Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!
-
@marcinozga said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@marcinozga said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
Oh, we do know:
This says absolutely nothing about alcohol being bad for you. It is just giving the obvious information that "too much of anything" is bad for you. Which we already know. If you think this is telling you that all alcohol is bad, it must then mean that all water is bad, too, as too much water will kill you.
Bottom line... there is no scientific or common sense evidence that alcohol in proper quantities is unhealthy and most studies show or suggest that some alcohol is actually good for you.
But it does. It explains alcohol metabolism at cellular and molecular level, and indicates that metabolism does damage the liver. We're not getting into exact quantities here, as that's really impossible to estimate, for the sake of argument lets say single C2H5OH molecule damages single liver cell. That's the evidence right there.
Stress does more damage to your body and the baby's body than moderate alcohol consumption.
This much as already been determined.
Just keep in mind what moderate alcohol consumption is defined to mean.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@marcinozga said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@marcinozga said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
This source specifically says that they don't know. How did you use "we don't know" as "we know?" All it says is that they have not determined the right amount, not that there isn't a safe amount or even that some isn't better than none.
"There is no known safe amount of alcohol use during pregnancy or while trying to get pregnant. There is also no safe time during pregnancy to drink. All types of alcohol are equally harmful, including all wines and beer. When a pregnant woman drinks alcohol, so does her baby." - hint, 2nd and 3rd sentence.
None of that, literally not one word of it, says that they know that alcohol is bad (we don't need to keep saying "in proper quantities" unless someone truly things that water needs a warning, too). You are letting them "lead you" with the writing style.
Read it careful. All it says is that "they don't know." They never say alcohol is dangerous. They point out obvious things and let you draw false conclusions. This is standard marketing techniques that we talk about regularly. How sales people state something simple and true that tells you nothing, and let you presume that they meant something more.
This is how you get people to lie to themselves, it's what prevents lawsuits and you never have to say things as people will "fill in the gaps" with their own assumptions.
You read this and think they just said alcohol is known to be bad. I read it and see words that very clearly say "we don't know much of anything."
Seriously? Do you only read what you want to read? All alcohol are equally harmful - does that sound they never say alcohol is dangerous?
-
@marcinozga said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@marcinozga said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
Oh, we do know:
This says absolutely nothing about alcohol being bad for you. It is just giving the obvious information that "too much of anything" is bad for you. Which we already know. If you think this is telling you that all alcohol is bad, it must then mean that all water is bad, too, as too much water will kill you.
Bottom line... there is no scientific or common sense evidence that alcohol in proper quantities is unhealthy and most studies show or suggest that some alcohol is actually good for you.
But it does. It explains alcohol metabolism at cellular and molecular level, and indicates that metabolism does damage the liver. We're not getting into exact quantities here, as that's really impossible to estimate, for the sake of argument lets say single C2H5OH molecule damages single liver cell. That's the evidence right there.
You can say the same thing about radiation. Yet we know scientifically that there is a healthy level of radiation and too much OR too little is bad for you. The body needs a certain, regular level of damage to stay at peak health.
You have two misconceptions here in the logic flow that I see...
- Quantity. All things are unhealthy in wrong quantities, literally everything from air to water to sunlight to broccoli. We don't know that all alcohol levels causes damage, only that too much does. That alone doesn't lead us to anything useful.
- Cellular damage is not unhealthy. Just because something is bad for a single cell doesn't imply that it is then bad for the health overall. That's one way to lead to being unhealthy, but it is also a way to lead to being healthy. This is getting "caught in the weeds" and stuck looking at a specific detail and not at the health as a whole.
-
@marcinozga said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
Seriously? Do you only read what you want to read? All alcohol are equally harmful - does that sound they never say alcohol is dangerous?
So all alcohol are equally harmful. But we don't know if it is harmful. So this says, quite literally, nothing. It's filler words.
Read carefully what you are quoting. It only says something significant if you "fill in the gaps" with assumptions that they don't say. They are literally saying nothing, but you are assuming that they are making big claims.
-
@marcinozga said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@marcinozga said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
Oh, we do know:
This says absolutely nothing about alcohol being bad for you. It is just giving the obvious information that "too much of anything" is bad for you. Which we already know. If you think this is telling you that all alcohol is bad, it must then mean that all water is bad, too, as too much water will kill you.
Bottom line... there is no scientific or common sense evidence that alcohol in proper quantities is unhealthy and most studies show or suggest that some alcohol is actually good for you.
But it does. It explains alcohol metabolism at cellular and molecular level, and indicates that metabolism does damage the liver. We're not getting into exact quantities here, as that's really impossible to estimate, for the sake of argument lets say single C2H5OH molecule damages single liver cell. That's the evidence right there.
Sure, but Livers regenerate, so this is probably a completely norm part of human evolution, etc... and not really harmful long term (and studies have proven as much for adults - as Scott said - fetus might be a special case, we simply don't know).
-
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@marcinozga said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@marcinozga said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
Oh, we do know:
This says absolutely nothing about alcohol being bad for you. It is just giving the obvious information that "too much of anything" is bad for you. Which we already know. If you think this is telling you that all alcohol is bad, it must then mean that all water is bad, too, as too much water will kill you.
Bottom line... there is no scientific or common sense evidence that alcohol in proper quantities is unhealthy and most studies show or suggest that some alcohol is actually good for you.
But it does. It explains alcohol metabolism at cellular and molecular level, and indicates that metabolism does damage the liver. We're not getting into exact quantities here, as that's really impossible to estimate, for the sake of argument lets say single C2H5OH molecule damages single liver cell. That's the evidence right there.
Stress does more damage to your body and the baby's body than moderate alcohol consumption.
This much as already been determined.
Just keep in mind what moderate alcohol consumption is defined to mean.
That's what all the doctors I've talked to have claimed. I'm not convinced that they've proven it, especially for fetus (feti?) or babies, but I'm convinced that the logic makes sense as to what it could mean.
It's totally common sense. What is good for adults is likely good for babies. We evolved to drink alcohol, it's built into not just humans but the apes we descended from. Alcohol has been a part of our diets since literally before we were humans. That we have evolved to handle it as both adults and as a fetus is a pretty logical assumption. Possible that we haven't, but pretty likely that we have.
And the known evidence supports this.
-
@marcinozga said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@marcinozga said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@marcinozga said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
This source specifically says that they don't know. How did you use "we don't know" as "we know?" All it says is that they have not determined the right amount, not that there isn't a safe amount or even that some isn't better than none.
"There is no known safe amount of alcohol use during pregnancy or while trying to get pregnant. There is also no safe time during pregnancy to drink. All types of alcohol are equally harmful, including all wines and beer. When a pregnant woman drinks alcohol, so does her baby." - hint, 2nd and 3rd sentence.
None of that, literally not one word of it, says that they know that alcohol is bad (we don't need to keep saying "in proper quantities" unless someone truly things that water needs a warning, too). You are letting them "lead you" with the writing style.
Read it careful. All it says is that "they don't know." They never say alcohol is dangerous. They point out obvious things and let you draw false conclusions. This is standard marketing techniques that we talk about regularly. How sales people state something simple and true that tells you nothing, and let you presume that they meant something more.
This is how you get people to lie to themselves, it's what prevents lawsuits and you never have to say things as people will "fill in the gaps" with their own assumptions.
You read this and think they just said alcohol is known to be bad. I read it and see words that very clearly say "we don't know much of anything."
Seriously? Do you only read what you want to read? All alcohol are equally harmful - does that sound they never say alcohol is dangerous?
Sure when you say harmful and mean it to be (as you said earlier) a one to one liver damage - but again, other studies have shown that at least in adults, this damage is so much less than the positive affects it grants that it actually extends your life.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
What is good for adults is likely good for babies.
Not honey. I seen honey is dangerous for children < 1 year old.
-
Basically, as far as pregnancy is concerned, this is what we know...
- Too much alcohol (or anything) is obviously bad. Even pickles and ice cream.
- There is zero evidence to even suggest that proper amounts of alcohol has any negative impacts.
- There is suggested evidence that known adult benefits may be passed on to the fetus either directly (fetus benefits) or indirectly (fetus benefits from lower stressed mother.)
That's it. Three facts. The idea that it is safe to drink while pregnant is based from 2 and 3 - if alcohol was really a risk, we'd easily have evidence of it. We don't, because even if it is a risk, it's such a tiny risk as to not be measurable. That's how "not risky" it is. But we know that it helps the mother, so there is evidence suggesting it is overall good.
The anti-alcohol camp uses 1 as the logic. Basically saying "since we don't know the amount that is bad, it's all bad."
Basically one side says "we don't know how much is too much." The other side says "we don't know how little is too little."
-
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
That we have evolved to handle it as both adults and as a fetus is a pretty logical assumption.
My thinking here is that all vertebrates have livers, therefore are capable of handling alcohol. But I don't agree that we have evolved the way we have for the handling of alcohol specifically... just toxins in general.
-
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
What is good for adults is likely good for babies.
Not honey. I seen honey is dangerous for children < 1 year old.
Right. But honey is a known "extremely rare" exception. It doesn't change the fact that "what is likely." But it is true, honey is specifically dangerous to new borns. But also it is very well known why and not a "we just think it is" kind of thing.
-
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
That we have evolved to handle it as both adults and as a fetus is a pretty logical assumption.
My thinking here is that all vertebrates have livers, therefore are capable of handling alcohol. But I don't agree that we have evolved the way we have for the handling of alcohol specifically... just toxins in general.
I wasn't basing that on livers in general. It's "known" from evolutionary forensics that the pre-human ancestors were alcohol drinkers. It's been found going back on the ape tree in our direct ancestor line.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
That we have evolved to handle it as both adults and as a fetus is a pretty logical assumption.
My thinking here is that all vertebrates have livers, therefore are capable of handling alcohol. But I don't agree that we have evolved the way we have for the handling of alcohol specifically... just toxins in general.
I wasn't basing that on livers in general. It's "known" from evolutionary forensics that the pre-human ancestors were alcohol drinkers. It's been found going back on the ape tree in our direct ancestor line.
Oh i see what you mean now.
-
@dashrender said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@marcinozga said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@marcinozga said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@marcinozga said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
This source specifically says that they don't know. How did you use "we don't know" as "we know?" All it says is that they have not determined the right amount, not that there isn't a safe amount or even that some isn't better than none.
"There is no known safe amount of alcohol use during pregnancy or while trying to get pregnant. There is also no safe time during pregnancy to drink. All types of alcohol are equally harmful, including all wines and beer. When a pregnant woman drinks alcohol, so does her baby." - hint, 2nd and 3rd sentence.
None of that, literally not one word of it, says that they know that alcohol is bad (we don't need to keep saying "in proper quantities" unless someone truly things that water needs a warning, too). You are letting them "lead you" with the writing style.
Read it careful. All it says is that "they don't know." They never say alcohol is dangerous. They point out obvious things and let you draw false conclusions. This is standard marketing techniques that we talk about regularly. How sales people state something simple and true that tells you nothing, and let you presume that they meant something more.
This is how you get people to lie to themselves, it's what prevents lawsuits and you never have to say things as people will "fill in the gaps" with their own assumptions.
You read this and think they just said alcohol is known to be bad. I read it and see words that very clearly say "we don't know much of anything."
Seriously? Do you only read what you want to read? All alcohol are equally harmful - does that sound they never say alcohol is dangerous?
Sure when you say harmful and mean it to be (as you said earlier) a one to one liver damage - but again, other studies have shown that at least in adults, this damage is so much less than the positive affects it grants that it actually extends your life.
Right, if alcohol has a negative harmful effect (a double negative, making it a healthy positive) then all the CDC is telling us is that they claim that all alcohol is equally good for us. But we know that some alcohol like red wine is better than vodka, so we know that they are wrong. Insane amounts of scientific literature on why some things like wine are way better for you than grain alcohols.
-
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
That we have evolved to handle it as both adults and as a fetus is a pretty logical assumption.
My thinking here is that all vertebrates have livers, therefore are capable of handling alcohol. But I don't agree that we have evolved the way we have for the handling of alcohol specifically... just toxins in general.
I wasn't basing that on livers in general. It's "known" from evolutionary forensics that the pre-human ancestors were alcohol drinkers. It's been found going back on the ape tree in our direct ancestor line.
Oh i see what you mean now.
Yeah, it's like the original chimp or something is the oldest known alcohol drinker (humans are technically classified as the third in the chimpanzee family along with regular chimps and the bonobo.)
-
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
But we know that some alcohol like red wine is better than vodka, so we know that they are wrong
Red wine isn't alcohol. It contains alcohol.
Some drinks are better than others due to teh added nutritional value that the wine itself gives us.
The alcohol is good based off of the stress relieve moderate consumption gives us.
Equal amounts of alcohol form wine or vodka, leaving out the drink the alcohol is in would give the same benefits.
-
I think that would have better been said that some alcoholic drinks are better than others, such as red wine vs vodka.
-
@tim_g said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
@scottalanmiller said in Red Wine is good for you: Myth busted!:
But we know that some alcohol like red wine is better than vodka, so we know that they are wrong
Red wine isn't alcohol. It contains alcohol.
Some drinks are better than others due to teh added nutritional value that the wine itself gives us.
The alcohol is good based off of the stress relieve moderate consumption gives us.
Equal amounts of alcohol form wine or vodka, leaving out the drink the alcohol is in would give the same benefits.
Well sure, but the original source must have been claiming this. Otherwise it was making the bizarre claim that methanol isn't more dangerous than ethanol. Which basically makes the CDC an evil entity out to kill people.
-
I mean they do harbour anthrax and small pox so, perhaps...
-
Good article, just more confirmation that the title of this thread is wrong.
