241–250 of 385 posts
Human liver has enzymes to metabolize alcohol for energy, which implicitly makes this claim questionable. If we have it, why not be putting it to work?
> To identify a “safe” level of alcohol consumption, valid scientific evidence would need to demonstrate that at and below a certain level, there is no risk of illness or injury associated with alcohol consumption. The premise of this “no level of consumption is safe” is this requirement to prove 0 risk. If for instance drinking one glass everyday increases your cancer chances by 0.0000000001%, bringing it to 0. 0000…
Should we be establishing safe amounts of cigarette smoking? Safe amounts of gasoline to drink? Alcohol users really don't like people pointing out that their habit isn't safe.
No level of automobile usage is safe, either, but I know the risks. My chances of dying due to driving (sober) are much higher than my chances of dying due to having a few beers a week.
I’m fine taking both of those risks.
Let's say if I drink 3 drinks per day I shorten my life expectancy by 5 years. And if I drink 3 drinks a year, I shorten my life expectancy by 5 seconds. Ok, no level is safe, but noone gives a damn about losing 5 seconds from their life expectancy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s like saying smoking is not hazardous to your health, getting cancer is. Jumping off a building is not hazardous to your health, hitting the ground is.
Smoking is the intake of carcinogens, a direct health risk. Jumping off a building is the result of unhealthy depression, i.e. a symptomatic behavior. A vehicular accident as a driver is not a direct cause of driving any more than a pedestrian accident by a vehicle is the direct cause of walking.
There's also a limit between a healthy lifestyle and enjoyment of life, beyond which towards "maximum health" you'll either go to an early grave because of how bland your life is, or live a joyless life avoiding things you'd enjoy. In any case, those kind of "research" is for modern americans (and people taking their cues from anglosaxon culture) , who are already conditioned in such hysteria - which is funny in the…
> The average Italian, for example, should, and definitely, would just laught this off. we don't even drink that much, compared to other countries. we simply enjoy it, even if it doesn't make our life longer, like many other activities that are not even enjoyable. https://ourworldindata.org/alcohol-consumption
The thinking is backwards on this. They state there is no scientific safe drinking level. They even compare it to radiation. The goal is to establish an unsafe level. it's like saying there is no safe speed to drive a car - sure that's technically true, but worthless to say.
They don't give a safe number of cigarettes, do they? There probably is a number that's minimally harmful, that lowers with age. Alcohol has numerically similar numbers of cancer cases, and cancer is just one aspect. Now it is less, and we can argue about how widespread the use is ect. However, it cases 1/3 of the cases, heart disease, mental health problems. Are you a drinker? Especially since quitting, I've noticed…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Driving isn't hazardous to your health. Crashing is. That's like saying eating is unhealthy to your health because you might choke.
Driving is hazardous to other people's health in the form of crashes AND pollution in the form of noise, dust, and exhaust.
And that doesn't include the externalized costs, such as increased domestic violence: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50887893 , impacts on children: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/18/even-moderat... , etc. Now that Americans are more docile it might be a good time to take another shot at alcohol prohibition: https://time.com/5501680/prohibition-history-feminism-suffra... .
> And that doesn't include the externalized costs, such as increased domestic violence, impacts on children I have never seen someone who did those things drunk who didn't also do those things sober.
That makes sense--alcohol decreases inhibition. It makes you do things that maybe you were inclined to do, but wouldn't do sober. (That is part of why people drink alcohol in the first place.)
> To identify a “safe” level of alcohol consumption, valid scientific evidence would need to demonstrate that at and below a certain level, there is no risk of illness or injury associated with alcohol consumption. The premise of this “no level of consumption is safe” is this requirement to prove 0 risk. If for instance drinking one glass everyday increases your cancer chances by 0.0000000001%, bringing it to 0. 0000…
Should we be establishing safe amounts of cigarette smoking? Safe amounts of gasoline to drink? Alcohol users really don't like people pointing out that their habit isn't safe.
A source of public health information should never say something vague like "cigarettes are bad for your health." They need to specify precisely how bad they are and how much damage is done with each individual cigarette.
Same with gasoline- if someone was to accidentally consume a small quantity of gasoline and wanted to know how much trouble they are in, they should be able to easily discover exactly how many ml of gasoline you need to drink to experience any associated problems. If there is a "safe" level, where there are no major side effects, that's something they need to know.
Cool now do this with refined sugars or high carb diets in general. It'll be the same discussion, addicts trying to rationalize away the science and statistics.
Carbs are great for you if you get the right carbs.
If you don't eat an essential nutrient (vitamins, minerals, etc) you'll eventually get sick and die. If you don't eat a very high carb diet you'll ... be healthier and have better blood test results? Nobody never died from having a single digit A1c blood test result or a blood glucose no longer going up to 250 anymore LOL.