No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation • Hacker News Board

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

#701

Post by IshKebab » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:56 PM UTC

dmz73 wrote: post #664

The article seems to cherry pick official statements to support the title. "Studies have shown that even small amounts of alcohol can increase a person's risk of cardiovascular disease, including coronary disease, stroke, heart failure, hypertensive heart disease, cardiomyopathy (heart muscle disease), atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), and aneurysm. "To date, no reliable correlation has been found between mo…

Yeah, maybe there's no evidence that a small amount of alcohol helps in any way, but "any level of alcohol consumption can lead to loss of healthy life" is pure alarmism. Along the same lines as "any level of fat consumption can make you fatter". Technically true but also irrelevant.

> It is important not to exaggerate the risk of moderate drinking and unduly alarm responsible consumers

Ha, yeah maybe you should have thought about more before talking to the press.

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

#702

Post by dabbledash » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:58 PM UTC

tomtheelder wrote: post #582

allturtles wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> any amount of alcohol consumption causes some amount of harm There is no guarantee that you will suffer harm from a single drink. What it really means is that any amount of alcohol consumption carries some (possibly minute) risk of harm. This is not, IMO, equivalent to "unsafe", which generally means something well outside the bounds of normal risks that most people already take on in their everyday lives. If we ac…

And medically those are unsafe. The crucial part, though, is that that's not at all to say you shouldn't do them. You are simply using a different understanding of the word safe than they are. This is a medical brief aimed at experts who should have no trouble understanding what claims are and are not being made. This is not a lifestyle or dietary recommendation. This is not a cost benefit analysis. This is a medical…

If time word “unsafe” means “carries more than zero risk” then it isn’t very useful to me to know whether a doctor considers something unsafe.

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

#703

Post by dionidium » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:59 PM UTC

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,…

"Mickey Mantle knew two things: 1. Drinking 2. Playing drunk baseball" -- Norm MacDonald (RIP)

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

#704

Post by ethanbond » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 11:01 PM UTC

dionidium wrote: post #669

solox3 wrote: post #202

I am fine with abstinence as a general recommendation, but critical thinking pointed out two issues with the WHF Policy Brief, which I suppose I have read in sufficient depth: 1. There is no citation on the sentence, "Recent evidence has found that no level of alcohol consumption is safe for health." This is really the only line we are interested in. 2. There is no comparison on the effects of alcohol on the body by…

If you want to feel some dissonance about this, you might note that this is the exact language the CDC uses for things like secondhand smoke -- "There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke" -- which everybody nods along to and accepts without much scrutiny. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... Meanwhile, when it's something like, say, cosmic radiation exposure from c…

This would be a very meaningful comparison if people were regularly forcing a diner-full of people to hop on a plane with them several times per year.

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

#705

Post by dionidium » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 11:02 PM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #704

dionidium wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to feel some dissonance about this, you might note that this is the exact language the CDC uses for things like secondhand smoke -- "There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke" -- which everybody nods along to and accepts without much scrutiny. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... Meanwhile, when it's something like, say, cosmic radiation exposure from c…

This would be a very meaningful comparison if people were regularly forcing a diner-full of people to hop on a plane with them several times per year.

Obviously the analogy to getting on the plane is walking in the diner.

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

#706

Post by ethanbond » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 11:04 PM UTC

some_random wrote: post #627

solox3 wrote: post #202

I am fine with abstinence as a general recommendation, but critical thinking pointed out two issues with the WHF Policy Brief, which I suppose I have read in sufficient depth: 1. There is no citation on the sentence, "Recent evidence has found that no level of alcohol consumption is safe for health." This is really the only line we are interested in. 2. There is no comparison on the effects of alcohol on the body by…

I've noticed that most health recommendations like these do not have any evidence associated with them, or a description of the actual risks. It seems that the doctors and health officials who write them have the evidence, but don't believe that the public needs to see it and rather should just go with whatever they say.

That’s because you’re reading a mass media report on the recommendation. It takes less than a minute of earnest effort to find the actual studies or briefs and scroll down to the sources.

https://world-heart-federation.org/wp-content/uploads/WHF-Po...

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

#707

Post by ccakes » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 11:04 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #696

mattmaroon wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CDC has been unfortunately hopelessly politicized. It happened long before the pandemic. OTOH, I would make the differentiating point that air travel has positive benefits to society and costs and one has to weigh those against each other. You can’t make the blanket statement “earth would be better off if air travel went away completely.” It’s hard to find any benefit to smoking, first hand or second, so it’s eas…

As we've seen in the past 2 years, there's no real positive benefit to society to frequent business flying (at pre-pandemic levels). Like smoking, we don't need to completely ban air travel. The equivalent would be severely limiting it (for example, prohibiting business flying).

> The equivalent would be severely limiting it (for example, prohibiting business flying).

People fly to go on holiday and experience cultures other than their own which is something we should be encouraging rather than discouraging. I strongly agree with reducing needless business travel but if doing so also limited vacation travel I think it'd be a net negative.

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

#708

Post by zdragnar » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 11:04 PM UTC

mattmaroon wrote: post #682

dionidium wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to feel some dissonance about this, you might note that this is the exact language the CDC uses for things like secondhand smoke -- "There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke" -- which everybody nods along to and accepts without much scrutiny. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... Meanwhile, when it's something like, say, cosmic radiation exposure from c…

The CDC has been unfortunately hopelessly politicized. It happened long before the pandemic. OTOH, I would make the differentiating point that air travel has positive benefits to society and costs and one has to weigh those against each other. You can’t make the blanket statement “earth would be better off if air travel went away completely.” It’s hard to find any benefit to smoking, first hand or second, so it’s eas…

Nicotine (especially when consumed via smoking) has some negative side effects, but is also a neurotrophic and can be quite beneficial.

Addiction and blood pressure are really the only downsides if you were to consume it in the form of, say, gum (and boy does the addiction suck).

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

#709

Post by temporalparts » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 11:04 PM UTC

dionidium wrote: post #669

solox3 wrote: post #202

I am fine with abstinence as a general recommendation, but critical thinking pointed out two issues with the WHF Policy Brief, which I suppose I have read in sufficient depth: 1. There is no citation on the sentence, "Recent evidence has found that no level of alcohol consumption is safe for health." This is really the only line we are interested in. 2. There is no comparison on the effects of alcohol on the body by…

If you want to feel some dissonance about this, you might note that this is the exact language the CDC uses for things like secondhand smoke -- "There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke" -- which everybody nods along to and accepts without much scrutiny. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... Meanwhile, when it's something like, say, cosmic radiation exposure from c…

Have you actually done research differentiating between the risks of tobacco exposure and radiation exposure?

There's no scientific evidence to suggest that small doses of radiation (< 0.1 mSv) is harmful to you, at all. In fact, there's even scientific evidence to suggest the opposite, it's called radiation hormesis.

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

#710

Post by jillianschuller » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 11:04 PM UTC

some_random wrote: post #627

solox3 wrote: post #202

I am fine with abstinence as a general recommendation, but critical thinking pointed out two issues with the WHF Policy Brief, which I suppose I have read in sufficient depth: 1. There is no citation on the sentence, "Recent evidence has found that no level of alcohol consumption is safe for health." This is really the only line we are interested in. 2. There is no comparison on the effects of alcohol on the body by…

I've noticed that most health recommendations like these do not have any evidence associated with them, or a description of the actual risks. It seems that the doctors and health officials who write them have the evidence, but don't believe that the public needs to see it and rather should just go with whatever they say.

Having recently become pregnant, a lot of the guidance for expectant mothers echos these blanket recommendations (sushi, deli meats, hot baths etc).

On the topic of alcohol, FASD is a massive concern, but it's known that it's correlated to how much you drink and how frequently you drink (enjoying a glass of wine once a month is very different than binge drinking multiple times throughout your pregnancy).

The thing is, researchers aren't getting pregnant women different levels of hammered, and then assessing how their babies turn out (unethical much), so they're left to infer based on reported behaviors. Hence the unreliability of the data, and the "no amount is proven safe" mantra. Maybe it's the same with this recommendation?

The other thing not factored into inferred results is other associated behaviors. I'd bet that statistically, women that are binge drinking through pregnancy are more likely to also be taking hard drugs than their non-binge drinking counterparts. So is alcohol fully to blame here?

I'm not here advocating for pregnant women and drinking. But it'd be nice to have the data and evidence behind these risks, so that people can be empowered to make their own decisions.

I've seen so many women on forums stressing over a glass of wine they had at christmas, or the time they ate a cold cut without realizing. Needless stress that could be minimized if pregnant people weren't advised as if they're children.