Risk threshold for alcohol consumption: 100 grams per week

We’re all right there with you. So for every day we live it takes a week off our life instead of one day haha.

 

Oh I completely agree, but those pitfalls you discuss are way more complex than a couple extra beers a week. That includes genetics, exercise, diet, and regional opportunities related to high quality foods. I watch my diet carefully, run every day, and have access to well grown vegetables and other "super foods". If I'm going to work on all that I'm gonna have a few extra beers a week just for mental health's sake

 

Well done study. I easily stay within the guidelines. My worry with risk is that when I do have a beer it is usually 3 or 4. I would love to see a good study that somehow controls this aspect. My gut tells me excessive drinking at one time even staying within the lower risk limits as defined by this study is not good for you. At least that is what my body reminds me after said indulgence.

As an old fart I will say that in my group of friends I have never heard I wish I drank more. I do know some that wish they had drank less and some who would say it if they were alive to do so.

 

Bah!.....

 

Isn't that the sound ostriches make when their head is in the sand?

 

I think the recommendation is not having more than 5 standard drinks at any occasion. High ABV beer probably gives that and beyond.

Anyhow I'm getting older and have had my share. The whisky got me a bit addicted. Addiction is not a nice thing. Better having a beer for the taste than for the alcohol, imo. Luckily the NA beer "revolution" is just starting up, bet on it.

 

The Modern Times Monsters Park bottle I drank last weekend tells me one thing. Its worth the risk.

 

In the US the CDC says up to 4 standard drinks. Beyond that (5 drinks or more) is called Binge Drinking.

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/faqs.htm#moderate

 

Eggs don't help my existential dread.
Beer does.
Real beer.
Good day to you all!

 

No, that's "Fffff"

 

I read an article this morning from a "reputable" healthy living website. It said I should avoid:

"a diet high in fat, salt, and sugar"
"a sedentary lifestyle", and
"alcohol and caffeine"

OK, sounds reasonable so far, but it also said to avoid:
"over-the-counter medications to treat minor aches and pains"
"mental health [medications], oral birth control, immunosuppressants, cancer medications, and steroids"
"green tea"
"Herbal supplements"
"licorice"
"strong cheeses, cured meats, and ... soy products"

and finally, it pointed out that visiting the doctor can be hazardous.

I think I just go down to my cellar and reduce my inventory...

 

You could take the study to heart and then get deep-sixed the next day in a car accident. There's lots of things that can shorten our life span so enjoy it while you can.

 

For your reading pleasure:
https://listverse.com/2015/03/25/10-reasons-scientific-studies-are-surprisingly-unreliable/

 

Hmmm, let me see.

A freelance author of a paid article uses a pre-selected set of empirical research studies to support his argument that there are flaws in empirical research studies. Yet he seems somehow unaware of the fact the foundation of, and basis for, his arguments are also empirical research studies that are potentially subject to some of the same set of flaws/dangers he suggests afflict empirical studies.

Yes, it was interesting reading.

 

that licorice is a fucking killer

i also farted after eating some stilton the other day - which definitely caused major issues for my wife when i attempted to slyly air out the sheets

 

I've seen lots of other articles about this over the past few years and I'm not ready be dismissive of the idea based on who wrote that particular article or where it appeared. There's a good veritasium video on the subject:

And many other papers on the subject, including this one:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

 

Thanks for the links, I've not seen those yet.

My concern, however, is not with the idea that there are indeed weaknesses of research methodology in several disciplines that create false positives. That's actually been obvious to some folks since long before the Ioaniddis article.

E.g.: https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-345-studies/44A0027CD2B1D8CB47FE77D952770C7F

The real concern is with dismissing results of all studies because there are some that are flawed.

As I think you realize, the importance of articles such as that by Ioaniddis or Rosental & Rubin is to raise a red flag so previously unrecognized flaws can be controlled for or taken into account.

 

Pretty much depends on genetics and the quality of the liquor you consume-

 

Dave for 2020

you heard it here first

 

In my view, the real concern is there is no way for anyone outside of the field and without access to the gory detail of the study to tell the good from the fraudulent, especially when even peer reviews are unreliable. The media makes it worse with shallow reporting and screaming misleading headlines. This leaves most people in the position of declaring BS on all of it.