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.
This is an unimaginably stupid thing to say.
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.