Dry January

[MetalBoar]

‘The terms “high-functioning alcoholic” or “functional alcoholic” have been previously used to describe someone struggling with alcohol use disorder (AUD) while still being able to maintain a job, friendships, and family life.’ www.healthline.com

The BBC programme I listened to today said that according to hepatologists, there is now no safe level of alcohol consumption.

I'd love to see their research (and pass it on to a friend). Said friend is a truly world class expert in statistical analysis and data science (PHD and 25+ years of experience, recognized and respected in the field, etc.), is a profound health nut, and also likes to drink. He wanted to know how much his drinking hurt his health and what the optimal level of consumption might be (zero, some, lots, unknown). He did a very thorough meta-analysis of a huge number of studies on alcohol consumption and came to the conclusion, that to the extent that we had good data on the subject, in the case of moderate consumption*, the impact on all cause mortality and overall health was very small and that, depending on which studies you trusted, low to moderate consumption probably reduced risk of overall mortality.

This was 10-ish years ago, so we may have better and different data now, but based on some of the other things he had to say I kind of doubt it. We're looking at almost entirely, or entirely, observational studies, the data is often (almost always?) self reported, the studies are frequently funded by entities with a clear bias (both alcohol producers or those favoring abstinence), and there are often confounding variables (heavy alcohol consumption is correlated with other drug use, etc.). On the matter of self reported data, one of the funny things my friend pointed out was that if you looked at the data for alcohol sales in the UK and compared it to self reported consumption in the UK there were only two conclusions you could come to, 1) people are lying about how much they drink or 2) people are pouring more than half the alcohol they buy down the drain.

Now, hepatologists are a bit focused in their outlook. They see people who are sick or dying with liver problems, and alcohol consumption may simply be bad for your liver. Whether it's always bad for the liver or not, my friend found no evidence that moderate consumption was bad for your longevity nor overall health, so while it may harm the liver it may have benefits that outweigh or at least balance that impact. I don't really want die of liver disease, but I don't really want to die of heart disease, brain cancer, or pneumonia either.

Overall I don't have much investment in the issue, but I do find it interesting. I think I'll email my friend and ask him if his opinion has changed. I don't really drink very much any more but I do like a glass of wine or a beer with a meal now and then and I also enjoy the occasional scotch or cocktail on a night out. Something is likely to get me sooner or later, so I'm not going to sweat the occasional drink. On the other hand, I've found that alcohol can disrupt my sleep and I have sleep issues, so my consumption is pretty low these days. Going a month without drinking probably happens about as often as not and it's the rare month that I have more than a handful of drinks in total.

*I don't remember what qualified as moderate consumption, but I do remember that it was more than I expected.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

There's a lot of different studies out there. Some say that moderate drinking is okay-no negative health benefits. Some say that it actually helps to drink a little bit. Some say that this is true only for wine, while others say it's for every. One found a correlation between health benefits and whether or not your job was stressful (can't remember if drinking was healthy for a stressful or stressfree job according to it). Some say any amount of alcohol is bad for your health. Some say alcohol's good for certain things, while bad for others.

Most were finding correlations rather than causation. Never found anything strong enough to sway me towards a definitive answer regarding moderate alcohol consumption-the research seemed pretty clear on heavy drinking and binge-drinking though. Avoid those if your goal is long-term or short-term health.

 

[granfire]

Thankfully that only takes me a glass of water and 20mins. I am blessed!

not that way.
It does take a few days to get yourself used to more subtle tastes.
like weaning yourself off sugar or sodium.

 

[Steve]

Regarding drinking I would guess there’s an element of social engineering involved. I mean, I think we can all agree that excessive drinking leads to impaired judgement which can lead to a lot of bad things. But that’s different from saying that alcohol in any amount is unsafe.

 

[Gyakuto]

Really, though? Is it?

It’s very similar, except most people generally don’t expose themselves to heavy metals

What are the risks, exactly? I’m a healthy, average human being and I have a kombucha. What’s the risk? To be clear, I’m not trying to argue with you. I think the hematologists you’re referencing are silly.

Hepatolologists (liver specialists). They are internationally recognised researchers and clinicians. I have quite a bit of confidence in their opinions.

There is no safe level of alcohol consumption, new global study confirms | Imperial News | Imperial College London

Imperial researchers are among a team of international scientists to suggest there is no safe level of alcohol – the health risks outweigh benefits.

www.imperial.ac.uk

To be clear, Imperial College, is the UK’s top science research university…regularly rated above Cambridge and Oxford.

I think this is a glimpse of the issue. If a person’s alcohol consumption (or Mars Bar consumption in my case) is even slightly questioned, one witnesses a defensive attitude and even irritation. I’m sure nobody will take my Mars Bars away away, they’re just giving advice based upon empirical evidence that Mars Bars are bad for people like me (I chop the up into little slices and melt the for 24 seconds in the microwave and eat with a spoon. On Saturdays, I add a dollop of clotted cream. There is no safe level of clotted cream exposure 😳).

I’m not surprised.

You’re not surprised that taking several tens of people’s faeces, homogenising, incubating and liquefying it and squirting a considerable volume of it up an alcoholic‘s jacksie cures them of a deeply entrenched, destructive behaviour? 😉

 

[Gyakuto]

, the impact on all cause mortality and overall health was very small and that, depending on which studies you trusted, low to moderate consumption probably reduced risk of overall mortality.

Small but not non-existent.

This was 10-ish years ago, so we may have better and different data now, but based on some of the other things he had to say I kind of doubt it.

The passage of one year in research is 4.63 in human years (32.41 in dog years) 😑

We're looking at almost entirely, or entirely, observational studies, the data is often (almost always?)

All science is observational!

self reported, the studies are frequently funded by entities with a clear bias (both alcohol producers or those favoring abstinence), and there are often confounding variables (heavy alcohol consumption is correlated with other drug use, etc.). On the matter of self reported data, one of the funny things my friend pointed out was that if you looked at the data for alcohol sales in the UK and compared it to self reported consumption in the UK there were only two conclusions you could come to, 1) people are lying about how much they drink or 2) people are pouring more than half the alcohol they buy down the drain.

Self-reporting (qualitative) data can be dubious so liver function (blood) tests act to give a quantitative snap shot of liver health.

Now, hepatologists are a bit focused in their outlook.

Of course! They’re mission is to enhance liver health and prevent disease and suffering.

They see people who are sick or dying with liver problems, and alcohol consumption may simply be bad for your liver. Whether it's always bad for the liver or not, my friend found no evidence that moderate consumption was bad for your longevity nor overall health, so while it may harm the liver it may have benefits that outweigh or at least balance that impact. I don't really want die of liver disease, but I don't really want to die of heart disease, brain cancer, or pneumonia either.

Overall I don't have much investment in the issue, but I do find it interesting. I think I'll email my friend and ask him if his opinion has changed.

The data has, so I’m sure it has. I have to be clear, when scientists perform research, the have statisticians analyse the data to see if the results are pure chance or have a causal link with some factor. Statisticians specialise in a particular field, too. Medicine, physics, public health, psychology etc so you place your data before the most appropriate statistician rather than a ‘generalist’. I would be reluctant to give scientific opinion on the research coming out of CERN and instead rely upon experts in that field to give me their informed opinions.

I think the point is, alcohol is a metabolic ‘poison’. If you drink a couple of units of it everyday, it will probably not do the vast majority of people any harm. If a person has poor liver function due to disease, lifestyle habits etc, then it might do harm. If you are personally happy with that small risk….if drinking 2 units a day, everyday is your raison d’ etre…then in your opinion the benefits outweigh the potential risks. If you just drink alcohol for something to do when your out and it’s ‘just there’ and your able to socialise and chat and be amiable without alcohol as a way of loosening up, then maybe reconsider your choices.

 

[_Simon_]

We don't have one in January, we have "Dry July" here, has a nice ring to it. I don't drink at all, but many people here really stick to the Dry July!

 

[Gyakuto]

We don't have one in January, we have "Dry July" here, has a nice ring to it. I don't drink at all, but many people here really stick to the Dry July!

I think Dry January, in the U.K., is strategically placed after Christmas when most people have overindulged and their livers are crying out for respite.

I guess that’s the same for Australia where you have your Christmas in June 😐
(I’ve actually heard Brits say that about Christmas in Australia!)

 

[_Simon_]

I think Dry January, in the U.K., is strategically placed after Christmas when most people have overindulged and their livers are crying out for respite.

I guess that’s the same for Australia where you have your Christmas in June 😐
(I’ve actually heard Brits say that about Christmas in Australia!)

Hey that makes sense actually haha! Yeah midyear Christmas has become a bit of a thing of late, mainly restaurants doing special dinners etc, but none of our family do it. Very interesting!

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

It’s very similar, except most people generally don’t expose themselves to heavy metals

Hepatolologists (liver specialists). They are internationally recognised researchers and clinicians. I have quite a bit of confidence in their opinions.

There is no safe level of alcohol consumption, new global study confirms | Imperial News | Imperial College London

Imperial researchers are among a team of international scientists to suggest there is no safe level of alcohol – the health risks outweigh benefits.

www.imperial.ac.uk

To be clear, Imperial College, is the UK’s top science research university…regularly rated above Cambridge and Oxford.

This is actually one of the studies I was referring to, I believe. The article does quote something interesting from one of the authors:
"Professor Sonia Saxena from Imperial’s School of Public Health is one of the authors on the paper. Speaking to the BBC, she said: “One drink a day does represent a small increased health risk, but adjust that to the UK population as a whole and it represents a far bigger number, and most people are not drinking just one drink a day.”

I did a brief skim to remind myself of the study, and it appears that essentially what they're saying within it is that they can't statistically significant evidence of the health benefits through reviewing populations along with meta-analysis of the other studies on alcohol and health, with the exception of some heart health stuff, while it is very easy to verify the negative results/risks from alcohol use-so as a result, the safe bet is to not drink.

The biggest point in the article to me is this: "They estimate that, for one year, in people aged 15-95 years, drinking one alcoholic drink a day increases the risk of developing one of the 23 alcohol-related health problems by 0.5%, compared with not drinking at all". Which I fully believe. But it does not account for if different types of alcohol are related to that (ie: is this a result of alcohol itself, or more a result of hops, or everything they may put in beer, or flavorings, or something else? And is wine still the exception or no?), and does not account for people that drink less than one alcoholic drink daily.

Again, I skimmed the article so may have missed something, and again I fully believe/agree with the results. But while it's definitely one of the more comprehensive studies out there, it's not fully comprehensive.

 

[Steve]

This is actually one of the studies I was referring to, I believe. The article does quote something interesting from one of the authors:
"Professor Sonia Saxena from Imperial’s School of Public Health is one of the authors on the paper. Speaking to the BBC, she said: “One drink a day does represent a small increased health risk, but adjust that to the UK population as a whole and it represents a far bigger number, and most people are not drinking just one drink a day.”

I did a brief skim to remind myself of the study, and it appears that essentially what they're saying within it is that they can't statistically significant evidence of the health benefits through reviewing populations along with meta-analysis of the other studies on alcohol and health, with the exception of some heart health stuff, while it is very easy to verify the negative results/risks from alcohol use-so as a result, the safe bet is to not drink.

The biggest point in the article to me is this: "They estimate that, for one year, in people aged 15-95 years, drinking one alcoholic drink a day increases the risk of developing one of the 23 alcohol-related health problems by 0.5%, compared with not drinking at all". Which I fully believe. But it does not account for if different types of alcohol are related to that (ie: is this a result of alcohol itself, or more a result of hops, or everything they may put in beer, or flavorings, or something else? And is wine still the exception or no?), and does not account for people that drink less than one alcoholic drink daily.

Again, I skimmed the article so may have missed something, and again I fully believe/agree with the results. But while it's definitely one of the more comprehensive studies out there, it's not fully comprehensive.

Sounds about right.

To be clear, @Gyakuto, I'm not suggesting that alcohol is a health food. I'm skeptical of the assertion that it is "unsafe in any amount." I find that to be hyperbolic. So, if I use vanilla extract in my cake, that's an unsafe amount of alcohol? If I drink a kombucha? If I have one beer in a year? A decade? Really? Unsafe in any amount? I'm skeptical.

I would be very surprised if the experts could detect any difference between an average person who drinks one beer a month and a teetotaler.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

It’s very similar, except most people generally don’t expose themselves to heavy metals

Hepatolologists (liver specialists). They are internationally recognised researchers and clinicians. I have quite a bit of confidence in their opinions.

There is no safe level of alcohol consumption, new global study confirms | Imperial News | Imperial College London

Imperial researchers are among a team of international scientists to suggest there is no safe level of alcohol – the health risks outweigh benefits.

www.imperial.ac.uk

To be clear, Imperial College, is the UK’s top science research university…regularly rated above Cambridge and Oxford.

I think this is a glimpse of the issue. If a person’s alcohol consumption (or Mars Bar consumption in my case) is even slightly questioned, one witnesses a defensive attitude and even irritation. I’m sure nobody will take my Mars Bars away away, they’re just giving advice based upon empirical evidence that Mars Bars are bad for people like me (I chop the up into little slices and melt the for 24 seconds in the microwave and eat with a spoon. On Saturdays, I add a dollop of clotted cream. There is no safe level of clotted cream exposure 😳).

You’re not surprised that taking several tens of people’s faeces, homogenising, incubating and liquefying it and squirting a considerable volume of it up an alcoholic‘s jacksie cures them of a deeply entrenched, destructive behaviour? 😉

🤣🤣🤣🥲

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I think Dry January, in the U.K., is strategically placed after Christmas when most people have overindulged and their livers are crying out for respite.

I guess that’s the same for Australia where you have your Christmas in June 😐
(I’ve actually heard Brits say that about Christmas in Australia!)

Correcto Mundo!

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

It’s very similar, except most people generally don’t expose themselves to heavy metals

Hepatolologists (liver specialists). They are internationally recognised researchers and clinicians. I have quite a bit of confidence in their opinions.

There is no safe level of alcohol consumption, new global study confirms | Imperial News | Imperial College London

Imperial researchers are among a team of international scientists to suggest there is no safe level of alcohol – the health risks outweigh benefits.

www.imperial.ac.uk

To be clear, Imperial College, is the UK’s top science research university…regularly rated above Cambridge and Oxford.

I think this is a glimpse of the issue. If a person’s alcohol consumption (or Mars Bar consumption in my case) is even slightly questioned, one witnesses a defensive attitude and even irritation. I’m sure nobody will take my Mars Bars away away, they’re just giving advice based upon empirical evidence that Mars Bars are bad for people like me (I chop the up into little slices and melt the for 24 seconds in the microwave and eat with a spoon. On Saturdays, I add a dollop of clotted cream. There is no safe level of clotted cream exposure 😳).

You’re not surprised that taking several tens of people’s faeces, homogenising, incubating and liquefying it and squirting a considerable volume of it up an alcoholic‘s jacksie cures them of a deeply entrenched, destructive behaviour? 😉

I promise to be a good boy! I promise to change my destructive ways! Please don’t give me the communal fermented reverse enema!

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Sounds about right.

To be clear, @Gyakuto, I'm not suggesting that alcohol is a health food. I'm skeptical of the assertion that it is "unsafe in any amount." I find that to be hyperbolic. So, if I use vanilla extract in my cake, that's an unsafe amount of alcohol? If I drink a kombucha? If I have one beer in a year? A decade? Really? Unsafe in any amount? I'm skeptical.

I would be very surprised if the experts could detect any difference between an average person who drinks one beer a month and a teetotaler.

What does unsafe mean in this instance?

 

[Dirty Dog]

Saying "There is no safe amount" is not the same as saying "Drinking any amount will kill you".

What it actually does is recognize that people are not homogenous. And what is safe for one person can kill another.

As an example, there are tons of people with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Something like 30% of the population has this, mostly undiagnosed. And unless/until it progresses to cirrhosis, most will not have any symptoms.

Alcohol greatly increases the chances of NAFLD progressing to NASH or full on cirrhosis. It is certain that some of the people reading this have undiagnosed NAFLD. So there is no safe amount.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Saying "There is no safe amount" is not the same as saying "Drinking any amount will kill you".

What it actually does is recognize that people are not homogenous. And what is safe for one person can kill another.

As an example, there are tons of people with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Something like 30% of the population has this, mostly undiagnosed. And unless/until it progresses to cirrhosis, most will not have any symptoms.

Alcohol greatly increases the chances of NAFLD progressing to NASH or full on cirrhosis. It is certain that some of the people reading this have undiagnosed NAFLD. So there is no safe amount.

That was my take. It sounds as if there was a disagreement based around the definition of unsafe.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Saying "There is no safe amount" is not the same as saying "Drinking any amount will kill you".

What it actually does is recognize that people are not homogenous. And what is safe for one person can kill another.

As an example, there are tons of people with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Something like 30% of the population has this, mostly undiagnosed. And unless/until it progresses to cirrhosis, most will not have any symptoms.

Alcohol greatly increases the chances of NAFLD progressing to NASH or full on cirrhosis. It is certain that some of the people reading this have undiagnosed NAFLD. So there is no safe amount.

Personally, anything that has even a remote chance of resulting in fecal transplant sounds ”unsafe”. Im going to have beer(s) on February 1st just the same, because I’m a daredevil.

 

[Dirty Dog]

That was my take. It sounds as if there was a disagreement based around the definition of unsafe.

Because in this case it really cannot be quantified.

Personally, anything that has even a remote chance of resulting in fecal transplant sounds ”unsafe”.

The most common reason for fecal transplant is recurring C. difficile infections. The most common cause of C. diff infections is antibiotics. But please do not refuse antibiotics because of this.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Any of you guys watch the episode of south park, where they try to get tom brady's poop (among others) for fecal transplants? That's what this reminds me of.