[HN Gopher] The flip-flop on whether alcohol is good for you (2023)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The flip-flop on whether alcohol is good for you (2023)
        
       Author : nickwritesit
       Score  : 43 points
       Date   : 2024-06-07 10:44 UTC (12 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (slate.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (slate.com)
        
       | monero-xmr wrote:
       | Harms you physically, sure. But a night out socializing and
       | making memories with friends, the psychological benefits can last
       | a long time, which often positively influences the physical.
        
         | browningstreet wrote:
         | Alcohol not required.
        
           | kryz wrote:
           | Maybe with your friends...
        
             | Gualdrapo wrote:
             | Time to get new friends.
        
           | freedomben wrote:
           | Not required, but for many people it greatly enhances the
           | experience. For some people it can also be an important part
           | of fully relaxing.
        
             | browningstreet wrote:
             | Feels like peak HN: alcohol makes you a better person and
             | meditation will send you over the brink.
        
               | johnchristopher wrote:
               | No, peak HN is interpreting every comment as if they were
               | absolutes, twisting their meaning and reply with smug
               | one-liners.
        
               | deafpolygon wrote:
               | Honestly, that's just peak Internet.
        
           | Pet_Ant wrote:
           | Absolutely not, but maybe there is a reason why we have used
           | it for centuries? If you watch videos of people travelling to
           | remote villages one of the first things that old timers do is
           | offer them a drink.
           | 
           | There is a value to a social lubricant. People get more
           | passionate, or philosophical. People are less likely to
           | discuss the cost of drywall impacting their bathroom
           | renovation.
           | 
           | Sobriety is merely one state of conciousness, and there is no
           | saying it is solely the best.
        
             | squigz wrote:
             | > but maybe there is a reason why we have used it for
             | centuries?
             | 
             | This sort of thinking is rather problematic. There's lots
             | of stuff we did for centuries that we now realize is bad
             | for us or are just blatantly wrong.
        
               | bobthepanda wrote:
               | Right.
               | 
               | For most of history, humans were optimizing for calorie
               | shortages. It is only relatively recently, and only in
               | some locations, where food has become consistently
               | abundant.
        
             | darkgenesha wrote:
             | The reason is that it's a coping mechanism for our shift
             | from nomadic to sedentary living
        
               | Clamchop wrote:
               | Simple is appealing but don't let it carry you away!
        
               | warkdarrior wrote:
               | Interesting. Do we know why nomadic people do not drink?
        
               | bobthepanda wrote:
               | I don't think this is really true? The Mongols and Huns
               | were nomadic and also drank.
        
               | darkgenesha wrote:
               | I would say it's having a collective purpose. For example
               | you wouldn't think to drink while trying to meet a tight
               | deadline with your team at work. That same scenario would
               | play out everyday but at a way more real and absorbing
               | level, even if you're prosperous. This is exclusive to
               | nomadic living because as soon as you are settled your
               | collective purpose wanes and specialization kicks in...
               | (then as your population balloons you need to patch
               | together things like religion and politics to maintain
               | collectivity) Although I guess you may drink for leisure
               | or on special occasions if you have access, my point is
               | more that dependency and using alcohol as a "social
               | lubricant" is tightly tied to settled living
        
             | mapcars wrote:
             | Depends, where? If you go to a village in India they
             | probably offer you some food so delicious you could never
             | imagine. But in the west alcohol is all people know.
        
               | Pet_Ant wrote:
               | It goes with food if you are European. It's part of the
               | hospitality. You can see it here:
               | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zxVcpOzOPY Both the
               | Italian man in the mountains, and the Greek lady in the
               | mediterranean. As well as various Georgians in this one:
               | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFFZpLbvJqQ
               | 
               | Not saying you have to do it, but it's part of European
               | cultures for centuries. There is no need to be dismissive
               | of it. My partner is Indian, doesn't drink, and Indian
               | food is no more or less delicious than genuine European
               | food.
               | 
               | I have no problem with people not drinking, just the
               | smugness of those who make it a personality trait.
        
               | bobthepanda wrote:
               | this isn't super crazy different across cultures, just
               | the beverage is. In Europe it is beer because that is
               | what is locally most present. Often it's coffee or tea
               | where that is more locally available, and honestly even
               | Europeans offer coffee or tea as part of hospitality.
               | 
               | coffee actually used to be considered as, or more sinful
               | than alcohol when it came to being a social lubricant.
               | (it did not help that coffee houses became known as
               | hotbeds of revolutionary thought in Europe.)
        
             | babalulu wrote:
             | One of the reasons we've used it for centuries is that in
             | the days before treated water it was safer to drink.
             | Microbes in water had the potential to make you very sick
             | or even kill you. Even today, if you're traveling to a
             | location where the water supply is suspect, it's safer to
             | drink beer instead of water.
        
               | adamomada wrote:
               | This is a popular misconception according to the
               | askhistorians faq. I don't think you've ever had beer
               | either, thinking that you could possibly replace water
               | with it.
        
           | cjk2 wrote:
           | Hey if I stayed sober I'd have had three less kids and two
           | less wives.
        
             | itishappy wrote:
             | Heh. Would that have net a positive or negative impact on
             | your health?
        
               | xyproto wrote:
               | From the perspective of the genes, having kids but being
               | unhealthy is better than being a healthy loner. And this
               | is good health in a larger, cross-generational,
               | perspective
        
               | cjk2 wrote:
               | It can vary hourly :)
        
             | earnesti wrote:
             | Bullshit. Sober people go out socializing, their way to
             | socialize is just different, and they have no trouble
             | finding partners. If you had decided to go without a drink,
             | you would have found a partner, just a different one from
             | different social circles.
        
               | cjk2 wrote:
               | This wholly depends on where you are in the world.
        
           | listless wrote:
           | No, but it certainly helps. Alcohol makes me a better
           | listener. A better father. A better husband. A better friend.
           | Less selfish. Less judgmental. More caring and more generous.
           | 
           | I drink cautiously because I know the health risks. I limit
           | myself and most of the time do not drink at all. But I would
           | be lying if I said alcohol doesn't make me a better person.
        
             | earnesti wrote:
             | Whatever bro, I trust your self judgement. But
             | statistically, I would bet that alcohol makes worse
             | parents, worse listeners, worse friends. And quite often it
             | makes outright terrible parents.
        
             | xyzzy4747 wrote:
             | Alcohol dulls your mind at best. If you enjoy using your
             | brain, it's a net negative even with small amounts.
        
               | TheGRS wrote:
               | I can definitely sympathize with alcohol improving me in
               | some situations. When I'm at social gatherings sober I'm
               | in my head a lot, overthinking. A couple of drinks in
               | though and I'm not using my analytical brain, I'm using
               | the part that is good at improv, and I have much better
               | conversations because of it, and usually comes away from
               | those events more positive than sober.
        
             | dbrueck wrote:
             | Do what you want of course, but that better version of you
             | already exists without the booze, and you don't need to
             | give alcohol credit for it. And because it already exists,
             | it is very much possible to learn to let out that seemingly
             | better version of yourself without a drug. Not saying you
             | "should" or whatever, just wanted to convey that it's an
             | option, that's all.
        
           | sixo wrote:
           | That it's not required is the fun part, and really is
           | necessary for it to be a good idea at all. See GK Chesterton:
           | 
           | "Drink because you are happy, but never because you are
           | miserable. Never drink when you are wretched without it, or
           | you will be like the grey-faced gin-drinker in the slum; but
           | drink when you would be happy without it, and you will be
           | like the laughing peasant of Italy. Never drink because you
           | need it, for this is rational drinking, and the way to death
           | and hell. But drink because you do not need it, for this is
           | irrational drinking, and the ancient health of the world."
        
             | TheGRS wrote:
             | Drinking during celebrations are some of my favorite
             | memories. Its like we're all already happy and high on good
             | news, think weddings or big sales news or getting a big
             | project completed. And then we drink because the worries of
             | the world are behind us, now the happiness is uninhibited
             | and jovial. I like to think those moments add time to your
             | life.
        
           | TrackerFF wrote:
           | But being sober around drunk people sucks.
        
             | earnesti wrote:
             | I find it quite OK, just have to leave early enough.
        
           | vorpalhex wrote:
           | I'm really glad that I've given up alcohol and it improved a
           | lot of things in my life including sleep and anxiety, but it
           | was also one of the single most isolating things I have ever
           | done. I have lost more friends over my not drinking than any
           | politics/life choice/etc. I was not some kind of alcoholic
           | before, it was just very normal for my social circle.
           | 
           | Even for my friends who are still friends, it took them many
           | months to realize it was fine to drink around me and
           | sometimes they still feel awkward about it even though I
           | bring my non-alcoholic alternatives.
        
             | earnesti wrote:
             | For me, I have found some new social circles where alcohol
             | doesn't play such an huge role. I'm also in good terms with
             | my old drinking buddies, but of course it is not the same
             | thing any more.
        
             | Aerbil313 wrote:
             | Kudos to you. I hope you'll inspire others around you for a
             | better life.
        
           | Aerbil313 wrote:
           | Alcohol is absolutely not required. It's the Western culture.
           | I live in a country/social circle where nobody drinks and
           | it's plain out funny seeing Westerners thinking alcohol is
           | some absolute necessity of life.
        
             | roywiggins wrote:
             | It's a _lot_ of cultures, not just Western culture.
        
             | inglor_cz wrote:
             | The interesting thing about Islamic culture is that for all
             | their sobriety, those societies are still prone to
             | outbursts of political/religious rage. No external
             | intoxicant needed.
        
             | ls612 wrote:
             | Islam is the exception not the rule in human cultures.
             | Every human tribe which has figured out fermentation has
             | used it extensively.
        
           | zeroxfe wrote:
           | Neither is dressing well, dining out, or taking an uber. Very
           | few things are actually "required."
           | 
           | For some people, alcohol is a low-cost low-effort means to
           | enhance experience and improve social function.
        
           | dukeyukey wrote:
           | You're not wrong, but the jury's out on if not socialising
           | versus socialising with a couple of beers or glasses of wine
           | is healthier. But my bet is on the latter
        
         | nonameiguess wrote:
         | Maybe. The last time I ever really drank on a regular basis was
         | my early 20s, circa turn of the century, and I had two best
         | friends from high school, Mike and Lisa. We went out together
         | almost every night at times, definitely every weekend. Club
         | 80s. Some theater in Hollywood that did John Waters double
         | features with a drag show during the intermission. Pre-gaming
         | with $5 1.75 liter bottles of Popov in the parking lot. We
         | really did make some great memories. It's probably still the
         | best time of my entire life and the closest friendships I ever
         | had.
         | 
         | Lisa died in 2016 from alcohol withdrawals. Mike was a speed
         | addict for nearly a decade but eventually recovered.
         | 
         | My wife is an alcoholic, unfortunately. She's been in the ICU
         | twice in the time we've been married, both times for acute
         | vitamin deficiency and liver failure. She told me once on the
         | way to the hospital that she saw a tunnel with a light at the
         | end and our cat floating in it inviting her to come. The ER doc
         | said she would probably have died within a day if I hadn't
         | brought her in. When Lisa died, it was because her roommate was
         | out of town and there was nobody to notice, care, and bring her
         | in. When she was found, she's already been dead for three days.
         | 
         | I don't know that I have a point. Just be careful. Not you
         | specifically, but everyone out there. If you're 50 and
         | successfully practiced moderation for decades, I guess you'll
         | probably be fine. But if you're a teenager trying to make your
         | parties more thrilling, you're flipping a coin with your life.
         | You don't know which person you'll end up being, the one who
         | can stop or the one who can't.
        
           | Aerbil313 wrote:
           | Just because alcohol is deeply ingrained in Western culture
           | doesn't mean you should feel guilty saying alcohol is
           | unconditionally bad for society, when it took your dear
           | friend and almost your wife, twice. There are other,
           | healthier worldviews and cultures out there. The particular
           | one I'm living in being called Islam.
        
             | BrandoElFollito wrote:
             | Inviting religion into the discussion will not lead to
             | anything good, especially when you stamp one "healthier" -
             | which means that others are not.
        
         | TheGRS wrote:
         | Yea I thought that was the whole reason. But I guess there was
         | a lot of chasing of physical reasons that wine and other
         | alcohol would be beneficial. I usually heard about antioxidants
         | being cited as a positive.
         | 
         | Stress is generally bad for the body (but note: I am not a
         | doctor), and a little alcohol can be a social lubricant and
         | reduce the stress of social situations or just your life
         | problems in general. If the only real benefit of alcohol is
         | from social lubrication, then its probably an almost impossible
         | thing to find causation, just too many factors to deal with.
        
           | pfdietz wrote:
           | > antioxidants being cited as a positive.
           | 
           | There was a big study on the antioxidant vitamins (A, C, E)
           | to see if they helped against lung cancers. It turned out
           | they made it worse, not better. Cancer cells are under
           | oxidative stress, and immune cells using oxidizing substances
           | to help kill their targets.
        
       | TrackerFF wrote:
       | Getting buzzed feels good. Not healthy, but feels good.
       | 
       | After a couple of beers I get extremely fired up and
       | creative/motivated, but it's like walking on a tightrope - a bit
       | too much, and I'm past the productive phase.
       | 
       | If cannabis or hallucinogens were allowed, I suspect more people
       | would pick those over alcohol for evening fun at home...but,
       | alas, at most places alcohol is the only option. So that's what
       | we're stuck with.
        
         | wavemode wrote:
         | I'm one of those weird people for whom no amount of buzzedness
         | or drunkenness, small or large, feels good.
         | 
         | Doesn't feel bad, per se. I suppose it just feels kind of
         | neutral, and strange. Like my senses have lost a bit of
         | clarity.
        
           | midiguy wrote:
           | I'm one of those weird people for whom alcohol feels nice but
           | also makes me incredibly sleepy to the point that I become
           | way less social. Thus I will enjoy a beer at home but if I'm
           | going out I will choose other substances (or abstinence).
        
         | candiddevmike wrote:
         | Alcohol doesn't give me crippling anxiety and heightened
         | awareness of all the weird things my body does.
        
           | bobthepanda wrote:
           | It does for some people.
           | 
           | Either way, hardly a reason to make it illegal.
        
           | Workaccount2 wrote:
           | I had this problem until I bought gummies and took
           | comparatively very small doses. Now I can enjoy the warm
           | fuzziness and giggling, without freaking out about what
           | people think of how I am placing my left hand on my lap.
           | 
           | I buy 5mg gummies and cut them in half, 2.5mg is plenty for
           | me.
        
             | InSteady wrote:
             | Less is definitely more. There really could be a stronger
             | culture of moderation like there is with alcohol (one glass
             | of wine / beer with dinner crowd). I almost gave up on
             | cannabis until I started aiming to just barely hit the
             | threshold of feeling it and eventually learned how to
             | consistently land on the perfect mild buzz.
             | 
             | It's way easier for me to stick to moderate use and take
             | breaks with cannabis than it is with alcohol. Dialing in
             | dosages with edibles is a bigger learning curve though
             | because the feedback is so delayed. I prefer smoking for
             | this reason as well as the shorter duration of effects.
             | 
             | I'm using such tiny amounts, it can't be any worse for the
             | lungs than exercising outside in a city full of car exhaust
             | and tire particles. Or so I tell myself, ha.
        
           | InSteady wrote:
           | Alcohol is definitely bad for anxiety in the long run if you
           | are using frequently (even in small amounts). It does a real
           | number on your GABAergic system.
        
             | midiguy wrote:
             | Sure, it increases anxiety overall particularly when going
             | through withdrawals or hangovers. But I have never heard of
             | its usage directly triggering fully-fledged panic attacks
             | as weed so commonly does.
        
         | steve1977 wrote:
         | > Getting buzzed feels good. Not healthy, but feels good.
         | 
         | Does it though? I did not drink for a while now, but basically,
         | if anything, it just attenuated feelings that felt bad a bit.
         | But it never made me feel good per se.
        
           | PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
           | I don't really drink anymore, and before that I used to drink
           | enough (3-4 glasses of wine most nights) that I rarely hit
           | the sweet spot. But if I could hit it, that buzzy feeling was
           | really pretty damn good (although ... it didn't last very
           | long, and was incredibly easy to overshoot).
        
           | Mashimo wrote:
           | If not, why do you think people drink?
        
         | globular-toast wrote:
         | This must be a genetic thing. I've definitely heard other
         | people saying alcohol has a "buzz". But for me it's nothing
         | like that. Any amount will only slow me down and desensitise
         | me. It does lower inhibitions, but never in a desirable way. I
         | realised at some point I was only drinking because of the
         | social obligation and not because I enjoyed it for its own
         | sake.
        
           | InSteady wrote:
           | It could be non-genetic as well. Various vitamin, mineral,
           | and enzyme deficiencies, brain chemistry (that part of it
           | that isn't genetically determined), and other health stuff
           | could all play a role.
           | 
           | I am sometimes like you describe, where booze basically just
           | makes me feel kind of slow and loopy but not in a way that is
           | pleasant (kind of reminds me of how benzos felt). If I keep
           | pushing to try and force the good feeling with more drinks I
           | only end up tired and irritable, like when you wake up from a
           | nap feeling all out of sorts.
           | 
           | Other times I start getting a nice pleasant "glow" or buzz
           | going within the first half of a drink and can ride that for
           | hours with steady imbibing. Pain is numbed, body feels
           | lighter (paradoxically, because there is also a certain
           | heaviness with drinking), have an easier time focusing and
           | socializing, stress and anxiety are relieved, etc.
           | 
           | Too bad alcohol is so damn addictive and harmful, the latter
           | effects are quite nice.
        
       | yrcyrc wrote:
       | Funny he calls it the French paradox. Last I heard of that
       | concept it was about secret services giving up on setting traps
       | to spies whose wives couldn't give two effs about their husband
       | being unfaithful. "I know and I don't give a damn"
       | 
       | Otherwise, and being French, we heard it all. Sometimes it's
       | wine, others it's butter, cheese, etc when it's not like "God was
       | born in France" type of thing.
       | 
       | I'm Breton first, Irish second and then eventually French when
       | they're playing the World Cup, but seriously there are some
       | enzymes, dietary habits and so on that do justify some of the
       | findings.
       | 
       | They used to serve red wine in schools until late 70's or 80's
       | can't remember but there are definitely DNA, habits, regional
       | effects that do come into place I believe.
        
         | BrandoElFollito wrote:
         | The wine in schools was dropped in the 60s'. I have never seen
         | wine at school (since mid-70s'). My father told me he had it
         | for lunch though.
         | 
         | This said, Bretagne is special regarding this :) (sorry,
         | couldn't help)
        
       | PheonixPharts wrote:
       | In my lifetime virtually everything that was once good for you
       | (wine, high grain diet, non-fat foods) is now a bad and vice
       | versa (eggs, high fat - low carb foods).
       | 
       | And articles like this one have been appearing in some variation
       | my entire life. My take away, long ago, is that nutrition is
       | fundamentally complex and poorly understood topic and any extreme
       | opinions are likely to be inverted.
       | 
       | On the topic of alcohol, one things that has really become clear
       | to me, is how directly tied to my environment drinking is. I've
       | always liked to have a beer with dinner, but whether or not that
       | was my only drink or one of many has much less to do with my
       | personal decisions and much more to do with my environment, and
       | I've noticed the same goes for most people.
       | 
       | Many of us became pretty serious drinkers during the pandemic. As
       | it eased up I never made the decision to drink less, I just
       | naturally drank less.
       | 
       | Point being is that no only am I skeptical of the claims of what
       | I should and should not consume, I'm skeptical of entirely how
       | much agency I have to change what I should consume baring case
       | where the impact is immediate.
        
         | alamortsubite wrote:
         | You'll probably enjoy this clip from the Woody Allen movie
         | Sleeper, where his character is revived 200 years in the future
         | after being cryogenically frozen in 1973. Just watch the first
         | minute or so.
         | 
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2fYguIX17Q
        
           | xtracto wrote:
           | There's also a good sketch of a "time travel dietitian":
           | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ua-WVg1SsA
        
         | johnmaguire wrote:
         | > Point being is that no only am I skeptical of the claims of
         | what I should and should not consume, I'm skeptical of entirely
         | how much agency I have to change what I should consume baring
         | case where the impact is immediate.
         | 
         | Can you elaborate on what you mean that you're skeptical of how
         | much agency you have to change what you should consume? A
         | common definition of addiction is that it is the inability to
         | control your consumption. However, "I never made the decision
         | to drink less, I just naturally drank less," doesn't sound
         | anything like addiction.
         | 
         | I began drinking both more frequently and in increased amounts
         | of alcohol during the pandemic, but for me, this didn't stop or
         | ease up until I made a conscious decision to stop. For me, it
         | was habitual. And with habit came increased tolerance.
        
           | PheonixPharts wrote:
           | To be clear, as an ex-smoker, I do believe we have agency in
           | the cases where patterns are disruptive. Smoking tobacco got
           | in the way of a range of activities, and I had to put in a
           | serious effort to curb this behavior. Certainly drinkers who
           | find their drinking interferes with other things are able to
           | change their habits. Though even this is probably more
           | environmental than not. I haven't smoked in 20+ years but I
           | also no longer know any smokers. I'm not sure I would be a
           | non-smoker today if smoking rates were closer to what they
           | were in the 1950s. Similarly I have known people with
           | problematic drinking behavior and their ability to stop has
           | always been strongly correlated with having good _reasons_ to
           | stop.
           | 
           | However, for the smaller things that "aren't good for you" in
           | a less immediate sense, I don't think we have as much control
           | over our behaviors as we'd like to believe.
           | 
           | Another example is obesity. Many people still chalk this up
           | to a "moral issue" where people are making "poor choices",
           | but that doesn't seem like a good explanation for why we live
           | in an obesity epidemic. I personally don't think people in
           | 2024 are dramatically less "moral" than they were in 1990.
           | 
           | My personal pandemic realization was that I'm far more of a
           | node in a network of cells in a vast social organism that is
           | humanity than I am an individual actor.
        
         | BrandoElFollito wrote:
         | My mother told me that when she was young, tomatoes vere very
         | suspect. So yes, these nutritional advices are very volatile.
        
           | czl wrote:
           | FYI: Tomato leaves and stems contain solanine, a toxic
           | glycoalkaloid that can cause digestive issues, headaches, and
           | other symptoms if consumed in large quantities.
        
         | frereubu wrote:
         | I like the Michael Pollan dictum: "Eat food. Not too much.
         | Mostly plants." I don't think you can go far wrong with that.
        
           | Abekkus wrote:
           | For the food portion of that instruction, I'd tell people to
           | "eat cells, not substances." Pasta and rice don't look good
           | along that spectrum.
        
             | jahbrewski wrote:
             | Not sure I'm tracking here. Can you explain this further?
        
           | pfdietz wrote:
           | At some point I predict the endogenous pesticides in plants
           | are going to be found to be very problematic. The famous Ames
           | Test for mutagens goes off on them.
           | 
           | https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/ames-test-and-
           | real...
           | 
           | > Plants have evolved a variety of pesticides and antifeedant
           | compounds, many of which are reactive and toxic at some level
           | - therefore, most (as in 99.99%, according to his estimate)
           | of the pesticides in the human diet are those found in the
           | plants themselves. The cruciferous vegetables (broccoli,
           | cabbage, mustard and so on) are particularly rich in
           | compounds that will light up an Ames test. A fine article of
           | his from 1990 (Ang. Chem. Int. Ed.,29, 1197) states that ". .
           | .it is probably true that almost every plant product in the
           | supermarket contains natural carcinogens."
        
         | dang wrote:
         | These flips seem to happen on a cycle of 20 or 30 years. I
         | don't think it's a coincidence that this is roughly the
         | generational cycle. My theory is that each new generation of
         | researchers establishes itself by overturning the findings of
         | the previous generation--especially the shakiest ones.
        
           | mattmein wrote:
           | Reminds me of Planck's principle: > A new scientific truth
           | does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them
           | see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
           | die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it
           | ...
        
         | brookst wrote:
         | Well said, but I think some of this boils down to people who
         | prefer prescriptive versus descriptive health and diet info.
         | 
         | I'm similar in that I'll drink more or less based on
         | environment; a vacation on the beach, I'll probably drink more.
         | A vacation in the Middle East, I'll likely drink not at all.
         | 
         | But I don't really care. I'll enjoy drinks sometimes and skip
         | others.
         | 
         | Some people really just want to have best practices defined for
         | them, like they can be happy if they check the right boxes.
        
         | UniverseHacker wrote:
         | This... our understanding of biology is way too primitive to
         | have a meaningful mechanistic understanding of what is healthy,
         | and what is not. Most of the nutrition advice is based on
         | simple observational correlations that are assuming a cause and
         | effect that just isn't there. People with high cholesterol also
         | tend to have more cardiovascular disease, but it turns out
         | eating cholesterol and fat doesn't actually increase risk of
         | cardiovascular disease. People who eat a lot of fish tend to
         | have better health outcomes, but it turns out taking fish oil
         | does not reproduce those outcomes, and so on and so on.
         | 
         | Scientific nutrition is mostly just "scientism" - an irrational
         | overconfidence bordering on a religious faith in unfounded
         | assumptions based on observational studies, without admitting
         | what we don't know.
         | 
         | I think it is reasonable to avoid trying to make decisions
         | about diet based on this stuff, but I think ideas like the
         | paleo diet or evolutionary nutrition make a lot of sense- eat
         | diets similar to those that humans have eaten safely for a long
         | time, as those are what we are likely adapted to. Interestingly
         | though this itself is massively diverse: there are hunter
         | gatherer societies with almost every diet composition
         | imaginable: from artic diets that are high protein and fat but
         | nearly zero carb, to cultures like the kitavans whose diet is
         | very high carb and low protein. Our metabolism is very
         | adaptable and any diet that is mostly fresh nutrient dense
         | foods from plant and/or animal sources is probably about
         | equally healthy.
         | 
         | Ironically, the stress of worrying constantly about if your
         | food is optimally healthy, is probably more harmful to your
         | health than anything typically considered unhealthy.
        
         | bushwald wrote:
         | The agricultural lobby sold us things like the food pyramid
         | which said eat more grain, for example. I think people have
         | become more conscious of such manipulation and so things have
         | turned around. Unfortunately, capital, as always, has figured
         | out how to co-opt the change in attitudes as well as weird
         | Internet fad diets (e.g., gluten free) to keep people buying
         | from the middle of the store.
        
         | glenstein wrote:
         | I find takes like this to be true in the specific details but
         | wildly wrong as a big picture takeaway. A lot of people are
         | citing their favorite quotes here, so here's one of mine from
         | the Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov:
         | 
         | >When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When
         | people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if
         | you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong
         | as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than
         | both of them put together.
         | 
         | So I think there's a relativity of wrong problem that you run
         | into when suggesting it's all just so complex and leaving it at
         | that.
         | 
         | I would nevertheless absolutely agree that nutrition science
         | and communication around it has been disorganized,
         | contradictory, and without much in the way of a north star or a
         | reliable "vanguard" of communicators representing a firm
         | consensus. I feel much better about public communication from,
         | say, astrophysics, archeology, geology, etc. and I think
         | there's a characteristic degree of stability of knowledge
         | particular to each of those fields.
        
       | PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
       | For me, the best part of TFA was the final paragraph that went
       | into the actual risks to individuals rather than a public health
       | policy perspective.
       | 
       | Both viewpoints are entirely valid, but being reminded that the
       | actual risk of dying from any of the mechanisms alcohol interacts
       | with are very low to start with, so small increases in those
       | risks does not add up to much ... per individual.
       | 
       | As a society of millions, of course, the product of the shift in
       | probability and population is quite significant.
       | 
       | The difference between these two perspectives is often ignored,
       | or at best elided.
        
       | advael wrote:
       | Popular nutrition science has basically been advertising since
       | both have existed. I view real health information as complicated
       | and full of caveats and individual differences
       | 
       | Basically any medical advice you get from a headline or even a
       | single study is a lie
        
       | tonymet wrote:
       | Popular nutrition science suffers from correlation fallacy.
       | Unless they can explain the causal mechanism, or at least
       | hypothesize, it's practically bankrupt.
       | 
       | Plus, there is a lot of incentive to transition self-medicators
       | off of alcohol and nicotine and onto SSRIs, diabetes medication,
       | anti-anxiety meds and more profitable products.
        
         | djhn wrote:
         | Pretty sure alcohol has much higher margins. Most first, second
         | and third line of treatment psych meds have been out of patent
         | for a while now and cost pennies.
        
       | generic92034 wrote:
       | On a different angle - why is alcoholism considered sinful by
       | some branches of Christianity, but gluttony (which also gets
       | criticized in the Bible) is basically ignored?
        
         | sandworm101 wrote:
         | Because the people making such rules are just human beings,
         | subject to all the same associated inconsistencies.
        
           | hi-v-rocknroll wrote:
           | Religious folks would argue their rules appeared out of
           | divine provenance. I say: pics or it didn't happen, and no
           | cheating using ChatGPT.
        
         | joncp wrote:
         | because one doesn't tend to get drunk on pie and then go beat
         | up your wife or run over a pedestrian with your car. Is it
         | biblical? No, but people rank sins by social impact out of
         | habit.
        
           | dpig_ wrote:
           | People don't run over pedestrians because they smoked a
           | cigarette, either, but church people view smoking in a
           | similar way.
        
         | hi-v-rocknroll wrote:
         | Magical thinking is allowed to be selective.
         | 
         | Plus: _" It is difficult to get [someone] to understand
         | [obesity, chronic heart disease, strokes, arteriosclerosis,
         | climate change, pandemics, antibiotic resistance,
         | deforestation, environmental degradation, pollution,
         | ultraprocessing malnutrition, and soaring food prices] when his
         | [addiction to Big Macs] depends upon his not understanding
         | it."_
        
         | coolsunglasses wrote:
         | Gluttony is definitely a sin in the Catholic Church and is one
         | of the well known seven deadly sins.
        
         | felipeerias wrote:
         | Alcoholism would be the sin of Gluttony ("Gula" in Latin),
         | which is basically overindulgence and overconsumption.
         | 
         | The definition of this sin became rather expansive over the
         | centuries, so it would also cover those who engage in obsessive
         | anticipation of the things they consume, who spend too much on
         | them, etc. One reason for this was that the gorging of the
         | prosperous may leave the needy hungry.
         | 
         | So from that point of view, it seems to me that the sin of
         | Gluttony is still routinely condemned by people of a Christian
         | culture, even if they are not aware of this ancient framework.
         | 
         | Regarding your specific question, I would say that overeating
         | to the point of causing hunger to others is still criticised.
         | At the same time, assuming that there is enough food to go
         | around, eating too much of it doesn't cause the same negative
         | externalities to others as drinking too much alcohol.
        
       | jack_h wrote:
       | It seems like people are trying to min-max their lives and in
       | doing so are missing the forest for the trees. Not a single drop
       | of alcohol is healthy, not a single photon hitting bare skin is
       | healthy, etc.
       | 
       | In the end life is full of unknowns. There are people in their
       | 90s who drink like a fish and smoke like a chimney. There are
       | people who led a very healthy lifestyle and died in their 40s.
       | Don't forget to enjoy life while trying to make it last as long
       | as possible.
       | 
       | "Everything in moderation, including moderation." -Oscar Wilde
        
         | paulryanrogers wrote:
         | > not a single photon hitting bare skin is healthy
         | 
         | For vitamin D it'll be more unhealthy to never get sunlight
         | exposure.
        
           | UniverseHacker wrote:
           | This- people are 'min-maxing' on single isolated dimensions,
           | and not looking at the bigger picture. Sun does a lot more
           | than increase vitamin D, it also increases metabolic rate by
           | acting directly on the mitochondria, lowers blood pressure,
           | calibrates the circadian rhythm, coordinates eye development,
           | and many other vitally important things.... and it turns out
           | the most of the most deadly types of skin cancer aren't even
           | caused by sun exposure.
           | 
           | When you unnaturally radically alter your diet, physical
           | environment, or lifestyle to an extreme outside of normal
           | human experience based on trying to optimize a single
           | variable in attempt to be healthier, it is almost guaranteed
           | to backfire.
        
       | rhinoceraptor wrote:
       | It seems like it's a similar thing to sugar. The optimal amount
       | of alcohol or sugar is not absolutely zero, a lot of foods we eat
       | that are healthy have them, just at much lower concentrations and
       | lower amounts.
       | 
       | A glass of orange juice is about the equivalent sugar of two
       | large oranges, without any of the fiber to slow the digestion.
       | Similarly, a beer is about the equivalent ethanol of an entire
       | loaf of bread, without any of the fiber to slow the digestion.
        
       | levocardia wrote:
       | No mention at all of the strongest type of study on alcohol
       | consumption: Mendelian randomization studies [1]. These avoid the
       | problems of self-report, recall bias, etc., that confound most
       | nutritional epidemiology.
       | 
       | [1] e.g.
       | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
        
       | imoverclocked wrote:
       | Policy is always a hard thing to write because of its vast
       | numbers of people trying to interpret it. Writing a policy that
       | states "no alcohol is the best" will look like an overly
       | draconian statement to a country that has a problem with alcohol
       | consumption.
       | 
       | Alcohol is largely normalized as a party element in the US as
       | opposed to just being an extra flavor at the dinner table. IMHO,
       | the culture around drinking is likely what needs to change. Maybe
       | we can shift from the "yes or no" category of the world to the "a
       | sip might be nice to pair with X" model instead.
        
         | ls612 wrote:
         | Or maybe people learned about the ills of Prohibition in school
         | and have bad memories of the War on Drugs and so a policy
         | statement like that can sound like a threat of things to come?
         | 
         | That's what gets me about all this alcohol discourse, _we tried
         | this already_. We passed a damn constitutional amendment, then
         | repealed it 13 years later because it was so bad. Something
         | something learning from the past or doomed to repeat it.
        
       | ramijames wrote:
       | It's a poison. Of course it isn't good for you. Jfc.
        
         | goatlover wrote:
         | Is it though? Are you saying it has no positive benifits,
         | because lots of consumers and researchers would argue
         | otherwhise.
         | 
         | Anyway, I don't care. If I want to have a drink, I will,
         | because I enjoy alcohol. Not always, but sometimes. What does
         | irritate me are the teetotallers. They lost the argument over
         | prohibition, thankfully. But they never went away.
         | 
         | The war on drugs people are losing the same argument.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-06-07 23:01 UTC)