This was effective in stopping me from drinking til age 20. Too drunk to google it right now, can someone enlighten me about this phrase?
In that vein, I propose another slogan: "Capitalism kills brain cells."
This was effective in stopping me from drinking til age 20. Too drunk to google it right now, can someone enlighten me about this phrase?
In that vein, I propose another slogan: "Capitalism kills brain cells."
deleted by creator
He's 100 :shrug-outta-hecks:
deleted by creator
ask him what he drinks then, clearly it's working
My dad's uncle was a binge drinker and chain smoker for literally all his life and he somehow died at 95. He did die because of his smoking though. Dude developed respiratory issues and he had to wear an oxygen mask the last year of his life, and he took it off to smoke.
This is a really weird thing to say. You could literally say this for anything.
deleted by creator
Kale if I'm not mistaken contains some nitrates which is a carcinogen. Also if you eat way too much and then you also eat some kale, that's clearly not good. What I'm saying is, it isn't so one dimensional.
It's not at all conclusive.
deleted by creator
I posted earlier two studies, one of which was inconclusive but didn't appear to show any difference and the other showed a mild improvement in cognitive function and some health aspects with light use. Someone else posted a big study cited by an article with a title along the lines of "no safe quantity of alcohol", and the research didn't appear to show anything like that. There was a cohort of 100,000 people who drank no alcohol and another similar one of light drinkers, the first one had 914 people who suffered disease or injury typically associated with alcohol, the second had 918. That is a very tiny difference even though it was looking specifically at stuff that is generally associated with alcohol consumption, and even if it is not just a random fluctuation, it's general enough that it may just be because some of the second group drank a lot once or something like that.
deleted by creator
I mean OK, suit yourself but I didn't really care about having am actual discussion with an aggressive weirdo who was calling me a drunk ass for not accepting that even tiny amounts of alcohol are the worst thing you can possibly do for your body.
No, you can only say it about things that are bad for you. It doesn't apply to things that aren't bad for you, like water, or vegetables, or exercise.
Lmao you can literally say it about all these things. Especially exercise. There are negative effects to the consumption of everything. Yes, that includes water. Even though you will literally die if you don't drink water but that is beside the point. Basically the only thing that doesn't have a negative effect on your body is if your body is constantly in some kind of cryonic sleep, frozen in time.
No, you can't. "There's no safe amount of exercise" makes zero sense whatsoever, it's factually wrong, what the fuck are you on about?
There is no safe level of exercise. I know someone who slipped and twisted their ankle while lightly exercising. So it is unsafe.
Exercise is not inherently bad for you body though. You can have an accident doing anything, even eating can make you choke. No amount of alcohol is safe. It's a carcinogen, it raises blood pressure, and it irritates your digestive system.
That's not always bad. My blood pressure is a little bit too low sometimes and I have to eat something salty etc to make it go up. And there is some evidence that light alcohol use decreases risk of strokes.
It's not really good for you either but how bad something is depends on many factors and I don't think there is a good reason to call it unsafe. When I think unsafe I think "this carries a heavy risk of giving you nasty health issues". And binge drinking is unsafe for sure. Likewise I don't think sugar is unsafe, neither is red meat unsafe "in any quantity". They simply increase risks of certain diseases, significantly after a certain point. Ripe fruit also contains some alcohol (more than people often realize), but I don't think anyone would claim they are unsafe for that reason in any quantity. I feel it kind of dilutes the meaning of "safe".
Sugar and red meat aren't inherently unsafe (though cooking methods can introduce carcinogens). Their danger to health comes from overconsumption causing metabolic issues. Alcohol is an acute toxin and irritant, as is, and a carcinogen. If we actually cared about public health, we'd treat booze the same way we treat tobacco. We only don't for cultural reasons.
Alcohol consumption meets that definition.
Fwiw, I drink and smoke weed regularly. The amount of alcohol that The ScienceTM says is safe is far lower than what people actually consume in practice (even moderate drinkers), and any amount raises your risk of health issues of some kind. We're already seeing a rise in liver disease among women in their 30s and 40s in the US, from a combo of heavier drinking and increases in the number of people who are obese at a young age.
You're wrong
No, I actually do know people who twisted their ankle while lightly exercising, and it would be weird if you didn't know anyone who got injured while exercising. Doing fuck all carries some kind of minute risk.
This argument is so dumb how am I even supposed to respond to it? Exercising for 30 minutes a day or whatever is literally good for you, it has tons of health benefits and not doing it is far more likely to cause you an early death. The opposite is true for alcohol, red meat, tobacco, and other harmful things that people put into their bodies.
Well my friend was really sad he twisted his ankle. NO SAFE LEVEL OF EXERCISE!!!
I will only do exactly what clickbait health and fitness articles tell me to do next time. Until they change their minds next month. Otherwise I may do something that increases my risk of alopecea by 0.000963%.
I promise you the science of alcohol being poisonous and carcinogenic isn't going to change next month or ever for alcohol any more than it is for tobacco. But the alcohol industry does spend a lot of time and money trying to create doubt around it.
Yeah I guess that's pretty much the same as severely increasing your risk of dying of cancer
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_cancer
Yes, it is actually comparable very frequently if you understand absolute vs relative risk.
Nope, it's not.
Yeah it is. It's the favorite shtick of alarmist articles. "X increases you risk of Y by 600%!!!". Of course they don't bring up that in practice that means something more like a 0.001% increase in absolute risk, which doesn't sound so scary any more. It's like what that other research that was posted here said. The risk for light drinkers increased (if it was even reliable and not some random fluctuation) by 4 people in 100,000 for all alcohol related diseases/injuries. That is a 0.004% increase in absolute risk, which again is hard to determine if it was even just a chance fluctuation. This doesn't sound nearly scary enough so an article like that would probably opt to compare it against the 914 in the control group and determine that your risk increases by about 0.43%. Well, that still sounds sort of unimpressive, so often they try to find very specific things so that they can say it increases your risk of x by 300%, or that something else reduces your risk of y by 500% or whatever, and omit what that actually means in practice, or the question of whether the data is even very reliable when it comes to rare complications.
There is practically no way you can get a prion disease if you don't eat meat. If you do eat meat, getting a prion disease is incredibly unlikely. However, it is a non 0 chance, and that is a huge increase from the practically 0 chance that exists if you don't eat meat. You could easily come up with some kind of number like a 900,000% increase in risk or something like that. From that standpoint it appears insane that anyone would even taste meat once or twice. In reality it doesn't really mean all that much.
I've stopped obsessing over all that stuff because the misery this shit causes to people probably outweighs any benefit they may cause. I know many people who lived ridiculously long and healthy lives, none of them ever paid any attention to this kind of stuff. They didn't do anything particularly unhealthy either (with a couple of exceptions) but the one common element seemed to be that they didn't worry about things all the time, and this kind of stuff is kind of the opposite of doing that so I'd much rather try to do that instead of worrying about the 4% relative risk increase something I do may carry. Just don't overdo it.
No, it's objectively not at all comparable, you're just way off base in how dangerous alcohol is. In many respects it's the most dangerous and harmful of any of the common drugs.
We can be really clear about what the harms of alcohol use are in practice and it's literal millions of deaths per year.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/alcohol
Literally not a chance in the case of alcohol, the public perception of it is far off from reality due to obscene amounts of propaganda promoting it, so being honest about how dangerous it is is a positive thing for society in much the same way public health campaigns regarding smoking have been a hugely positive thing.
Lmao yeah cool.
Yeah I'm not gonna keep talking with someone who seems to act deliberately obtuse and pretends to not understand the difference between binge drinking and occasional use.
You seem to be missing the part about how alcohol is an addictive drug and anybody using it at all runs the risk of becoming addicted. You're the one being "obtuse" here, but I'll chalk that up to the fact you have very little experience with alcohol overall. Alcohol causes millions of deaths per year, it's extremely dangerous and harmful. You're objectively wrong about it.
"Lmao" isn't an argument and what I said is true. Studies consistently show alcohol to be either the most harmful, or one of the most harmful of all drugs.
Repeating the same wrong thing over and over doesn't make it right.
Good thing I'm right then and you're just a dipshit too lazy to google "most harmful drugs" and see that alcohol consistently ranks at the top. Stop messaging me, drunk ass.
Oh OK, if you googled it, that's alright. I remember when I googled why my nose was running for a long time and Google told me I had a spinal fluid leak. Thanks Google for always being very balanced, reliable and not alarmist when it comes to medical facts.
The source isn't "Google" it's every study ever fucking done on the topic, google is just how you can look at hundreds of them which all rank alcohol as among the most harmful drugs, many of them rank it as the single most harmful. You're wrong, you lost an argument on the internet, oh no!
There is no such study. You're describing a subjective judgement you saw on articles.
Here's one. There are many. You're literally wrong dude just shut the fuck up and sleep it off.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31081439/
Here's another
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.592199/full
I have Google you know. I've seen this shit. The difference is that I'm not a mindless drone and I actually read the studies and what they really say.
"I actually do my own research sweaty and that's why I know vaccines cause autism actually, and alcohol isnt bad for you".
No, I don't do my own research, I read the research. You don't read the research, you read the headline.
Yawn. Sleep it off pal
Dude seriously, you hit me with nonsense that quantifies the harm caused by a drug by including crime that is supposed to be caused by the drug in a conversation about its health effects and I'm supposed to just accept that?
Yes, so you should shut up now.
This is an unimaginably stupid thing to say.