Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

791–800 of 1001 posts

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

#791
post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "no amount proven safe" mantra is refuted by epidemiological studies on the subject. There's no evidence that modern drinking is something to worry about. It's well known that pregnant women become more risk avarse, and humans being bad at risk assessment in general they tend to channel those worries in relatively unproductive ways. E.g. worry about obscure food safety issues, as opposed to something like traffic…

> The "no amount proven safe" mantra is refuted by epidemiological studies on the subject. Is there a source?

Emily Oster's book Expecting Better talks about this, I don't have a copy on hand but you could check her sources.

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

#792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is such a thing as being unnecessarily and overly cautious, however. This sure seems like a good example of that.

Exactly. Precaution comes at a price. The question is whether the benefits of the precaution outweigh the costs. And that is an answer science cannot, and should not, answer. These days, it seems, many scientists are desperate to cloak their policy preferences in "science." That is precisely why there is presently so much distrust of scientists.

I never understood distrust, because scientists base their work on research that is extensively cited. Making conclusions that are not supported by evidence, e.g. "desperately cloaking" policy preferences, could jeopardize one's scientific career.

Many people seem to unrealistically demand scientific recommendations to be "guarantees." However, scientific conclusions are very precisely made best guesses, built on humanity's knowledge.

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

#793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The CDC has been unfortunately hopelessly politicized. These accusations are a common way to tear down democratic institutions, handing power to corporations and powerful individuals. Do you have evidence of it? I've seen none, other than some things attempted by political appointees during the Trump administration.

The CDC (formally Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) has long tried to enter the gun control debate. That has nothing to do with their mission of communicable disease prevention. Congress has repeatedly voted to block them.

The CDC is still the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It's mission includes but is not limited to infectious disease. Congress has mandated they cover, in addition to infectious disease, research on food borne pathogens, environmental effects on health, occupational safety, injury prevention and how best to promote health. They do research on, for example, obesity and diabetes which are noncommunicable. They also are tasked with education to improve the health of US citizens (or residents, it's unclear). They specifically and explicitly replaced the National Communicable Disease Center, as their mission grew.

Meanwhile, all they've tried to do is research gun violence, not "enter a debate".

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

#795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wider medical community has been vocal about gun control, because guns are a leading cause of injury and death. The fact that it's not a virus or bacteria is arguably a pointless technicality, incidental to saving people's lives. The people who catch the 'bullet' disease are treated at hospitals by doctors. You may not think it's appropriate, but many doctors disagree. There's nothing in that indicating it's poli…

Should CDC also be involved in traffic laws too?

They are not involved in writing traffic laws, but they most certainly are involved in researching traffic caused injuries. It makes sense, because they are a leading cause of death

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

#796
"Alcohol consumption increases the risk of CVD(20). In the Global Action Plan for Prevention and Control of NCDs, the World Health Organization (WHO) calls for a 10% relative reduction in the per capita use of alcohol between 2013- 2030 (21). Based on recent evidence, it has been concluded that there is “no safe level of alcohol consumption”(5). Risks attributable to alcohol use increase for all the major categories of CVD(20). Thus, alcohol increases the risk for hypertensive heart disease, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation and flutter, and strokes. In moderate drinkers, the risk of stroke is 1.14 times greater (95% CI, 1.10-1.17); coronary disease (excluding myocardial infarction) is 1.06 (95% CI, 1.00 – 1.11); heart failure is 1.09 (95% CI, 1.03- 1.15); fatal hypertensive disease 1.24 (95% CI, 1.15-1.33) and fatal aortic aneurysm is 1.15 times greater (95% CI, 1.03-1.28)(20) than for non-drinkers. It has been argued that people with moderate consumption and no binge episodes may appear to have a slightly lower risk of ischaemic heart disease (IHD), but the protective effect of moderate alcohol consumption for IHD has been challenged as the evidence is based entirely upon non-randomized studies(22)"

An increase in high-density lipo-protein (HDL) cholesterol has been the most compelling potential source of biologic plausibility for how alcohol might help prevent CVD. However, the cardioprotective effect of HDL is under challenge: many studies find no effect from increased HDL levels on reducing the risk for myocardial infarction(23)(24)(25). Other proposed cardioprotective biological mechanisms have also been shown to be inconsistent with sound epidemiologic studies. These include coronary calcification and carotid intima-media thickness, where alcohol consumption is associated with worse vascular health(26)(27). Contrary to popular opinion, alcohol is not good for the heart. This directly contradicts the common message over the past three decades from some researchers, the alcohol industry, and the media that alcohol prolongs life, chiefly by reducing the risk of CVD. For example, the use of red wine has been promoted through various diets as a “heart-healthy” beverage for the longest time. The presence of resveratrol in wine has been known for its cardioprotective characteristics in light to moderate drinkers. However, there are multiple reasons that the belief that alcohol is good for cardiovascular health is no longer acceptable:

• Such evidence has been based on observational studies • No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have confirmed health benefits of alcohol • The presence of unaccounted confounding factors further weakens the quality of evidence • Studies misclassify unhealthy ex-drinkers as abstainers • Most evidence is observed only in the Caucasian population • Studies that show positive effects are funded by the alcohol industry.* Research in the latest decade has led to major reversals in the perception of alcohol in relation to health in general and CVD in particular. These developments have prompted health authorities in a number of countries, e.g. the Netherlands(28), England(29) and Australia(30), to lower their recommended amount of alcohol for low-risk drinking. The alcohol industry has also perpetuated misleading information about the benefits of drinking alcohol. This interference by the alcohol industry closely reflects the universally vilified activities of tobacco companies. Alcohol industries deceptively promote their products under the labels of “healthy” and “safe”. Portrayal of alcohol in print and electronic media as necessary for a vibrant social life has diverted attention from the harms of alcohol use. Youth-targeted advertisement and encouraging alcohol as “heart-healthy” have created a conducive environment for young adults to relate alcohol with ‘having a good time’. Contrary to this belief, evidence from all around the world exists to link alcohol with a range of noncommunicable and infectious diseases."

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

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

#797
post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we shouldn’t. Instead, we should work on ensuring that as many people are able to enjoy new opportunities it provides if they do desire as possible. Everyone should be able to enjoy life.

Climate impact is significant. That's going to interfere with generations enjoying their lives.

If you care about climate, get cryptocurrency banned. Air travel has all sorts of bad consequences, but also has economic and social benefits. Crypto on the other hand is an endless black hole of energy that even when used for its intended purpose creates economic and social harm.

Talking about taking away things that people like, like airplanes and red meat and gas stoves just get people up in arms. Start with the low-hanging fruit: crypto has no value except to speculators and criminals and tax evaders. Concrete is like 10% of our energy use, and we use way too much of it for temporary structures. No one likes leaf blowers, just ban the gas-powered ones.

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

#798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but not high on the list of priorities. How about enabling people to get healthcare, go to college, or to survive by addressing global warming.

"Stop everything above this line on Maslow's pyramid because some people fall below the line" is not a solution to any of the problems faces by people below the line. It's like demanding that an astrophysicist cure AIDS at once before ever using another telescope. You don't help people climb a ladder by chopping off the top and declaring the ladder climbed.

flying isn't a step on maslow's heirarchy of needs.

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

#799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wider medical community has been vocal about gun control, because guns are a leading cause of injury and death. The fact that it's not a virus or bacteria is arguably a pointless technicality, incidental to saving people's lives. The people who catch the 'bullet' disease are treated at hospitals by doctors. You may not think it's appropriate, but many doctors disagree. There's nothing in that indicating it's poli…

Should CDC also be involved in traffic laws too?

"Involved in laws" doesn't really describe the CDC exactly, but whatever.

One example of many:

https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/about_sleep/drowsy_driving.html

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

#800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but it's useful to them. That's the point.
Post reply on HN