WaPo reports the belated discovery of the obvious.
Thanks for the news, but what I want to know is why we were oiled up for so long with bad science? Re alcohol, it's been fun, but the party's over.
Time to deal with the larger phenomenon, the badness of so much of the science mainstream media reports. It's been especially annoying paired with "Believe the science" demands.
People are going to lose focus and resort to just believing whatever they want to believe, like that moderate drinking is good for your health... and that the drinking you're doing is moderate.
Posts
91 comments:
"Moderate drinkers" were affluent, educated, sophisticated people who took care of themselves in other ways, and therefore they lived longer -- or so "the science" tells us now, after decades of telling us otherwise.
In another ten years, the research will swing back the other direction. We've had enough experience with nutrition science by now to know that it's very thin and prone to fads.
Do I dare to click on the "masculine beauty" tag?
Follow up query:
If the "glut" of contradictory health studies causes the public to "believe what they want to believe", how do we continue to justify the massive private and public (taxpayer) spending to perpetuate these health studies?
Will the health study industrial complex eventually collapse?
Butter is bad for you and oleo good! Oh, it's the opposite. Red meat and eggs will give you heart attacks. Or not. And masks!
Medical science; you'd better believe it. And by "science" we mean the latest conventional wisdom pronounced by guys in white coats, who may or may not have real data from actual controlled experiments to back it up. Well, at least they figured out that leeches were no good, after several hundred years.
Alas. I'm not allowed to consume alcohol. For medical reasons. But when I did it wasn't for medicinal purposes. It was for the enhancement to my mental and physical faculties.
Science has been politicized so give that new study no more respect than it deserves. In our brave new world, it is only a matter of time before the authorities come for our drinks. Along with our meat, gas stoves, air conditioning, etc.
and that the drinking you're doing is moderate.
every (EVERY) drinker i've known, has thought that Their drinking was 'moderate' (this included me)
The KEY to 'moderate' drinking, is DON'T Count your drinks (this is similar to 'moderate' overeating)
do you drink? SURE!
often? Oh just sometimes (like after work.. Or in thee evenings.. Or nice warm days.. or if there's snow)
do you drink moderately? SURE DO! Just a few beers, maybe some shots, after that i doubt i drink much more
i guess the key thing is "EVERY DAY"
If you can't remember that last time you were drunk.. It was PROBABLY last night.
Personally, i don't remember the last time i had a beer.. but it was March 5, 2000.. At about 4pm
Remember the food pyramid? Type 2 diabetics remember it.
There is growing evidence that climate change is being caused by unusually high underwater volcanic activity in the pacific "ring of fire".
And, of course, the CDC is still running public service announcements encouraging us to get COVID booster shots.
Moderate alcohol consumption is the least of our problems. "Moderation in all things" --Aristotle
The science is bad because the scientists pay no price for being wrong, and in fact get rewarded for pushing ideas that people want to be true. See also, global warming.
This is why the pandemic hysteria went on so long: there were a lot of people who wanted the science to say that we needed masking and lockdowns and everything else, either because they wanted a cudgel to beat the bad orange man, or because they simply needed a "cause" to throw themselves into.
Why is this science less bad than what came before? The science that gets reported in the media keeps getting worse. At this point, any sentence that includes words like "studies show" should be ignored.
Same researchers who said masks worked.
"Time to deal with the larger phenomenon, the badness of so much of the science mainstream media reports. It's been especially annoying paired with "Believe the science" demands."
Several phenomena wrapped up in one. Nutrition "science" is bad. Much of the science the MSM report is bad. The MSM reporting as such is bad. Believe the science is bad. Not always, of course, etc. etc.
What's meta-bad is the use of science for prog control. Progs are good with some kinds of badness.
Why is this science less bad than what came before? The science that gets reported in the media keeps getting worse. At this point, any sentence that includes words like "studies show" should be ignored.
A lot of the science before was just as bad. The difference is that we have a bureaucracy which is increasingly reliant on "scientific" justifications to intervene in all aspects of our lives.
A couple of aspies tucked away at some university, arguing over the nature of luminiforous aether, don't affect a farmer in Iowa, but a government bureaucrat writing regulations regarding the nutritional requirements for school lunch programs does.
The science is settled, remember?
The only thing settled about the science is that it’s never settled. That’s why it’s science.
The Journal of Irreproducible Results is a humor magazine intended for scientists and mathematicians. However its success has spawned numerous copycats and today irreproducible results can be found scattered throughout Nature, Lancet, Scientific American, and damned near any other (formeely) prestigious scientific journal. Peer review in the 21st century is a joke, and there’s plenty of evidence that the joke has been going on since well before Y2K was gonna make airplanes fall out of the sky.
Anthony Fauci deserves a public shaming and financial claw-back, but he also deserved our thanks for demonstrating how modern American medical research is the product of junk scientists producing junk science through a good old boy network. Though perhaps, considering how well funded it is, perhaps “junque science” is how it should be spelled. Would anybody care about allegations of doctored photographs in Alzheimers research except that the Left is pissed off at President Marc Tessier-Lavigne? Didn’t think so.
In moderation, alcohol is metabolized without negative effect. Look out for the sugar.
It is another black eye for "science" that the leftmediaswine like those at WaPo can use it regularly to diminish our joie de vivre.
I've been in nutritional, exercise, and medical research for ~20 years.
ALOT of nutrition, exercise, and basic medical research is specious or outright false. A. LOT.
To a degree, that can be understood in the scientific field. It's HARD to run well controlled studies - let alone at a reasonable cost.
But in the meantime, scientists enjoy the limelight and only quoted when they take strong stances. And their institutions reward their celebrity in many ways.
This leads to suspect research being hyped, touted, and even put into practice.
When you consider the harm done by nutritional guidance on fats, salts, and carbohydrates over the last 70+ years - and no one has ever paid a price - you begin to see just how harmful unchallenged "research" has become.
The mask(s) are off. The shots/jabs are recalled. Stork is forked. One woman and one man are Her choice. Women and men are complementary in Nature. Transgender conversion therapy is novel science. Shared responsibility through progressive prices. Etcetera.
"The Science" is never settled, not if it's real science. But so much "science" is just political opinions or wishes, wrapped in a container of false expertise from people expecting deference. It's especially stupid when the people expecting deference are politicians, almost none of whom knows anything useful about science.
The scientific method is based on doubt, skepticism and constant testing of assumptions and results. The opposite of the "science" that politicians believe in.
I watched this video all the way to the end
Word is post-pandemic Americans are cutting back. That’s good news.
Same researchers who said masks worked.
WaPo
scientists
The [sociopolitical] climate is indeed changing.
"Time to deal with the larger phenomenon, the badness of so much of the [scientific] mainstream media reports."
Take care, Althouse.
Inga, LLR Chuck, and gadfly are already piling up the faggots. Before you know it, the Archdeconness of Pasadena will declare you a heretic, and then, pift! (Cookout season is upon us, after all.)
"Believe the science" was wrong about:
- People must drink 8 glasses of water per day
- Asbestos cigarette filters are beneficial
- Splashing in the water will chase sharks away
- Sugar is the best way to get more energy
- Eggs raise your cholesterol
- Eating lots of carbohydrates is good for you
- Even a little saturated fat is bad for you
- Fish oil helps prevent heart disease
- Alcohol/red wine is good for your health
And we are supposed to believe you, why? Experts in corruption and marketing fads.
So much of journalism is just channeling press releases, hopefully rewritten a little. Locally the media doesn't bother with the latter.
And alcohol sellers have ways of fostering studies. I think all we're seeing here is correlation not causation, as usual.
This ain't "Science!", this appears to be statistical analysis, which are best known for "GIGO"!
Healthy User Bias.
In contrasting this news with previous “bad science” that “oiled up” our perception of alcohol Althouse implies that the current WaPo article represents “good science,” which leads me to wonder how do you know? Like salt and coffee consumption alleged “reporting” on “science” regarding their goodness or badness has been wildly pegged at both extremes within recent years. Ditto red meat. Red wine. Butter vs margarine. Vitamin supplements. Carbs.
The only rational response is to view with skepticism ALL “science” reporting. Living by “everything in moderation” is safer than relying on “reporting” to inform you.
Drinking is drinking. Fun if you like it. I drink. My life would probably be a lot different without it from the beginning.
Never kidded myself there was a health benefit.
Lots of science is bad and a lot of the research is funded by people who have a financial stake in the results.
That's why pot is okay and smoking isn't, now.
Also, people want to feel virtuous in their bad habits. Just own it, for God's sake. I drink occasionally because I really love a cocktail or glass of champagne. And I like the buzz. I've had some hilarious and honest conversations with my kids over margaritas. Healthy? Nope. But good for the soul.
Blogger Tommy Duncan said...
Remember the food pyramid? Type 2 diabetics remember it.
Doctor Atkins popularized the reverse of the "food pyramid" and recommended protein and fat rather than carbohydrates. He was so demonized by the "mainstream science" that there was celebration of his death when he slipped on the ice and had a severe head injury. When I was researching my book on medical history in the late 90s it was still difficult to find any literature that questioned the carb-based diet.
Most modern "keto-based" diets are Atkins' based.
Even Mr. Mojo Risin' was able to get the science right.
Well, I woke up this mornin'
And I got myself a beer
Well, I woke up this mornin'
And I got myself a beer
The future's uncertain
And the end is always near
I, for one, am going to continue the experiment.
This is why freedom of speech is important.
It needs to be more than a constitutional principle.
It needs to be a fundamental principle of any free society.
People will spout nonsense.
People will demand respect for that nonsense based on their position or education.
Given our limited knowledge the prudent course is to doubt all so called scholarship.
It should be automatic.
(Not addressed but also relevant)
Useless peer review
Incorrect use of statistical methods
The incredible hubris of the educated technocrats
The incompetence of the popular press
The effect of self interest on the entire process
We long ago left "The Age of Science" and moved on to "The Age of Sciency-y." Science-y looks like Science -- guys in white coats, research papers, departments at prestigious universities -- but lacks the self-correcting features and detachment from politics of Science.
I've spent most of a lengthy career in the Alcohol Beverage industry. Well aware of the reporting around moderate usage, red wine benefits, flavonoids, grape seed extract, etc.
I have no opinion on them personally but find it interesting that such well-worn ground remains in dispute. This study will be challenged later by other researchers, so the debate will go on, which is how it should be.
Like Glenn Reynolds likes to say "the science is settled!". Yet it's never really settled, and you'd expect "scientists" to express more humility when making policy pronouncements related to science (see Covid-19).
Instead, we get rigid arrogance about how they are the experts and you must "follow the science" (their version) or you are a DENIER.
My message is - You might have knowledge and an opinion but that doesn't mean you are right. History is filled to the brim with respected, knowledgeable scientists being wrong. That might apply to you, because you don't know what you don't know.
Alcohol may be fun, but its poison. It has a bad effect on the body, that's why you get hangovers. I never thought it was GOOD FOR YOU. But i still believe that drinking in moderation, only slightly increases the risks of cancer or other problems.
is drinking 2 martini's a day, worth that extra 5% risk of developing cancer? Maybe. what's the risk of being fat or eating red meat every day?
Now they should do a study of the MJ and its long-term use. Somehow, I think people would be shocked at how dangerous it is. We'll probably get some MJ studies after the BIG MJ industry has firmly established itself morr and is raking in more $BIllIONS.
Frankly, I always thought those "Drinking is good for you" studies were bankrolled by the Beer/wine industry. But I could be wrong.
"Time to deal with the larger phenomenon, the badness of so much of the science mainstream media reports."
If, by "so much", you mean "pretty much all", well... yeah. Want to bet that "dealing with" it will be to keep doing it?
Public health/epidemiology is just inherently weak; too many variables that can't be controlled. Even the least biased research will still be weak. But then bias creeps in everywhere: funding priorities, personal politics, institutional politics, publication bias, etc.
I wouldn't either "believe" this or "not believe" this; take it into consideration regarding your own situation and make your choices as you see fit.
I, for one, am going to continue the experiment.
"Buy it find it make it. Just get me some booze, and fast !" Moe
Alcohol. The personality enhancer. " Makes women appear more attractive." Homer
People are going to lose focus
Focus on what? Credentials? God forfuckingbid...
and resort to just believing whatever they want to believe.
Isn't that exactly what we're doing when we're "believing the Science"? Isn't that what the scientists themselves have apparently been doing quite a bit of?
This bad news. Very bad news. I need a drink.
"WaPo reports the belated discovery of the obvious."
WTF??? WaPo were the original idiots reporting that getting drunk helps you beat heart disease.
Now they're suddenly experts?
Reading the Washington Post is the leading cause of Gell-Mann Amnesia.
Serious Question.. For those of you that "only have a couple of drinks a night"..]
How big are these glasses that you're having? 8oz? 12? 16?
I have a relative, that ONLY has two wines a night.
It Used To Be: 2 wine glasses.. Then it became 2 glasses.. then it became 2 bottles.
Oh, and the bottles are getting bigger.
This is Totally to be expected. His tolerance has increased, and increased, and increased..
and NOW; it takes him MORE than a bottle of wine, to Even Start to feel the effects.
He STILL just drinks a little bit, to get a little tipsy (which now takes TWO Large Wine bottles)..
Except for special occasions; like The Super Bowl or New Years or parties or when old friends come by
Cheers to Tangerine. Well said. And Cin Cin, Sláinte, Salud, Prost, Santé, Yamas, leh hayem, etc. Every culture worth knowing has traditions around alcohol and using it for cohesive good. That it can be abused is part of the human condition.
Too much exposure to the sun will also kill you. Make your choice as to time place and manner, moderation or not, or sit inside and waste your life. Same with alcohol. For most, a few glasses of wine or beer, esp with food and company, has always been and always will be just fine.
"Thanks for the news, but what I want to know is why we were oiled up for so long with bad science?"
I see no reason to believe that the old science on drinking was bad and the new science on drinking is good. If anything, science has become more, not less political in the most recent years.
The data I've seen is that moderate drinking is good for you. Every study I've seen which comes to a different result, includes binge drinkers. A good percentage of drinkers become alcoholics and their health suffers tremendously. If you average this, with the small benefit moderate drinkers garner, the net is negative.
Back in the 1930's in England they studied a group called the 10 healthiest Counties. These were counties with low amounts of germ-transmitted diseases like cholera, typhus and diphtheria. This correlated with lack of crowding, plenty of fresh food, good water and, oh yes, and wealth. But it was noted at the time that these "healthy" counties had another form of bad health, namely, chronic conditions such as diabetes, gout, being overweight, liver problems. If the germs don't get you, the wine and chocolate will.
At what point is the science settled?
Every few months there's another study definitively stating that what was once true is now wrong.
Who's to say they're not wrong now?
We really know nothing...
There is a move afoot to reduce the public's alcohol consumption. Medicine and government working together for what they see to be the common good. And as usual they are more than willing, eager in fact, to lie to make it happen.
This study was funded by the Canadian government.
And a meta study, a study of previous studies, has a lot of room for distortion. In fact this meta study begins with a criticism of a previous meta study which produced contrary results.
Also this from this latest "science" -
"For example, light and moderate drinkers are systematically healthier than current abstainers on a range of health indicators unlikely to be associated with alcohol use..."
They're trying too hard. But it does sound like you abstainers need to hit the gym.
"And by "science" we mean the latest conventional wisdom pronounced by guys in white coats.."
More and more it is pronounced by women or sex-confused people in white coats. I suspect there is a causality in that changing dynamic and the increase in crap "science". Women prefer control of men and have no qualms about being certain when they are wrong as long as it earns the obeisance they crave.
Booze and civilization go hand-in-hand, and the most creative and dynamic societies have let it flow freely. (The same can be said for other intoxicants and mind- and mood-altering substances, to a lesser degree.)
The Science used to be "Bread before Beer," but the newly-emerging picture is one of "Beer before Bread." I.e. the evidence is piling up that getting the buzz facilitated cultural and technical progress, and was not a mere happy byproduct of more serious pursuits.
I rurnt my stomach for anything but light drinking years ago, but that's on me, not the ubiquity of alcohol.
D-9 gummies are fun, too.
The real problem is media hype. I read medical research for a living. It's really hard to design a good study and just as hard to conduct it once you've designed it and gotten the funding. Responsible consumers of research look at the methods before they look at the results and they want to see multiple studies before they make any decisions.
But the media just wants to broadcast the most consequential thing they can say about the study. My wife has health anxieties and it happens all the time that she turns the house into an uproar over a media story about some new study. Invariably, when I go look at the actual study, it doesn't say anything like what the media reports claimed. (This holds true for anything where you read a media report and then go look at the original sources--the journalist always misrepresents information, hypes minor details, ignores caveats, etc.)
We just spent $1,000 on a new range hood because of news reports that gas stoves give off deadly fumes. It doesn't matter that the referenced study did not recreate real world scenarios and that the studies that do recreate real world scenarios show no harm. The seed is planted, the goblins in her head are at work, and we just spent $1,000 on a new range hood.
Her life would be so much better if she stopped reading this junk, but you can't avoid it if you want to stay generally informed. It can crop up anywhere.
“Remember the food pyramid? Type 2 diabetics remember it.”
That realization was the first. It came from the USDA, which represents more grain than meat producers. It was a sales pitch dressed up as it it were science.
“There is growing evidence that climate change is being caused by unusually high underwater volcanic activity in the pacific "ring of fire".”
I wouldn’t go that far - or need to. Much of it is junk science, funded primarily by government bureaucrats spending taxpayer monies for their pet causes. Research universities make a lot of their money on research, that is primarily funded by the government, and in a number of fields, you need a Climate Change hook to-win the federal grants. ClimateGate opened many of our eyes to the scams behind and weaknesses in the Global Warming science.
“And, of course, the CDC is still running public service announcements encouraging us to get COVID booster shots.”
And killing people as a result. The jabs never worked as advertised, and by 2022 had become worthless in actually preventing infection (due to immune fixation on the Wuhan variant spike proteins that were effectively replaced by Omicron in 12/21). Somebody had the bright idea that keeping those antibodies up, by repeated Vaxing, made some sort of medical or scientific sense. Even still have PSAs pushing that nonsense. The only thing those Wuhan spike antibodies fight anymore are those produced by the mRNA vaccines themselves in massive amounts for months after the injections. What we don’t know yet, really, is the decay curve for then spike proteins and their production (That should have been determined by the mandatory CDC Shed Test before FDA approval, that the FDA exempted these vaccines from). We just know that it is months, not hours, as advertised. Meanwhile we are finding more ways that the vaccines kill. Latest are super aggressive cancers, that turn out to be chock full of Wuhan variant spike proteins. Three guys I knew died last year of likely vaccine side effect, and another is permanently disabled.
“Moderate alcohol consumption is the least of our problems. "Moderation in all things" --Aristotle”
I think that it was never more than an excuse by upper middle class women to drink wine every day. Esp those with Puritan roots, who would otherwise have thought that it was sinful. But it can’t be, because it’s for their health.
The Kellogs were weird.
Generally, we don't hear "science". At best, we hear what a journalist whose degree is least likely to have even a minor in "science" tells us about something he read.
Or we hear from a bureaucrat who, more than likely, has a vested interest in our believing it, an interest which is of more concern to him than the validity.
And then we drop down to elected officials who certainly do have a vested interest which would overcome any amount of actual science.
I have a degree in psychology. The most important thing...for me as an adult...is that I know how to read studies.
People have prejudices about everything. Why should food or nutrition be the exception. There was a study that showed monosodium glutathingy was harmless. You could sense the disappointment in the researcher's report. "More research needs to be done." There was some other study that showed that garlic had no beneficial effects on human health. It had just the opposite effect on the researcher. "More research needs to be done." ...I don't know why some people are biased against monosodium g. and others are rooting for garlic, but that's the way it goes.....Sugar is more seductive than alcohol and, in our present era, is killing far more people. There should be ads: "This is your ass on sugar."
I, for one, said to Hell with margarine in my early years, and stuck with teal butter until it was rehabilitated decades later. I'm treating booze similarly.
WI DHS..today on Farcebait:
(Pic of catcher and umpire at plate)
Catchers and umps don't go to the ballpark without their masks. And if you want to protect yourself and others from serious illness, it's ok for you to wear a mask too. Whether it's at the Milwaukee Brewer's home opener or anywhere. And if you start to feel symptoms of #COVID19, be sure to test so you can stay in the game. Don't catch #COVID19. Learn more at blah blah bla blah..
Science is a process, not an outcome.
Different processes will produce different outcomes. How do we know if a different process is better?
Dietitian research has ALWAYS been pretty awful because of their methods. Maybe they're getting better, but given the obesity epidemic, I'm skeptical.
These are the same people that believe you should eat bugs even when you are not a Navy seal in survival training.
“ do you drink moderately? SURE DO! Just a few beers, maybe some shots, after that i doubt i drink much more”
That reminds me of a time I was in the emergency room at maybe 11 in the morning and overheard a patient who was asked if he’d had anything to drink that day. He said clearly, “no,” then added, “6 pack of beer.” Said the word “beer” in a tone that meant, aw, come on, beer hardly counts.
“There is a move afoot to reduce the public's alcohol consumption. Medicine and government working together for what they see to be the common good. And as usual they are more than willing, eager in fact, to lie to make it happen.”
“This study was funded by the Canadian government.”
I would probably drink too much if I were Canadian too - to get through their long dark winters. In MT, we live a hundred or so miles south of the border (but 3 hours by car). Luckily, we spend the darker half the year there in sunny AZ, with bright blue skies, and moderate temperatures. And thanks to not having Global Warming this winter (which is why they call it Climate Change now), it’s only this week that it has started to get hot during the day, and get into the 80s. Which is our signal to head north shortly to MT.
Ann, I love the punchline to the post, I guess your recent comment shows that was not merely a stylistic flourish.
>>That reminds me of a time I was in the emergency room at maybe 11 in the morning and overheard a patient who was asked if he’d had anything to drink that day. He said clearly, “no,” then added, “6 pack of beer.” Said the word “beer” in a tone that meant, aw, come on, beer hardly counts.
Interestingly (or not), pre-Prohibition, beer used to be considered non-alcoholic. Also see here starting about 1:45-1:60.
Protect the right to beer arms.
"People are going to lose focus and resort to just believing whatever they want to believe, like that moderate drinking is good for your health... and that the drinking you're doing is moderate."
I think that is a likely result, and a desirable outcome. But what is that verb "lose" doing in there? "focus" is a perfectly good verb.
Considering the huge number of people who destroy their lives with alcohol, maybe more people should stay away from it entirely.
Can a reproducible experiment show me I am not unreasonably limiting myself to two, and I do mean strictly two, alcoholic beverages per day?
I'm sticking to the Mediterranean diet, which includes good wine.
Mike,
Don't you start going down the "reproducible" rabbit hole.
That's just asking for trouble.
Does this article really say what it claims to be saying? To quote the writer:
"The new study also found that drinking relatively low levels of alcohol — 25 grams a day for women (less than 1 ounce) and 45 grams (about 1.5 ounces) or more per day for men — actually increased the risk of death."
"In the United States, a standard drink (5 ounces of wine, 12 ounces of beer or 1.5 ounces of distilled spirits) typically has about 14 grams of alcohol."
So if we do the math, what they're calling "relatively low levels of alcohol" is the equivalent of about 2 drinks per day for women and 3 drinks per day for men, every day. That doesn't seem like "low levels" -- it's a significantly higher amount than what's typically thought of as "moderate drinking" (1 drink per day for women and 2 drinks per day for men).
The article goes on to cite other articles and "policy briefs" -- but not this big new meta-analysis -- to say that no amount of alcohol is healthy. But the scaremongering about how even a glass of wine at dinner is going to hurt you doesn't seem to be supported by the new research.
"Responsible consumers of research look at the methods before they look at the results and they want to see multiple studies before they make any decisions."
Now just suppose someone told you that about crescent wrenches. "Responsible users of crescent wrenches consider the alloy and method of fabrication before they apply the wrench to a nut, and want to have multiple wrenches on the nut before they actually apply any torque to the wrench." Which is to say, most crescent wrenches are poorly-designed garbage, and don't work worth fuck-all.
There are a couple phenomena here. The first is that most science is now Government Science, and Government Science is useless. At best. Really, mere utter uselessness is a best case result for Government Science, and is seldom achieved.
The second, especially with regard to "studies", is that the "scientific method" is increasingly being applied to things it does not work on. It is used to "study" effects so subtle that two seemingly identical "studies" get opposite results. This means that either there is no effect, or the effect is less important than some other variable the researcher failed to control, and indeed, was probably completely unaware of.
Most regular drinkers progress along a predictable path. This seldom involves lowering consumption as time passes. My father has drunk liquor every day of his adult life, and for many decades he would have precisely six 12oz beers and three shots of whiskey every night (oh yeah, also 2 gins before dinner) He's now down to 2 bottles of beer a day. He was born in 1923. Unfortunately, I am a bit too fond of the stuff to have that self restraint. I'm all or nothing.
the althouse ER statement reminded me of F. Scott Fitzgerald writing a friend and proudly announcing he'd "Gone on the wagon" and no longer drank. Except for "Wine at lunch and dinner".
Wait ten years, and any thing that'medical experts' have said will be refuted.
Cholesterol may not be the cause, but be implicated with inflammatory conditions and arterial blocks. Beware the correlations of science. That said, the incredible, edible egg.
How do we know that this, too, won't be debunked in the near future?
Irrelevant, anyway. I don't have a nightly whisky because it's good for me *in that way.* I have it because it's good for me in the way of saying the day is over, and sighing, and sitting, and enjoying.
And frankly, if I have to give that up to live longer, I don't care to live longer.
I'm looking on the bright side--surely this will drive down the price of good single malt whisky.
Also--did they do a study on the relationship between sanity and a glass of beer, wine or whisky (or whiskey) at the end of a stressful day?
ONe problem with the studies is they often use a globalized "risk of death" from drinking. Which includes deaths from: drunk driving, household and sporting accidents, falling down, etc. If you're smart enough to not drink too much at one sitting, or combine drinking and drivingr/risky activities none of these will happen.
THe other variable is alcohol affects people differently. "Well, duh" but some people can drink small amounts and they fall apart, others just toss it down with no ill effects. I have an uncle who up till the age of 79 was drinking a bottle of wine a day! This would've wrecked me physically, even at age 25. It finally caught up to him, and now he's down - at age 80- to 1/3 bottle a day.
If only Twitter was still handing out "free" blue checkmarks, we would know which scientists to trust.
Damn you Elon Musk!
My experience is that about one third of everybody is lousy at their jobs, and there's no reason to think scientists and Wapo medical writers are any different.
I don't believe a word the Washington Post prints. It's a worthless party mouthpiece.
That metastudy seems to have at least one obvious mistake.
The researchers start out by acknowledging that moderate and light drinking is correlated with lots of good, healthy stuff — for instance, light drinking is correlated with having a higher income. ��
Then the researchers say that a high income is “unlikely to be associated with alcohol use” — even light drinking, such as someone who has no more than one drink a day.
But wait … really? I don’t see them backing that statement up with any evidence. It seems to be just an assumption. Why isn’t it plausible that light drinking could lead to a higher income?
Look at it this way: many studies have found that light drinking has health benefits, such as better heart health. If that’s true, then couldn’t those health benefits lead to higher incomes, because many jobs could be easier to do if you’re in better health? And that’s only one example of how light drinking might lead to a higher income; there could be other ways. For instance, light drinking could help someone be better at socializing, which could make the person richer — maybe by helping the person get a job, or maybe by helping the person get married.
The researchers seem to dispose of all of those possibilities by just … hand-waving them away! ����
I don’t see mainstream media questioning this methodology at all, but it should be questioned. Just because a study says “we controlled for confounding factors” doesn’t mean they made the study’s conclusions more reliable. Controlling for factors is a way of changing the data to see what the results would be like if those factors (e.g. making a lot of money) were not associated with the activity being studied (e.g. drinking). But changing the data in that way doesn’t always make sense; it could lead to underestimating the true positive health effects of an activity such as light drinking, by minimizing positive effects the activity has on the supposedly “confounding” factors.
So it doesn’t seem clear whether this metastudy really improved on the 100+ studies they’re criticizing, or whether the metastudy in fact skewed the data.
At the same time, the researchers believe that “lifetime abstainers” (not former alcoholics) “may be biased toward poorer health.” That might be true — I have no idea — but it’s at least not obvious. For instance, Mormons have a rule against drinking and they have unusually long lifespans. (Washington Post article on that.) Why are the researchers willing to accept that association, while they seem to dismiss any association between light drinking and making money?
I am a currently-sober alcoholic. I gave up alcohol once I became convinced that alcohol in the amounts I was drinking, and the fact that I could never stop at one or two drinks, was negatively affecting my marriage, my relationship with my children and siblings, my work, my health, my friendships, and, just generally, my entire life.
On the other hand, my wife, and many other people I know, can derive great pleasure from a single glass of wine in the evening, never feeling a need to drink more than that. I'm happy for her, and them.
I am a currently-sober alcoholic. I gave up alcohol once I became convinced that alcohol in the amounts I was drinking, and the fact that I could never stop at one or two drinks, was negatively affecting my marriage, my relationship with my children and siblings, my work, my health, my friendships, and, just generally, my entire life.
On the other hand, my wife, and many other people I know, can derive great pleasure from a single glass of wine in the evening, never feeling a need to drink more than that. I'm happy for her, and them.
Good luck--bon voyage!--Ancient Mariner.
It only took me 15 years to realize I could live without booze, marked by my 30th birthday, lying abed and wishing for death one too many times.
It was a form of self-administered aversion therapy by then.
I went cold turkey and it was years before I drank again; I haven't had more than 2-3 drinks (usually beer, sometime wine) at a time since, often spaced over a long evening, and with food.
Post a Comment