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."
Even moderate drinking absolutely has a negative effect on cognition, as well as a negative effect on pretty much every other aspect of your health. "Kills brain cells" probably isn't medically accurate language but the idea is generally correct.
There is no evidence for that.
Actually there is some slight evidence to the contrary.
One study being totally inconclusive is not the same as "there's no evidence." Here's evidence from the first page of Google results lol.
https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2353
There are so many very obvious issues with the routinely published studies that show "light drinking actually is good for your______" and get immediately printed across all the media outlets and a segment on local news.
The one you cited for example seems to suggest that light drinking protects cognitive abilities from the effects of aging, but only in white people? Does that make any sense or is it likely that there's a confounding variable (like white people who drink one glass of wine each night are better off financially and spent their whole lives in comfort).
One of the major issues is that a lot of such studies compare "current non drinkers" to current light drinkers, neglecting to account for the fact that many current non drinkers are either former alcoholics who already did damage to their bodies or don't drink because of other health conditions.
It clearly means there are conflicting studies. Like I can find tons of studies saying the exact opposite of what that one you posted showed. The one I already posted after that one for instance. Even the definition of moderate quantities in that research is kind of weird. Like if you drink 14-21 drinks per week, that's kind of a lot in my book.
Alcohol is straight up one of the least healthy things you can put in your body and it's weird that people are determined to think that "just a little bit of this highly toxic and addictive drug is actually good for you!" But I guess not that weird when you consider that it's a multi billion dollar industry which largely depends on people not taking the health effects seriously. It's also a carcinogen that increases your risk of all types of cancer in even moderate amounts, yet many people seem to not realize that either.
Yeah so weird that people don't lose their shit over weird clickbait articles explaining to you how you will literally die if you do x on one day and then shout about how you will literally die if you don't do x the next day for completely innocuous and normal things.
Alcohol isnt innocuous, the health effects are well studied. This is almost as ridiculous as trying to argue that smoking a little bit is good for you, which to be fair is something people did try to argue until fairly recently, because there's a lot of money to be made by deceiving people about that as well.
Yes, and never had it been shown that low or moderate consumption carries any sort of serious risk anywhere near conclusively.
Uhhhh I'm very sorry to inform you that there is tons of money to be made by doing the opposite too. Making people panic about everything is how a lot of media as well as the health and fitness industry survive on.
You're just factually wrong, moderate drinking severely raises your risk of cancer among many other adverse health effects, this isn't some open question, it's a settled matter. Alcohol has been well known as a carcinogen for literally decades.
Settled you say? Yeah I saw some research some other person posted which was supposed to show that there is no "safe amount of alcohol", which was proved by the fact that out of a group which did drink a bit of alcohol with 100,000 members 918 people experienced at some point in their lives some kind of health issue associated with alcohol as opposed to 914 people who didn't drink in the other group of the same size. SEVERE INCREASE IN RISK!!! NO SAFE AMOUNT OF ALCOHOL!!! NO THIS IS TOTALLY CONCLUSIVE!!!
But yeah the clickbait articles know very well how scary it looks if you find some rare complication the risk of which was found to be increased by 80% or whatever, ignoring that partially this means something akin to 1 additional case in a million.
Everything is a "carcinogen". Well, not literally, but it's ridiculous how commonplace "carcinogens" are. The sun is a major carcinogen. But then again some sunscreens are carcinogens too. So you could try staying inside, but then you run into vitamin D deficiency, plus everything in your home is probably a carcinogen too. There are 3 possible responses to this information: 1) make a lot cabin in the woods and carefully time your sun exposure, 2) sit at the corner and cry, or 3) stop panicking about everything but maybe don't sit at the sizzling sun unprotected for too long. Or don't be white, that also kind of reduces your risk.
Yes, it's settled science.
No, not everything is a carcinogen. Alcohol is recognized as a group 1 carcinogen up there with abstestos lol. Putting it into your body increases your risk of cancer significantly. It's not some debatable edge case.
I smoke cigarettes but you don't see me out here making absurd arguments and twisting myself into a pretzel trying to rationalize it with weird arguments about how not smoking is the same as sitting in the corner crying. I just accept that I'm increasing my risk of cancer just like all the drinking I've done increases my risk of cancer.
Group 1 carcinogen means there is sufficient evidence it can cause cancer, which, yeah, it's true. It's not a category that quantifies how carcinogenic something is, it has to do with certainty. To be precise, acetaldehyde is the substance that is classified as a group 1 carcinogen. Acetaldehyde is also found in fruit btw. If the "no safe level" nonsense is to be believed, then you should probably stop eating fruit too. So yeah, apples are also "right up there with asbestos".
Nitrates are also considered afaik a group 1 carcinogen or at least a probable carcinogen and you can find them in celery or lettuce. It's fucking ridiculous how many things contain carcinogens. There is no reason to panic about everything, just be careful with the more dangerous stuff. It is safe, like exercise is safe or passing the street is safe.
Acetaldehyde is one carcinogen, ethanol (literally just alcohol) itself is another group one carcinogen, so no, you weren't being "precise", you just didn't read far enough down the list.
Let me know when celery and lettuce start killing millions of people every single year and you may have a point with all these absurd false analogies you keep making.
No, alcohol is a dangerous and addictive drug, this is not a proper comparison. A more apt comparison would be smoking cigarettes or using opiates.
Ethanol becomes acetaldehyde in the liver. Acetaldehyde is the most dangerous chemical related to drinking, it's also what causes alcohol poisoning. Also ripe fruit does also contain small quantities of ethanol, which are probably larger than you imagine.
You're making the absurd false analogy between light drinking and asbestos or any other group 1 carcinogen, don't blame me. Yeah it's obviously stupid to compare eating a ripe apple to radon poisoning, I know that, that's my point.
With cigarettes maybe, not with opiates, that would also be a stupid comparison. The conversation around addiction is kind of stupid because very few things are particularly inherently addictive unless you are already abusing them. No one gets withdrawal symptoms because they used to drink a few beers a week and then they stopped. Some opiates are different, they require much less use for someone to start craving them, hence why it is kind of a stupid comparison.
No, alcohol to opiates is an apt comparison. Alcohol is extremely addictive and anybody who uses it at all runs the risk of developing addiction to it. Many people start with a few beers a week and end up addicted and drinking themselves literally to death. You're simply massively understating how dangerous alcohol is as a drug.
Lol yeah OK I'd say you don't know anyone who drinks alcohol but that would be kind of weird and I don't know how it is even possible. What you are describing isn't how most addictions work BTW with the exception of a few things. Almost invariably alcoholics become addicted because they start drinking a bunch over a period of time to cope with something. It starts as psychological, not physiological. The vast majority of people drinks at least a little bit every now and then. In most countries alcoholism is very rare, except for a few ones where you can pinpoint very specific reasons why it became so common in the first place. Even more interestingly, the countries with the highest rates of alcoholism aren't even necessarily the ones with the most alcohol consumption per capita. Alcohol addiction isn't something that just randomly appears in people who drink a little bit. Alcohol addiction begins when people start drinking larger and larger quantities in order to cope with something (or possibly for some other reason, but that is the most common), until they drink so much and so frequently that dependence sets in. The alternative is peer pressure from a partner or family etc. It literally almost never just randomly happens to some random light drinker.
You're 100% wrong. Alcohol is a physiologically addictive drug that works on the reward centers of the brain which causes craving. Alcoholism is absolutely not rare, 5% of the entire world's adult population is afflicted with it. I have significant first hand experience with alcohol addiction. Do yourself a favor and literally just search up "most harmful drugs" and report back what you find about where alcohol consistently ranks in every single study. At this point you're just spewing ignorance.
There is no study that is titled "top 10 most harmful drugs", that is not how studies work, you're just thinking of online articles.
You clearly have no clue how alcohol works lol. Even many alcoholics are not physiologically addicted. I know because I literally have people like that in my family. They will stop for long periods of time drinking anything whatsoever and they will be far better than they usually are, no withdrawal, nothing whatsoever. Then they'll go back to drinking all day long just because they think it will make them stop being miserable, even though it makes them more so. It's not nearly as easy as you seem to think for physiological alcohol addiction to set in, usually it comes after the psychological addiction, not the other way around. And yes, it does happen, and yes, I also know what that is like.
There literally are scientific studies which quantify and rank the harm caused by drugs, you are once again 100% completely wrong.
Look, you clearly want to be a moron, so I'll just say this and leave it at that: there is a billion different ways in which you can quantify how harmful something is. Any kind of quantification will only tell you how something ranked in terms of that specific and very much subjective quantification. This is not science, it is mostly interesting to online health advisors which consistently break people's brains.
Nope, you're still wrong, alcohol is objectively an extremely harmful and dangerous drug and no amount of your idiotic mental gymnastics changes it. You may as well be a climate denier or anti vaxxer with amount of disregard you have for simple facts.