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.
Hmmm… An industry that sells wildly overpriced drinks that harm me and cause addiction could stoop as low as sponsoring flawed studies? (My implied shock is humor here. I guessed this long ago.)
Next thing is someone’s going to find out that in spite of high class signaling of tasting, hoarding and showing off with expensive wines, the expensive wines don’t actually taste better…
the expensive wines don’t
actuallyautomatically taste better…Ftfy
Sometimes they do. I’ve definitely had excellent expensive wines. But I’ve also had great bottles for $10.
For some things cost can matter, it just really depends. Stuff that can only attain certain flavors by aging in barrels, that time makes it cost more (similar to how really good Balsamic Vinegar is costly because of aging).
But yea, there’s a LOT of BS in the wine world. I rarely have an expensive one, it’s not worth the risk in $ for an unknown quantity, when less expensive wines can be great.
To illustrate your last point, Two Buck Chuck has won several awards over the years. It was literally $1.99 a bottle two decades ago and still sits between $2-4 most places.
Two Buck Chuck won awards because people assumed it would be worse then bottom shelf box of wine, and it was actually marginally better.
That doesn’t mean it tasted good, because it didn’t.
It was good for a $2 bottle of wine, but the $2 was doing the heavy lifting.
I look at it the same way I look at guitars. Epiphones are generally worse than Gibson guitars (debatable for some models and years, but generally). You can get a new Epiphone Les Paul Standard for just under $700. You can get a new Gibson Les Paul Standard for just under $2800. Is the Gibson $2000 better? Well, probably not, but to some folks it’s worth it.
I have guitars ranging from $100 garage sale specials that I’ve modified to be playable to a $3000 custom jobbie and honestly at my skill level there’s nothing I can do with a $500 guitar with a good setup that I couldn’t do with a $3000 one.
If your serious hobby or job isn’t wine and it’s not a gift, Charles Shaw is probably fine for a day to day wine (unless you just don’t like it, which is fine). There are plenty of folks out there drinking boxes White Zinfandel. However, if you’re into wine then go get it elsewhere. The fact that any $2 wine is palatable is fucking amazing to me.
In Europe we have Thomann and their in house brand of guitars (Harley Benton) and they have absolutely no right to be as good as they are for the price, also good looking things as well.
all industrial (or “bio”) wines taste like sulfur, artificial yeast and dozens of other stuff that they add in to control the fermentation process. If you want to know how actual wine tastes like you should try natural ones.
I realize that alcohol consumption is constantly being studied, and often those are funded by industry lobbies, so it’s possible this information is 267 peer reviewed articles out of date, but…
I thought that light drinkers lived longer, on average, then non drinkers because on average they are more social, and that increased social interaction was the biggest contributing factor to their increased life expectancy.
Light drinkers live longer because there are very large numbers indeed of people who don’t drink at all because they’re too ill to drink - they’re on medication, they have serious illnesses or their drinking was so out of control in the past that it was ruining their life and that they know that they can’t trust themselves to have even one.
These people are much more likely to die young than people who don’t drink much for other reasons. Once you remove the too-ill to drink at all, you find that any amount of alcohol slightly worsens your health outcomes.
The issue is mostly due to the fact that those who don’t drink because of existing damage to liver etc from alcohol or those who cannot drink for other medical reasons are included in the data. If you control for existing health issues then the results show that drinking more alcohol decreases life expectancy.
Just a reminder that Italy has the longest life expectancy in Europe.
Quality food + exercise? Probably. But they’re no strangers to a glass of wine or aperol.
Japan has the longest life expectancy in the world unless they lost it recently. They are also known to be prolific drinkers
Yes, this is true but to be honest a lot of us (Asians) are allergic to alcohol. My entire family does not drink, on account of this. Although I am not a Japanese national, so I can’t speak on that sort of culture. In coming out, I drank quite a bit. Now, not at all. I enjoy my life much better sober than pretending I can handle alcohol. Although, I still miss the tastes of some sour drinks (sour beer and tart wines namely).
Phew, good thing I only drive excessively.
I’ve switched to fully electric drinking.
“No shit” he says, holding his second 16 oz double IPA of the night
