Tbf the study part, which is buried pretty deep in the article, says that having 1 drink per day gives a 1 in 1,000 risk of dying from an alcohol related cause, and 2 drinks per day is 1 in 25. Those are probably significantly more problematic odds than the carcinogenic aspects of eating red meat or even of smoking. Definitely worse than what anyone would guess, even if they know alcohol is bad for you already
Think of all the people who maybe have quite a few drinks on the weekend but wouldnt consider themselves alcoholics by any means, they could have a 1/10 chance (or worse) of dying from drinking without even drinking every day
Take it with a grain of salt means to be skeptical as if the findings are inaccurate. I don’t believe that to be the case. You can make the best decisions when you’re the most informed, and plenty of you will make it past 60. What if you plan on not surviving just to find out you have decades left? Best to take both scenarios into account, IMO.
Eh, virtually everything causes cancer. If responsible drinking brings you joy, I recommend taking these sorts of studies with a grain of salt.
The world is on fire, how many of us are going to live past 60 anyway? How many of us will afford that?
Yeah science pffffttt.
Tbf the study part, which is buried pretty deep in the article, says that having 1 drink per day gives a 1 in 1,000 risk of dying from an alcohol related cause, and 2 drinks per day is 1 in 25. Those are probably significantly more problematic odds than the carcinogenic aspects of eating red meat or even of smoking. Definitely worse than what anyone would guess, even if they know alcohol is bad for you already
Think of all the people who maybe have quite a few drinks on the weekend but wouldnt consider themselves alcoholics by any means, they could have a 1/10 chance (or worse) of dying from drinking without even drinking every day
People who are shocked to learn that 350-700 alcoholic beverages a year might not be good for you scare me.
Take it with a grain of salt means to be skeptical as if the findings are inaccurate. I don’t believe that to be the case. You can make the best decisions when you’re the most informed, and plenty of you will make it past 60. What if you plan on not surviving just to find out you have decades left? Best to take both scenarios into account, IMO.
If you are against spreading this knowledge, you’re probably coping over something.