Moderate alcohol consumption associated with lower risk of death compared to none

[drumdude]

A large new analysis finds that people who drink moderate levels of alcohol have a lower risk of dying from any cause than those who never drink. The new study findings contradict recent research that concluded that drinking has no health benefits at all and is linked to a higher risk for heart disease, cancer and other chronic conditions.

The analysis, the first of two major reports on alcohol consumption, will be used to help formulate the 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, according to STAT.

The new report released this week by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) refutes recent studies that say no amount of alcohol is safe. For example, experts told Medical News Today that moderate alcohol consumption does not significantly extend lifespan and may pose health risks, including increased cancer, heart disease and neurodegenerative risks.

I suspect this may not make it into DCP’s Hitchen’s file!

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/28582/chapter/1

[Doctor Steuss]

I wonder how in-depth they went with the no drinking groups, and if they purged people with health conditions or previous alcoholism? One of the things that often skews these is that a significant number of people who don't drink at all, do so because of an underlying health condition where a doctor advised them to not drink, or they are recovering alcoholics who likely have ALD.

People who don't drink because of personal preference, or religious reasons might not be enough to overcome the number of people who don't drink because of underlying health reasons which would make them more likely to have adverse health outcomes compared to drinking groups.

[Kishkumen]

I guess wine should be reinserted into the sacrament.

[Dr Exiled]

This is a govt. funded report and so the alcohol industry may have had its hands somewhere on this. Even so, love to get merry at times, even when it isn't the holidays. Got to keep the smithmas spirit alive and well the year round.

[Kishkumen]

This is a govt. funded report and so the alcohol industry may have had its hands somewhere on this. Even so, love to get merry at times, even when it isn't the holidays. Got to keep the smithmas spirit alive and well the year round.

I really do wonder sometimes, as the news seems to shift back and forth on this and other topics. The harm to the alcohol industry of bad news could be substantial. Which government wants to damage economic outcomes by being a real honest messenger on this?

[Doctor Steuss]

This is a govt. funded report and so the alcohol industry may have had its hands somewhere on this. Even so, love to get merry at times, even when it isn't the holidays. Got to keep the smithmas spirit alive and well the year round.

I really do wonder sometimes, as the news seems to shift back and forth on this and other topics. The harm to the alcohol industry of bad news could be substantial. Which government wants to damage economic outcomes by being a real honest messenger on this?

I don't know if it's from the health-conscious stuff and reports, or if it's economic in nature, but a lot of California vineyards have been ripping up a significant amount of acreage the last year(s) to switch to something other than grapes because of lack of demand for wine/brandy.

From what I've been able to find over the last few years from studies; the evidence appears to be pretty much solid that alcohol in any amount is at the very least carcinogenic. It's one of only two "foods" that have a definitive link to cancer risk (the other being processed meats... which I will cling to with the same vigor as I cling to my bourbon and brandy -- die young, but happy).

The reports that show positive health outcomes for alcohol usually don't control for two important factors. Wine-centric reports fail to account for regular wine drinkers being stereotypically in a socioeconomic sphere where regular doctor/health/hospital care is available. More broad alcohol studies tend to fail to account for the large swath of people who don't drink because of underlying health reasons, who have been told by their doctor to not drink. Naturally, those non-drinkers are going to have worse health outcomes than regular drinkers without underlying health problems.

[Kishkumen]

I don't know if it's from the health-conscious stuff and reports, or if it's economic in nature, but a lot of California vineyards have been ripping up a significant amount of acreage the last year(s) to switch to something other than grapes because of lack of demand for wine/brandy.

From what I've been able to find over the last few years from studies; the evidence appears to be pretty much solid that alcohol in any amount is at the very least carcinogenic. It's one of only two "foods" that have a definitive link to cancer risk (the other being processed meats... which I will cling to with the same vigor as I cling to my bourbon and brandy -- die young, but happy).

The reports that show positive health outcomes for alcohol usually don't control for two important factors. Wine-centric reports fail to account for regular wine drinkers being stereotypically in a socioeconomic sphere where regular doctor/health/hospital care is available. More broad alcohol studies tend to fail to account for the large swath of people who don't drink because of underlying health reasons, who have been told by their doctor to not drink. Naturally, those non-drinkers are going to have worse health outcomes than regular drinkers without underlying health problems.

I am a moderate drinker, but I am considering ending that for reasons of cancer risk. Cancer of different types is pretty prevalent on both sides of my family, so I really don't need to help the cancer get me. That said, it does relax me nicely. I don't drink a lot because drinking too much makes me feel ill. But, is the relaxation worth the added risk? I am thinking not. The thing about life is that death is the guaranteed outcome. I fear losing my marbles more than I fear death, though. Dementia, Alzheimers . . . much scarier to me than other problems. I would rather die myself in pain than have my mind completely destroyed. But the brain thing is another good reason not to drink. Not seeing enough upsides to alcohol consumption, and I say that not as a teetotaler but as a regular moderate imbiber.

[Doctor Steuss]

I am a moderate drinker, but I am considering ending that for reasons of cancer risk. Cancer of different types is pretty prevalent on both sides of my family, so I really don't need to help the cancer get me. That said, it does relax me nicely. I don't drink a lot because drinking too much makes me feel ill. But, is the relaxation worth the added risk? I am thinking not. The thing about life is that death is the guaranteed outcome. I fear losing my marbles more than I fear death, though. Dementia, Alzheimers . . . much scarier to me than other problems. I would rather die myself in pain than have my mind completely destroyed. But the brain thing is another good reason not to drink. Not seeing enough upsides to alcohol consumption, and I say that not as a teetotaler but as a regular moderate imbiber.

I yo-yo a lot as far as the Big C goes. If I'm genetically doomed, then omitting contributing factors isn't going to do anything. Conversely, if I did win the genetic lottery, I could be rolling the dice with each little imbibing session and ruining what could be a long and healthy life.

I'm reminded of a fun little experience I had at an open poetry night a long time back (maybe a decade-or-so?). I had met a research oncologist there, and was chatting with him for part of the evening. Towards the end of the evening, I had asked him what the odds were of me getting cancer. He said "100%, if you live long enough."

Basically, all of our cells are mutation time bombs to a certain extent. It's just a matter of whether something else will take us out first.

[drumdude]

My brother in law was just diagnosed with throat cancer. He drinks like a fish and smokes too. 47 years old.


Joseph Smith did get some things right, and I think it’s clear abstaining from these two vices is much better than the opposite.

[Gadianton]

Basically, all of our cells are mutation time bombs to a certain extent. It's just a matter of whether something else will take us out first.

It used to be you just lived life and ate like a king and then one day, boom!, you're either dead from a heart attack or if not the first one, the next one a few years later. Not pleasant, but relatively quick. Now that its easy for anyone to fix that problem even with bad genes, you have your choice of cancer or dementia -- both which drag out longer and cost a whole lot more. Your best hope is the flu.