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

501–510 of 1001 posts

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

#501

Post by slothtrop »

allturtles wrote: post #474
AlwaysRock wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a pretty odd comparison. Some amount of food/caloric intake is healthy or required. Too much is bad. Some amount of water intake is healthy or required. Too much is bad. No amount of arsenic intake is healthy or required. Any is bad. No amount of alcohol intake is healthy or required. Any is bad. Too much of many things is bad. Any amount of some things is bad. Safe may be an odd term for it but alcohols impa…

Arsenic is in all kinds of foods, if you made the claim "no amount of arsenic consumption is safe", you would be arguing that basically everyone's diet is unsafe. What does that even mean? To take the claim "no amount of alcohol consumption is safe" seriously would mean you shouldn't eat bread, which contains a small amount of alcohol.

Indeed, and cyanide as well for instance. Neither are "necessary" either. I don't think necessity has any bearing on the discussion. Ultimately the question is whether moderate alcohol consumption poses a significant health risk, and "no safe amount" avoids answering this.

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

#502

Post by bumby »

dragonwriter wrote: post #373
bumby wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to at least be consistent. Also worth noting that consistency could be achieved by outlawing alcohol. In the U.S. at least, that proved an impractical solution. So I don't think "we allow one bad thing and we can't get rid of it, so let's allow all bad things" makes a particularly compelling argument. (FWIW, I'm generally not against legalization nor do I think all drugs are net-negative. I just find the argument a…

> Also worth noting that consistency could be achieved by outlawing alcohol. In the U.S. at least, that proved an impractical solution. It was recognized as impractical fairly quickly, despite having fairly similar concrete outcomes to the drug war, for which a similar recognition has been much slower and less complete. But, again, that's just another layer of inconsistency in the same direction, not a mitigation of…

Again, I'm not against legalization. But I'd like to see more concrete mitigation of the downsides. Just stating that we should aim for consistency does nothing about the blowback. "Legalize it to be consistent" seems as facile a solution as "Prohibit it because it can be dangerous" in that they ignore the complexities of implementation.

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

#503

Post by jcadam »

mritchie712 wrote: post #463
devoutsalsa wrote: post #178

"I knew a man who gave up smoking, drinking, sex and rich food. He was healthy right up to the time he killed himself." - Johnny Carson

One of those things is not like the others. I don't think sex is linked to many bad health outcomes.

> I don't think sex is linked to many bad health outcomes.

Sure it is. STDs, risk of injury, etc.

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

#504

Post by nabla9 »

jeromegv wrote: post #490
nabla9 wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

And what are the studies that show that moderate drinking is not safe?

Lazy skepticism and contrarian attitude is not helpful.

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

#505

Post by revax »

siva7 wrote: post #97

Who thought that Alcohol is actually good for the heart? Here is the good news: It won't either kill your healthy heart if you don't abuse it

The high consumption of red wine in France is thought by some people to be the explanation of the French paradox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox

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

#506

Post by tarboreus »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #365
slothtrop wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I recall, for this particular bit of research that I read a couple of months ago, more precisely it states there is no clear discernible level of consumption that could be deemed "safe". That's not really a surprise if you look at the data because it's such a mess. You also can't pin a point at which consumption is a high risk. What does that tell us? You can however surmise that low / moderate consumption is not…

> […] So what? That doesn't mean it's significant. It is the question, how significant it is. Then there is the question, what level of significance will make a person reconsider their consumption. However, the statement that no amount is truly safe, if it is correct, means, that in general alcohol is an unnecessary risk. There is no need to drink it and no good for ones heart comes of it in terms of biology. What so…

This is only true if you assume or demonstrate that alcohol has no benefits to individuals that outweigh the downside risk to health. As the downside appears to be relatively small, this seems like a fairly difficult bar to clear.

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

#509

Post by slothtrop »

jghn wrote: post #489
allturtles wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I find the claim "no level of alcohol consumption is safe" hyperbolic. You could claim with far more justification that "no amount of driving is safe" since you could be killed pulling out of your driveway but I think most people who drive on a daily basis would find this claim odd. "safety" is a relative, not an absolute condition, since in some sense being alive is unsafe.

It's because for years there was a claim that low levels of consumption was beneficial, not just safe. They're working to undo that conventional wisdom. I don't recall there ever being a time when people espoused short drives as being beneficial for one's health.

To quibble, something can be "unsafe" i.e. harm you in certain ways, and also carry health benefits, since "health benefits" does not merely translate to "life expectancy". In fact for the study in question, compare impact on different organs; for some there is a harm, for others a marginal benefit (if I remember correctly).

This is the problem with pop sci headlines, they don't give you context. If one study finds that some compound has potential benefits in one specific physiological region, the news will read "x is good for your health", and vise versa.

Looking at just mortality, we can more accurately say, for those touting this study, "there is no evidence alcohol consumption improves mortality", and also "low alcohol consumption may weakly worsen mortality rates".

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

#510

Post by [deleted] »

f38zf5vdt wrote: post #188
jppope wrote: post #14

> The evidence is clear: any level of alcohol consumption can lead to loss of healthy life. No it isn't. The studies change on this constantly. Literally, it is why they are making their policy- because its confusing to people. They also need to conduct a longitudinal study (or more than 1) to prove this... and guess what? They won't do it.

They've been consistent on the positive cardiovascular effects from mild consumption of red wine forever. > 48 animal and 37 human studies were included in data extraction following screening. Significant improvements in measures of blood pressure and vascular function following RWP were seen in 84% and 100% of animal studies, respectively. Human studies indicated significant improvements in systolic blood pressure o…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN