• tmyakal@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      ·
      23 hours ago

      OP is referring to the j-curve historically seen in studies about drinking. Because researchers didn’t control for people who stopped drinking after years of abuse or people who couldn’t drink because of other health issues, it looked like having 0 drinks per day led to worse health outcomes than 1-2 drinks per day. Because of that, many health organizations spent decades telling people that 1-2 drinks per day was better for you than 0 drinks per day.

      Someone finally controlled for those variables a few years ago, and the j-curve vanished. Most health organizations now say they’re is no amount of alcohol that is safe to consume.

      So it’s got nothing to do with Gen Z drinking habit specifically, and the science has been corrected since. But a lot of people still internalized and parrot the “1-2 drinks is healthy” thing.

      • jdr@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        No amount of alcohol is safe? Is that like saying no amount of driving is safe?

        • Dave@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Sure. Any driving you do increases your risk of death. But it’s likely you need to drive for other reasons that reduce your risk of death (like buying food).

          Drinking is different because no one needs to drink.

          • jdr@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            16 hours ago

            Haha, ymmv but I find driving to be unnecessary

            • Dave@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              16 hours ago

              Yes but this depends significantly on where you live.

          • jdr@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            19 hours ago

            Exactly!

            I meant that plenty of people drink reasonable amounts alcohol all the time with no apparent issues.

            • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              19 hours ago

              It means that any amount of alcohol increases the odds of you dying sooner or having other negative health effects sooner (which will lead to you dying sooner). There is no amount that won’t increase those odds. It says nothing about how much any given drink would impact your life span. I’m not saying it’s negligible or significant, but I can’t be bothered to look it up.

              • jdr@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                17 hours ago

                Come on, you have to say it’s positively correlated rather than causative that’s the whole point of the thread.

                This isn’t a hill I want to die on, but I don’t think it’s a meaningful claim without a bit more nuance.

                • exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 hour ago

                  No, it’s causal.

                  We know the mechanisms by which alcohol causes negative health effects, to basically all the systems in the body.

                  It’s not a particularly strong effect for the occasional drinker, but the degree of confidence we have in the correlation is very strong, and we have an underlying model of the biological mechanisms that cause poor health outcomes.

                • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  17 hours ago

                  Well, the WHO puts it in the same category as tobacco. Is tobacco just strongly correlated to cancer? And I don’t need to say it is causative, because The Lancet did.

                  You can stack that data up against your anecdotes however you like.

                  • myyass@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    14 hours ago

                    I wonder if this is something that changed over time. As in preservatives and all sorts of chemicals being added to tobacco or alcohol. For example, I can smoke Japanese cigarettes without a problem. I’ve smoked Vietnam era MRE cigarettes, Old Ukrainian unfiltered cigarettes. But I can’t smoke US made ones since around 2007, they make me sick and taste like ash.

                  • jdr@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    16 hours ago

                    Did you read that paper? I don’t believe it supports your argument.

                    The mechanism by which smoking causes e.g. lung cancer and the significant rate at which it does so is well understood. I’m not convinced the same can currently be said of alcohol.

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      because they can’t afford it. prices are up, incomes are down. Gen Z starting incomes aren’t much higher than the start incomes of people from 10-20 year ago, but booze prices are triple what they were, i’ve actually seen them start to come down recently because well, even older folks can’t afford $20 cocktails or $20 four packs of beer. when I was 25 $20 got you a 24 pack of craft beer. or a 48 of the cheap shit.

      • novibe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        That might have something to do with it. But gen-z seems to have more a purity culture than millennials and gen-x had.

        Many are very into exercise and fitness from a very young age. Control their diets. Sleep super early, get up early.

        They are going less to clubs (and shitty dive bars). Doing less drugs. Having less sex.

        You can say its all because of money. But broke teenagers and young adults of previous generations had their fun, went out, destroyed their bodies. You know, it can be REALLY cheap to get fucked up and well, get fucked or fuck.

    • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Yeah but these (usually flawed) studies that have wormed their way into the public consciousness were done long before gen z was drinking age. From up-to-date information it’s pretty clear that any amount of any kind of alcohol is quite bad for you. Obviously increasing with quantity.