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

981–990 of 1001 posts

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

#981

Post by shard »

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…

To bring it to the relevant topic of the day, I don't believe I will ever see the CDC issue a statement that "no level of exposure to the COVID-19 virus is safe", and recommend China level of quarantine.

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

#982

Post by shard »

quantgenius wrote: post #959
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…

Walking near a smoker on a sidewalk outside IS a risk to my health and the health of my children. I have asthma as do my children. Both my children and I have had asthma attacks due to second hand smoke, even limited quantities. As a smoker you may not notice this but the smell from even a whiff of second hand smoke persists for a long time and it's awful. Our family gives smokers on the sidewalk a very wide berth. N…

Along the lines of second hand smoke, are there any levels of safe exposure to air pollution (considering recent studies saying that chronic exposure is equivalent to losing one year of education)? In that case, internal combustion engine exhaust might be a larger source of health risk than outdoor second hand smoke, depending on where you live.

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

#983

Post by shard »

jimmaswell wrote: post #748
thrashh wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re not talking smoking though We’re talking second hand smoke Who exactly is looking to get some second hand smoke in their face while avoiding actually smoking?

I seem to be in a small minority, but I always liked the smell of second hand smoke despite never smoking. I've smelled some cigarettes up close and I think I'd really like them, but I don't want to start for health reasons.

I don't go in for cigarette smoke, but cigars, oh my.

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

#984

Post by shard »

airstrike wrote: post #822
tomp wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> there's no real positive benefit to society to frequent business flying (at pre-pandemic levels). I'm sorry but I don't buy that. Business flying has obvious benefits including, perhaps obviously, enabling businesses to be run efficiently.

I started a new job after the start of COVID, and it has been really hard to build the personal relationships to become fully effective (our offices are spread out globally). My manager has said that pre-COVID days, I would have had the chance to meet many of my colleagues face-to-face and have a few beers with them, which would have greased the wheel to creating some personal connections. It's always easier to request help from someone who has a good impression of you.

Similarly with clients. It's much easier for people to go on attack-mode when they are displeased when it's only through email or a video conference where people have their cameras off. Unhappy clients can be placated and turned towards working together to a solution much more easily in person, and happy clients can be turned into long term partners more easily over dinner and friendly chats. This is especially true of customers in Asia.

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

#985

Post by nuclearnice1 »

vanusa wrote: post #945
estaseuropano wrote: post #917

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Maybe figure 4 from the Lancet article [1] mentioned above is helpful here. It is titled “Relative risk curves for selected conditions by number of standard drinks consumed daily.”

[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

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

#986

Post by vanusa »

nuclearnice1 wrote: post #985
vanusa wrote: post #945

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Maybe figure 4 from the Lancet article [1] mentioned above is helpful here. It is titled “Relative risk curves for selected conditions by number of standard drinks consumed daily.” [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Interesting graphs.

What's interesting in particular is that for several categories (such as ischemic heart disease) the relative risk does seem to go down rather decisively for up to 6(!) standard drinks per day (which they note is "offset" by the increased risk in other categories -- including cancer).

So going by their own combined/weighted risk in Figure 5 - we see a curve that is essentially flat in the region between 0 and 1 - that is, showing negligible risk (asymptotically zero) at 1 drink per day, rising to more concerning levels starting at 2 or 3 per day.

And that's the decisive issue here: "Is having an average of 1 drink per day really any more risky than 0 per day?" The only take-way I can get from the article is that there's essentially no difference in risk level in this interval.

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

#987

Post by PraetorianGourd »

God I can’t fucking wait until we’ve moved on from this world where maximizing health outcomes overrides all other considerations.

Living in a bubble where I eat a perfectly balanced diet of Soylent and refuse to interact with anyone will probably add to a miserable existence where I’d rather fucking kill myself.

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

#988

Post by dahart »

kfrane wrote: post #973
dionidium wrote: post #969

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care about the morality of flying and I'm not suggesting they should, either. That's the whole point. Of course they use stronger language wrt activities they look down upon than for activities they don't. And maybe that's as it should be! Again, I am asking people to notice when this happens. The CDC hasn’t been “politicized,” in other words; their project is intrinsically political.

It's not a proof but I really enjoyed Zizek's thoughts on how fight against smoking is an ideology :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r238kp3ar_A

Hehe, I don’t know who this is, but it was fun to watch. “I’m a kind of Stalinist fascist ... if I take drugs, then I become passive, and enemies can attack!” LOL!

So, the argument he didn’t even attempt to address in his comparison of smoking to other drugs is that smoking hurts other people directly, while other drugs don’t. The primary reason we have rules against smoking in public is it’s effects on people nearby who are not choosing to smoke. This entire thread was about secondhand smoke, and Zizek didn’t address it.

Similarly, the reasons we have some regulations on smoking in private, and the entire reason we have regulations on drugs is because of the direct damage it does, statistically, to the users, and to the indirect damage it does to other people. For the minority of bad cases, hospital visits for overdoses and car accidents, social services for addicts or their children, rehab, and loss of jobs are real issues. For the larger majority there are still measurable effects on drug users’ lifespans and on the economy.

We are a collective and have no choice about that. We have some shared resources that we need to agree on. If you want to enjoy freedoms, you have to respect other people’s freedoms. Where’s my freedom to breathe clean air if you smoke near me? (I happen to have some athsma, the risks to me of secondhand smoke are greater than mild exposure to carcinogens.)

So yeah, not only is it not a proof, it’s not even a reason to buy the argument that anti-smoking sentiment is ideological. To prove that it’s ideology, you need to demonstrate that smoking is safe.

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

#989

Post by dahart »

shard wrote: post #982
quantgenius wrote: post #959

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walking near a smoker on a sidewalk outside IS a risk to my health and the health of my children. I have asthma as do my children. Both my children and I have had asthma attacks due to second hand smoke, even limited quantities. As a smoker you may not notice this but the smell from even a whiff of second hand smoke persists for a long time and it's awful. Our family gives smokers on the sidewalk a very wide berth. N…

Along the lines of second hand smoke, are there any levels of safe exposure to air pollution (considering recent studies saying that chronic exposure is equivalent to losing one year of education)? In that case, internal combustion engine exhaust might be a larger source of health risk than outdoor second hand smoke, depending on where you live.

The research and statistics are trending toward the conclusion that there are no safe levels of exposure to pollution, car/ICE or otherwise. The 2021 WHO report is pretty good/interesting stuff https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/345329/9789...

Personally, I’m pretty certain that cars are a bigger contributor to overall air pollution than cigarettes. I would guess much bigger, however Googling this question will return studies that claim to show cigarette pollution is worse per gram of smoke or whatever.

I don’t know what it means to lose a year of education, that sounds like it could be a little hyperbolic, and hyperbolic stuff does get said unfortunately.

Anyway, we can and should work on both problems, cars and cigarettes, we don’t need to limit ourselves to which one is worse, they’re both bad. Smoking alone really does contribute significantly to early mortality globally, so it really is a problem to solve.

Cigarettes are also, unlike cars, a completely optional choice. Unlike the reasons to drive, the reasons to smoke are not backed by any economic needs or economic benefits aside from income to the tobacco companies. There is no socially redeeming value to smoking, where there is a lot for cars (jobs, food distribution, transportation & travel, etc). So, it will be far easier to stop people from smoking, and reduce overall death, than it will be to stop people from driving.

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

#990

Post by mattmaroon »

wolverine876 wrote: post #753
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…

> 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.

Yes. If you want a really good explanation of how it happened and the effects it’s practically the subject of The Premonition by Michael Lewis
Post reply on HN