Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 1001 posts

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#121

Post by lkbm »

fastball wrote: post #36
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, most (Americans) drink little or no alcohol. The cult of alcohol is certain they cannot live without it, which is part of the problem perhaps. But most do live without it. And are not eating bugs.

Source that most Americans drink little or no alcohol? Apparently in 2019, 54.9% of respondents[1] had alcohol in the last month. And I would imagine polls like this are generally under-reported, not over. [1] https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sh...

I drank alcohol in the past month. I drink about once a month. I'd assume that that counts as "little or no alcohol". Thus, if just 1/11 of those 54.9% are like me, his statement to be true.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#122

Post by lazyjones »

endisneigh wrote: post #42

Of course it isn’t. Drink water. Unfortunately some people believe they can’t enjoy themselves without alcohol. It’s curious: - babies have fun without drinking - kids have fun without drinking - some teens have fun without drinking Then at some point some people, as adults, feel like they have to drink to enjoy themselves? I wonder what happened. Edit: explicitly clarifying that I’m only talking about some people he…

Babies and kids have a lot of fun with sugar, does that mean it's OK to consume it recklessly?

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#123

Post by 999900000999 »

sokoloff wrote: post #69
lotsofpulp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consistency in legal matters seems like a good and necessary thing for ensuring fairness. What is the basis for Emerson’s quote to apply here?

I’m generally pro-legalization, but there are many things that we hypothesize are safe but do not know the long-term effects of and, within living memory, have discovered that many things initially thought safe were not. People were taking X-ray images of shoe fit in department stores, we used thalidomide to treat morning sickness, etc. What society says is legal has an effect on how it is perceived and how frequentl…

I can guarantee you the most dangerous part of using any substance is our legal system.

Legalize everything for anyone 21 or older, and while we're at it, raise the enlistment age to 21.

If you're old enough to die for this country, you should be old enough to light a j in it.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#124

Post by jbirer »

mmastrac wrote: post #11

Alcohol is one of the worst "drugs" on a personal/societal harm scale - if we're going to tolerate this at large, we should probably consider legalizing everything else that's less harmful to at least be consistent. While we're at it, let's de-stigmatize the abuse of substances and treat it like a real mental health issue.

Legalize medicinal meth.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#125

Post by bastardoperator »

mmastrac wrote: post #11

Alcohol is one of the worst "drugs" on a personal/societal harm scale - if we're going to tolerate this at large, we should probably consider legalizing everything else that's less harmful to at least be consistent. While we're at it, let's de-stigmatize the abuse of substances and treat it like a real mental health issue.

I would consider it the worst or most powerful drug in terms of access, addiction and intoxication. It's literally poison, and what it can do to an individual I feel is unlike most other illicit substances.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#126

Post by malfist »

tasha0663 wrote: post #26
heyitsguay wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less "no fun allowed" generic conspiracy stuff, more "hey, these are the consequences to some of that fun, please keep them in mind as you establish the risk level you're comfortable with".

The advocacy tips at the end of the brief are shockingly anti-fun.

Speed limits are also anti-fun.

Being anti-fun isn't an argument against regulation

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#127

Post by yuuu »

newaccount74 wrote: post #95
jdlyga wrote: post #22

Interesting how there's a major shift in the knowledge about risks of things like sugar, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. And it usually turns out there was an industry group involved in sort of a coverup. The lesson here is to take any health claims or dismissal or risks with a grain of salt when there's a big industry behind it.

One of my favorite examples of this is how coconut oil is advertised all over youtube by thousands of influencers as a superfood that must be a part of a healthy diet. (Especially since it's hardly an oil in my opinion -- it's partially solid at room temperature) There's absolutely no reliable evidence that coconut oil has any beneficial effects on the human body, and I really don't see why anybody would believe that…

Just more horseshit from Big Coconut, that's what I think.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#128

Post by happytoexplain »

mindcrime wrote: post #90
NickBusey wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounded wrong to me, so I did a simple search. This study from the NIAA of the NIH seems to suggest what you said is incorrect. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sh... Most Americans do drink.

Most Americans do drink. That doesn't contradict what the person you are replying to said. They said most Americans drink "little or no" alcohol, not "no alcohol". Why is it that on the Internet almost everyone seems to silently remove/ignore qualifiers like that, and treat everything as a binary dichotomy???

Yeah, currently there are three people using the same data to "disprove" the parent, which is baffling to me. As I said in another reply, 45% of people had no alcohol in the past month, so "most Americans drink a little or not at all" seems plausible, or at least not disproved by this data. I understand disagreeing with that sentiment (there are plenty of rational arguments that most people drink more than "a little"), but why harm the image of one's motivation by purposefully omitting critical details from the post one is responding to?

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#130

Post by the_only_law »

heyitsguay wrote: post #62
tasha0663 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The advocacy tips at the end of the brief are shockingly anti-fun.

These ones? > Cost-effective interventions to reduce alcohol consumption include strengthening restrictions on alcohol availability, enforcing bans on alcohol advertising, and facilitating access to screening and treatment. "Restrictions on alcohol availability" could be anti-fun if implemented in the extreme (hopefully we've learned prohibition doesn't work), the other two are pretty standard.

I am kinda curious what they mean by that? Would I no longer be able to get beer at the gas station or something?
Post reply on HN