Hunt Talk Radio - Look for it on your favorite Podcast platform

Alcohol

I dunno, but I’m fairly certain the neuroscientists will tell you there is no amount of good alcohol, period. Forget the cardiologists and such.

What I’ve mostly heard of late is that alcohol, from anything, is alcohol, and it only does negative things to your body, on every level that it interacts with your body.

From what I assume, all the studies saying one drink, or whatever rate it is, from anything, has positive benefits are correlative and are likely just showing that people with higher levels of discipline have better health outcomes.
 
I dunno, but I’m fairly certain the neuroscientists will tell you there is no amount of good alcohol, period. Forget the cardiologists and such.

What I’ve mostly heard of late is that alcohol, from anything, is alcohol, and it only does negative things to your body, on every level that it interacts with your body.

From what I assume, all the studies saying one drink, or whatever rate it is, from anything, has positive benefits are correlative and are likely just showing that people with higher levels of discipline have better health outcomes.
Section 5.3
cesses [111], but three out of the four selected studies reported in Table 3 show that the risk of developing neurodegenerative diseases is reduced in adult subjects with moderate consumption of alcohol beverages, in particular of wine [112,113,114]. Dementia and depression may be reduced by moderate wine drinking [112]. It has been suggested that low-to-moderate alcohol consumption could be beneficial to the health of middle-aged [115] and older subjects [116,117], leading to a J-shaped or inverse U-shaped association between alcohol and cognitive function [118]. The relative risks of developing ischemic stroke and Alzheimer’s disease or vascular dementia are also lowered by moderate alcohol consumption [119]
 
I get we all look for data to support our own theories/ideas. So post up some peer reviewed to put me in my place. I'm sure I'm biased
 
*As I drive one handed, on the cell phone calling the bros while eating a Wendy's spicy chicken, large fry, and a coke, chased with a junior bacon cheeseburger*

"Bro I'm telling you Huberman said drinking is the worst thing you could ever do. Don't even do it bro. Not once.



We still hitting that ice bath later?"
 
This debunking is news to me. Apparently I missed the memo. Along with the rest of the Internet and the national institute of health


In conclusion, wine differs from other alcoholic beverages and its moderate consumption not only does not increase the risk of chronic degenerative diseases but is also associated with health benefits.

That is a very interesting meta-analysis.

I think Huberman and others are chiefly talking about the last 30 years of resveratrol claims in regard to red wine. Those are what are front and center in my mind and articles I’ve read since I was a kid. I don’t want to post another clip but this one is short and he talked a little bit about it.


The world health organization made a statement recently that no amount of alcohol is safe for human consumption.

This little Lancet article does a good job explains why, setting things up, and also references the meta-analysis you posted:


The American society of clinical oncology put out a statement that even lite drinking, increases your cancer risk.


I believe everything is a trade-off. I think of myself if I were to like red wine and the trade-off I would be engaging in nightly would be drinking a Pepsi’s worth of calories. That alone would be something tough for me to consider.

In that short clip I posted above Huberman talks about how the benefit of stress reduction could potentially offset any negative affects, The Shining being a an extreme example. 😀 It also seems, in that meta-analysis you posted, that the the benefits observed in observational studies seem to be interacting with the diet of those studied. Which makes sense.

In all of these studies and statements, because they are all essentially observational. There’s a lot of “may”, “could”, “seem”, “suggested”. I suppose it would be very difficult to do a study otherwise.

Debunked was probably too strong of a word. The wife and I are going out to breakfast this morning and I am having a Caesar.
 
*As I drive one handed, on the cell phone calling the bros while eating a Wendy's spicy chicken, large fry, and a coke, chased with a junior bacon cheeseburger*

"Bro I'm telling you Huberman said drinking is the worst thing you could ever do. Don't even do it bro. Not once.



We still hitting that ice bath later?"
This^ keeps the perspective.

No doubt alcohol abuse is ugly, especially when it affects family and friends, but also perfect strangers.
 
That is a very interesting meta-analysis.

I think Huberman and others are chiefly talking about the last 30 years of resveratrol claims in regard to red wine. Those are what are front and center in my mind and articles I’ve read since I was a kid. I don’t want to post another clip but this one is short and he talked a little bit about it.


The world health organization made a statement recently that no amount of alcohol is safe for human consumption.

This little Lancet article does a good job explains why, setting things up, and also references the meta-analysis you posted:


The American society of clinical oncology put out a statement that even lite drinking, increases your cancer risk.


I believe everything is a trade-off. I think of myself if I were to like red wine and the trade-off I would be engaging in nightly would be drinking a Pepsi’s worth of calories. That alone would be something tough for me to consider.

In that short clip I posted above Huberman talks about how the benefit of stress reduction could potentially offset any negative affects, The Shining being a an extreme example. 😀 It also seems, in that meta-analysis you posted, that the the benefits observed in observational studies seem to be interacting with the diet of those studied. Which makes sense.

In all of these studies and statements, because they are all essentially observational. There’s a lot of “may”, “could”, “seem”, “suggested”. I suppose it would be very difficult to do a study otherwise.

Debunked was probably too strong of a word. The wife and I are going out to breakfast this morning and I am having a Caesar.
Most of the studies I've read lump either all alcohol together or all drinking together, including that oncology study. Which in my reading is really concluding that alcohol can be negative in so many ways that you are best off leaving it alone. That is an entirely different determination than all alcohol in all doses is bad for you.

The more I consume science the more polarizing I find it. The less consistent I find it. Hence the value of meta data reviews. Which I'll admit are still fairly undecided, but i'd argue is still a long way from being "debunked."

Below discusses the two sides
 
A childhood friend died at 37 from alcohol ten days after my daughter was born last year. We met in preschool ‘88 so we were more like kin as kids. He got a hold of triple sec when we were 14 and we mixed it with Pepsi. I got so sick over that I couldn’t stand orange liqueurs until well into my 20’s. From high school on for years he preferred weed, psychedelics and I wish it had stayed that way.
The somber reality we can take from this is addiction doesn’t discriminate. He had all the opportunity a guy could ask for and grew up in a very safe home environment with folks who loved him and did not abuse any substances. Alcohol controlled his life to the extent that he confided he was scared to be without a drink. The guy was set to go into another rehab on the day he was found dead.
 
To those who need NA, to stay NA, good on you.

To those that drink NA for no other reason than to drink NA, yall need help.

I'll go 2 to 3 months without a drop, maybe throw down 6-9 drinks, then another 2-3 months. But even that's starting to grow to 3-4 months

Back before I "sabbatical'd", i was majority owner in a few businesses, 2-3 afternoon/early evening meetings a week, closings, sales, soft opening events, 20 groups, events, political parties, late nights in the office etc, there was always a reason to have a drink. Guaranteed 1-2 hangovers/week of varying severity.

Investors had a term, we don't know who takes the credit, but all remember it being said. "We're dwd-ing tonight. Drinking with a deadline." Those nights, though fun and memorable, we're long and painful.

Like anything, it has its place. Though I prefer it's no calorie, organic, free range, hangover-less cousin these days ifn I'm going to partake in anything extracurricular.
 
Most of the studies I've read lump either all alcohol together or all drinking together, including that oncology study. Which in my reading is really concluding that alcohol can be negative in so many ways that you are best off leaving it alone. That is an entirely different determination than all alcohol in all doses is bad for you.

The more I consume science the more polarizing I find it. The less consistent I find it. Hence the value of meta data reviews. Which I'll admit are still fairly undecided, but i'd argue is still a long way from being "debunked."

Below discusses the two sides
Hasn't living longer in general produced as much negative?

I'm on @thomas89 train of thought. We're born to die, im going to have fun, the luddites can hang with the puritans, and damn it if this country wasn't imagined over a good stiff drink.
 
MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Forum statistics

Threads
113,656
Messages
2,028,711
Members
36,274
Latest member
johnw3474
Back
Top