Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

311–320 of 1001 posts

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

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> What society says is legal has an effect on how it is perceived and how frequently it’s accessed by minors, teens, young adults, and adults. Exercising a modicum of conservatism in approving all things that we think are safer than alcohol seems appropriate to me. Considering that we are talking about alcohol , this argument could just as well be used in favor of liberalization.

I (and at least one other poster) were talking about things thought comparatively safe to alcohol.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30010236

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

#313

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 hate the term "legalize" because all things are legal (in the U.S.A.) until they are made illegal. "Legalize" verbiage constantly tells people that they have to be selectively given rights, not selectively taken away.

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

#315

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.

Yep! We should legalize 'political' drugs like Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin too.

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

#316
post #247

Although I live in a place where weed is legal, I don’t use it. I enjoy the occasional glass of a nice scotch, though, and I love a good stout or porter beer. This is where it gets a little strange for me: by every metric I can think of, I’d be better off replacing alcohol with weed. There seem to be fewer negative effects, it’s not a source of empty calories, and looks like a better recreational drug in every way. A…

Personal anecdote but I disagree. I started smoking pot regularly after college and moving to a state where it was legal. It mostly displaced alcohol in my social circle. I thought it was harmless and 'superior' to drinking. I cannot have pot around anymore and was somewhat difficult to finally quit. While the consequences of pot addiction and difficulty in quitting are much lower than that of alcohol; the barrier to…

I appreciate that. And again, I have little experience with pot so I can’t counter that with a personal story. I’m a little surprised, though, as it’s so easy to stumble across alcohol with it being sold in every store and restaurant. I’d have to go out of my way to acquire pot, but I could pick up a 6-pack of beer on my way to the cheese section of the grocery store.

I wonder what the relative numbers are of people who occasionally use pot vs weed and become addicted to it.

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

#317
post #114
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.

I always scoffed at people who believed "a glass of wine every night is good for you." It seems pretty obvious that ingesting literal poison every day is not good for you.

Calming your nerves lowers your heart rate. Lower heart rate leads to less heart problems. Less heart problems leads to longer life.

A glass of wine calms your nerves.

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

#318
Heineken and Carlsberg paid NIH $100 million to "to show that moderate alcohol consumption is safe and lowers risk of common diseases". This and other ethical research violations created the whole "moderate amount of alcohol may be healthy" meme.

The alcohol industry gave the government money to prove moderate drinking is safe https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/21/17139036/he...

Alcohol industry involvement in science: A systematic review of the perspectives of the alcohol research community https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6055701/

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

#319

Although I live in a place where weed is legal, I don’t use it. I enjoy the occasional glass of a nice scotch, though, and I love a good stout or porter beer. This is where it gets a little strange for me: by every metric I can think of, I’d be better off replacing alcohol with weed. There seem to be fewer negative effects, it’s not a source of empty calories, and looks like a better recreational drug in every way. A…

Sounds like you already realize the error of your reasoning.

Don't be so set in your ways. As we get older, it's harder and harder to convince ourselves to try new things. You should actively fight that to keep life fresh and full of excitement. Don't let the words that were burned into you as a kid influence your rational adult decisions.

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

#320
post #23

Funny that they're saying this now because fermented drinks used to protect people from health issues when the water supply was not clean enough to drink.

With beer, this was because the brewer needed to boil the water used in order to kill off any microbes which would compete with the yeast, or it would go "off". It's a very important step for brewing beer. Then the beer would be stored in barrels/casks to help reduce the chance of introducing further microbes, plus the use of preservatives like hops to help keep it longer. With wine, people generally mashed the grape…

> With beer, this was because the brewer needed to boil the water

No, they didn't - you do not need (or should) boil the water. If you did boil it, you would then need to let it cool down before adding the yeast. Home-brew kits suggest using a fairly small amount of hot water to disolve the malt extract, and to get it up to fermentation temperature.

Beer is safer to drink because the yeast out-competes pathogens, and because it causes a pH change that inhibits and/or kills them.

Speaking as an ex microbiologist.

Post reply on HN