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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by P_I_Staker »

orblivion wrote: post #845
P_I_Staker wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I meant it more as a figure of speech. Nobody is trying to shoehorn health into random poisons. BTW there are allowable amounts to many poisons. There aren't allowable amounts of things like lead and butane.

The question is why we're trying so hard to make something healthy. The answer is obvious, because we like it. You don't see doctors trying to come up with justifications for why we should drink arsenic or cyanide, just as long as it's tiny amounts.

Alcohol causes cancer, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, anxiety, and many nasty things. It may be one thing to tell people that their glass of wine a day is OKAY, but we shouldn't be telling them it's "healthy" without good reason. The better analogy is smoking, because the harms are more similar than people think.

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

#942

Post by GoblinSlayer »

robocat wrote: post #859
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…

I wish it were acceptable to complain about stinky purfumes and body sprays. They fill the air with volatile organic compounds. Plenty of people are happy to chuck on something smelly while hypocritically complaining about other types of smells. Some cause allergies (hayfever) in me to the point I have to leave an enclosed space or suffer consequences. I know friends that get headaches from them.

I once encountered a smoker who smoked something seriously insane that smelled like burning shit. I could barely believe it's happening.

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

#943

Post by azth »

klabb3 wrote: post #916
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.

Yet, the government does not recommend against non-essential driving. So yes, you're technically right it's a false equivalence, but one can easily modify the scenario to make it a fair comparison.

Yet, driving has been getting safer and safer with cars that crash better, have monitoring systems, pre collision breaking, etc. This is not possible with drinking.

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

#944

Post by azth »

mapme wrote: post #866
ncfausti wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually in Japan you could argue drinking was somewhat required for their livelihood lol it’s different than driving requirements but interesting nonetheless https://www.google.com/amp/s/ameliemarieintokyo.com/en/nommu...

They can change their culture such that they socialize over tea or something not harmful.

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

#945

Post by vanusa »

estaseuropano wrote: post #917
vanusa wrote: post #844

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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…

I don't think that misstates the lancet article, and i also think this information in the lancet article is useful. There is a long belief that e.g. red wine is good for the heart, or in many places there are some herb liquors that old people drink thinking it will bring them benefits. Here the lancet unequivocally states that to our best evidence no alcohol is best. You're from now on not drinking red wine for your…

Here the lancet unequivocally states that to our best evidence no alcohol is best.

The thing is this proscription is essentially useless. It's like saying "to our best evidence no sugar is best".

So should you eat that piece of chocolate cake or should you not?

You're from now on not drinking red wine for your heart but for pleasure.

We knew that already. But it still doesn't tell us whether drinking, say, 3 or fewer glasses of wine per week has a significant negative health impact or not. For any actual measure of "significant".

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

#946

Post by slothtrop »

deltaonefour wrote: post #558
allturtles wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not exaggerated. Your claim of "no amount of driving is safe" is also not hyperbolic, it's real. You drive, you're at risk. What's going on here is that the previous conclusion was not "no level of alcohol consumption is safe." The previous conclusion was "some alcohol is good for your heart." All this new conclusion says is that this is no longer the case. Nobody lives their life off the mantra "no amount of dr…

> What's going on here is that the previous conclusion was not "no level of alcohol consumption is safe." The previous conclusion was "some alcohol is good for your heart."

Something can be deemed "unsafe" and good for your heart. There's more than one internal organ. The word "unsafe" doesn't provide context.

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

#947

Post by artificialLimbs »

groby_b wrote: post #722
artificialLimbs wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It's hard to find any benefit to smoking... Ritualistically, as an exercise in getting out of one's 'normal' consciousness, it can present useful information for self study. In habitual form, it is of course very destructive.

So the "getting out of consciousness" that is the relaxation experience many "habitual" smokers have is worthless, while changing your state for ritualistic purposes is helpful? Both are very tiny self-reported effects that are close to non-observable for outsiders. Why would one outweigh the other, if you allow self-reported epsilon effects at all?

>> getting out of consciousness

You mean sleep (as in, night time bed activity)? I'm not talking about sleep. I am discussing getting out of normative modes of being but not going to sleep.

>> that is the relaxation experience

This is not the only experience resulting from tobacco use. There are more subtle effects as well.

>> worthless

I haven't declared a value judgment against the habit. I am saying it is destructive to the body. Do you believe that to not be a fact?

>> helpful

Again, I'm not presenting value judgments here. I am saying it can present useful information. It sounds to me like you have taken offense somewhere for some reason. I am not putting weight on one or the other.

*edit: clarity

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

#948

Post by RobertRoberts »

haroldp wrote: post #913
RobertRoberts wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you think alcohol does less harm then any of the others? A simple test, give each to a baby/small child and see what happens... I lived in a time where babies were given tiny amounts of alcohol for pain relief and it did no harm that I ever heard. I doubt you can say the same for meth.

You are mistaken. Vast numbers of American teens are prescribed amphetamines every day. The main difference between elicit recreational methamphetamine use and medical/psychological amphetamine use is circumstances and dosing. Kids on Ritalin are generally in safe situations where they have consulted a psychologist with the involvement of their parents, and are given a pure, unadulterated, small, carefully dosed amou…

No babies are prescribed amphetamines.

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

#949

Post by RobertRoberts »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #639
RobertRoberts wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you think alcohol does less harm then any of the others? A simple test, give each to a baby/small child and see what happens... I lived in a time where babies were given tiny amounts of alcohol for pain relief and it did no harm that I ever heard. I doubt you can say the same for meth.

I believe that the consensus is that it did cause a small amount of harm and there likely are horror stories you never heard, that's why the practice stopped, but giving children meth is called adderal. Children also had regular access to small amounts of coke and heroin probably in your grandparents or great grandparents life, remember Coca Cola and laudanum was used for teething. You've never heard of harm from tha…

Babies are not given adderal.

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

#950

Post by RobertRoberts »

destar wrote: post #409
RobertRoberts wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can agree with that, but what is it? It can't be forced rehab, that is just jail but different. And addicts by definition _won't_ seek help or a solution.

I don't agree with your definition, often people affected by addiction will desperately seek help. Unfortunately, many fall into relapse cycles and it's a long and hard process to recovery. I think a good solution would be making quality non-forced resources available for free. For example, rehab, therapy, or jobs specifically created for those seeking to overcome their addiction. Ideally these programs could pay for…

There is help right now for addicts. What change are you suggesting?
Post reply on HN