Dry January

[Bill Mattocks]

Does alcohol-free beer not suit you Bill? I quite like it as it has a nice hoppy finish to it. I noticed Christmas advertising of Gordon’s gin showing they now do a alcohol-free version…the first ‘free’ spirit of which I’ve become aware.

Or, if your a real martial artist, you could swill it around your mouth and spit it out ! 😉💪🏽

I honestly can't imagine myself drinking a non-alcoholic drink on purpose. Nothing against them, they just don't appeal to me. Maybe I'll try one someday.

 

[Buka]

Non alcoholic drinks are like no contact sex, in my opinion.

As an Italian, red wine, in moderation, is not harmful. At least not to me and my genetic make up. Everything should be done in moderation. Especially moderation itself.

 

[Steve]

It doesn't. Hence the name. But NAFLD has a habit of progressing to cirrhosis. Consuming alcohol with NAFLD can accelerate this process.

This sort of interaction between disease processes is not exactly uncommon. Another example would be Alpha-1 Antitrypsin deficiency emphysema. A genetic problem causes this particular type of bullous emphysema. Smoking, even though it doesn't cause the emphysema, will cause it to progress faster.

Basically, if you have an organ system that is failing or working less effectively than it should because of X, it's probably a bad idea to do Y, when Y also stresses that organ.

Sure but this buries the lede. Alcohol isn’t the problem; obesity and/or diabetes are. If you weren’t overweight and insulin dependent, the alcohol wouldn’t be an issue.

Just like a light mist isn’t a problem for driving, unless you’re running on bald tires. It’s broken logic.

 

[Gyakuto]

I honestly can't imagine myself drinking a non-alcoholic drink on purpose. Nothing against them, they just don't appeal to me. Maybe I'll try one someday.

So it’s the effect you drank for, not the taste?

 

[Steve]

So it’s the effect you drank for, not the taste?

Non alcoholic beers taste really raunchy. Speaking just for myself, it’s definitely the taste.

Mocktails can be great though. Unlike NA beers, some liquors can be done pretty well without alcohol. Gins in particular. So a gin cocktail with an NA gin can be delightful. To be clear, though, I wouldn’t drink it as the main component, like in a gin martini, but for gimlets or fizzes or gin mules etc, these are great.

15 Best Non-Alcoholic Gins | Man of Many

With non-alcoholic spirits becoming more popular than ever before, we did some digging to bring you the best non-alcoholic gins

manofmany.com

I’ve had a few of these and will vouch for their taste.

 

[Buka]

For me, it's not the taste. Although I'd prefer something that tastes good over something that doesn't.

But it's all about the buzz. Having worked as a bartender, I think it's the norm.

 

[Steve]

For me, it's not the taste. Although I'd prefer something that tastes good over something that doesn't.

But it's all about the buzz. Having worked as a bartender, I think it's the norm.

I like for my buzz to taste good.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Does alcohol-free beer not suit you Bill? I quite like it as it has a nice hoppy finish to it. I noticed Christmas advertising of Gordon’s gin showing they now do a alcohol-free version…the first ‘free’ spirit of which I’ve become aware.

Or, if your a real martial artist, you could swill it around your mouth and spit it out ! 😉💪🏽

Blasphemer! Spit it out? That’s alcohol abuse!

 

[Dirty Dog]

The only thing that ticks me off is my cardiologist doesn't believe me. I guess lots of people lie about it. Every time I see him, he asks if I snore or have sleep apnea (I don't). Then he asks me how much I drink. I say "none" and he says "you need to tell me the truth." I say "none" and he writes down "Patient claims not to snore, have sleep apnea, or drink alcohol." FFS.

Lying about alcohol consumption is so common that people do tend not to believe what you say. I've seen more than a few people with BAC's in the 250-300 range who insist that they only had 2 beers.

My somewhat cynical theory is that they start drinking, and when they have to stop and go pee, that's one...

As far as the other things, there may be some doubt simply because you have a lot of risk factors. If you've never had a formal sleep study done, then you don't really KNOW if you have sleep apnea. Same with snoring. Lots of people insist they don't snore, and do not understand why their spouse has a choking fit when they make this statement.

Is booze that pervasive that *everybody* drinks and lies about it?

Yes. Not everybody, technically, but it's a ridiculously high percentage.

Anyway. I don't know if alcohol is a net benefit or not. Doesn't matter to me. Smoking was definitely bad for me and I quit a 2 pack a day habit nearly 20 years ago. THAT was hard. Giving up booze, no problem.

I've read a number of fairly good studies that indicate nicotine is more addictive than heroin.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Sure but this buries the lede. Alcohol isn’t the problem; obesity and/or diabetes are. If you weren’t overweight and insulin dependent, the alcohol wouldn’t be an issue.

Prevention is a grand idea. I'm all for it. Of course, there are plenty of non-obese, non-diabetic people with NAFLD.

The point is that you generally do not know if you have NAFLD as an underlying condition unless/until it progresses to cirrhosis. Which is a little late, don't you think?

This was brought up as ONE example of underlying conditions that can cause even light alcohol consumption to result in major health problems. Not the sole example.

Yes, it is safe to say that a person in perfect health, with none of the asymptomatic disorders that affect the development of alcoholic liver disease, could drink in moderation without any problem developing (probably). But finding out if you have any of them would require a ridiculously expensive and invasive workup. Would 20 year old you want (and be able) to pay for that? Would 50 year old you? Because it sure wouldn't be covered by insurance.

Just like a light mist isn’t a problem for driving, unless you’re running on bald tires. It’s broken logic.

Faulty analogy. To be accurate, there would have to be some reason why you couldn't know the tires were bald until after the mist hit.

 

[MetalBoar]

But an impact, supporting the ‘no safe limit’ suggestion by the experts.

I think I need you to define "no safe limit" before I'll be able to know how to respond, but I'll give my view as a starting point.

If something does not show any apparent negative impact on my all cause risk of mortality, nor my general health, I do not care how much it increases my risk of mortality from some specific illness. The boundary point for a safe limit, for me, would be the point at which it could be demonstrated that consuming a specific amount of alcohol increased my all cause risk of mortality or harmed my general health. So, let's say 2 beers a night increased my relative risk for death from cirrhosis of the liver by 100% but doesn't change my absolute risk of death from all causes, then 2 beers a night is within safe limits by my definition. If it could be demonstrated that cooking with a little red wine or adding vanilla extract to a recipe raised my absolute risk of all cause mortality, then I would agree that for all practical purposes, there was not a safe limit for alcohol consumption.

Ah, we’re at odds here. I meant that looking at data is observational. I think you mean ‘self-reported data’. Yes, people lie about their alcohol, food, drug intake because they are often shameful of it! 😀 When my other half is taking a medical history from a new patient, she often doubles the self-reported amounts of alcohol in the notes (in pencil) and refers to liver function blood tests to verify or otherwise. Have you noticed that when a doctor wants to know how much you weigh, they confirm your reported weight by putting you on scales! 😂

I hate to use Wikipedia as a source but I think it's accurate enough for the current purpose: Observational Study vs Randomized Controlled Trial

There is some debate about what can be concluded from observational studies. The Cochrane Reviews, for example, has claimed that there is little difference in the results of randomized controlled trials and modern observational studies but last I looked at this there was still a lot of argument around the topic. Until recently, observational studies were essentially always considered to have low empirical value and many researchers would make statements along the lines of, "If you're reading a paper and you see it's based on an observational study you can just stop reading." Again, there's still debate about how much credibility they represent.

As to the part in bold, that may very well be a solid, practical approach for a medical practitioner, but it isn't scientific. Unless maybe you've done a well conducted study that tells you how much people lie about their drinking first, or a clinical study where you directly measure the impact of alcohol consumption on the liver, in order to establish a relationship between the two. My weight is my weight on the scale, but my liver function on a blood test is not my drinking history, unless we have some way to establish that it is.

But the deleterious effects on the liver ( negative changes in liver function) are what are important, not the absolute amount of alcohol consumed. One pint of strong lager has a bigger negative affect on my liver than it would on a 6 foot 9 inch fat bloke!

Studies can only talk about groups and can't say much about individuals. Even if we had a fantastic, perfectly conducted study we couldn't say that you or I would respond like the median participant in the study. Not only size, but genetics and other lifestyle choices are likely to come into play. So, we can't actually say that a random, 6'9" dude is going to have less impact on his liver than you without directly comparing both of your current biological states. We can make some generalized predications, that will be more or less accurate depending on how close you both hew to the norm.

In response to the part in bold - As I said above, I don't care if something is bad for my liver if it doesn't actually increase my real risk of death or poor health, which seems to be the case with moderate alcohol consumption. To re-phrase, I think it's reasonable to say that alcohol consumption damages the liver*. I don't think it's reasonable to say that any liver damage is unsafe if it doesn't actually have any measurable impact on my perceived health, quality of life, or actual longevity.

It also sometimes seems like you are arguing that if we know someone's level of liver function we know how much they drink. I don't know how you think we can know this if we are basing those metrics off of self reported data about drinking. It seems like a circular argument, unless I'm missing something.

*Does any alcohol consumption, no matter how small, damage the liver for the average person? If not, how much does it take to cause damage? The liver can heal over time, how much time needs to pass between drinking sessions for the liver to have completely recovered? If we don't know the answer to these questions we can't speak very knowledgeably about this piece of the puzzle.

Or the factors involved are extremely complex, show individual variation and non-linear. I think this is the case and you can’t be sure until you do the research. Small amounts of alcohol might be fine for me, but terrible for that the 6’9” bloke, but we don’t know until we see what alcohol does to us. Thus the safest thing to advise, for the whole population is ‘there is no safe limit’.

Now that I read this point, I see that we're on the same page about much of what I said in the point above.

I also think I now see the crux of our disagreement. Your definition of "safe" seems to mean proven safe, or absent any indication of risk. I think that's an unreasonable standard and rapidly becomes absurd. We may not know the absolute limits for everyone, but the data we have certainly seem to indicate there's no reason to think that even daily drinking of 1 or 2 alcoholic beverages makes a significant difference in health span nor lifespan for the average individual in terms of the direct toxic effects of alcohol*.

Statements like, "there is no safe limit for alcohol consumption", become just so much noise and without meaning if that is our metric. By that standard there is no safe limit for exercise nor for being sedentary, nor for walking down the street as they all increase risk of some negative outcome. Why are we bothering with news articles and press releases over this? How is it relevant to anyone's life? I think we apply it to alcohol more freely and frequently than many other things that are similarly dangerous (or not dangerous) for moralistic, rather than scientific or practical reasons.

*The study you posted also takes alcohol related accidents and other injuries into account, so when including indirect effects such as these they conclude that it's a net detriment. Based on my other readings on this topic, these concerns are particularly relevant for men in their 20's and almost irrelevant for women in their 60's, but mostly means it's not a big factor for most, if not all, of those participating in this thread, unless I'm very wrong in my estimations about the demographic being represented.

Interestingly, the experts expanded on their research findings by saying, the small benefits of drinking alcohol are obliterated by the deleterious effects of alcohol.

Depends on the study and which experts. To claim we have anything close to a consensus at this point seems unreasonable.

And world-class experts, based on current research, disagree with that. I’d go with peer-reviewed data than ‘gut instinct’.

As above, some world class experts.

This study, published in 2018, based on the criteria they selected, leads this set of researchers to conclude that, "Alcohol use contributes to health loss from many causes and exacts its toll across the lifespan, particularly among men. Policies that focus on reducing population-level consumption will be most effective in reducing the health loss from alcohol use." Their definition of safe and their evaluation of risk may (or may not) be accurate for those stated goals when looking at a global population of drinkers, including Russia*. Other studies, using different metrics and data, have come to different conclusions. Those of us who don't live in Russia, are over 50, and don't seem to have a predisposition for liver problems may have a substantially different risk profile. Regardless, I still think we're a long way from a consensus.

*From the study:

"Failing to address harms from alcohol use, particularly at high levels of consumption, can have dire effects on population health. The mortality crisis in Russia is a striking example, where alcohol use was the primary culprit of increases in mortality starting in the 1980s and led to 75% of deaths among men aged 15–55 years."

 

[Steve]

Prevention is a grand idea. I'm all for it. Of course, there are plenty of non-obese, non-diabetic people with NAFLD.

The point is that you generally do not know if you have NAFLD as an underlying condition unless/until it progresses to cirrhosis. Which is a little late, don't you think?

This was brought up as ONE example of underlying conditions that can cause even light alcohol consumption to result in major health problems. Not the sole example.

Yes, it is safe to say that a person in perfect health, with none of the asymptomatic disorders that affect the development of alcoholic liver disease, could drink in moderation without any problem developing (probably). But finding out if you have any of them would require a ridiculously expensive and invasive workup. Would 20 year old you want (and be able) to pay for that? Would 50 year old you? Because it sure wouldn't be covered by insurance.

Faulty analogy. To be accurate, there would have to be some reason why you couldn't know the tires were bald until after the mist hit.

You’re the one who brought up a disease not caused by alcohol in a discussion about alcohol. I don’t know about most folks but my liver function, including ALT, is checked annually at my routine physical. Millions of people safely consume alcohol daily.

I honestly don’t know why I indulge you. It’s one thing to play devils advocate, but you’re just throwing out random things and trying to stir up conflict. I don’t get you. Is this fun for you?

 

[Dirty Dog]

You’re the one who brought up a disease not caused by alcohol in a discussion about alcohol.

Sure, as a way to help explain why "there's no safe amount" is true.

I don’t know about most folks but my liver function, including ALT, is checked annually at my routine physical. Millions of people safely consume alcohol daily.

That's nice. It doesn't really say anything meaningful about this subject, though.

I honestly don’t know why I indulge you. It’s one thing to play devils advocate, but you’re just throwing out random things and trying to stir up conflict. I don’t get you. Is this fun for you?

I don't think most people have as much difficulty understanding the concept as you appear to. But that's ok.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Lying about alcohol consumption is so common that people do tend not to believe what you say. I've seen more than a few people with BAC's in the 250-300 range who insist that they only had 2 beers.

It's always just 2 beers. Always.

 

[Steve]

I don't think most people have as much difficulty understanding the concept as you appear to. But that's ok.

I don’t know about most people. When I’m not around you seem to have no trouble finding others to bicker with. But it’s true I find it difficult to understand you.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

It's always just 2 beers. Always.

You been listening in on me?

 

[Steve]

It's always just 2 beers. Always.

That sounds like the name of a country song.

 

[drop bear]

By the way my mate only did 6 days and then called it.

 

[Steve]

I had a kombucha yesterday that was pushing .5% ABV. I also had a glass of wine with dinner. I enjoyed both and loved to tell the tale.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So it’s the effect you drank for, not the taste?

I've never had a non-alcoholic beverage that had the same taste as an alcoholic one. I'd certainly be interested in finding non-alcoholic versions of some things I really like the taste of.

Of course, sometimes I do just want that sedative effect.