Low-volume alcohol consumption has no impact on longevity

Originally published at: Low-volume alcohol consumption has no impact on longevity | Boing Boing


“no significant reductions in risk of all-cause mortality for drinkers who drank less than 25 g of ethanol per day (about 2 Canadian standard drinks compared with lifetime nondrinkers) after adjustment for key study characteristics such as median age and sex of study cohorts. There was a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality among female drinkers who drank 25 or more grams per day and among male drinkers who drank 45 or more grams per day.”
Source findings don’t quite match up with reportage, typical…


In what way? Looks like the title is consistent with the conclusions of the study.


Tell that to Canada Health. They recently updated their guidelines to indicate that there is no safe minimum for consumption of alcohol, but the recommendation is 2 or fewer drinks per week.

And the entire country is like this guy:


I wonder if that was spun to justify the increased federal sin tax on alcohol?

Since inflation is driving up prices, they’re already getting increased taxation revenue. Increasing the rate is an extra gouge. I guess it didn’t play well because they backed off of most of the increase.


Yah that was my first question too! Health Canada’s new guidelines are quite strict. Seemingly at odds with this study. :thinking:

The Big Story noted that Australia and the UK updated their guidelines using the same data that Health Canada apparently did, but came to the opposite conclusion. It’s all very confusing.


Well I guess that’s one less reason for me to start drinking.


This is all too confusing. Weed seems simpler.


It’s when you start isolating down to individual areas of health that alcohol consumption plays a discernible role. For cardiovascular health, for endocrine health (diabetes), for neurological health, there are all lower or zero alcohol consumption thresholds for long-term impact. The first two really should have longevity impacts, but the third could easily skate through a longevity study without significant differences but still not be great in terms of quality of life. Dementia (or at least worsening of it) in particular seems to have a causality in alcohol consumption. But it’s also not an equal impact, with women having larger impacts at lower thresholds. Not very fair that.


the movie drinking GIF


Two drinks a day? Am I supposed to turn the Hockey game off after two periods?


So, this contradicts the “no amount of alcohol is safe” study, but I’m sure will be contradicted by another study in a few months, followed by that study being contradicted… assuming these studies aren’t seriously flawed in some way, food and beverages apparently don’t obey the laws of physics in predictable ways. I think the only nutrition science that’s held solid through my lifetime is “vegetables are good for you”. And MAYBE “sugar is bad for you”. Everything else- alcohol, eggs, caffeine, meat, soy, fat, antioxidants, chocolate, etc., is continually in flux.




But is it?
The conclusions say (paraphrased) there’s no evidence that a moderate consumption reduces risks, rather, there’s evidence it increases them in women.
The title says (almost literally) that a moderate consumption has no impact on longevity.

The two statements are not the same. The conclusions leave the possibility open that longevity be negatively affected.

Disclaimer: not a scientis, not my first language, yadda yadda.

“Immoderate alcohol consumption” = “any intake greater than mine”.


You forgot issues related to how drinking can affect bone marrow and it’s production of platelets and indirectly plasma. Folks who have ITP (like myself) and more extreme immune deficiencies like CVID who have to get regular plasma infusions are recommended to not drink heavily or even at all.


Give them time, the next study will be enlightening.
The Swing |

This is less true than people think. The science has been pretty consistent on all this stuff, and steadily refined. What sucks is pop science reporting. They turn every headline about an in-vitro or rat study into a ridiculous conclusion about clinical outcomes in people which is not at all what the paper said.

“Eat a balanced diet of mostly plants, minimizing fat and sugar” has been the advice all along and hasn’t ever changed. Anything else you’ve ever read to the contrary is just shit reporting. Sugar is very bad for you and always has been. Chocolate is not magic and never has been. Alcohol has never been good for you and should be minimized.

Science is not always contradicting itself. It is forever refining itself, which is a big distinction. Pop science headlines, however, are all garbage.


The old joke used to be “An alcoholic is any person who drinks more than their doctor.”


Do people really read these studies and make life choices of this type?