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

881–890 of 1001 posts

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

#881

Post by cleansingfire »

timpattinson wrote: post #868
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with conservative forums like HN Not terribly on topic, but I've been lurking here for more than a decade, and today I learned that it's a conservative forum. And on top of that, it has the same problems inherent to conservative forums (fora?). Weird.

While i wouldn't agree that HN is a conservative forum, there is certainly a lot more conservative-leaning material posted here than similar tech-focused forums. See any thread about California, Texas, diversity & affirmative action, COVID, etc.

This thread was diverted from questioning alcohol as a poison in "any amount " to culture war. This is the borderline astroturfing that destroys communities. Turn every discussion into a political one. I no longer read Slashdot knowing I'll find commenters with more insight than the OP, because they're buried in fragile outrage. Sorry I'm making it worse, just this thread, which should be a few references on each point, became panic and FUD disorientingly fast.

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

#882

Post by kortex »

krrrh wrote: post #805
zdragnar wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Regular consumption of nicotine also reduces Alzheimer's risk (and probably Parkinson's). This has been known for a long time. Few things are absolute. 1991: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1670208/ > The risk of Alzheimer's disease decreased with increasing daily number of cigarettes smoked before onset of disease (relative risk 0.3 in those smoking greater than 21/day v 1 in non-smokers). In six f…

Nit: that study is cigarettes. There is more to tobacco than nicotine, such as harmala alkaloids and miscellaneous MAOIs.

Either way, that's super interesting.

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

#883

Post by labster »

lmm wrote: post #854
labster wrote: post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

> 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. What distinction are you drawing here? Both flying and crypto have a handful of rabid fans who use them a lot (and seem to enjoy it) while most regular people barely think about them at all…

The main distinction is that airlines generate economic activity via tourism, shipping, and cultural exchange. Cryptocoins generate mostly black market activity; corruption is generally considered bad. If airlines disappeared today, people would still travel, with more time but only one order of magnitude more energy efficiency. If BTC disappeared tomorrow, people would would make most of the same transactions with more time efficiency, and six orders of magnitude less energy.

5-10% of people take a flight every year. For the US and Australia, it’s roughly half of all people. [1] is from a climate interest group.

Supposedly 3.9% of people worldwide own cryptocoins. Thought that stays would support my argument more but I suspect lots of hodling and not much trading.

[1]: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d30896202a18c0001b49...

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

#884

Post by enzino »

dahart wrote: post #827
dionidium wrote: post #813

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, this is a good and fair pushback. But I’d respond that I chose secondhand smoke for a reason. I similarly doubt there’s any measurable impact of being around a smoker every once in a while, but the language around secondhand smoke got more and more hysterical leading up to the widespread implementation of smoking bans, to the point that it’s not uncommon today to hear people complain that walking near a…

With over a billion smokers on the planet, or ~20% of the population, it’s not that absurd to worry about urban smoke outdoors contributing to urban pollution. Nor wood burning house & backyard fires either, nor cars, but that’s a different debate… We aren’t around smokers once in a while, we’re around them constantly . Even urban outdoor second hand smoke really is a higher risk than air travel radiation. Yes I want…

Reminds me of a discussion at a students' senate meeting on campus a few years back, when they were discussing banning tobacco smoke everywhere including in the parks away from buildings. People who noted that PM2.5/PM10 emissions from construction sites (ubiquitous at the time), or even BBQs, where much greater than cigarettes, even if all people on campus were chain smoking (we maybe had 5% smokers), were ostracized. The times we live in lol.

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

#885

Post by enzino »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #876
throwawaylinux wrote: post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not absurd to worry about it, it is absurd to say there is no safe exposure level and leave it at that. Especially because so many people smoke it is important to be informed about the actual risks of second hand smoke. If I'm walking down the street do I need to cross the street if I see someone approach with a cigarette? If I'm at a bar and smell smoke coming in should I leave?

No safe level means one person a mile away is a problem. I bet they would say that's absurd, with a straight face.

A wise man I knew used to say

"Dilution is the solution to pollution".

In fact, once you think about it, that's also the only solution.

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

#886

Post by dahart »

lmm wrote: post #851
dahart wrote: post #827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With over a billion smokers on the planet, or ~20% of the population, it’s not that absurd to worry about urban smoke outdoors contributing to urban pollution. Nor wood burning house & backyard fires either, nor cars, but that’s a different debate… We aren’t around smokers once in a while, we’re around them constantly . Even urban outdoor second hand smoke really is a higher risk than air travel radiation. Yes I want…

> Even urban outdoor second hand smoke really is a higher risk than air travel radiation. Isn't this exactly what's in dispute? What's the evidence that this is true?

Not really. The actual topic of conversation underneath the smoke is the political neutrality of the CDC, and public mistrust of science and government funded sources of information.

If you are really curious about the evidence, follow the thread up and click the links. I already posted links that have some stats and links to studies on the harms of second-hand smoke, and so did @dionidium too. :)

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

#887

Post by publicola1990 »

ummonk wrote: post #785
shadowofneptune wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the studies have found is that drinking in moderation (at or below the 1–2 standard drinks a day limit) does not have cause a very large impact on life expectancy. This raises sharply after exceeding the limit. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/sorting-out-the-health-e... Personally unsure whether a reduced year or two of life is really that significant.

That article seems to back up the idea that no level of alcohol is safe, given that low / moderate alcohol consumption is still associated with a small decrease in life expectancy. (Though there are always potential confounding factors in such studies)

How alcoholism can be triggered in some one is also not known. That is also an additional risk factor in every single drink consumed, perhaps?

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

#888

Post by bjoyx »

Unscientific propaganda.

The best scientific evidence we have suggests moderate consumption of alcohol protects the heart.

From the Harvard School of Public Health:

> More than 100 prospective studies show an inverse association between light to moderate drinking and risk of heart attack, ischemic (clot-caused) stroke, peripheral vascular disease, sudden cardiac death, and death from all cardiovascular causes. [20] The effect is fairly consistent, corresponding to a 25-40% reduction in risk.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/...

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

#889

Post by machinelearning »

zarzavat wrote: post #763

My favourite quote on the matter: 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. Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention. https://medium.com/wintoncentre/the-risks-of-alcohol-again-2... I understand why they want to dispel the persistent my…

This quote is too simplistic to be useful.

There are certain activities that are not harmful but risky (0 harm most of the time and high level of harm rarely) e.g. driving and others that are harmful but not risky e.g. drinking or being exposed to radiation in an X-ray machine.

It is important to draw this distinction in order to not weaken the point you are trying to make.

The main point here is not that drinking is harmful but rather that the individual should decide their own tolerance for harm. The dose and length of exposure matters here since the damage is likely to be cumulative.

With an X-ray machine or flying at high altitudes, we know that the small amount of intermittent radiation that one is exposed to doesn’t outweigh the benefits.

It is up to the individual to decide if they are in a position to make that tradeoff.

With drinking, the difference between thinking low amounts are beneficial and low amounts are harmful could make a huge cumulative difference over time. It seems like a lot of commenters here are missing that essential fact.

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

#890

Post by mise_en_place »

I don't think the article is stating anything controversial here. The position that any amount of alcohol is harmful is not contradictory with the position that alcohol is beneficial in reducing cardiovascular risk. In other words, the framing effect is leading to a cognitive bias. One position is framed in terms of negative outcomes, while the other is framed in terms of positive outcomes. Hence the visceral reaction to the article.
Post reply on HN