upvote

points

by nialse4 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby laserlight3 hours ago|
next
[-]
The following quote is especially problematic IMHO:

> For a paper claiming to overturn decades of alcohol drinking recommendations, the statistical foundation is underdocumented and, to be mild, statistically strange.

Given that "decades of alcohol drinking recommendations" lacked any statistical basis to begin with, the scientific-rigor bar to clear is quite low IMHO.

reply
upvoteby nialse2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's just writing for dramatic effect it seems. The claim that the paper is 'used as “definitive” argument in the medical discussions' seems quite absurd given that the paper itself was published just two months ago.
reply
upvoteby graemep2 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
People from puritanical cultures rationalise their opposition to other people consuming alcohol.

Ad hominem arguments cut both ways.

reply
upvoteby nialse1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Your argument is misguided and tries to make the issue about the cultural background of the people making the argument rather than the merits of the argument itself. Most of the researchers I've worked with consume alcohol, they are taking an informed risk and are okay with that. There is not so much opposition as it is a reaction to having seen what alcohol does to the body, people and their relationships.
reply
upvoteby jvican2 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I think nobody would argue drinking a lot of alcohol, or substantial alcohol, is detrimental for health.

The question being argued is whether drinking a small amount of alcohol is detrimental to your health. This is a different matter altogether.

We, humans, have been drinking alcohol for millenia. I'm skeptical to the idea that a small amount, say, a glass of wine for lunch every day or so, can harm us, especially for active individuals. There has been a natural selection process for us to adapt.

I believe what Taleb is doing here is of great public value, and I commend him for that.

reply
upvoteby nialse2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I spent some time working with CBT for alcohol use disorder, mainly treating "active individuals". I've heard your line of reasoning many times. No level of alcohol consumption is considered risk free from a scientific point of view, at least the view of the senior researchers and professors I worked quite closely with.

So, I don't think this is providing "great public value", on the contrary I would suggest spending time with the research and treatment of the many individuals starting out thinking that "a glass of wine for lunch every day or so" can't "harm us".

reply
upvoteby puelocesar42 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I almost completely stopped drinking because it hurts my surfing performance, and surfing so so much nicer then drinking, so it was a good trade off.

But I’m curious nonetheless, can you give some examples of those risks? I keep seeing people mentioning them, but haven’t seen many well informed reasonings

reply
upvoteby nialse26 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Medical risks are the most commonly mentioned, for instance, alcohol is a major risk for cancer and, in some regions, has overtaken smoking as a leading risk factor. But in my personal experience, the most damaging consequences of alcohol use (disorder) are its negative effects on relationships with spouses, children, other relatives, and friends. It doesn't only affect the person willing to take the risk, but also others.
reply
upvoteby throw12345678911 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> No level of alcohol consumption is considered risk free from a scientific point of view

From scientific point of view life leads to death in 100% of cases.

reply
upvoteby nialse1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I love the sock puppet throwaway account trolling here.

There are risks getting out of bed in the morning, but there are greater risks NOT getting out of bed in the morning.

Risk is apparently a very difficult subject.

reply
upvoteby throw12345678911 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I love you too.
reply
upvoteby paganel1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
From a certain point on we must start being adults again and become aware that some health risks are worth the price when it comes to drinking a glass or two of wine/beer every-once in a while. Because wine/beer have helped us become more of a social animal over the millennia, i.e. have helped us become humans, and suddenly reversing that for the sake of, I don't know, 6 months-a year of prolonged living in their late 70s - the 80s is not worth it.

With that said, I'm fully aware that excessive alcohol intake (i.e. alcoholism) has been destroying lives for millennia, too, but that's what life is, we can't turn it into this aseptic thing where every risk is accounted for.

reply
upvoteby epolanski2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
There is no evidence either small quantities of tobacco or most drugs harm you either.

People that want to drink will find excuses to do so.

reply
upvoteby jvican2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Maybe — I haven't looked at the evidence.

But, alcohol is something that has been present in our ancestral environment (e.g. fermented fruits). If anyone's telling me, our bodies didn't learn to at least tolerate small amounts of it without any major side effects, I'm going to be asking a lot of follow-up questions.

I think it's much easier to argue this case than, say, tobacco or "drugs", which are arguably more recent inventions, depending on your exact definition of drug.

reply
upvoteby Ekaros2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Same logic applies to heavy metal like lead and others. Also cyanide and arsenic. And so on. We still actively avoid them. Just because we can tolerate them via various process does not mean it wouldn't be better to avoid them altogether and minimise exposure.
reply
upvoteby epolanski2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Smoked meat has been a staple of human diet for millenia.

It's cancerous.

reply
upvoteby graemep2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Which "drugs"?

The problem with highly addictive things is people do not stop at small quantities.

reply
upvoteby epolanski2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If alcohol was invented today, people would be like "no way we allow a juice that makes you happy, stupid, aggressive and endangers yourself and others and has high addictive levels".
reply
upvoteby free6522 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
>And maybe also let off the rhetoric of "government sponsored" science, which is actually most science in many places.

Is it? Government science is usually very closely tied to politics, and that's so far from "science". I didn't see any real science in your post as well btw.

reply
upvoteby nialse21 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
It depends on setting, especially country but also institution of course. 25-30% of all research world wide is government financed. In the EU 76% of university research is financed by the government and 57% in the US.

I'm happy to discuss definitions of science any day of the week! =)

https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?df[ds]=DisseminateFinalDM...

reply