Cancer risks increase with alcohol use, leading to over 740k cases last year

Post by amanaplanacanal » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 6:36 PM UTC

AuthorizedCust wrote: post #176

netman21 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related: since cancer thrives on sugar, what impact is from the sugars in the wine and beer people drink?

Possibky zero. Your body produces plenty of sugars even if you don’t eat any, because your brain and other parts need them to function. What’s unclear to me is how much sugar cancers need to thrive and if the baseline your body naturally produces isn’t already above that line.

Post by ipaddr » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 6:51 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #183

taneq wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you call the level below "heavy"? I'd imagine if you asked most people the scale would go something like "nondrinker", "light drinker", "moderate drinker", "heavy drinker", "full blown alcoholic". If so then 14 drinks per week is the upper end of "moderate". I'd expect it also depends on how you drink it. One restaurant-pour glass of wine with dinner every day adds up to 14 drinks a week but no reasonable…

>One restaurant-pour glass of wine with dinner every day adds up to 14 drinks a week but no reasonable person would call it "heavy drinking". What's the difference between a glass of wine after dinner and 700ml of beer (which is what GP's calculations work out to)? They both have the same amount of alcohol.

Post by jodrellblank » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:03 PM UTC

14u2c wrote: post #20

DoreenMichele wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really believe that we don't fully understand what cancer is. I really believe that after taking care of a loved one post mastectomy. I really believe that after listening to a relative who worked at the CDC and had cancer multiple times bitch about how most studies are bullshit and there's very little new in cancer research. I really believe that after another relative of mine caused two cancer clinics to change t…

> I will continue to believe what makes sense to me. And I will continue to believe experts that have specialized in a area of study that I have not, regardless of my personal comprehension of the topic.

Post by ipaddr » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:07 PM UTC

schindlabua wrote: post #151

j4yav wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, people who quit subsequently taking extreme / absolutist negative positions (I assume it is something for people who actually did have a problem to help them quit?) is much more predictable than concluding that anyone who smokes a joint with friends is certainly a substance abuser or that it is impossible except in theory to be productive or creative if you ever use weed. I rarely smoke weed, maybe…

I've developed a pretty strong aversion it's true. To the point where being high doesn't feel nice anymore. I also know two people with PhDs who smoke, they are the kind that limit themselves to smoking in the evening. But then I also know at least 4 people in their late twenties who prefer weed and gaming over getting a job. Both groups are the exception. Most of my friends still smoke so I'm fine with it, but I'm 1…

Post by ipaddr » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:24 PM UTC

sidlls wrote: post #197

theo102 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and these limits are set arbitrarily and are often even more detrimental. If you know the doc says you can have 14 but not 15, you now have a target to be "ok" when you show up to the doctor. If the gap between 14 and 15 is linear and not somehow logarithmic then you're telling me that consuming exactly two drinks a day will be fine, but that extra scotch you have on friday makes you an alcoholic. This term is thrown…

Techies especially are a gullible lot, susceptible to new age nonsense, anti-vax style pseudoscience, and a glut of other anti-science things. At least in the Bay Area. It’s ridiculous to see how quickly they take to any fad.