Despite what I would like to be true, I know from experience that alcohol cannot possibly be healthy for me. Even with only 3 drinks, I feel slightly off the next day, and if I binge and drink 6 to 10, I feel awful. Plus, my memory feels a little fuzzier for a bit too.
I love alcohol and I don't plan on abstaining. But I don't fool myself that it might be healthy for me. Drinking is a calculated decision, that I enjoy it more than the risks to my health.
If I run 15 miles tonight, my legs will be crazy sore tomorrow. I might not even be able to walk up stairs. That's why I don't fool myself into thinking running is good for me.
Alcohol's primary mechanism of screwing up your body is inhibiting methylation[1][2]. There was a study of Harvard graduates that tracked how a few hundred did into their 90s. To quote the study:
"In fact, alcoholism is the single strongest cause of divorce between the Grant Study men and their wives. Alcoholism was also found to be strongly coupled with neurosis and depression (which most often follows alcohol abuse, rather than preceding it).
Together with cigarette smoking, alcoholism proves to be the #1 greatest cause of morbidity and death. And above a certain level, intelligence doesn’t prevent the damage.
"[3]
I think everyone agrees that alcoholism or chronic alcohol abuse is bad for you. The interesting question is if moderate or light use is correlated with longevity.
It's been a long while ago now, but I recall reading some actuarial studies that indicated that moderate drinking improved life expectancy. Did these fall victim to the same bias mentioned in the OP article? Did they not account properly for people that stopped drinking at some point due to health issues?
IIRC, I recall reading that the over/under on life expectancy was 6(!) drinks per day for regular drinkers. I recall thinking how high that was at the time. Now I wonder if it was just another case of lies, damned lies, and statistics.
What I never got is the studies are about alcohol consumption but the people in the studies never drink pure alcohol but instead wine/beer/whiskey/you name it. Isn't there a chance that it isn't the alcohol which provides some of the effects but rather something else in the beverage of choice? Take wine for instance, what would be the effects of drinking 2 glasses of some kind of grape/fruit-derived drink every day vs not drinking it?
Often studies like this break down alcohol consumption by type. Here is a review of several studies that concludes that "a substantial portion of the benefit is from alcohol rather than other components of each type of drink"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8605457
A very slim chance, alcohol is the common ingredient to all of those drinks. Alcohol is a muscle relaxant and lowers inhibitions, these qualities make it ideal for stress relief. Which is why it is so popular.
Pure alcohol is toxic, so studying its effects is kind of hard.
I could see that. There are tons of different kinds of yeasts used in brewing which all create very different byproducts during/post fermentation. Pure alcohol would have very little, if any of those.
I'm not sure the reductionist approach is the best for this. Many people use alcohol to find mates and court, or socialise with friends; both of which lead to measurable mental and physical health benefits.
People who drink recreationally are, in my experience, more likely to eat greasy processed foods and have irregular sleep patterns.
I think that the body provides enough feedback about its state to let you make an informed choice.
FWIW I heard a liver specialist on the radio earlier this year say that all alcohol consumption is damaging, the less of it you consume the less damage it does to you and that's it.
He said that as an admitted social drinker himself.
> FWIW I heard a liver specialist on the radio earlier this year say that all alcohol consumption is damaging, the less of it you consume the less damage it does to you and that's it.
All alcohol consumption is damaging to your liver, sure. That's relatively non-controversial.
That doesn't imply, however, that there is not some level of alcohol consumption where the negative impacts to the liver are outweighed by positive impacts elsewhere such that it actually is a net positive for longevity.
Funny. If you talk to a heart specialist, they will tell you that regular, moderate consumption of alcohol improves blood pressure, reduces cholesterol build-up, and reduces the chance of heart problems.
Specialists will tell you all about the topic of which they are a specialist. That doesn't mean that they will be experts in other areas outside their specialty.
Of course, it tastes good, so people want to believe these very specific studies. And ignore any of the confounding evidence in the second half of the article (such as the fact that people who drink moderately are healthy enough to do so).
So you're saying "bad for you" unless you're a healthy moderate drinker?
Or are you saying the healthy moderate drinker is somehow worse off than if they didn't drink at all? If so, how can we measure the harm that moderate drinking is doing on healthy people? If we can't measure any harm, are you open to the possibility that moderate drinking is good for healthy people?
Not only have humans had alcohol on a timescale long enough to induce evolutionary pressure (eliminating the "unnatural product" argument, which as evidenced by modern pharmacology is ridiculous regardless), but higher-alcohol products are a recent invention and, like everything else including water, consumption to excess is excluded.
It's entirely possible that reasonable quantities of alcohol are beneficial to a majority of people. Eventually, science will tell us if this is so. Your absolutism is ridiculous posturing.
That is an awfully weak argument: "Yes, it's bad. Ignore the facts."
The reality is that moderate drinkers flat out live longer than alcoholics and teetotalers. Fairly hard to come to the conclusion that it's "bad for you" unless your definition of bad doesn't consider... you know... not dying.
Depends for what purpose. If you sense your mind is beginning to work like a finite state machine and you're stuck in an unfavorable cycle, a few good drinks can certainly break the pattern, at a price of a few brain cells. Its good in moderation.
First there's ethanol itself. Enough in your bloodstream will quite effectively kill you. It doesn't take much. Its a poison and the liver will drop everything to save your life by converting it as fast as it can. It has some tranquilizing effect on the brain which is the likely source of improved lifespan... lower psychological stress leads to lower blood pressure, lower adrenaline levels, etc. Fun as it is to get high, that stuff is really bad for you. On to the first hop.
The acetaldehyde conversion stage is a good strong kick in the liver. Its clearly a net negative for the liver with no possible, no imaginable, redeeming characteristics. Dosing the rest of your body with acetaldehyde is clearly not wise and its quite neurotoxic once theres enough. Not as bad as ethanol, but poisonous, sure. I am a little fuzzy on what causes more damage and kills people, the ethanol in the blood or the acetaldehyde output in both long and short run. Its interesting that kids don't express the correct proteins to clean up poisonous ethanol and its all fuzzy what is meant by "adult". Obviously fetus-grade young will be totally screwed up by ethanol and the immature liver's attempt at cleaning it up. At teen age, I donno, the normal adult response should have kicked in? Tolerance should build as teens age, I think? I think a kid that can feed itself and walk and all that is probably medically safe to drink in small amounts?
The oxidation to acetic acid isn't too awful. Hard on your Vit B and Vit C stockpile. Acetic acid is great for making pickles, not that you'd want to pickle your internal organs. Its none the less less toxic than the previous step (you see the path of ever lower toxicity...) This is the step that's wildly genetically variable across races in our species. Most "whites" have the strong enzymes to devour acetaldehyde quite effectively, most asians not so much, they stew their innards in acetaldehyde, which will probably have some kind of statistical result in the top down studies. Or maybe the lifespan effects of alcohol in the top down analysis have no racial component implying its nothing to do with the acetaldehyde pathway. Acetaldehyde is specifically toxic to kidneys and I've never gotten a straight answer about alcohols legendary diuretic effect as self preservation or is it merely happy coincidence. I'm pretty sure that if alcohol didn't make you pee you'd have heavy abusers dying of kidney failure rather than liver.
Now we're at the acetic acid stage. Very few people die of pickle poisoning from eating too many dill pickles. Then again soaking your blood in it for decades is likely not totally wise. At this stage I'd call it "mostly harmless" and stop excessive worrying.
The next hop is to some funky intermediate that basically tosses acetyl carbons into the right place to join up with the big ole citric acid energy cycle later on. Its more or less on the carb and fat metabolism pathway, nothing too far off the map as long as you don't consume ridiculous quantities (like enough to make you fat beer belly). Now we're at the point where slamming a cup of soda or fruit juice or lard would be biochemically mostly indistinguishable from slamming booze. Of course in the top down study maybe having the time and money to slam a fruit smoothie would have the same top down study long term results, I donno.
The final hop is the harmless-ish intermediate becomes part of the boring harmless normal citric acid cycle. Thats boring and theres nothing "interesting" about alcohol once it hits this stage, other than maybe getting fat. This is a rather normal and boring energy processing cycle.
Anyway thats the biochemical bottom up analysis to compare to the article. So your brain chills, which might help with mental health and stress related cardiovascular stuff. Its a hard kick in the liver best avoided if at all possible. And later on its outright bad for your kidneys. How this all balances up I donno. Frankly if you want to chill your brain a little there are helpful little pills that'll do the same thing without the giant kick in the liver or punch to the kidney. Or inhale some nitrous oxide laughing gas or something. From a bottom up analysis ethanol is not looking all that good, its basically a crappy poison. If it were not socially popular, it would have a rep as being the shittiest illegal drug ever, right up there with drinking cough syrup to get high.
You seem to conveniently forget that the liver is the most easy to repair tissue in your body. We regularly remove 2/3rds of a person liver during live donors transplants and it regrows in a couple of months.
A whole lot of these epidemiological results largely boil down to IQ. You see it over and over again as the missing factor. People with higher IQs drink more. High IQ is independently linked to better health and longer lifespan, almost certainly at the physiological level. They don't live longer because of smart things they do, they are smart because they're healthy. So from the epidemiological data you get the false impression that things smart people tend to do reduce disease or increase lifespan.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe traditional IQ tests give a significant correlation to life-span once you control for environment. (though I think it's clear that wealthy people live longer and drink more)
[+] [-] seibelj|10 years ago|reply
I love alcohol and I don't plan on abstaining. But I don't fool myself that it might be healthy for me. Drinking is a calculated decision, that I enjoy it more than the risks to my health.
[+] [-] Domenic_S|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zikes|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] narrator|10 years ago|reply
"In fact, alcoholism is the single strongest cause of divorce between the Grant Study men and their wives. Alcoholism was also found to be strongly coupled with neurosis and depression (which most often follows alcohol abuse, rather than preceding it). Together with cigarette smoking, alcoholism proves to be the #1 greatest cause of morbidity and death. And above a certain level, intelligence doesn’t prevent the damage. "[3]
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20868231
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24313162
3. http://www.recoverystories.info/75-years-in-the-making-harva...
[+] [-] thomyorkie|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eatmyshorts|10 years ago|reply
IIRC, I recall reading that the over/under on life expectancy was 6(!) drinks per day for regular drinkers. I recall thinking how high that was at the time. Now I wonder if it was just another case of lies, damned lies, and statistics.
[+] [-] stinos|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thomyorkie|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmastrac|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nextweek2|10 years ago|reply
Pure alcohol is toxic, so studying its effects is kind of hard.
[+] [-] bpchaps|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alephu5|10 years ago|reply
People who drink recreationally are, in my experience, more likely to eat greasy processed foods and have irregular sleep patterns.
I think that the body provides enough feedback about its state to let you make an informed choice.
[+] [-] barking|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|10 years ago|reply
All alcohol consumption is damaging to your liver, sure. That's relatively non-controversial.
That doesn't imply, however, that there is not some level of alcohol consumption where the negative impacts to the liver are outweighed by positive impacts elsewhere such that it actually is a net positive for longevity.
[+] [-] eatmyshorts|10 years ago|reply
Specialists will tell you all about the topic of which they are a specialist. That doesn't mean that they will be experts in other areas outside their specialty.
[+] [-] powera|10 years ago|reply
Of course, it tastes good, so people want to believe these very specific studies. And ignore any of the confounding evidence in the second half of the article (such as the fact that people who drink moderately are healthy enough to do so).
[+] [-] exodust|10 years ago|reply
Or are you saying the healthy moderate drinker is somehow worse off than if they didn't drink at all? If so, how can we measure the harm that moderate drinking is doing on healthy people? If we can't measure any harm, are you open to the possibility that moderate drinking is good for healthy people?
[+] [-] dogecoinbase|10 years ago|reply
It's entirely possible that reasonable quantities of alcohol are beneficial to a majority of people. Eventually, science will tell us if this is so. Your absolutism is ridiculous posturing.
[+] [-] digi_owl|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryandvm|10 years ago|reply
The reality is that moderate drinkers flat out live longer than alcoholics and teetotalers. Fairly hard to come to the conclusion that it's "bad for you" unless your definition of bad doesn't consider... you know... not dying.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ars|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cnp|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theworstshill|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VLM|10 years ago|reply
Looking bottom up from a biochemistry point of view:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_metabolism
First there's ethanol itself. Enough in your bloodstream will quite effectively kill you. It doesn't take much. Its a poison and the liver will drop everything to save your life by converting it as fast as it can. It has some tranquilizing effect on the brain which is the likely source of improved lifespan... lower psychological stress leads to lower blood pressure, lower adrenaline levels, etc. Fun as it is to get high, that stuff is really bad for you. On to the first hop.
The acetaldehyde conversion stage is a good strong kick in the liver. Its clearly a net negative for the liver with no possible, no imaginable, redeeming characteristics. Dosing the rest of your body with acetaldehyde is clearly not wise and its quite neurotoxic once theres enough. Not as bad as ethanol, but poisonous, sure. I am a little fuzzy on what causes more damage and kills people, the ethanol in the blood or the acetaldehyde output in both long and short run. Its interesting that kids don't express the correct proteins to clean up poisonous ethanol and its all fuzzy what is meant by "adult". Obviously fetus-grade young will be totally screwed up by ethanol and the immature liver's attempt at cleaning it up. At teen age, I donno, the normal adult response should have kicked in? Tolerance should build as teens age, I think? I think a kid that can feed itself and walk and all that is probably medically safe to drink in small amounts?
The oxidation to acetic acid isn't too awful. Hard on your Vit B and Vit C stockpile. Acetic acid is great for making pickles, not that you'd want to pickle your internal organs. Its none the less less toxic than the previous step (you see the path of ever lower toxicity...) This is the step that's wildly genetically variable across races in our species. Most "whites" have the strong enzymes to devour acetaldehyde quite effectively, most asians not so much, they stew their innards in acetaldehyde, which will probably have some kind of statistical result in the top down studies. Or maybe the lifespan effects of alcohol in the top down analysis have no racial component implying its nothing to do with the acetaldehyde pathway. Acetaldehyde is specifically toxic to kidneys and I've never gotten a straight answer about alcohols legendary diuretic effect as self preservation or is it merely happy coincidence. I'm pretty sure that if alcohol didn't make you pee you'd have heavy abusers dying of kidney failure rather than liver.
Now we're at the acetic acid stage. Very few people die of pickle poisoning from eating too many dill pickles. Then again soaking your blood in it for decades is likely not totally wise. At this stage I'd call it "mostly harmless" and stop excessive worrying.
The next hop is to some funky intermediate that basically tosses acetyl carbons into the right place to join up with the big ole citric acid energy cycle later on. Its more or less on the carb and fat metabolism pathway, nothing too far off the map as long as you don't consume ridiculous quantities (like enough to make you fat beer belly). Now we're at the point where slamming a cup of soda or fruit juice or lard would be biochemically mostly indistinguishable from slamming booze. Of course in the top down study maybe having the time and money to slam a fruit smoothie would have the same top down study long term results, I donno.
The final hop is the harmless-ish intermediate becomes part of the boring harmless normal citric acid cycle. Thats boring and theres nothing "interesting" about alcohol once it hits this stage, other than maybe getting fat. This is a rather normal and boring energy processing cycle.
Anyway thats the biochemical bottom up analysis to compare to the article. So your brain chills, which might help with mental health and stress related cardiovascular stuff. Its a hard kick in the liver best avoided if at all possible. And later on its outright bad for your kidneys. How this all balances up I donno. Frankly if you want to chill your brain a little there are helpful little pills that'll do the same thing without the giant kick in the liver or punch to the kidney. Or inhale some nitrous oxide laughing gas or something. From a bottom up analysis ethanol is not looking all that good, its basically a crappy poison. If it were not socially popular, it would have a rep as being the shittiest illegal drug ever, right up there with drinking cough syrup to get high.
[+] [-] venomsnake|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LinuxBender|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cnp|10 years ago|reply
*and also the greediest
[+] [-] mohaine|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hapless|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a8da6b0c91d|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] powera|10 years ago|reply
I could be wrong, but I don't believe traditional IQ tests give a significant correlation to life-span once you control for environment. (though I think it's clear that wealthy people live longer and drink more)
[+] [-] scotty79|10 years ago|reply