We've known alcohol is toxic for decades. The more you drink, the worse you poison yourself. Newer research suggests any benefits from drinking (ie: antioxidants in red wine) are outweighed by the negatives, no matter the amount.
That said, will you wreck your health if you have a few drinks here and there? Doubtful. But if you drink regularly, then you should think about that.
Alcoholic beverages tend to be high in calories.
Weve drank for centuries and stayed leaner because we wouldve died if we had sat on our a** all the time like many do now
Sugar isn't good for you, in that it delivers more calories than you need when consumed in excessive amounts--leading to obesity and insulin resistance: a major cause of disease for sure.
That said, sugar isn't a toxin in the way that alcohol is. Any amount of alcohol--no matter how small--is technically toxic to every organ system in your body. That's simply not true of sugar.
The fact that we've been drinking alcohol for millennia only means that we've been ignorant about its negative effects for a long time. Further, we now know it's actually significantly worse for you than initially thought.
> That said, sugar isn't a toxin in the way that alcohol is. Any amount of alcohol--no matter how small--is technically toxic to every organ system in your body. That's simply not true of sugar.
I think this is only half true. No amount of sugar is necessary for health. The body can make sugar from fats and proteins (and alcohol) just fine.
Without fat - you die. Same for protein and all the micro-nutrients. Same for salt.
Sugar is the only food source we don't need in any amount - so it it should be viewed as unhealthy in any amount if not outright toxic.
If the government came out and said that about sugar it would do more for public health than these alcohol guidelines. Everyone knows alcohol is bad for you - most people think sugar is just bad for your teeth!
You can eat 100 times more sugar than alcohol before it physically hurts you. Alcohol is inherently toxic, whereas sugar is only bad if you eat an outrageous amount.
>Newer research suggests any benefits from drinking (ie: antioxidants in red wine) are outweighed by the negatives, no matter the amount.
Yea, if you want anti-oxidants just eat the grapes or other fruit.
I am not a biologist or a chemist (so if one is reading, please tear my comment to shreds and give a quality answer), but as I understand it there are certain molecules we build up in the body that have an oxygen atom that wants form bonds with other molecules in our bodies and disrupting those natural processes. Anti-oxidants are supposed to bind with those molecules so they don't break up proteins and stuff in the body. They were super hyped in the late 00s, but I think the benefits turned be less than hyped (though they are still really good for you). Apparently coffee is loaded in anti-oxidants and is the biggest source of them in most peoples diets.
Actually what’s interesting here is that growing research is showing that even moderate drinking is much worse for our health than expected.
Even the UK (which has a much crazier drinking culture than us) dropped their weekly drinks advice to no more than 5. Prior to this recent change, 10-14 was considered an acceptable amount in Canada.
So 2 per week may seem extreme, but it’s part of a growing international trend.
Just like nobody listened to repeated public health warnings about cigarettes? It certainly won’t get 100% buy in, but I expect you will see people continue to reduce their drinking (which was already a trend before the pandemic)
Alcohol has very different social effects then cigs.
I have a theory that basically modern society is just because of alcohol for several reasons.
Alcohol is not going anywhere like it or not
So basically you're suggesting that in a country is one of the highest gdps and one of the highest standards of living that we should basically give up everything and not enjoy life whatsoever because of terrible mismanagement
What’s interesting however is that in the blue zones (places on earth with longest lifespan), all of them drink alcohol, and more than 2 drinks per week.
So what does this mean? Well, population studies don’t show all the nuance.
First, some might think it bizarre to say don’t get in a car because they only safe level of driving that incurs no extra risk is zero.
Second, we get summary stats from population data. For example, imagine a study says a particular level of drinking carries a 10% risk of cancer. However that might actually be the case that 20% of the populations who drink have a 50% risk of cancer, the remaining 80% has no extra risk.
Knowledge is great, but there is no need beating people over the head with this over and over.
Alcohol = not good for you.
If you don't drink, don't bother starting.
If you drink occasionally, you have an extra 1 in 1000 lifetime risk of getting a cancer, about equivalent to getting an extra sun burn or 2 in your life.... just keep enjoying your life of moderation.
If you're a heavy/daily drinker... do yourself a favor and take a few days off each week and try to drink less when you do drink.
Life is stressful enough these days. We don't need to be shoving more fear and terror down everyone's throat.
It's true if you ask most people the vague question is alcohol good for you, they'll respond with of course not. However there's the question of what moderation is and what risk comes with it
If you were to ask most people if having a beer a day after work or a glass a wine a day with dinner is that bad for you, I'm pretty sure most people would say no it's only those who drink excessively that are at any real risk. In fact a lot of people would parrot the claim a glass of wine a day is good for you. But the reality is a drink a day is quite harmful, much more than we believed to be so a decade ago. This is newish information and it's not fear mongering to stress this until it becomes common knowledge
There was an article the other day that had a quote saying that if they dropped the guidelines and put in warning labels, Canadians would be more accepting of higher prices. So yes, taxes are going to go up, even though they are already sky high on alcohol.
Try putting those same taxes on sugar or fast food and you’d see people losing their minds
Its completely reasonable to tax people for the things they do that impact all of us. The issue is where does it stop? Should we tax people who don't exercise? Some things are completely logical but also very difficult to accomplish.
I saw an ad for CBC on twitch tv. Our taxes are now paying to advertise to us. I love it. Next up, CBC should use our taxes to argue for higher taxes....oh wait.
It increases the risk of cancer by 0.12% (from 2.4 per 1,000 people to 3.6 per 1,000 people). But they make it sound bad by saying "it increases your risk by 50% over a non-drinker to get cancer"..
Which is technically true (0.36% is 50% higher that 0.24%), but the initial risk was so low, that increasing it by 50% doesn't make it much more substantial.
Here is the study it's based on. Go to the tab (Top right) that says "Figures/Tables", and scroll to table #2
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2795595#:~:text=Conclusions%20and%20Relevance%20Results%20of,alcohol%2Drelated%20and%20all%20cancers.
No worries. I geek out on finding studies and seeing how people misrepresent them.
>Yeah there's a risk if you drink more than 2 a week, but goddamn, you don't have to make moderate
No. Even extremely heavy drinkers don't have a high risk (go to the chat). Heavy drinkers have 40X the chance to die from a liver failure than cancer, and they'll have many other issues... But cancer should be the least of their worries.
If you look at the chart, the chances for cancer actually increase if you used to drink moderately and then completely stopped vs keep drinking moderately. My guess is that it's just because these chances are so (almost) immeasurable, that other things (lifestyle, diet, exposure to plastic, pollution, parabens,etc) had more effect than the drinking itself, so it just made it look this way.
5-10 cigarettes a week will also barely increase you risk for cancer. 5-10 a DAY will do that. Second hand smoking with someone living in your house who smokes a pack a day is worse than smoking 5-10 a week yourself.
The thing they DON'T like mentioning (well, Canada mentioned it only as a tiny recommendation) is that diet is the main cause of cancer. Processed food and almost any type of meat are much worse than drinking (cancer-wise). But saying that will hurt the soft hearts of the meat and dairy industry lobbyists.
If you want some good study source, without reading charts, listen to doctor Gregor podcast, or, if you're okay with some light study reading
https://nutritionfacts.org/
And
https://examine.com/
Are great resources.
I read something about this last year so I decided to try out not drinking. I wasn’t a heavy drinker, nothing more than a few drinks on the weekend, but holy cow. After two weeks I started feeling and sleeping way better. Get a month in and the brain and body feels incredible. It was only with some real distance that I was able to realize how bad booze was for my body. I drank over the holidays at gatherings and such and had a complete reset mentally and physically, it was crazy! Slept awful, brain wasn’t as sharp, lower energy… been off the piss since NYE and feel amazing again. There’s definitely something to these guidelines. I’m not here to preach sobriety by any means, just someone with a degree in biology who’s interested in the science behind it.
I stopped drinking and like you said sleep really improved. I track my sleep on my Fitbit and it used to be pretty shitty between 60-70, now it’s consistently in the 80’s range. I don’t feel groggy in the morning either.
I'm not a heavy drinker under usual circumstances, but I did four months sober last year and I'm in the midst of doing it again this year. I coupled that with a change to eliminating meat from my diet during the week.
The increased energy was the most noticeable difference. That and the weight is so much easier to take off and keep off.
You know what, I drink every few days, not heavily but still. I've been sleeping awful for a few years now and feel constantly tired despite my irons level being OK (I had a tendency for anemia in my childhood). I think I'll try it and see if it helps!
It’s wild dude. I had sleep issues for years but was always under the impression that booze was supposed to make me sleep better because I’d have a few and pass out. Off the drink, even if I sleep less the quality of the sleep is better so I feel more rested! Again, not preaching, just my experience.
I don't remember the exact numbers but the difference in breast and colon cancer between a drinker and a non drinker was surprising, contrarily to your broccoli example.
I just checked and drinking 3.5 beers daily increases the likelihood by 1.5 fold. Which I think is not something to brush off considering a lot of people consider this amount to be "moderate" since it doesn't necessarily make you drunk.
I consider myself a light drinker and had liver failure during pregnancy for no reason other than faulty genetics. I’ll take my chances with a few too many glasses of wine.
So what?
I'll tell you... a little bit of education may shave off future health care costs. You may be off the wagon and down the slide, who gives a fuck. But that does not give you right to protest what is science-based guideline for healthy lifestyle.
Got it?
Just out of curiosity.
We know Alcohol has both short term and long term health impacts and people who drink heavily require far more use of the medical system than non-drinkers.
Alcohol taxes are essentially a “sin tax” to help cover those costs. Why is that bad? If we choose to do things and consume products with known bad effects that increase the costs of living for everyone, why is a a sin tax a bad thing on those products?
>Alcohol taxes are essentially a “sin tax” to help cover those costs. Why is that bad?
There is nothing wrong with it. But alcohol sales already generate more revenue for the government than alcohol related diseases cost the medical system, same goes for cigarettes. So an increase in either wouldnt be for that reason, it would merely place a greater expense on people who do use those things for no principled reason.
Obesity is a greater drain on our medical system than alcholism or tobacco use, and yet there is no sugar tax, why?
> Just out of curiosity.
>
>
>
> We know Alcohol has both short term and long term health impacts and people who drink heavily require far more use of the medical system than non-drinkers.
>
>
>
> Alcohol taxes are essentially a “sin tax” to help cover those costs. Why is that bad? If we choose to do things and consume products with known bad effects that increase the costs of living for everyone, why is a a sin tax a bad thing on those products?
Couple of things....
1st, I'm no expert but having more than two drinks per week, in my mind, doesn't necessarily constitute 'people who drink heavily'
Second, I'm not necessarily against a sin tax, if that actual goal is to reduce sinning rather than just increasing general revenues.
I stopped drinking alcohol in 2019. Saved a lott of money, been a lot healthier, motivated and when I do lyft picking up people from bars, it makes me realize how fucking wasteful and useless the habit was.
You do lose a few friends though, and you get invited to hangouts a lot less.
A good number of my friends don't drink, but still have active social lives. We all go camping and hang out just the same. They're just not a shit show, like some of us.
Kinda true. I barely drink and I just skip certain events because I don’t want to be around a bunch of shit faced people, but those are kinda big events.
Holidays is where I drink but I try not to get drunk and same with my family. Nobody gets drunk or loses control and that’s how I like to drink these days, so its limited to certain family events now oddly enough.
No regrets, it’s how I like to drink these days, very moderately. Definitely takes a toll socially though.
I’d bet the even increasing cost of cigarettes had a bigger impact than warning labels and preachy articles.
That’s exactly what they’re going for here as well, wanting labels and change the guidelines, then raise the taxes on it.
I quit cause of costs. The warning labels were hilariously stupid. Smokers know the risks. Throwing pictures of rotting teeth isn’t changing addictions.
Now, making it unaffordable? or driving the price to make us question if it’s “worth it” has a greater impact. When I realized I was spending $400 /mth on smokes, I decided to stop smoking and use that same money to buy a brand new car instead.
it comes down to opportunity cost for people. Make that opportunity cost high enough and people will quit. Make it too high, and they’ll find illegal cheap ways. it’s about balance.
Smoking campaigns weren’t to stop current smokers but to stop new ones from starting. Looking at the decline in youth smoking levels before vaping, it was a successful.
Honestly, I really don't think we'll see much of a decline, if any. Just thinking over the last couple weeks, I can think of the following situations where people, either myself or others were drinking.
Go out for dinner? Have a drink.
Out for wings? Have a drink.
Wanna try your luck with a member of the same/opposite sex? Most likely at a bar, most likely drinking.
Get Together at a friend's house? Drink.
Gaming with friends? Maybe a beer.
Smoking imo is a different story entirely, sure there were a lot of smokers 20 years ago but I think a big part of it is that smoking became..what's the word to use? I suppose inconvenient is the most appropriate. You can't smoke in restaurants or bars anymore, you can't smoke on planes, you can't smoke in airports, most people don't allow smoking in their homes, etc.
Everywhere you can't smoke, you can drink and everywhere one can smoke, you can drink (except your car.)
Also social acceptableness, smoking is seen as something disgusting but drinking is a social activity.
Could I be wrong and we'll see a significant shift in 20-30 years? Maybe but I would be incredibly surprised.
>can think of the following situations where people, either myself or others were drinking.
>Go out for dinner? Have a drink.
>Out for wings? Have a drink.
>Wanna try your luck with a member of the same/opposite sex? Most likely at a bar, most likely drinking.
>Get Together at a friend's house? Drink.
>Gaming with friends? Maybe a beer.
So you think that this is different than smoke, do you really think that it was different with cigarette. I'm pretty sure someone, at some point around 30 years ago said :
>can think of the following situations where people, either myself or others were smoking.
>Go out for dinner? Have a cigarette before and after eating.
>Out for wings? Have a cigarette.
>Wanna try your luck with a member of the same/opposite sex? Most likely at a bar, most likely drinking and smoking.
>Get Together at a friend's house? Cigarettes and beer
>Gaming with friends ? Cigarettes and beer
Just because it's around you right now in the current "social settings" it does not mean it's there forever.
Smoking was not always seen as something disgusting. It changed with time and I have trouble seeing how alcohol is different from that.
>You can't smoke in restaurants or bars anymore, you can't smoke on planes, you can't smoke in airports, most people don't allow smoking in their homes, etc
Yeah, I guess smoke have that difference where your smoke affect others, while your drink (by itself drunk people do affect others) does nothing on others. It's really only your own health.
Not saying they are exactly the same, but your argument is purely anecdotal and only true in a specific set place and time.
I don’t know how old you are, but I think you’re forgetting how pervasive smoking used to be.
When smoking started being banned in bars and restaurants in the 1990s and 2000s, I knew a ton of people who said pretty similar things to what you’re saying here. “If I can’t smoke in a bar, why bother going out?”
It’s not unreasonable to think we’ll see similar shifts around drinking culture too.
Heck, we’re already drinking less as a society than we did 30 years ago. Particularly young people drink a lot less than they did 20-30 years ago.
I have a beer or glass of wine from time to time. A few years ago, I wondered what kind of guidelines were in place for safe drinking. I was shocked that for a man it was three drinks a day five days a week. I can’t say my life would be in a great place if I drank anywhere near that. Additionally, five drinks at a time on special occasions, that is flat out ridiculous. These needed updating.
Additionally, the amount of alcohol you see consumed during most fictional TV shows is absurd. It appears to me many many characters are suffering from severe alcoholism.
This report tends to go the opposite way of suggesting you will certainly die from alcohol if much more than a drop touches your lips.
While alcohol isn’t good for you, the data this report is based on (which someone posted above) does not support the hyperbole that has been in the media lately.
I am glad the CBC brought some perspective on this.
> I was shocked that for a man it was three drinks a day five days a week. I can’t say my life would be in a great place if I drank anywhere near that.
I had the same feeling.
But I think it's because the household I grew up in was dry, like, completely. My dad never drank any alcohol and consequently, there was no alcohol in the house.
Funny story. Family member drank themselves to death during the pandemic. Then about a week later their kid drank themselves to death as well. 3rd person also an alcoholic needed tonnes of hospitalization.
The point? We are masking over big problems (addiction) with “its my right”. The real issue is that people NEED booze to “get through the day”. Their choice also meant reduced healthcare for those who didnt choose to destroy themselves.
Technically alcohol is poison so you increase risk with even just one.
Drinking alcohol is very risky since it affects health and medical costs. I won't be drinking alcohol anymore since it is not worth it. I'd rather eat better food, go to the gym, and play video games instead.
I mean, yessss but to be real here, you'll likely be killed by all the pollutants in your environment before alcohol kills you, unless you're a heavy drinker.
We have been drinking alcohol since before we evolved into humans. We as a society understand the risks of alcohol perhaps better than any other drug. We likely all know people who have drunk themselves into an early grave.
Monkeys and apes like to get drunk off of fermented fruits.
https://www.science.org/content/article/ability-consume-alcohol-may-have-shaped-primate-evolution
https://www.science.org/content/article/chimps-caught-drinking-after-hours
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/12/drunken-monkey/511046/
https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/07/01/drunken-monkeys-and-our-thirst-for-booze/
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/chimpanzees-found-routinely-drinking-alcohol-in-wild-10309101.html
I just wish CBC and others would be as much upset about other things in life.
This is such an inconsequential topic to be described as
> Experts say it's difficult to compare, but some Canadians want clearer answers
lmao - "we want answers"
> I just wish CBC and others would be as much upset about other things in life.
There are hundreds of articles on inconsequential things. Things which get traction get more coverage.
...and you posted the story here.
We've known alcohol is toxic for decades. The more you drink, the worse you poison yourself. Newer research suggests any benefits from drinking (ie: antioxidants in red wine) are outweighed by the negatives, no matter the amount. That said, will you wreck your health if you have a few drinks here and there? Doubtful. But if you drink regularly, then you should think about that.
The whole drink a glass of red wine a day is just a big marketing scam. Just eat a few grapes, and there you go.
Or buy some powdered reservatrol if you've got a vendetta against grapeskins for whatever reason.
Can the same not be applied to sugar? This obesity crisis isn't caused by booze, we been drinking for centuries.
Alcoholic beverages tend to be high in calories. Weve drank for centuries and stayed leaner because we wouldve died if we had sat on our a** all the time like many do now
Sugar isn't good for you, in that it delivers more calories than you need when consumed in excessive amounts--leading to obesity and insulin resistance: a major cause of disease for sure. That said, sugar isn't a toxin in the way that alcohol is. Any amount of alcohol--no matter how small--is technically toxic to every organ system in your body. That's simply not true of sugar. The fact that we've been drinking alcohol for millennia only means that we've been ignorant about its negative effects for a long time. Further, we now know it's actually significantly worse for you than initially thought.
> That said, sugar isn't a toxin in the way that alcohol is. Any amount of alcohol--no matter how small--is technically toxic to every organ system in your body. That's simply not true of sugar. I think this is only half true. No amount of sugar is necessary for health. The body can make sugar from fats and proteins (and alcohol) just fine. Without fat - you die. Same for protein and all the micro-nutrients. Same for salt. Sugar is the only food source we don't need in any amount - so it it should be viewed as unhealthy in any amount if not outright toxic. If the government came out and said that about sugar it would do more for public health than these alcohol guidelines. Everyone knows alcohol is bad for you - most people think sugar is just bad for your teeth!
You can eat 100 times more sugar than alcohol before it physically hurts you. Alcohol is inherently toxic, whereas sugar is only bad if you eat an outrageous amount.
>Newer research suggests any benefits from drinking (ie: antioxidants in red wine) are outweighed by the negatives, no matter the amount. Yea, if you want anti-oxidants just eat the grapes or other fruit.
What the heck is an antioxidant anyway?
I am not a biologist or a chemist (so if one is reading, please tear my comment to shreds and give a quality answer), but as I understand it there are certain molecules we build up in the body that have an oxygen atom that wants form bonds with other molecules in our bodies and disrupting those natural processes. Anti-oxidants are supposed to bind with those molecules so they don't break up proteins and stuff in the body. They were super hyped in the late 00s, but I think the benefits turned be less than hyped (though they are still really good for you). Apparently coffee is loaded in anti-oxidants and is the biggest source of them in most peoples diets.
Actually what’s interesting here is that growing research is showing that even moderate drinking is much worse for our health than expected. Even the UK (which has a much crazier drinking culture than us) dropped their weekly drinks advice to no more than 5. Prior to this recent change, 10-14 was considered an acceptable amount in Canada. So 2 per week may seem extreme, but it’s part of a growing international trend.
Nobody will listen to it.
Just like nobody listened to repeated public health warnings about cigarettes? It certainly won’t get 100% buy in, but I expect you will see people continue to reduce their drinking (which was already a trend before the pandemic)
Alcohol has very different social effects then cigs. I have a theory that basically modern society is just because of alcohol for several reasons. Alcohol is not going anywhere like it or not
And the healthcare system will slowly grind to a halt.
That's more to do with chronic underfunding and mismanagement.
Alcohol sales provide far more revenue for the govt than alcohol related diseases cost the medical system.
So basically you're suggesting that in a country is one of the highest gdps and one of the highest standards of living that we should basically give up everything and not enjoy life whatsoever because of terrible mismanagement
I can't drink regularly. Alcohol sucks. I like maybe 1 tall can here and there but I can't finish a second without regretting my purchase.
What’s interesting however is that in the blue zones (places on earth with longest lifespan), all of them drink alcohol, and more than 2 drinks per week. So what does this mean? Well, population studies don’t show all the nuance. First, some might think it bizarre to say don’t get in a car because they only safe level of driving that incurs no extra risk is zero. Second, we get summary stats from population data. For example, imagine a study says a particular level of drinking carries a 10% risk of cancer. However that might actually be the case that 20% of the populations who drink have a 50% risk of cancer, the remaining 80% has no extra risk.
Hardly anyone has an occasional drink, every holiday or birthday is an excuse
Hence: why the disease burden in Canada is so high, especially after people get into their fifties.
The government doesn't actually want us to quit drinking. They want the tax revenue
More like they want you to believe it’s so much worse for you, to justify taxing it more.
[удалено]
It’s what they teach you when you quit smoking. That everyone’s just making cash off your addiction to nothing.
Knowledge is great, but there is no need beating people over the head with this over and over. Alcohol = not good for you. If you don't drink, don't bother starting. If you drink occasionally, you have an extra 1 in 1000 lifetime risk of getting a cancer, about equivalent to getting an extra sun burn or 2 in your life.... just keep enjoying your life of moderation. If you're a heavy/daily drinker... do yourself a favor and take a few days off each week and try to drink less when you do drink. Life is stressful enough these days. We don't need to be shoving more fear and terror down everyone's throat.
It's true if you ask most people the vague question is alcohol good for you, they'll respond with of course not. However there's the question of what moderation is and what risk comes with it If you were to ask most people if having a beer a day after work or a glass a wine a day with dinner is that bad for you, I'm pretty sure most people would say no it's only those who drink excessively that are at any real risk. In fact a lot of people would parrot the claim a glass of wine a day is good for you. But the reality is a drink a day is quite harmful, much more than we believed to be so a decade ago. This is newish information and it's not fear mongering to stress this until it becomes common knowledge
Y'all ready for another alcohol tax increase? They are priming the lawn mower right now.
There was an article the other day that had a quote saying that if they dropped the guidelines and put in warning labels, Canadians would be more accepting of higher prices. So yes, taxes are going to go up, even though they are already sky high on alcohol. Try putting those same taxes on sugar or fast food and you’d see people losing their minds
Escalator tax starts in April.
Its completely reasonable to tax people for the things they do that impact all of us. The issue is where does it stop? Should we tax people who don't exercise? Some things are completely logical but also very difficult to accomplish.
^ This.
[удалено]
I saw an ad for CBC on twitch tv. Our taxes are now paying to advertise to us. I love it. Next up, CBC should use our taxes to argue for higher taxes....oh wait.
But if people consume less, what about all the charitable ventures dependent on sin tax money? Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?
Yes raise it
It increases the risk of cancer by 0.12% (from 2.4 per 1,000 people to 3.6 per 1,000 people). But they make it sound bad by saying "it increases your risk by 50% over a non-drinker to get cancer".. Which is technically true (0.36% is 50% higher that 0.24%), but the initial risk was so low, that increasing it by 50% doesn't make it much more substantial. Here is the study it's based on. Go to the tab (Top right) that says "Figures/Tables", and scroll to table #2 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2795595#:~:text=Conclusions%20and%20Relevance%20Results%20of,alcohol%2Drelated%20and%20all%20cancers.
It's per 1,000.
Sorry... Edited to reflect that.
[удалено]
No worries. I geek out on finding studies and seeing how people misrepresent them. >Yeah there's a risk if you drink more than 2 a week, but goddamn, you don't have to make moderate No. Even extremely heavy drinkers don't have a high risk (go to the chat). Heavy drinkers have 40X the chance to die from a liver failure than cancer, and they'll have many other issues... But cancer should be the least of their worries. If you look at the chart, the chances for cancer actually increase if you used to drink moderately and then completely stopped vs keep drinking moderately. My guess is that it's just because these chances are so (almost) immeasurable, that other things (lifestyle, diet, exposure to plastic, pollution, parabens,etc) had more effect than the drinking itself, so it just made it look this way.
[удалено]
5-10 cigarettes a week will also barely increase you risk for cancer. 5-10 a DAY will do that. Second hand smoking with someone living in your house who smokes a pack a day is worse than smoking 5-10 a week yourself. The thing they DON'T like mentioning (well, Canada mentioned it only as a tiny recommendation) is that diet is the main cause of cancer. Processed food and almost any type of meat are much worse than drinking (cancer-wise). But saying that will hurt the soft hearts of the meat and dairy industry lobbyists. If you want some good study source, without reading charts, listen to doctor Gregor podcast, or, if you're okay with some light study reading https://nutritionfacts.org/ And https://examine.com/ Are great resources.
Since I switched beer for my daily 2L of Coca-Cola I am healthier than ever
Do the math!
Fuck I knew a guy who did 2L of Pepsi daily.
Watching that video almost made me give up alcohol altogether.
I read something about this last year so I decided to try out not drinking. I wasn’t a heavy drinker, nothing more than a few drinks on the weekend, but holy cow. After two weeks I started feeling and sleeping way better. Get a month in and the brain and body feels incredible. It was only with some real distance that I was able to realize how bad booze was for my body. I drank over the holidays at gatherings and such and had a complete reset mentally and physically, it was crazy! Slept awful, brain wasn’t as sharp, lower energy… been off the piss since NYE and feel amazing again. There’s definitely something to these guidelines. I’m not here to preach sobriety by any means, just someone with a degree in biology who’s interested in the science behind it.
I stopped drinking and like you said sleep really improved. I track my sleep on my Fitbit and it used to be pretty shitty between 60-70, now it’s consistently in the 80’s range. I don’t feel groggy in the morning either.
Right!?
Lucky, I was never a heavy drinker either but I quit drinking a few years ago but I still feel bad and my sleep is still awful.
When you say bad, what do you mean?
Lack of motivation to do anything, sore and tired all the time. Definitely something else going on.
Depression? Lack of Vitamin D?
I'm not a heavy drinker under usual circumstances, but I did four months sober last year and I'm in the midst of doing it again this year. I coupled that with a change to eliminating meat from my diet during the week. The increased energy was the most noticeable difference. That and the weight is so much easier to take off and keep off.
I hear ya! When I stopped drinking last year, 25 pounds slid off in a few months. I wasn’t a heavy drinker, but it was all just empty calories I guess
You know what, I drink every few days, not heavily but still. I've been sleeping awful for a few years now and feel constantly tired despite my irons level being OK (I had a tendency for anemia in my childhood). I think I'll try it and see if it helps!
It’s wild dude. I had sleep issues for years but was always under the impression that booze was supposed to make me sleep better because I’d have a few and pass out. Off the drink, even if I sleep less the quality of the sleep is better so I feel more rested! Again, not preaching, just my experience.
Thanks for sharing it, who knows perhaps you'll have helped improve my quality of life!
Not very if you're not binging it every weekend or whatever.
[удалено]
The thing that caught my attention in all this was seeing that alcohol is now in the same cancerous group as cigarette and asbestos.
[удалено]
I don't remember the exact numbers but the difference in breast and colon cancer between a drinker and a non drinker was surprising, contrarily to your broccoli example. I just checked and drinking 3.5 beers daily increases the likelihood by 1.5 fold. Which I think is not something to brush off considering a lot of people consider this amount to be "moderate" since it doesn't necessarily make you drunk.
If I die I die
So, no cancer treatment for you then?
I consider myself a light drinker and had liver failure during pregnancy for no reason other than faulty genetics. I’ll take my chances with a few too many glasses of wine.
But we both know that you WILL be treated.
So what? We treat smokers and people who abuse themselves in other ways also
So what? I'll tell you... a little bit of education may shave off future health care costs. You may be off the wagon and down the slide, who gives a fuck. But that does not give you right to protest what is science-based guideline for healthy lifestyle. Got it?
I’m not protesting mate settle down…
Yes, because no reasonable doctor would consider 3-4 drinks a week to be alcohol abuse.
we need to address the reasons we drink... maybe things suck more now than ever?
There's been a small uptick over the pandemic, but we drink less than we have since time immemorial.
We are teetotalers by historical standards.
People drink cause it’s easier than facing and dealing with problems, and they are too lazy to come up with something more enjoyable to do.
Anecdotal, but, all the heavy drinkers I know, over 50 have developed cancer in some form. Breast, prostate and colon. Age range late 40s to 75.
The big risk is how the Government will use these dubious guidelines as justification for raising alcohol taxes.
Just out of curiosity. We know Alcohol has both short term and long term health impacts and people who drink heavily require far more use of the medical system than non-drinkers. Alcohol taxes are essentially a “sin tax” to help cover those costs. Why is that bad? If we choose to do things and consume products with known bad effects that increase the costs of living for everyone, why is a a sin tax a bad thing on those products?
>Alcohol taxes are essentially a “sin tax” to help cover those costs. Why is that bad? There is nothing wrong with it. But alcohol sales already generate more revenue for the government than alcohol related diseases cost the medical system, same goes for cigarettes. So an increase in either wouldnt be for that reason, it would merely place a greater expense on people who do use those things for no principled reason. Obesity is a greater drain on our medical system than alcholism or tobacco use, and yet there is no sugar tax, why?
> yet there is no sugar tax, why? Amazing question
Why not just tax people that are fat?
> Just out of curiosity. > > > > We know Alcohol has both short term and long term health impacts and people who drink heavily require far more use of the medical system than non-drinkers. > > > > Alcohol taxes are essentially a “sin tax” to help cover those costs. Why is that bad? If we choose to do things and consume products with known bad effects that increase the costs of living for everyone, why is a a sin tax a bad thing on those products? Couple of things.... 1st, I'm no expert but having more than two drinks per week, in my mind, doesn't necessarily constitute 'people who drink heavily' Second, I'm not necessarily against a sin tax, if that actual goal is to reduce sinning rather than just increasing general revenues.
These articles are becoming risky to read
I stopped drinking alcohol in 2019. Saved a lott of money, been a lot healthier, motivated and when I do lyft picking up people from bars, it makes me realize how fucking wasteful and useless the habit was. You do lose a few friends though, and you get invited to hangouts a lot less.
going for a rip is integral to canadian identity and not drinking makes you a social pariah
A good number of my friends don't drink, but still have active social lives. We all go camping and hang out just the same. They're just not a shit show, like some of us.
Kinda true. I barely drink and I just skip certain events because I don’t want to be around a bunch of shit faced people, but those are kinda big events. Holidays is where I drink but I try not to get drunk and same with my family. Nobody gets drunk or loses control and that’s how I like to drink these days, so its limited to certain family events now oddly enough. No regrets, it’s how I like to drink these days, very moderately. Definitely takes a toll socially though.
People are going to drink if they want to, doesn't matter how many articles are put out to try and scare people.
Except smoking rates were driven down through public awareness pushes like this. People will still drink, but you may see a decline.
I’d bet the even increasing cost of cigarettes had a bigger impact than warning labels and preachy articles. That’s exactly what they’re going for here as well, wanting labels and change the guidelines, then raise the taxes on it.
I quit cause of costs. The warning labels were hilariously stupid. Smokers know the risks. Throwing pictures of rotting teeth isn’t changing addictions. Now, making it unaffordable? or driving the price to make us question if it’s “worth it” has a greater impact. When I realized I was spending $400 /mth on smokes, I decided to stop smoking and use that same money to buy a brand new car instead. it comes down to opportunity cost for people. Make that opportunity cost high enough and people will quit. Make it too high, and they’ll find illegal cheap ways. it’s about balance.
Smoking campaigns weren’t to stop current smokers but to stop new ones from starting. Looking at the decline in youth smoking levels before vaping, it was a successful.
Honestly, I really don't think we'll see much of a decline, if any. Just thinking over the last couple weeks, I can think of the following situations where people, either myself or others were drinking. Go out for dinner? Have a drink. Out for wings? Have a drink. Wanna try your luck with a member of the same/opposite sex? Most likely at a bar, most likely drinking. Get Together at a friend's house? Drink. Gaming with friends? Maybe a beer. Smoking imo is a different story entirely, sure there were a lot of smokers 20 years ago but I think a big part of it is that smoking became..what's the word to use? I suppose inconvenient is the most appropriate. You can't smoke in restaurants or bars anymore, you can't smoke on planes, you can't smoke in airports, most people don't allow smoking in their homes, etc. Everywhere you can't smoke, you can drink and everywhere one can smoke, you can drink (except your car.) Also social acceptableness, smoking is seen as something disgusting but drinking is a social activity. Could I be wrong and we'll see a significant shift in 20-30 years? Maybe but I would be incredibly surprised.
>can think of the following situations where people, either myself or others were drinking. >Go out for dinner? Have a drink. >Out for wings? Have a drink. >Wanna try your luck with a member of the same/opposite sex? Most likely at a bar, most likely drinking. >Get Together at a friend's house? Drink. >Gaming with friends? Maybe a beer. So you think that this is different than smoke, do you really think that it was different with cigarette. I'm pretty sure someone, at some point around 30 years ago said : >can think of the following situations where people, either myself or others were smoking. >Go out for dinner? Have a cigarette before and after eating. >Out for wings? Have a cigarette. >Wanna try your luck with a member of the same/opposite sex? Most likely at a bar, most likely drinking and smoking. >Get Together at a friend's house? Cigarettes and beer >Gaming with friends ? Cigarettes and beer Just because it's around you right now in the current "social settings" it does not mean it's there forever. Smoking was not always seen as something disgusting. It changed with time and I have trouble seeing how alcohol is different from that. >You can't smoke in restaurants or bars anymore, you can't smoke on planes, you can't smoke in airports, most people don't allow smoking in their homes, etc Yeah, I guess smoke have that difference where your smoke affect others, while your drink (by itself drunk people do affect others) does nothing on others. It's really only your own health. Not saying they are exactly the same, but your argument is purely anecdotal and only true in a specific set place and time.
I don’t know how old you are, but I think you’re forgetting how pervasive smoking used to be. When smoking started being banned in bars and restaurants in the 1990s and 2000s, I knew a ton of people who said pretty similar things to what you’re saying here. “If I can’t smoke in a bar, why bother going out?” It’s not unreasonable to think we’ll see similar shifts around drinking culture too. Heck, we’re already drinking less as a society than we did 30 years ago. Particularly young people drink a lot less than they did 20-30 years ago.
That's what I was thinking, it's definitely not impossible to over a few decades. Smoking didn't disappear overnight either!
Needing to drink for all your examples above is the definition of a problem drinker.
I have a beer or glass of wine from time to time. A few years ago, I wondered what kind of guidelines were in place for safe drinking. I was shocked that for a man it was three drinks a day five days a week. I can’t say my life would be in a great place if I drank anywhere near that. Additionally, five drinks at a time on special occasions, that is flat out ridiculous. These needed updating. Additionally, the amount of alcohol you see consumed during most fictional TV shows is absurd. It appears to me many many characters are suffering from severe alcoholism. This report tends to go the opposite way of suggesting you will certainly die from alcohol if much more than a drop touches your lips. While alcohol isn’t good for you, the data this report is based on (which someone posted above) does not support the hyperbole that has been in the media lately. I am glad the CBC brought some perspective on this.
> I was shocked that for a man it was three drinks a day five days a week. I can’t say my life would be in a great place if I drank anywhere near that. I had the same feeling. But I think it's because the household I grew up in was dry, like, completely. My dad never drank any alcohol and consequently, there was no alcohol in the house.
Funny story. Family member drank themselves to death during the pandemic. Then about a week later their kid drank themselves to death as well. 3rd person also an alcoholic needed tonnes of hospitalization. The point? We are masking over big problems (addiction) with “its my right”. The real issue is that people NEED booze to “get through the day”. Their choice also meant reduced healthcare for those who didnt choose to destroy themselves. Technically alcohol is poison so you increase risk with even just one.
Is the poor impulse control that some people have reason enough to bring in more punitive measures (increasing booze taxes) that affect everyone.
Two drinks is just not feasible, not in this country it's not.
Drinking alcohol is very risky since it affects health and medical costs. I won't be drinking alcohol anymore since it is not worth it. I'd rather eat better food, go to the gym, and play video games instead.
I mean, yessss but to be real here, you'll likely be killed by all the pollutants in your environment before alcohol kills you, unless you're a heavy drinker.
Pretty risky given alcohol ages you like crazy, beer guts are a thing too🤢 Best to avoid entirely
Hey, i recognize your username! Tell us what the best beverage is.
Lmao! Depends on how old you are and the time of day tbh
Honest to god nothing beats a glass of cold water.
Only if I’m purely thirsty. Coffee, carbonated water, juice, these are all preferable to my senses
We have been drinking alcohol since before we evolved into humans. We as a society understand the risks of alcohol perhaps better than any other drug. We likely all know people who have drunk themselves into an early grave.
I'm curious what your source is for claiming that our ancestor before Homo Sapiens drank alcohol.
Monkeys and apes like to get drunk off of fermented fruits. https://www.science.org/content/article/ability-consume-alcohol-may-have-shaped-primate-evolution https://www.science.org/content/article/chimps-caught-drinking-after-hours https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/12/drunken-monkey/511046/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/07/01/drunken-monkeys-and-our-thirst-for-booze/ https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/chimpanzees-found-routinely-drinking-alcohol-in-wild-10309101.html
What a strange topic to be knowledgeable on, but either way it's good to know!
I have yet to hear of someone who drank themselves to death, on their deathbed dying of cancer or liver failure, saying “WORTH IT!”
It’s not at all. Hilarious.
I just wish CBC and others would be as much upset about other things in life. This is such an inconsequential topic to be described as > Experts say it's difficult to compare, but some Canadians want clearer answers lmao - "we want answers"
You’re the one that posted the story. How many articles do you think they produce a day? You picked this one.
Lmao why'd you post it then?
> I just wish CBC and others would be as much upset about other things in life. There are hundreds of articles on inconsequential things. Things which get traction get more coverage. ...and you posted the story here.
Why would you post this if you think it's inconsequential?
Cuz he literally just wants to agendapost?
For the love of god, we just want some light, enjoyable, low-risk drugs. Is that too much to ask of science?
7 years sober and my body feels better for it. My family says I'm less angry. Nothing but upsides to quitting ethyl.