“Groundbreaking New Study Shows [substance] Isn’t That Bad For You If You Don’t [ingest] Too Much Of It”
People often choose to recast things like Health Canada guidelines as “Trudeau’s telling me what to do!” . I think the guy in the video was spoofing this attitude.
High volume alcohol consumption affect studies of low volume alcohol consumption.
“You’re not the boss of me!”
I’m… 100% not surprised at all by this.
I speculate that alcohol is something that humans evolved / adapted to survive, not something beneficial. It was a good survival adaptation because the downsides of alcohol were outweighed by the benefits of food / calorie preservation you could achieve with it. That doesn’t mean it’s healthy - it just means we can metabolize it.
Meh. BB title & supplied wrapper is OK, linked article (engadget) and quoted excerpt “linked to light or moderate drinking” is somewhat misleading on details, jlw would have been better off using a source citation (which is why I added such to my comment).
Other than that absurd statement above, I agree (). Michael Pollan kind of nailed it with his, “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
I would add the word “whole” to food, which could spur an endless debate about what constitutes “whole food”, but unless someone’s looking for an argument, it’s pretty clear; little to no processing with just enough preparation to render it digestible and palatable. Because chocolate may not be magic (it is!), but the senses of taste and smell are and it’s one of life’s great gifts to be able to elevate the things we eat with thoughtful preparation. I have no god to thank, but if I’m wrong it will be the second thing I thank it for (after my family).
All these studies are typically designed for risk analysis and assessment for the general population, and never an answer to “how will it specifically affect my metabolism?”
For specific situations like yours, the best answers are going to come from specialists in the field. Hematologists are likely to know the most about the impact of alcohol on bone marrow from having treated patients who drink and patients who don’t. Or maybe researchers who develop the procedures have detected issues with alcohol use, and it’s become part of the specialty’s training.
Guidelines are fine to hand out to the general population, but that’s it. If you can tell people “you’ll have a life expectancy decrease of 3 years by drinking more than 45 g/day”, they can make a decision for themselves. A specialist may not have the studies to provide hard data like “people with condition X have a life expectancy decrease of 20 years by drinking more than 5 g/day”, but they can tell you that “of my patients with liver conditions, mostly those who drank daily, they tended to have adverse reactions like Y, and usually didn’t make it to age 50.”
Seriously. What a waste of plastic. Get one big bottle (and share with friends).
No hat trick for you!
Given that other animals seem to deliberately consume alcohol and other intoxicants, this seems to go back before there were modern humans.
Aside from food/calorie preservation, being a painkiller likely helped immensely.
The title says “low-volume” not moderate. @jlw’s text is consistent with that. The Gizmodo excerpt is muddier, but even when they (incorrectly) state there’s no impact for moderate drinking levels, they immdeiately correct (or contradict) that by saying moderate levels have an impact in women.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.