. alcohol as something to be consumed is.
Wow you're really going off the rails here huh?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if you are trying to be funny - if so, you've succeeded. However, this also reads to me like a very plausible explanation. I like the idea of specifically studying this component further.
It's amusing, and also, supported by no less evidence than the causality in the headline.
e.g. Stress due to civil service job arises from specific problems. Alcohol is used as a form of distraction and prevents those problems from being solved, resulting in stress-damage to the hippocampal areas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> everyone knows drinking is bad for you Citations (plural) needed. Without meta-studies and peer responses in subsequent papers and studies, this is just using a single article for confirmation bias. In the actual scientific world, studies have been mixed since forever on the subject, with moderate wine drinking for example having shown in many studies favourable results for cardiovascular health and other aspects.…
> In the actual scientific world, studies have been mixed since forever on the subject, with moderate wine drinking for example having shown in many studies favourable results for cardiovascular health and other aspects. Also many places with the most long-lived people on earth have big wine drinking populations (e.g. Icaria). everything here is irrelevant. drinking has no benefits compared to water. period. again, w…
"Resveratrol (RSV), a red wine component, and red wine itself exert cardio- and nephroprotective effects by modulating the Nitric Oxide system (NO). Elucidating both upstream and downstream molecular mechanisms of the SIRT-1 pathway is an open field of investigation that can explain its role not only in long-term processes, such as aging, but also in short-term processes, such as protection against ischemic damage." [1]
Water doesn't do that.
If you are talking only about alcohol itself, studies show a link to protecting against heart disease:
"The idea that moderate drinking protects against cardiovascular disease makes sense biologically and scientifically. Moderate amounts of alcohol raise levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL, or “good” cholesterol), and higher HDL levels are associated with greater protection against heart disease. Moderate alcohol consumption has also been linked with beneficial changes ranging from better sensitivity to insulin to improvements in factors that influence blood clotting, such as tissue type plasminogen activator, fibrinogen, clotting factor VII, and von Willebrand factor. Such changes would tend to prevent the formation of small blood clots that can block arteries in the heart, neck, and brain, the ultimate cause of many heart attacks and the most common kind of stroke." [2].
So let's work in your terms of drinking alcoholic beverages versus water and let's say you knew you were at a high risk of cardiovascular disease - could alcohol help you over water? Yes the science seems to support that.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20932649
[2] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/alcohol-full-st...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now, how would you define "safe level alcohol consumption"? Are you satisfied with just still being alive the next day after you had a drink? Or do you want to avoid long term negative effects like cirrhosis, cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment? For me the "poison" is a substance that when ingested has a significant detrimental effect on one's health. Until recently there was a myth that moderate consumption…
By that logic then red meat, sugar, kale, broccoli, fat and a host of other foods are also bad for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the actual scientific world, studies have been mixed since forever on the subject, with moderate wine drinking for example having shown in many studies favourable results for cardiovascular health and other aspects. Also many places with the most long-lived people on earth have big wine drinking populations (e.g. Icaria). everything here is irrelevant. drinking has no benefits compared to water. period. again, w…
> drinking has no benefits compared to water. period. "Resveratrol (RSV), a red wine component, and red wine itself exert cardio- and nephroprotective effects by modulating the Nitric Oxide system (NO). Elucidating both upstream and downstream molecular mechanisms of the SIRT-1 pathway is an open field of investigation that can explain its role not only in long-term processes, such as aging, but also in short-term pr…
by the way, anyone can play this game:
the benefits of water are virtually limitless:
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11978586
[2] aids in weight loss and metabolic control (alcohol makes you fatter)
press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2003-030780
[3] keeps you hydrated
[4] improves digestion
[5] improves mood
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3984246/
[6] improves digestion
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/6-reasons-to-drink-water#...
the fact is, every time you drink something that's not water, you have the opportunity cost. most of the studies would rank beverages in the following order:
1. water
2. tea
3. coffee
. . . 4. red wine
5. white wine
6. misc alcohol/mixed drinks
7. soda
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the study which was linked in another comment [1] they were using the standard defined in [2]. This site shows that one pint of lager counts as 2 units of alcohol. One pint is 19.2 oz [3]. A bottle of beer is usually 12 oz, aka 5/8 of a pint, aka 1.25 units of alcohol. I trust the source over the science journalist. [1] http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2353 [2] https://www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/unit-c…
One British pint is 568mL, and one "unit" of alcohol is 10mL -- I think the latter might be a European standard. That makes a ½pt (284mL) beer, at 3.5%, almost exactly 10mL of alcohol (284*0.035 = 9.94). The average beer is stronger than it was 20 years ago, but there's still a feeling that 1pt = 2 units in Britain.
I very much doubt this. High strength lagers are much less popular than they were 20 years ago, not least because of beer tax that scales with strength. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11455150/Britain...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the study which was linked in another comment [1] they were using the standard defined in [2]. This site shows that one pint of lager counts as 2 units of alcohol. One pint is 19.2 oz [3]. A bottle of beer is usually 12 oz, aka 5/8 of a pint, aka 1.25 units of alcohol. I trust the source over the science journalist. [1] http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2353 [2] https://www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/unit-c…
One British pint is 568mL, and one "unit" of alcohol is 10mL -- I think the latter might be a European standard. That makes a ½pt (284mL) beer, at 3.5%, almost exactly 10mL of alcohol (284*0.035 = 9.94). The average beer is stronger than it was 20 years ago, but there's still a feeling that 1pt = 2 units in Britain.
I very much doubt this. High strength lagers are much less popular than they were 20 years ago, not least because of beer tax that scales with strength. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11455150/Britain...
As a stats man, before I read the article I said to myself: "bet it's from a survey". With that kind of methodology, I imagine the "moderate" drinkers are going to contain the group of people who said they (frequently) drink, but not that much. I'd be willing to bet there will be a relationship between reporting that you drink frequently and the negative effects of alcohol that will outweigh the attempt to self repor…
It would be good to test that with animals. You could control the alcohol consumption of rats in group A, let group B drink as much as they wanted to, and compare how the effects varied with consumption between the two groups. Has that experiment been done?