Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnracer | Hacker News Reader

A bit off topic but is there a medical consensus that a glass of red a day is a net positive?

It's still debated. The reason people think a glass per day might be helpful is observational studies, which show that people who don't drink are slightly worse off than those who drink a little. However, you can imagine how these can be confounded (e.g., not drinking because of terminal illness or some other exogenous harm). It's hard to properly adjust your model to fully eliminate this sort of problem.

In contrast, Mendelian randomization studies generally suggest that there is no safe level of alcohol intake.

I am mostly convinced by the MR studies and think that alcohol is harmful for physical health (while being mindful that physical health is just one of many competing things that people value).

I think it mostly comes down to having a standard routine, whether it's a nice glass of wine with dinner (implying a regular dinner) or something similar.

Most of the times people say the secret to my health is "i do this every day" I think that implies not having too much chaos in life and a stable environment

That's a really good observation. Thank you for that.

"In contrast, Mendelian randomization studies generally suggest that there is no safe level of alcohol intake."

I believe this is the case. The idea that moderate alcohol consumption is "healthy" or beneficial in some way is a misunderstanding of their data.

What we see is the following:

People who drink no alcohol at all and people who abuse alcohol have, generally, poorer health outcomes than people who drink, but do not abuse, alcohol.

The poor health outcomes for the alcohol abusers needs no explanation.

It is the poor health outcomes of the abstainers that is misunderstood: they're simply not robust, or constitutionally enabled, to drink even small amounts of alcohol without feeling bad.

So my conclusion is that the abstainers are not having poorer health outcomes because of the absence of alcohol - they're having poorer health outcomes anyway.

Could it be those who abstain from alcohol tend to lean towards having other unhealthy vices that fill the gap? Poor diet, sedentary lifestyle, etc.?

One of the main researchers behind all the health buzz around red wine, was revealed as a fraud. Having falsified data at least 145 times. I guess he wouldn't have had to do that if red wine was healthy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipak_K._Das

Quite likely it's just something people like to hear, so it is being told to them. I vaguely recall that correlation between red wine consumption and longevity disappears if controlled for wealth. Can't find any links tho.

I've also heard that the control, those who don't drink, are often not drinking because they used to be alcoholics thus scewing the longevity stats for non-drinkers.

Ah yes, that too.

The red wine vs beer discrepancy could be down to wealth.

The drinker vs non-drinker could be down to the fact that seriously ill people fall into the non-drinker category.

Another possible reason for drinker Vs non-drinker distinction could be social life, those with lots of friends tend to be happier and also tend to drink as a byproduct of that social life

Drinking is best done alone. I think your argument does not hold.

Everyone I know (except for one alcoholic) consume 60-80 percent of their alcohol at social occasions such as at after work drinks or Friday at the local bar with friends

How so?

Most people who drink mostly do so whilst getting together with friends.

Seen many dive bar regulars 40s to 60s, seeking relief from reality 4 nights a week. Drinking is how they coalesce a social life, but it's created with other problem drinkers. Their drama, commiserating and complaints were really depressing.

Ha, I wish this were true. Decent Italian reds are 12-15 dollars a bottle and craft beers are getting up to 6-7 a pint!

It might be that more educated (wealthy) people self-select into red wine consumption because (1) wealthier people are more likely to have read somewhere that it's healthier (even if it's untrue) and (2) it's more culturally sophisticated, more likely to be drunk over a fancy expensive dinner for example

The craft beer trend might not be old enough to show up in data. Drinking wine might, as far as existing data from several past decades goes, still be statistically connected to higher socioeconomic status.

I have found zero medical societies/health institutes that recommend someone begin drinking alcohol who currently abstains for any reason. If you already drink alcohol, consuming a single serving of red wine per day is probably not detrimental.

The pop science articles (think NYT, etc.) love to lead with clickbait like "Wine could extend your life by X years" but from what I can tell alcohol in the west, to the extent that it extends lifespans, does so by thinning blood, which is needed because of our poor (high fat) diet.

There's a growing body of evidence that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-45283401

I'd say that there's probably also sufficient evidence of no safe level of sobriety, either. Those studies always annoy me. It's kind of like asking the question: how many times can I smack my head safely?. Well, none—but if you spend your whole life concerned about it you're probably not going to have a great time.

(Speaking as one who apparently probably has had to have given up alcohol for the rest of my life because my pancreas decided it wants me to die)

Edit: I really should have said sorry to hear about your health troubles. All the best!

People have been told it’s healthy to drink “in moderation” so many times. I think it’s good to dispel that myth. People can still drink as an indulgence, just like they can skydive as an indulgence. No amount of skydiving will _decrease_ the likelihood of you falling 3km to your death.

Oh yeah, I suppose you're right about that. I guess I just figured it was common sense. I always put drinking was about as healthy as crossing a car-trafficked street—in that it might get you somewhere but it increase your risk of being roadkill. I forget that some people might buy into more convenient interpretations of the information at hand... hence the ranting! (and thanks)

There is always dealcoholised wine and fresh squeezed grape juice. If it is about antioxidants, both have them without the alcohol.

Intuitively I would imagine it depends on the person. If you’re a person with a weak liver or kidney, there is probably no positive. If you’re a person with thicker than average blood, I could understand how alcohol might alleviate the amount of work the heart has to do, at least for a little while.

I thought the sulfites and alcohol outweighed the antioxidants, but I don't think there's a real medical consensus.

Are sulfites thought of as generally being bad for you? I was under the impression they were pretty neutral unless one happens to be in the very small group of people who are particularly sensitive to them.

You are correct. Gonna trust Good Housekeeping on this one:

https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/health/wellness/a44807/what...

Why a net positive? I think a single glass should have no discernible effect over time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com