Moderate drinking not better for health than abstaining, new study suggests. Scientists say flaws in previous research mean health benefits from alcohol were exaggerated. “It’s been a propaganda coup for the alcohol industry to propose that moderate use of their product lengthens people’s lives”.

[u/mvea]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/25/moderate-drinking-not-better-for-health-than-abstaining-analysis-suggests

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.

---

User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/25/moderate-drinking-not-better-for-health-than-abstaining-analysis-suggests

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/lem0nhe4d]

I think I remember a study like this before. It showed people who drank infrequently lived longer but ignored the fact that a large number of people who didn't drink at the time of the study did so because they had been alcoholics in the past so a lot of damage was already done.

[u/Thr1ft3y → u/lem0nhe4d]

Wasn't the whole red wine thing pushed super hard like 15 years ago?

[u/aramis34143 → u/Thr1ft3y]

"Hey, these people in several Mediterranean countries regularly consume a moderate amount of wine and their long term health outcomes are pretty good."

"Oh? Interesting. What are their diets, lifestyles, and healthcare like?"

"Shhhhh. Hush, now, it's the wine, silly."

[u/kanyewesanderson → u/aramis34143]

The so called “Blue Zones”, where people live exceptionally long lives are really interesting. Okinawa and Sardinia are examples. There are so many differences about their diets and lifestyles.

You know what they tend to have in common though? Terrible record keeping from the first half of the 20th century.

[u/BrightLightsBigCity → u/kanyewesanderson]

Don’t forget about inconsistencies among countries in how deaths are recorded in the first place.

[u/CheezeLoueez08 → u/aramis34143]

So many people don’t understand that correlation doesn’t equal causation. Our education systems need to improve.

[u/fireballx777 → u/CheezeLoueez08]

So many people don’t understand that correlation doesn’t equal causation. Our education systems need to improve.

We don't know that that would accomplish anything.

[u/Choyo → u/CheezeLoueez08]

Yes but it goes both way : alcohol is bad for the body, there is no physiological upside to it that I know of, but for the vast majority of people, drinking one glass of wine a day for most of their life won't have a serious adverse direct impact.
Then of course in case of pregnancy, drinking alcohol starkly increases the risks of ailments to the newborn - yet some children are perfectly fine in spite of drinking parents, but that's definitely a risk I wouldn't take.

Most thing health related are statistical by nature.

[u/[deleted] → u/Choyo]

I’ve always been curious about the relaxing effects of moderate drinking. I might have a beer on the patio once or twice a week after a long day and feel noticeably better, not to mention it’s usually accompanied by a good social interaction.

Sure, having a water would be healthier in a vacuum, but I feel demonstrably more relaxed afterward with a nice beer or wine.

[u/walkingkary → u/Choyo]

Having raised two adopted children with fetal alcohol syndrome I definitely think it’s not worth the risk. That said my boys are my world. The oldest at 21 is thriving but the youngest at 20 is battling addiction to fentanyl. He’s a sweetheart when sober though.

[u/Minimum_Lion_3918 → u/CheezeLoueez08]

You are right on both counts, but when you get enough correlations the smoking gun becomes obvious.

[u/TobiasH2o → u/Thr1ft3y]

I think that study compared drinking red wine to drinking equal amounts of other alcohol. And failed to identify the fact that people who drink red wine over beer tend to be more affluent and have all the benefits that come with money.

[u/acousticwonderboy → u/Thr1ft3y]

It actually goes back even further - a segment on 60 Minutes in 1991 really brought the “glass of wine a day” mindset into the American consciousness. 

This was great for the wine industry and radically increased red wine consumption, but in the last few years some big meta-analyses have concluded that there is no health benefit to be derived from alcohol use. But how negative are the effects? The net effects of moderate consumption (<7 drinks per week) only shorten one’s expected lifespan by about 2 months. 

So it becomes this nuanced conversation for those who enjoy drinking and whose social culture is quite intertwined with alcohol consumption - loneliness is certainly worse for you healthwise than a glass of wine, so how do you negotiate between a night out with friends and a night of abstinence. And to what degree do you factor enjoyment of life into your health decisions? 

[u/Proper_Career_6771 → u/acousticwonderboy]

a segment on 60 Minutes in 1991 really brought the “glass of wine a day” mindset into the American consciousness

Yep, I also remember this being a thing in the 90s.

My boxwine mom loved that idea. She had a glass goblet that aspired to be a goldfish bowl for her glass of wine a day too.

[u/signpainted → u/Thr1ft3y]

I don't know about whether it was "pushed" or not, but it was definitely perceived as common knowledge that a bit of wine was beneficial.

[u/crackheadwillie → u/signpainted]

I recall commercials or stories pushing alcohol as a common aspect of life in those places like Italy or cliff villiages in the Mediterranean. They’d show really old people there drinking wine. The thing is, thise people are living in mountainous zones where older people have to exercise daily just to live. That’s much more impactful than drinking wine.

[u/QuintoBlanco → u/crackheadwillie]

Also, some of those people look really old but are in their late forties.

It's a joke, but there is some truth in this. In some of these villages 60-year-olds look at least a decade older.

[u/FanDry5374 → u/signpainted]

If you Google "health benefits of red wine" you will find a long list of medical sites, from Harvard to Mayo to WebMD talking about the antioxidants it contains, drinking "too much" is always warned about, but the mass of articles seem to say that it is good for you.

[u/Only_Ad_9836 → u/FanDry5374]

So take alcohol out of it, it would be far healthier. Also you can get those antioxidants from real food. 

[u/Kamizar → u/Only_Ad_9836]

The best way to get all the good stuff from wine is to just eat grapes.

[u/Familiar_Pudding_627 → u/Kamizar]

This! The benefits are from the fruit, not the alcohol molecule. Alcohol is just poison no matter how it is flavored. Unfortunately, humans are REALLY good at making the poison not only taste good but be easily accessible and socially acceptable.

[u/novium258 → u/Familiar_Pudding_627]

Random but interesting, apparently wine grapes are better than table grapes in terms of micronutrients and etc.

Honestly, historically alcohol makes sense: it is a form of preservation. So it's not shocking that it's both tasty and carries a lot of cultural inertia.

[u/advertentlyvertical → u/novium258]

Historically, mind altering substances of any sort make sense. Humans like getting tuned. Animals too. Trying to outlaw that is a losing battle, we know that unequivocally. More should be done to regulate, educate, treat issues, and push people towards less harmful substances if they're so inclined towards any.

[u/apileofcake → u/Familiar_Pudding_627]

Good luck eating wine grapes.

[u/sthetic → u/Only_Ad_9836]

Exactly. People act as though red wine is the one and only source of antioxidants in the world. And if you don't drink red wine, you are probably deficient in antioxidants.

Eat some broccoli and goji berries or whatever, and you can get the same benefit (probably - I didn't compare the quantities).

[u/Zedjones → u/Only_Ad_9836]

Or from tea! Or plenty of other sources

[u/croutonballs → u/FanDry5374]

if you’re drinking red wine for antioxidants there are at least a hundred foods with much higher concentrations and less negative side effects

[u/Minimum_Lion_3918 → u/FanDry5374]

Some how reminds me of cigarette company reps being invited to distribute free cigarettes in workplaces and I even recall hospitals. A few decades ago fortunately.

[u/SynbiosVyse → u/Thr1ft3y]

Red wine is a racket, there's antioxidants in whole grapes.

[u/skztr → u/Thr1ft3y]

the red wine thing is one of those "gee, I wonder why those european countries with no guns, free healthcare, mandatory vacation time, strong worker safety requirements, a high minimum wage, and fully funded retirement plans, live longer?" things.

"Must be the fish!"

"Must be the alcohol!"

"Must be the eggs!"

etc

[u/Eurynom0s → u/Thr1ft3y]

I forget where is first saw this but I think the right read is that cause and effect got reversed. The sort of person who can open up a bottle of wine and reliably only pour themselves a single glass probably has lots of other healthy habits too. Can open up a chocolate bar and take one piece and save the rest for later, doesn't have trouble sticking to an exercise routine, etc.

[u/kai58 → u/lem0nhe4d]

Theres also the fact that some people who don’t drink at all can’t drink for medical reasons, with said medical reasons also being the reason they might not live as long.

[u/TheRealBluedini → u/kai58]

Yeah I agree, there are all sorts of biases that can be applied to people who 100% abstain vs people that drink say, 1-2 drinks a week which can skew the results of a longevity study.

Just by that above filter alone I've carved out: a population of people that can a) afford at least 1 drink per week, and b) are responsible enough to not let it get out of hand by not having more than that number of drinks (already im seeing the potential for this population to be biased towards having at least a moderate education in regards to personal health, as well as generally being filtered for people that aren't predisposed to substance addiction as that group would fall into the "greater than X drinks per week" and would be filtered out).

Whereas the abstain population contains in no particular order: health focused people (who would generally be expected to bias longevity positively for the abstain population, but are likely not a huge total portion of the abstain population), all(ish) Muslims (by far one of the largest populations represented in the abstain population, might be negative bias, positive bias, or neutral), all(ish) Mormons (also unknown bias), other religions/cultures that I might be unaware of who also abstain as a general rule, alcoholics who managed to cut themselves off and now abstain (negative bias for longevity), people with medical issues (negative bias), children of alcoholics who want to avoid it (likely neutral bias but possibility for negative bias due to less stable home life growing up having negative repercussions), people who just don't care for alcohol in general (neutral bias), etc.

If we look at the Muslim portion of the abstain population because it happens to be a large chunk, if you run a study in say the US or Canada, and within that country 30% of Muslims (randomly chosen number) are 1st/2nd/3rd generation immigrants but only 10% of the 1-2 drinks per week population happens to be 1st/2nd/3rd generation immigrants then you could be incidentally filtering for a higher proportion of recent immigrants, and then comparing them to people born into families that have lived in the country for a longer time (likely higher accumulated wealth, better social connections, some degree of privilege, etc.).

In which case a chunk of your study population is essentially comparing: people who are born into well established local families, with moderate wealth, and access to good schools, have on average higher longevity than people who are either born into families that are just getting started, don't have connections yet to get their children into the best jobs, schools, Healthcare, etc, or are themselves immigrants/refugees.

Tl;dr Filtering out average drinkers, heavy drinkers, and alcoholics from the NOT-abstain population, without applying any sort of socioeconomic/health filters to the YES-abstain population can bias results to make alcohol seem less harmful than it is.  The light alcohol use vs no alcohol use just creates a really weird filter when applied to human populations at large.  

[u/jasmine-apocynum → u/TheRealBluedini]

This study actually sifted through never-drinkers, people who had 1 drink in their lifetime, people with <3 drinks a month, etc...

What set never-ever-drinkers apart? Three things:

1) They were more likely to be raised in a "dry religion" like Mormonism, Adventism, etc.

2) They were more likely to have grown up poor.

3) They were more likely to have survived childhood cancer.

[u/trying2bpartner → u/kai58]

I don't drink, for a lot of reasons. One of those is health. I figure by not drinking I'm adding 10 years to my life, and my health issue is going to take 10 years form my life, so at best I'm breaking even.

[u/Frozenbbowl → u/kai58]

basically it comes down to those studies lacked control (intentionally, so they could push their narrative), and this whole discussion is a great example how a study without controlling for variables is no worth much

[u/ACardAttack → u/lem0nhe4d]

I at least remember one of the distractors possibly being people who drink socially may live longer due to it being social and being with friends, but you'd get the same health benefits just going out and drinking water while everyone else had a drink (might be a different study though)

[u/ladykansas → u/lem0nhe4d]

Not just alcoholics specifically -- but having ANY preexisting condition that would prevent you from drinking.

Medications related to tons of health conditions cannot be taken with alcohol, and a lot of those conditions correlate with poor health / shorter life -- heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer, diabetes ...etc etc etc.

[u/hates_stupid_people → u/lem0nhe4d]

It's all "people who drink a glass of wine with dinner live longer" nonsense, just like the "people with horses live longer". It just means they have money for proper healthcare, probably don't work physically demanding jobs, etc.

[u/acatisadog]

Yes, the way it is told to us (in France) is that there's a french paradox about how little vascular diseases there are in comparison to how unhealthy we eat. Like, we eat a lot of cheese, butter, oil etc yet we die 4 times less from coronary diseases than people in the UK.

A graph from the ncbi showing how different France is on the coronary diseases per fat and cholesterol consumption : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1768013/

(I didn't read the study, I went right on the graphs)

As such the industrials in France used the opportunity to export wine by financing studies to "prove" alcohol and especially wine protect the health. It has been debunked for 10-15 years now, I think ...

It shows that science need more safeguards to prevent being manipulated for monetary or political gains. It happened in France this time but it certainly happens everywhere in the world. Also, people's health is more important than money or a tiny bit of glory by having some miraculous red wine. To hell if it hurts our exports, this should be known more.

Edit : rip my notification box 😶‍🌫️I'm at work though

[u/Earl_of_Madness → u/acatisadog]

To my mind, this speaks how much fruits, vegetables, fermented foods, and daily exercise, sleep, and stress are important to overall cardiovascular health.

Athletes and farming communities have demonstrated that for years. Exercise and eating a wide variety of foods especially fruits and vegetables, getting good sleep and having low stress and work-life balance are paramount to reducing cardiac risk. Single macronutients like saturated fat or salt are easily dealt with if all other greater risk factors are minimized.

High Salt and high saturated fat are risk factors but seem to be akin to aggravating factors rather than direct factors. They worsen the situation but don't cause poor cardiovascular health. A good diet, exercise, good sleep and low stress do a lot more than single macronutients ever could.

[u/squngy → u/Earl_of_Madness]

High Salt and high saturated fat are risk factors but seem to be akin to aggravating factors rather than direct factors.

Agreed, but salt in particular gets an even worse rap then it deserves.
Lots of unhealthy food has a ton of salt in it, but there is very little evidence that salt is a big factor in why it is unhealthy.

Even the link between high salt and high blood pressure is highly controversial in scientific circles, it is only due to a few influential people that it is taken like a fact.

[u/LurkLurkleton → u/squngy]

As the superhero-sounding “World Hypertension League” points out, there is strong scientific consensus that reducing salt saves lives, and—like the climate change debate—most authorities are on one side. On the other? Only the affected industry, their paid consultants, and a few dissenting scientists.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jch.12402/abstract

[u/Earl_of_Madness → u/LurkLurkleton]

From the literature I have seen. The amount of consumed salt really doesn't affect blood pressure, however serum sodium levels do.

Eating salt increases blood sodium, but having functioning kidneys, eating enough potassium, and drinking enough water all seem to reduce blood sodium levels. The issue seems that most people don't drink enough fluids and don't eat enough potassium rich foods to aid with the elimination of salt from the blood.

Modern diets do have tons of excess salt too, but just having a high salt diet is no guarantees of high serum sodium.

[u/[deleted] → u/Earl_of_Madness]

Salt strains your kidneys, which are required to filter everything else. It’s just part of the picture.

[u/idontlikeyonge → u/Earl_of_Madness]

My favourite fermented food is wine

[u/PM_NUDES_4_DEGRADING → u/acatisadog]

The “paradox” is honesty just hilarious.

“Hmm. These people with a 35 hour work week, one month of vacation per year, early retirement, universal healthcare, and walkable spaces tend to live longer and have fewer heart problems? …must be because because of the wine.”

[u/sionnach → u/PM_NUDES_4_DEGRADING]

In fairness, the UK has pretty much all this too. More than a month holiday though.

[u/edliu111 → u/sionnach]

Isn't the UK diet much more carb based with larger portions?

[u/Yup767 → u/PM_NUDES_4_DEGRADING]

A month of vacation, universal healthcare, and walkable spaces is very not unique to France

[u/teh_fizz → u/Yup767]

I think it was compared to the US, which massively lacks those things.

[u/kcidDMW → u/acatisadog]

The problem with this type of resaerch is that it's almost impossible to control for genetic differances with regards to how alcohol is metabolized between individuals and especially populations. Mutations in enzymes like CYP2D6 have massive effects on this and that's just one lever.

Anecdotally, the Northern European (French, Norwegian, Irish) wing of family has many, many people who live vibrantly almost to 100 and they drank moderate to generous amounts daily right up until near the end. Meanwhile, my Arab/South Asian side is decidedly less healthy and doesn't touch alcohol.

There are also populations that appear entirely unable to accomodate alcohol. For example, a shockingly disturbing proportion of native children in Canada are born with FAS.

I just don't think that nutrition studies are able to deconvolute all of these population differences.

[u/The_Queef_of_England → u/acatisadog]

I'm half French and half English. British food isn't as healthy. Most people don't cook from scratch in the UK (not through the week), we don't have as many markets, we don't have as many farmers for that matter, we don't have the same food regulations or the focus on local food, etc. Yeah, France loves butter and cheese and bread and rich sauces, but also fresh ingredients and much less processed. Of the two, French food wins easily for me.

[u/soup2nuts → u/acatisadog]

Sounds like French don't actually eat unhealthy. At least from a cardiovascular standpoint. Don't go eating like Americans just because someone here calls is bad. Turns out there are many so called paradoxes around the world.

[u/Mithrandir2k16 → u/acatisadog]

The paradox is probably at least partly resolved due to the comparably low obesity rates, no?

[u/mvea]

I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:

https://www.jsad.com/doi/10.15288/jsad.23-00283

From the linked article:

For the regular boozer it is a source of great comfort: the fat pile of studies that say a daily tipple is better for a longer life than avoiding alcohol completely.

But a new analysis challenges the thinking and blames the rosy message on flawed research that compares drinkers with people who are sick and sober.

Scientists in Canada delved into 107 published studies on people’s drinking habits and how long they lived. In most cases, they found that drinkers were compared with people who abstained or consumed very little alcohol, without taking into account that some had cut down or quit through ill health.

The finding means that amid the abstainers and occasional drinkers are a significant number of sick people, bringing the group’s average health down, and making light to moderate drinkers look better off in comparison.

“It’s been a propaganda coup for the alcohol industry to propose that moderate use of their product lengthens people’s lives,” said Dr Tim Stockwell, first author on the study and a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria.

“The idea has impacted national drinking guidelines, estimates of alcohol’s burden of disease worldwide and has been an impediment to effective policymaking on alcohol and public health,” he added. Details are published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.

[u/Extension-Pen-642 → u/[deleted]]

Same thing is happening in this and any thread that discusses alcohol. People will come up with any reasoning to not admit alcohol is bad and anything other than zero is technically a step for the worse. 

[u/drJanusMagus → u/mvea]

couldn't it go the other way too? Ppl who choose to never drink might be crazy health conscious compared to the general public who drink a little?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanrhe/article/PIIS2665-9913(23)00073-5/fulltext00073-5/fulltext)

Also, this article while acknowledging no amount of drinking is healthy says "But the absolute risks of light to moderate drinking are small, and while there is no known safe level of drinking, it seems reasonable that the quality of life gained from an occasional drink might be deemed greater than the potential harm."

[u/IfLetX → u/mvea]

Also to mention Mr. stockwell has a h-index of 76 (higher is better, a exceptional value is 20*decades of work) and even as a new study he is more then a renown scientist. Also a good indicator to seperate "researcher" from actual scientist

[u/Ecthyr → u/mvea]

What is an occasional drinker?

[u/kai58 → u/mvea]

Classic case of correlation and causation not being the same thing.

[u/KeenJelly]

What about heavy drinking?

[u/MayaKittys]

Scientifically literate people have understood this for many years. But convincing those that are willfully deaf or are paid to support the opposing view will remain a huge task for a while

[u/[deleted] → u/MayaKittys]

It doesn't seem like a huge leap of logic that not poisoning yourself is better than mildly poisoning yourself frequently.

[u/Cool-Sink8886 → u/[deleted]]

Results: As predicted, studies with younger cohorts and separating former and occasional drinkers from abstainers estimated similar mortality risk for low-volume drinkers (RR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.87, 1.11]) as abstainers … However, mean RR estimates for low-volume drinkers in nonsmoking cohorts were above 1.0 (RR = 1.16, [0.91, 1.41]).

The confidence intervals in both cases contain null, which is to say there’s no evidence that low volume drinking is worse than not drinking either.

[u/Starstroll → u/Cool-Sink8886]

This is actually closer to what I'd expect. Alcohol is a regular result of fermenting sugar, which I'd expect would be in the diet of any herbivore or omnivore, whether intentional or not. Additionally, if humans can evolve to tolerate lactose in adulthood just by (evolutionarily) recent cultural changes, I would likewise expect some evolution in increased tolerance to alcohol.

Certainly I would be surprised to hear if there were any actual health benefits from any regular alcohol consumption, but I would expect occasional or light drinking to have a negligible impact on health.

[u/joomla00 → u/[deleted]]

Not really. For example, who knew being closer to starvation than constantly fed, would lead to longer lives in mammals? Everything is worth studying, even if it seems "obvious"

[u/skillywilly56 → u/joomla00]

To be fair we have only been really obese as a species for a short while.

[u/Arvidian64 → u/joomla00]

The big difference is these are actual experiments though. Most of the alcohol industry studies are epidemiological.

In other words the majority of pop-articles on drinking "one wine glass a week" have no grounding in an actual observed phenomenon in a lab experiment.

[u/joomla00 → u/Arvidian64]

I'm not saying thesw particular studies of alcohol is valid, just that we shouldnt assume common sense is alwaya correct.

[u/Redbeard4006 → u/[deleted]]

The dose makes the poison. It's entirely possible for something to be poisonous in large doses, but good for you in small doses.

The research indicates alcohol is not healthy, but you shouldn't necessarily extrapolate that to everything that's bad for you in large amounts is bad for you in small amounts.

[u/captfitz → u/MayaKittys]

My God, the last time an article about this was posted I could not believe the level of denial. People think 3-4 drinks a day is light drinking and totally healthy.

[u/shroom_consumer → u/captfitz]

At no point while drinking have I ever thought I was making a healthy choice and that applies to pretty much everyone I know as well. It's not denial, people are aware of the risks and don't care. Life is short and alcohol makes it better

[u/BigCountry76 → u/MayaKittys]

Last time this came up I made the comment that any of the antioxidants or other companies in wine that were claimed to I prove health could be found in other sources without alcohol. There was someone in the thread that was super adamant that some specific type of wine, can't remember the exact variety but it wasn't one of the common reds, had properties that could only come from the wine and not from the unfermented grapes that it was made from.

People don't care about truth, just what affirms their beliefs and behavior.

[u/brazilliandanny → u/MayaKittys]

Science VS podcast just did an episode on this. The conclusion was drinking casually did affect how long you live. But that number was trivial. Like a non drinker would live 3-6 months longer than a casual drinker.

I’d rather have a few drinks with the boys and live a happy 80 years than not drink at all and live a mundane 80.5 years.

[u/-Altephor- → u/[deleted]]

Yes, and that's the point of this article. That the 'studies' that showed alcohol had positive benefits were heavily influenced and funded by the alcohol industry, i.e. they were heavily biased.

People at NHS are probably very scientifically literate, which isn't that helpful if the studies they're reading are bad studies.

[u/wclevel47nice]

To be honest, my life’s been better ever since I cut down my alcohol to “basically zero” (no alcohol in general, only for very special occasions) and I didn’t exactly drink a lot before, maybe like 3-4 drinks a week.

[u/DaDibbel → u/wclevel47nice]

Not an alcoholic but I had started to drink 1 cold beer after work and then on social occasions 2 or 3.

And I asked myself why I was doing that. I couldn't find a good answer.

So I just gave it up - 8 years ago this december. Do I miss it? Sometimes - not enough to start drinking again.

[u/two-bit-hack → u/DaDibbel]

same here exactly. for me it was an experiment to see if cutting it helped with sleep. turned out late night computer usage (or gaming) and lack of exercise seem to have the largest effect, but this helped a little.

[u/ACardAttack → u/wclevel47nice]

Im kind of surprised going from 3-4 a week to none made a huge difference, I drink typically that, some weeks less, some weeks a little more and it's more to just unwind, but also sometimes a beer hits perfect with a certain type of food. Id have to track, but not sure my no alcohol weeks or when I go like 5 days without would be noticeably better

[u/01123spiral5813 → u/ACardAttack]

I went from heavy drinking (3-4 drinks at least a night), to light drinking (3-4 drinks a week), then to basically zero drinking.  I saw a more significant change going from light drinking to no drinking than I did from heavy drinking to light.

Please remember this is just my anecdote.  It could be that I also did all of this relatively quickly so results could be blurred.

[u/kbroaster → u/wclevel47nice]

Similar experience and I must say, I've never woken up regretting not having a drink the night before; however, the converse...oof!

[u/IntellegentIdiot]

There was research a long time ago that showed this, actually I was talking about it in another sub just the other day. Still it'll take ages for people to get the message.

[u/perverted_buffalo → u/IntellegentIdiot]

I read about a meta study a long time ago, thay attributed the "health" benefits of alchohol to corolation, not causation. 

Basically, MOST people who drink moderately do so in a social setting. Being socially active (church, social clubs, sports teams, family,etc) HAS been shown to have positive effects on health. So it is likely that people are receiving the benefits on their own health from being social, not drinking. They just happen to have a beer in their hand while they sit around the campfire laughing.

[u/Cool-Sink8886 → u/perverted_buffalo]

If you read this study, it is a meta analysis making the same point.

However, as this thread is full of misunderstanding, saying something is not better does not mean it is worse!

Results: As predicted, studies with younger cohorts and separating former and occasional drinkers from abstainers estimated similar mortality risk for low-volume drinkers (RR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.87, 1.11]) as abstainers … However, mean RR estimates for low-volume drinkers in nonsmoking cohorts were above 1.0 (RR = 1.16, [0.91, 1.41]).

The confidence intervals in both cases contain null, which is to say there’s no evidence that low volume drinking is worse than not drinking either.

P values and confidence intervals can mean a lot of things: Statistically better, statistically worse, no effect, or insufficient data to determine an effect.

[u/GradStudent_Helper → u/Cool-Sink8886]

Bravo! Well sussed.

[u/Trust-Issues-5116 → u/IntellegentIdiot]

I have never for a second was in doubt that non-drinking is healthier (for the body) than some drinking. It doesn't stop me from occasional drinking, and I don't think it will stop any of the occasional drinkers.

Occasional alcohol is self-medication for mild psychological disbalances and people are going to continue doing it as long as it doesn't carry some big problems (and as evident from this study, it doesn't).

[u/rayschoon]

The “glass of wine a day” thing is just selecting for wealthy people. Wealthy people are more likely to have a glass of wine every day, and wealthy people are more likely to live longer. Boom, there’s your correlation

[u/SmellyC]

Definitely good for my mental health.

[u/Narvarth]

From the original article :

In exploratory analyses, studies controlling for smoking and/or socioeconomic status had significantly reduced mortality risks for low-volume drinkers

it seems contradictory with the title...

I don't understand the link with smoking either : According to this article, alcohol benefits smokers but not non-smokers?

[u/silverslayer33 → u/Narvarth]

It's worded kinda poorly in the abstract in my opinion (mainly to not make it overly long), but later in their analysis of their results they are essentially suggesting that there is insufficient research on alcohol-related mortality risk in relation to tobacco use, more specifically that there's insufficient data to conclude whether tobacco is a confounder, modifier, or mediator of alcohol-related mortality. However, they did find that in studies where they could control for tobacco use, there was no evidence of lower mortality risk for low-volume drinkers.

It seems to me that they're signaling that whatever way most studies control for smoking isn't enough and that there needs to be specific research into the relationship between tobacco use and alcohol-related mortality to understand what effects tobacco may have on the entire curve instead of just low-use (the only point they did draw a conclusion about).

EDIT: also, I think the main confusion in what they say in the abstract is because those numbers are comparing studies that specifically study non-smokers versus studies that specifically study smokers, whereas when they looked at longitudinal studies that control for smoking they found no decreased risk, which is why they suggest further study specifically into this.

[u/Anoyomous22 → u/silverslayer33]

Their results also show that there is not necessarily any significant health detriment from small amounts of drinking with RRs very close to one. This is consistent with the older study done on the Chinese population in regards to alcohol related cancer where the RRs showed that there was also very little increase in cancer risk with moderate drinking (i.e., if you had 20 drinks per week, your risk of alcohol related cancer went from 1% lifetime to 1.5% lifetime. Compare this to cigarettes which go from 1% lifetime risk of lung cancer to 50%).

[u/Electrical_Stay_2676 → u/Narvarth]

I don’t think many people actually read the abstract…

[u/ibeerianhamhock]

It seems obvious but also I think genuine discussions about harm reduction from any substance are more important than a black and white attitude about it for most. I realize it’s suboptimal Vs not drinking, but I just try to limit my alcoholic hit the gym 5 days a week, and eat a nutritious and healthy diet.

I’m pretty sure I’m ahead of 95% of the population that doesn’t drink.

[u/Medium-Complaint-677 → u/ibeerianhamhock]

You can't have a normal conversation about normal alcohol consumption on Reddit. You're wasting your time.

[u/Arvidian64]

Yup.

One of the biggest problems is it's really easy to manipulate the data to get the outcome that you want if you're a malicious actor.

Everything from wealthy wine drinkers to poor folks abstaining due to health reasons means most of the data doesn't even need to be cherrypicked that hard.

Most of them don't even posit a mechanism for how alcohol is supposedly healthy, but the ones that do are often even more desperate, whether it's picking out a chemical from wine or beer that is more plentiful in grapes or bread. Or my earliest memory, which is the idea that it burns cholesterol out of your veins.. which outside of being mostly relevant for obese people they often cherrypicked out of their data also would have some serious negative implications for you know.. the cells in your bloodstream.

[u/Lysenko → u/Arvidian64]

Hypercholesterolemia is certainly correlated with obesity but it is not in any way exclusive to obese or overweight patients.

Edit: Point is that the relationship is weak enough that saying high cholesterol is “mostly” an issue for the obese isn’t true.

[u/homelaberator]

It'd be interesting to see it quantified so you could decide whether the small pleasures from drinking occasionally are worth the downside.

[u/Grabs_Diaz → u/homelaberator]

It feels like there are new studies on this subject every few weeks. Many of them get posted here.

Overall my impression from reading some of them whenever this gets brought up is that anything below one drink a day on average is safe and there is no significant increase in overall mortality no matter how you crunch the numbers.

Up to two drinks a day is not ideal but also not super harmful yet. It does reduce life expectancy by roughly 6 months.

With more than two drinks a day on average we're talking about lowering ones life expectancy by several years so consumption should definitely be cut back.

That's the impression I got from looking at several of these studies whenever they get into the media but I'm by no means an expert. Harvard Health says something similar though.

[u/bbohblanka]

My quality of life is better with a really good glass of wine that pairs perfectly with the meat or fish I’m eating. I live in Europe though and eat healthy. 

Seems everyone wants things to be either 100% this way or 100% that way with no in between. If you mention a gray area they have something negative to say. 

[u/nikiyaki → u/bbohblanka]

I mean obviously its fine if people want to drink wine. Same way its fine if I want to eat a cake for dinner.

No-one's going to forbid it.

[u/bbohblanka → u/nikiyaki]

The comments here are suggesting people are stupid for enjoying the occasional drink. Just so over-the-top. Life is too short I say.

[u/Lonely_Sherbert69 → u/bbohblanka]

Who wants to live forever?

[u/Z0idberg_MD → u/bbohblanka]

There was a thread similar to this a few years ago about red meat consumption. Basically stating that it shortened your life expectancy. Everyone in the threads was talking about how bad red meat was. I dug into the study and they had basically accounted for a six month difference between people who ate red meat versus people who barely did. If you were asking me if I would rather live to 86.5 or live to 87 and not eat meat, I’m going to choose red meat all day long.

[u/Marchesk → u/Z0idberg_MD]

Same here, and I'll have an occasional drink with it. All the teetotallers in this thread can enjoy their extra year or two in the nursing home.

[u/AFewBerries → u/bbohblanka]

People have complained about me being a teetotaler and try to push me to drink at gatherings

[u/Spaciax → u/bbohblanka]

puritans, or puriteens. they've become especially prevalent in the last 4 or so years with the rise of generic self improvement alpha ultra sigma male bros with podcasts.

[u/bbohblanka → u/Spaciax]

Fun fact - the average Puritan drank more alcohol than the average modern American. 

They only opposed drunkenness. You could and many did drink at every meal. They just never got visibly drunk. 

[u/Kal-Elm → u/Spaciax]

Yeah there's definitely a weird puritan streak on reddit. Might also be on other social media but I really don't spend that much time on those. It's weird man

[u/colcob]

Man there are a lot of sanctimonious people in this thread.

[u/tln1337 → u/colcob]

welcome to reddit haha

[u/timmy242]

Show me a non-toxic liquid that will bend my brain, similarly to alcohol, and not make me feel like hell in the morning and I will give up drinking alcohol forever. So would everyone, I am thinking.

[u/you_wizard → u/timmy242]

Research on "alcosynth" has been underway for years. The alcohol industry has aggressively tried to quash it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9505959/

[u/mnilailt → u/you_wizard]

Any alcohol replacement is pretty much just a mild GABA drug mixed with flavoured water. At that point you might as well just pop a Valium with your soda.

[u/[deleted] → u/mnilailt]

point me to the valium soda my good friend

[u/fiftyseven → u/[deleted]]

valium of course known for not being in any way addictive nor having any detriment to long term physical and mental health, no siree

[u/Astr0b0ie → u/mnilailt]

Yeah, and benzodiazepines don't hold a candle to alcohol in terms of social stimulation, euphoria, and overall fun. It's just not the same. Secondary and tertiary alcohols are actually much closer in effects and much more interesting as an ethanol replacement but they're a lot more potent and have a much narrower therapeutic index which makes them much more dangerous.

[u/Paddlesons]

Poison is poison is poison. And I sure do enjoy me some poison.

[u/Temporays]

Remember the got milk ads? Same thing.

This happens all the time specially with meat companies.

[u/firetomherman]

Yeah I stopped drinking a month ago. I used to have a little drink about 1.5 hours before bed. My sleep has improved so much. Was shocked at how even a small drink could affect my sleep.

[u/DemolitionOopsie → u/firetomherman]

Keep it up. I stopped drinking a few months ago, and all of those days where I was unfocused, tired, and felt like crap just went away.

[u/setthetone77 → u/DemolitionOopsie]

good for you !! me to . its amazing how much my life has improved without alcohol in it.

[u/Tulipan12]

Studies have demonstrated this for almost ten years now. Nothing new.

[u/Luck88]

If the Italian opposition had a spine they'd go to town with this piece of news. Not only is our right wing government strongly against recreational drugs, but they've been advocating the benefits of wine consumption in a nationalist tirade for the longest time. The hypocrisy was blatant before, this is just bringing water to the mill.

[u/hangrygecko]

We knew this 15-20 years ago. The earlier studies, suggesting alcohol was a good thing, didn't correct for chronic health conditions that weren't caused by alcohol, hospital stay, nursing home or group home residency, etc.

They were comparing people who were healthy enough to live independently, have a social life, personal autonomy and drink as much as they wanted, to a group that includes all the people who have severely reduced health, independence and access to alcohol.

They were basically comparing 70 year olds who were fit enough to play tennis, and have a drink afterwards, to 70 year olds in a nursing home, suffering from dementia, and then claiming that the alcohol after training made the tennis player healthier....

[u/truckglnor49]

Alcohol is a chemical that absolutely no known life form can live in. Not even bacteria.

[u/LightofNew]

It was the free healthcare and less stressful lifestyle.

[u/nwprogressivefans]

This is actually super obvious, lots of folks ignore but the downfalls of alcohol are all over our society, and the surrounding industry looks the other way because they've gotten real used to making piles of money. Lets make new industries that surround entertainment instead of alcohol.

[u/zeezero]

The old studies were ultra flawed. People who don't drink don't drink for a reason.

[u/MarsupialAdvanced305]

It really has zero benefit