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

841–850 of 1001 posts

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

#841

Post by ncfausti »

andbberger wrote: post #814
azth wrote: post #787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But claiming there is no ‘safe’ level does not seem an argument for abstention. There is no safe level of driving, but government do not recommend that people avoid driving. False equivalence. Drinking is not necessary for life (and it's harmful as we see here), but driving is required for many people's livelihood.

It's not unreasonable to equate the two. The necessity of driving in western cities is very much a design choice that could reasonably be considered to be a public health crisis. It's not an inherent property of the world.

Have you ever been to an asian city? I can assure you, there are (100s of millions of) people that rely on vehicles/driving for their livelihood.

To equate the necessity of drinking alcohol with that of mobility is absurd.

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

#842

Post by Xixi »

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…

Just speculating here, but doesn't it have something to do with accumulation in the body? Your body obviously can't accumulate radiations. It also does process and eliminate the like of ethanol and many other substances. That's not the case, I believe, for heavy metals like mercury, lead or arsenic, that are eliminated much more slowly (if at all?).

That's why you can enjoy lychees by eating a few everyday if you fancy it, and will only poison yourself if you eat a lot at once. But you can poison someone by exposing them to a little bit of arsenic everyday (at least in the movies, not sure how true it is...)

I think tar from smoke accumulates, and there is a lot of it in second-hand smoke.

Obviously not a doctor, so I'm probably completely wrong...

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

#843

Post by GekkePrutser »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #666
jghn wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A lot of studies on alcohol and mortality show a J curve where mortality actually drops, and then starts rising until it's back at baseline at 4 drinks / day. Now, I am not saying that it's safe to drink 4 drinks per day. That's a lot . What I am saying is that is the point where cardiovascular benefits seem to be outweighed by the increased cancer risks. Many studies have called the J curve into question due to the…

Correlation doesn't equate to causation. Perhaps the people that sit down with a glass of wine at night are the ones simply taking a slower pace in life and have less stress as a result.

However be that as it may I'm not giving up alcohol lol. I only drink occasionally and I enjoy it and I simply don't care if it's bad for me. Lots of things are bad for us.

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

#844

Post by vanusa »

nuclearnice1 wrote: post #333
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…

To point 1. In the brief I find at the red download link [1] contains the line “ Based on recent evidence, it has been concluded that there is “no safe level of alcohol consumption”(5).” The reference points to an article from The Lancet [2] [1] https://world-heart-federation.org/wp-content/uploads/WHF-Po... [2] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

“Based on recent evidence, it has been concluded that there is “no safe level of alcohol consumption”(5)

Which definitely takes artistic license with what the cited article actually said, which was:

   Our results show that the safest level of drinking is none.
Which is exactly like saying "The safest level of poppy seed consumption is none". Which of course completely dodges the question you'd really want to ask which is: "How many poppy seeds can you eat per day with either no or negligible negative health effects?" And in any case nowhere near equivalent to saying:

   It has been concluded that "there is no save level of poppy seed consumption".
Moral of the story being -- the byline quote at the top of the article:

"The evidence is clear: any level of alcohol consumption can lead to loss of healthy life"

Is not only supported by the research it cites -- but irresponsibly alarmist.

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

#845

Post by orblivion »

P_I_Staker wrote: post #461
tharne wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s always seemed silly that just the right amount of poison is good somehow Why is it silly? A lot of things are dose dependent. A small amount of tylenol makes you head feel better. A lot of tylenol kills you. Lifting weights is very good for your health, but if you overdo it, you can get seriously hurt. A stressful day here and there is harmless, but if you're under constant, chronic, stress, your health will d…

It’s not dose dependent though, it’s a dangerous poison that causes cancer. Your other examples are completely different. Tylenol is closest, but you’re really talking about overdose. Drinking a couple of glasses of wine a day isn’t an overdose. Yes, there may be some nasty chronic effects of tylenol too, but I think you’re trying really hard to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Is there a specific definition of poison you're working with?

You say that there's obviously no amount of poison that's good for you, but by that model of poison why do you assume that alcohol is a poison? Doesn't that become the question at hand?

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

#846

Post by noirbot »

crocodiletears wrote: post #830
TameAntelope wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't politics, it's safety. I accept the argument that the CDC has become overly innumerate in how to live a healthy life, but it's not a liberal or conservative idea to be cautious.

Choosing the level of safety we enforce in society is inherently political.

There was a comment I saw the other day along the lines of "Science will tell you what the numbers are, but doesn't make a judgement of how big that number should be."

You can get a pretty good estimate of how many lives would be saved if we smoked less, or drank less, or did any number of other things, but ultimately that's an input into a public policy decision making system that doesn't have a provably right answer unless everyone involved agrees on what the desired outcome is.

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

#847

Post by colechristensen »

dionidium wrote: post #697
colechristensen wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am perfectly aware of p-hackng. I still don’t believe it without actual evidence, I get strong vibes of people wanting this to be true which would take more than a little evidence to overcome.

It's funny hearing this, because it's so clear to me that the opposite is the case. If you were an alien and you observed alcohol use on Earth for a few years you'd have no trouble concluding that it's almost certainly harmful even in small doses. But humans like alcohol, so they do not want this to be true.

I mean we evolved consuming alcohol and are way better at metabolizing it than some of our primate relatives, some creatures thrive on it.

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

#848

Post by kmstout »

A poet once said, “The whole universe is in a glass of wine.” We will probably never know in what sense he meant that, for poets do not write to be understood. But it is true that if we look at a glass of wine closely enough we see the entire universe. There are the things of physics: the twisting liquid which evaporates depending on the wind and weather, the reflections in the glass, and our imagination adds the atoms. The glass is a distillation of the earth’s rocks, and in its composition we see the secrets of the universe’s age, and the evolution of stars. What strange array of chemicals are in the wine? How did they come to be? There are the ferments, the enzymes, the substrates, and the products. There in wine is found the great generalization: all life is fermentation. Nobody can discover the chemistry of wine without discovering, as did Louis Pasteur, the cause of much disease. How vivid is the claret, pressing its existence into the consciousness that watches it! If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts—physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on—remember that nature does not know it! So let us put it all back together, not forgetting ultimately what it is for. Let it give us one more final pleasure: drink it and forget it all!

--Richard Feynman

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

#849

Post by [deleted] »

tapas73 wrote: post #671
jasonhansel wrote: post #654

In this thread: a lot of people trying to justify their preexisting choice to drink or remain sober.

Sane people find arguments for stuff they do. If they don't have reasoning (scientific or emotional) for their behaviour, they either change or they aren't sane.

[deleted]

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

#850

Post by justatdotin »

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…

yes but these three (radiation, smoke, alcohol) are very different hazards with quite different modes of harm
Post reply on HN