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

531–540 of 1001 posts

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

#531

Post by soperj »

pnt12 wrote: post #467
chucksta wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is forcing you to drive to work either. Many people in don't even have a license, yet make it to work each day. You even said it, "might be forced" meaning there are possibilities in which you aren't.

If you live outside the city, you basically are. In my home town, transportation is limited, eg a bus in the morning and one in the afternoon, both which can be late, and the stops are kilometers apart and the sidewalks are shitty. So when I'm there, I take my car everywhere, as does everyone else. But when I lived in a big city, the opposite happened: parking was expensive and the traffic sucked, so I always took th…

Still aren't forced to drive. Walk, bike, catch an earlier bus etc.

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

#532

Post by ChrisLomont »

N1H1L wrote: post #523
tharne wrote: post #4

Don't worry, in 5-10 years it will be good for you again. I still remember being lectured in school on the food pyramid and the importance of getting your 8-10 servings of grains a day.

Yep. You don't have to go that far. A decade back it was thought that red meat causes cancer, specifically intestinal cancer. Lots of health guidelines reflected that. It has all fallen apart in the last 2-3 years.

Have some place to read this? Everywhere credible I look seems to still say it. For example,

https://progressreport.cancer.gov/prevention/red_meat

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

#533

Post by N1H1L »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #357
jdhn wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because alcohol has been purposely drunk by people for literally thousands of years, and the vast, vast majority of people are able to drink without having a problem?

people have purposely been doing a lot of slavery for thousands of years as well. took us some time but we got over the whole "its been fine for millions of years so it must be good or at least fine" to get to the root of the issue. once we found that, slavery was abolished pretty much everywhere. my point is, why bring "societal pressure of 500 years" into an argument for an inherently bad thing. just thinking out l…

Slavery is not alcohol, and equating the two is a very obvious strawman argument

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

#534

Post by mrfusion »

allturtles wrote: post #358
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…

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.

Plus driving to buy food definitely makes you live longer.

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

#535

Post by criddell »

cma wrote: post #473
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #265

Can anyone find any research in the citations that my glass of red wine in the evening - although it may increase atherosclerosis and have other health implications - doesn't have benefits that offset the drawbacks. https://world-heart-federation.org/wp-content/uploads/WHF-Po... How much do the social, relaxation, and stress relief benefit my health. In the same way that taking a walk in a polluted city has pros and…

> although it may increase atherosclerosis and have other health implications - doesn't have benefits that offset the drawbacks. You can get all the theoretical benefits by eating grapes or raisins.

How often do you get together with friends after work for a few raisins before heading home?

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

#536

Post by throwaway0a5e »

kube-system wrote: post #292
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Not even close. Most victimless crimes have literally no victim. There is no victim without some sort of harm. The reason we have speed limits and drugs are illegal is because if you go overboard enough with them there is a high likelihood of harm. In the vast majority of cases people don't go overboard and there is no actual victim though. These things are crimes because our system of justice is not good at puni…

While I disagree with some victimless crimes, like drug possession, victimless crimes that put others at risk does victimize them. It’s the reason that shooting a shotgun down a busy street is (and should be) a crime even if you don’t hit anyone. Also, many violations of regulatory requirements are “victimless” but are entirely necessary cooperation for things to work properly, or to prevent consequential harm. Parti…

You aren't getting it. Who does the bare risk itself victimize? Where is the damage? The risk is just that, a risk. There's a chance it may go bad and a chance that it may not. The risk produces no damage, no victim. But in sufficient quantity the bad outcome will happen enough to be worth making the activity is not allowed. Normally we prohibit the bad outcome but for some highly subjective cases we have to just draw a somewhat arbitrary line.

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

#537

Post by ahtihn »

999900000999 wrote: post #123
sokoloff wrote: post #69

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…

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.

Meh decriminalize possession and consumption, sure. I don't think something like heroin should be easily available though.

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

#538

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

Swenrekcah wrote: post #332
colechristensen wrote: post #225

Question one: what is the world heart federation? I have never heard of it before today. Two: > The evidence is clear: any level of alcohol consumption can lead to loss of healthy life. The evidence is not clear. There are plenty of studies showing benefits. “Any level” “can” makes the statement technically true but meaningless, you could replace alcohol with anything and that would also be true. If you want to back…

Let me offer some food for thought: How many athletes report drinking a bit before competing? The answer is none because it negatively affects all physical ability. So would you say it’s likely that in aggregate drinking would be healthy? Edit: Wow, I guess people really don't like to think about this. To respond to both comments below, yes sure, sometimes it helps to relax just a bit and alcohol can help with that,…

Depends on the type of athlete. I know many ultraendurance and endurance athletes who are quite happy to drink the night before an event. This includes nationally and internationally ranked people, not just back-of-the-pack participants.

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

#539

Post by N1H1L »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #532
N1H1L wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. You don't have to go that far. A decade back it was thought that red meat causes cancer, specifically intestinal cancer. Lots of health guidelines reflected that. It has all fallen apart in the last 2-3 years.

Have some place to read this? Everywhere credible I look seems to still say it. For example, https://progressreport.cancer.gov/prevention/red_meat

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/sep/30/research-red-me...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-can...

Good overview of the controversy.

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

#540

Post by helloworld11 »

lm28469 wrote: post #498
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.

> Alcohol is one of the worst "drugs" on a personal/societal harm scale Addiction is, not alcohol in itself. I haven't been anywhere close to drunk in a decade. I still enjoy a glass of whisky or a cold beer here and there. People who have problem with alcohol would have problems with "less harmful" (weed I assume?) drugs too, it's a personality trait. I've seen the damage of weed in my friends, it's just as bad as a…

>People who have problem with alcohol would have problems with "less harmful" (weed I assume?) drugs too, it's a personality trait.

You're blatantly assuming here and making it a categorical statement. They usually don't, neither statistically or at least in my experience, anecdotally. I and many friends of mine regularly drink, but most of us barely touch other drugs. Weed occasionally for some of my friends (I personally dislike it intensely) but things like coke and so forth, pretty much nothing, in a wide group of people who are regular consumers of alcohol.

Post reply on HN