Lancet study: "..the safest level of (alcohol) drinking is none."

[CoMoChief]

You mean alcohol is bad for you?

Never heard of the GBD...but it sounds like a firm filled w/ a bunch of REALLY smart people.

[DanT]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

You mean alcohol is bad for you?

Never heard of the GBD...but it sounds like a firm filled w/ a bunch of REALLY smart people.

In addition to being pleasurable for many, alcohol has some good health benefits for certain conditions like ischemic heart disease and diabetes, but on average those get far outweighed by the detrimental effects of alcohol in regard to cancer, self-harm, and other conditions...at least, that's the conclusion of this study, which took account of various findings of earlier studies in regard to the benefits and harms of alcohol in regard to each of over twenty health conditions . The Global Burden of Disease reports are well-regarded. Here's a link to their website: http://www.healthdata.org/gbd

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by DanT

In addition to being pleasurable for many, alcohol has some good health benefits for certain conditions like ischemic heart disease and diabetes, but on average those get far outweighed by the detrimental effects of alcohol in regard to cancer, self-harm, and other conditions...at least, that's the conclusion of this study, which took account of various findings of earlier studies in regard to the benefits and harms of alcohol in regard to each of over twenty health conditions . The Global Burden of Disease reports are well-regarded. Here's a link to their website: http://www.healthdata.org/gbd

'Self-harm and other conditions' that is the crucial weasel phrase.

The allegation of no safe level of alcohol consumption sets up the notion that alcohol in your system will eventually prove debilitating no matter what.

But 'other conditions' such as self-harm are indicative of dangers occasioned by excessive consumption, or danger due, not to biological response to ethanol, but dangerous habits or activities due to ethanol levels in excess of your ability to handle.

This suggests that there are levels of consumption where the pleasurable benefits and other health benefits are enjoyed with absolutely no heightened danger of self-harm.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

'Self-harm and other conditions' that is the crucial weasel phrase..

There are ways to control for this in both a study and meta-analysis.

[DanT]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

'Self-harm and other conditions' that is the crucial weasel phrase.

The allegation of no safe level of alcohol consumption sets up the notion that alcohol in your system will eventually prove debilitating no matter what.

But 'other conditions' such as self-harm are indicative of dangers occasioned by excessive consumption, or danger due, not to biological response to ethanol, but dangerous habits or activities due to ethanol levels in excess of your ability to handle.

This suggests that there are levels of consumption where the pleasurable benefits and other health benefits are enjoyed with absolutely no heightened danger of self-harm.

The authors considered about 20 conditions, with self-harm being one of them. They do use self-harm as an example where dependency (and the high consumption levels associated with that) lead to problems, consistent with your supposition. Indeed, it's only at about 3 drinks per day that the increased risk of self harm is established with scientific certainty, as you can see from the dose-response curve on page 130 of their Appendix 1.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

You mean alcohol is bad for you?

Never heard of the GBD...but it sounds like a firm filled w/ a bunch of REALLY smart people.

You've certainly never had an issue with your arrogance ameliorating your ignorance.