Author Topic: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"  (Read 5649 times)

clarkfan1979

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3359
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Pueblo West, CO
After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« on: February 16, 2020, 08:32:45 PM »
I was skeptical at first, but after reviewing my drink purchases, 1.00 per drink "on average" checks out.

Beer: I buy 30 packs at $16.97 (Natural Light Naturday & Miller High Life). This is 57 cents/beer. On the high end, I buy Stone IPA cases for $31.50/24 beers for $1.32/beer. This averages to $0.95/beer

Whiskey/Bourbon: On the cheap end, I buy Kirkland Canadian Whiskey for .51 cents per shot. On the high end, I buy Breckenridge Bourbon/Whiskey for $1.53/ shot. This averages to 1.02/shot

Wine: Kirkland double bottles for $7.89. This is .99 cents/glass. Trader Joe's wine (Charles Shaw) at 0.75/glass. We also just bought some $15 bottles that were on sale at Sam's Club for $4.91/bottle. This ends up being $1.23/glass. Average of all 3 is .99/glass.

Average of all 3 is $0.99/drink. I am now a believer.


APowers

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
  • Location: Colorado
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2020, 10:11:18 PM »
Huh.

If even the frugal way to drink is this expensive, that's more reason not to drink alcoholic beverages, I guess.

Photograph 51

  • Guest
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2020, 05:15:03 AM »
Depending how much you drink, you may need to also factor in the financial costs of health problems caused by alcohol.  I'm assuming that you're too smart to drive after drinking, but for someone who does, they need to also factor in the cost of possibly wrecking their own vehicle and other people's vehicles.  For some people, the costs of drinking may include the costs of a divorce.  Of course this all depends on the amount drunk and the individual situation, but for a lot of people there are substantial hidden costs with alcohol consumption.

clarkfan1979

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3359
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Pueblo West, CO
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2020, 06:14:26 AM »
Depending how much you drink, you may need to also factor in the financial costs of health problems caused by alcohol.  I'm assuming that you're too smart to drive after drinking, but for someone who does, they need to also factor in the cost of possibly wrecking their own vehicle and other people's vehicles.  For some people, the costs of drinking may include the costs of a divorce.  Of course this all depends on the amount drunk and the individual situation, but for a lot of people there are substantial hidden costs with alcohol consumption.

It is also very well documented within epidemiology research that people who consume 1-2 drinks/day live longer than people who do not drink at all. Once you go over 2 drinks per day, the health benefits disappear.

Sibley

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7465
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2020, 07:06:31 AM »
Depending how much you drink, you may need to also factor in the financial costs of health problems caused by alcohol.  I'm assuming that you're too smart to drive after drinking, but for someone who does, they need to also factor in the cost of possibly wrecking their own vehicle and other people's vehicles.  For some people, the costs of drinking may include the costs of a divorce.  Of course this all depends on the amount drunk and the individual situation, but for a lot of people there are substantial hidden costs with alcohol consumption.

It is also very well documented within epidemiology research that people who consume 1-2 drinks/day live longer than people who do not drink at all. Once you go over 2 drinks per day, the health benefits disappear.

Does that research indicate if it's the health impacts of the alcohol, or the health impacts of the implied social network that is extending life expectancy? Or something else? Because I'll be perfectly honest, I have a hard time believing that someone who drinks a beer every day for years doesn't have a negative health impact over someone who didn't.

Retire-Canada

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8790
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2020, 07:06:34 AM »
Local craft beer = $15CAD/6 pack or $11.34USD = $1.89USD each. None of the cheaper bulk sized beers interest me nor do wine of hard liquor. I budget for $15/week of beer for home consumption. That's 2 beers Fir/Sat/Sun and then the rest of the week water and tea only. I don't need alcohol so if I wanted to cut down that budget I'd just stretch it out to $15 every other week, but I'd drink the same stuff.

FWIW = I am not drinking beer for its health benefits! ;-)

SugarMagnolia77

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2020, 07:56:35 AM »
Natty Light? Good sir, this is just a bridge too far. ;)

If you do the math using ABV, I wonder if the macro brews are actually a worse deal than craft.

EricEng

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 605
  • Location: CO
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2020, 08:25:07 AM »
It is also very well documented within epidemiology research that people who consume 1-2 drinks/day live longer than people who do not drink at all. Once you go over 2 drinks per day, the health benefits disappear.
Not well documented or agreed upon.  Correlation is not causation.  This would require double blind study to control out other factors which isn't likely to happen.  IE: People are randomly assigned at a young age to a drinking or non drinking group and don't know which they are in...for the rest of their lives.
https://www.health24.com/Medical/Addiction/Alcohol/can-1-or-2-drinks-per-day-really-make-you-live-longer-20170817
The study in question depends mostly on self reporting of drinking behavior which is flawed.

There are dozens if not hundreds of confounding factors as to why a 1-2 a day drinker might live longer that has nothing to do with the alcohol.  British studies of alcohol consumption found NO positive health effects. 

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2793
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2020, 08:51:12 AM »
It is also very well documented within epidemiology research that people who consume 1-2 drinks/day live longer than people who do not drink at all. Once you go over 2 drinks per day, the health benefits disappear.
Not well documented or agreed upon.  Correlation is not causation.  This would require double blind study to control out other factors which isn't likely to happen.  IE: People are randomly assigned at a young age to a drinking or non drinking group and don't know which they are in...for the rest of their lives.
https://www.health24.com/Medical/Addiction/Alcohol/can-1-or-2-drinks-per-day-really-make-you-live-longer-20170817
The study in question depends mostly on self reporting of drinking behavior which is flawed.

There are dozens if not hundreds of confounding factors as to why a 1-2 a day drinker might live longer that has nothing to do with the alcohol.  British studies of alcohol consumption found NO positive health effects.

Yes, there's plenty of research to back up the idea that moderate alcohol consumption can increase life expectancy but there's also lots of research which suggests the opposite or no effect. If one were inclined to reach either conclusion they could dig up the supporting research and make a convincing argument. Unfortunately a meta-analysis at the larger body of evidence suggests:

Quote
Estimates of mortality risk from alcohol are significantly altered by study design and characteristics. Meta-analyses adjusting for these factors find that low-volume alcohol consumption has no net mortality benefit compared with lifetime abstention or occasional drinking.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4803651/

Studies finding that alcohol increases life expectancy are more likely to make headlines as that's the news we want to hear.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2793
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2020, 08:59:40 AM »
Natty Light? Good sir, this is just a bridge too far. ;)

If you do the math using ABV, I wonder if the macro brews are actually a worse deal than craft.

In defense of cheap beer, sometimes I just want a cold one that meets the minimum requirements for "beer" and I don't necessarily want high abv. I also alternate between bottom shelf and something I actually enjoy sipping on.

If you really want the best abv bang for your buck, there's always steel reserve :)

Michael in ABQ

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2659
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2020, 10:20:32 AM »
My only options at the moment are $5.00 beers, max of two per day. Still, beats no beers at all for a year.

At home I'm usually around $8-9 for a 6-pack of craft beer after taxes. So $1.33-$1.50 per drink.

SimpleCycle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Location: Chicago
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2020, 10:32:28 AM »
It seems to me that the evidence of health benefits is equivocal, but that there are also not clear overall harms of moderate alcohol consumption.  It's a personal choice that involves tradeoffs.

The key here is the definition of "moderate" is less than a lot of people think.  Moderate drinking for women is 7 drinks a week or less, and no more than 3 in a single day.  Those numbers are 14 a week and no more than 4 in a day for men.

For me, alcohol consumption is about quality rather than quantity.  If I'm drinking less than 7 drinks a week, it's not going to be Natty Light.

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2020, 10:44:44 AM »
It seems to me that the evidence of health benefits is equivocal, but that there are also not clear overall harms of moderate alcohol consumption.  It's a personal choice that involves tradeoffs.

The key here is the definition of "moderate" is less than a lot of people think.  Moderate drinking for women is 7 drinks a week or less, and no more than 3 in a single day.  Those numbers are 14 a week and no more than 4 in a day for men.

For me, alcohol consumption is about quality rather than quantity.  If I'm drinking less than 7 drinks a week, it's not going to be Natty Light.

I'd argue against the bolded part - alcohol is a toxin. Toxins are bad. They have their uses to our benefit, but realistically the benefits of alcohol are extremely short-lived. But I agree with your overall assessment.

I get whatever European lager/pilsner is on sale at the local liquor store. After tax it works out to about $1 a beer (12 oz). I love the taste. I enjoy the buzz.

The interesting thing to me, and something I can't figure out, is why I drink the amount I drink when I drink it. Sometimes a 12 pack will last me 3 months. Sometimes it will last me a week. Rarely will I have more than 2 in a night, and rarely will I have more than 4 in a week. But sometimes it goes quick - last week I killed 6 beers on Saturday, and 4 on Sunday without even noticing... but sometimes I'll literally go months without drinking - in fact, I think that I went all of January without a single drink except for my birthday, same for November with the exception of Thanksgiving. And I'm at the point that I only drink beer now (although if I could get Sangster's Rum Cream, that'd be a different story).


EricEng

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 605
  • Location: CO
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2020, 11:08:08 AM »
Yes, there's plenty of research to back up the idea that moderate alcohol consumption can increase life expectancy but there's also lots of research which suggests the opposite or no effect. If one were inclined to reach either conclusion they could dig up the supporting research and make a convincing argument. Unfortunately a meta-analysis at the larger body of evidence suggests:
No study indicates that currently.  The study, at best, can indicate a correlation, not the causation.  As I stated previously, to prove causation would require double blind randomized study.

You are quite correct that it is just catchy headlines getting attention for the theory.

Ricochet

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Location: District of Corruption
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2020, 12:44:44 PM »
I ordered a tall Stellllaaaaa beer at a professional ice hockey match the other day. The vendor (guy walking the stairs) cracks it open and yells "That'll be $14". If I had a beer, i would have done a spit-take. I paid, but not again, Satan, not again.

SimpleCycle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Location: Chicago
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2020, 12:50:50 PM »
Yes, there's plenty of research to back up the idea that moderate alcohol consumption can increase life expectancy but there's also lots of research which suggests the opposite or no effect. If one were inclined to reach either conclusion they could dig up the supporting research and make a convincing argument. Unfortunately a meta-analysis at the larger body of evidence suggests:
No study indicates that currently.  The study, at best, can indicate a correlation, not the causation.  As I stated previously, to prove causation would require double blind randomized study.

You are quite correct that it is just catchy headlines getting attention for the theory.

You can prove causation with things other than double blind randomized controlled trials.  There's an entire branch of social science devoted to making causal inference from observational data.  Tons of clinical trials are not double blind.

Also, sometimes the best data you can get is observational, and plenty of medical science is based on observational data.  After all, you can't randomize people to obesity or non-obesity and observe diabetes outcomes, but we're pretty sure that obesity increases your susceptibility to diabetes even though all the data is observational.  All the data we have on smoking and lung cancer is observational as well.

I agree with you that our best data do not show health benefits from moderate alcohol consumption, but I find this "observational data is meaningless" argument to be overstating what is required to establish causal links.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7372
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2020, 01:11:07 PM »
I ordered a tall Stellllaaaaa beer at a professional ice hockey match the other day. The vendor (guy walking the stairs) cracks it open and yells "That'll be $14". If I had a beer, i would have done a spit-take. I paid, but not again, Satan, not again.

Sounds like Australia.

There is no $1 beer here.... your looking at $2 per small can minimum, anything out of a bottle is likely to be at least $3. Going out to a bar - $11 at least and upwards from there (unless its happy hour).

EricEng

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 605
  • Location: CO
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2020, 01:31:59 PM »
You can prove causation with things other than double blind randomized controlled trials.  There's an entire branch of social science devoted to making causal inference from observational data.  Tons of clinical trials are not double blind.
And tons of clinical trials are garbage (tested on mice).

My point is it takes a tremendous amount of effort to bring observational studies up to the level of experimental studies.  Double blind being the gold standard if you really want to prove something.  Most of these studies (like the ones in this case), merely point out a correlation with little or no effort to rule out lurking variables.
https://bolt.mph.ufl.edu/6050-6052/unit-2/causation-and-observational-studies/

https://www.compoundchem.com/2015/04/09/scientific-evidence/
Ranking of study type.

Also these drinking studies vs life expectancy are guilty of most of these: https://i1.wp.com/www.compoundchem.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/A-Rough-Guide-to-Spotting-Bad-Science-2015.png?ssl=1

SimpleCycle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Location: Chicago
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2020, 01:57:25 PM »
You can prove causation with things other than double blind randomized controlled trials.  There's an entire branch of social science devoted to making causal inference from observational data.  Tons of clinical trials are not double blind.
And tons of clinical trials are garbage (tested on mice).

My point is it takes a tremendous amount of effort to bring observational studies up to the level of experimental studies.  Double blind being the gold standard if you really want to prove something.  Most of these studies (like the ones in this case), merely point out a correlation with little or no effort to rule out lurking variables.
https://bolt.mph.ufl.edu/6050-6052/unit-2/causation-and-observational-studies/

https://www.compoundchem.com/2015/04/09/scientific-evidence/
Ranking of study type.

Also these drinking studies vs life expectancy are guilty of most of these: https://i1.wp.com/www.compoundchem.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/A-Rough-Guide-to-Spotting-Bad-Science-2015.png?ssl=1

I'll see your infographic and raise you a masters degree and 10 years experience as a health services researcher.

I'm just saying you're oversimplifying and throwing around buzzwords without following your argument through to its logical end.  No one believes cigarettes don't cause cancer simply because the evidence is observational.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17602
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #19 on: February 17, 2020, 02:20:44 PM »
Thanks to the Give Up The Hooch thread, I look pretty closely now at any research supporting benefits of moderate alcohol consumption.

As a former wine every day drinker, I felt rather reassured by being taught in a med school cardiology course that a drink a day was protective.

Kind of funny since no one in my family has ever had heart disease, but a lot of them have had alcoholism...hmm

However, it's really, really worthwhile to look at the populations they use for non drinkers. Are they never drinkers or are they anyone who claims to abstain from alcohol, because the latter group is heavily weighted by former problem drinkers and people with pre-existing health issues that prevent them from drinking. Ie, people more likely to die younger.

A lot of these studies are very good studies that probably suggest not so much that drinking moderately makes people more healthy, but that being more healthy tends to correlate with drinking very moderately.

Think about it, most people in our society, even the extremely health conscious, tend to drink at least a little bit. That leaves very few people to be total abstainers, and that population is virtually guaranteed to be riddled with confounders.

The never drinkers also tend to be confounded because a lot of them are part of particular cultural groups, which makes them less representative as a cross section of the population.

When moderate drinkers make up the overwhelming vast majority of the healthy population, it's really hard to objectively study their moderate drinking in isolation because they muscle out a decent control group.

SimpleCycle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Location: Chicago
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2020, 02:46:39 PM »
A lot of these studies are very good studies that probably suggest not so much that drinking moderately makes people more healthy, but that being more healthy tends to correlate with drinking very moderately.

Think about it, most people in our society, even the extremely health conscious, tend to drink at least a little bit. That leaves very few people to be total abstainers, and that population is virtually guaranteed to be riddled with confounders.

Interestingly, 30% of the U.S. adult population doesn't drink at all.  Another 20% drinks almost nothing. (Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/25/think-you-drink-a-lot-this-chart-will-tell-you/) But drinking is pretty clearly correlated with socioeconomic and educational statuses, and it's pretty much impossible to disentagle those things from health.

My personal opinion is we have pretty good data on a few risks (breast cancer, liver disease) and at least one benefit (cardioprotective) and some evidence of a mortality benefit that likely adjusts down to zero mortality benefit, but also zero mortality cost when you adjust for study biases.  When the best evidence is it's a wash, there's a big role for personal preferences.

The evidence of the harms of more than moderate drinking are substantial though!  I dialed back my near daily drinking habit once I realized my drinking behavior was riskier than I appreciated.  10 drinks a week didn't seem immoderate to me, but it's heavy drinking according to the public health definitions.  People tend to hang out with people whose drinking behavior is similar to their own, which tends to make everyone think they are an "average" drinker no matter how much or how little they drink.  It's good to use an objective yardstick on your own drinking habits.

Padonak

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2020, 02:56:26 PM »
A handle (1.75L) or Red Label is about $35 including tax at the local liquor store. 1.75L = 35 X 50ml. 50 ml is one drink, so a dollar per drink.

Correction: a standard drink is about 44ml not 50 but if you add the cost of club soda it'll probably come to around $1/drink. Can't drink red label without club soda and ice.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 02:59:26 PM by Padonak »

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2020, 06:25:00 PM »
Natty light and Miller?  Could you clarify? Is that what they’re paying you to drink it? 😆

All joking aside, I doubt I pay less than $3 a beer on average. I’m a craft beer fan and have been for decades. I started home brewing in the early 90s because I hated the lousy choices at the time. I don’t homebrew currently, but would start again in a heartbeat if the choices in craft beers in my town weren’t so yummy!

Apples

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2020, 07:40:06 AM »
A lot of these studies are very good studies that probably suggest not so much that drinking moderately makes people more healthy, but that being more healthy tends to correlate with drinking very moderately.

Think about it, most people in our society, even the extremely health conscious, tend to drink at least a little bit. That leaves very few people to be total abstainers, and that population is virtually guaranteed to be riddled with confounders.

Interestingly, 30% of the U.S. adult population doesn't drink at all.  Another 20% drinks almost nothing. (Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/25/think-you-drink-a-lot-this-chart-will-tell-you/) But drinking is pretty clearly correlated with socioeconomic and educational statuses, and it's pretty much impossible to disentagle those things from health.

My personal opinion is we have pretty good data on a few risks (breast cancer, liver disease) and at least one benefit (cardioprotective) and some evidence of a mortality benefit that likely adjusts down to zero mortality benefit, but also zero mortality cost when you adjust for study biases.  When the best evidence is it's a wash, there's a big role for personal preferences.

The evidence of the harms of more than moderate drinking are substantial though!  I dialed back my near daily drinking habit once I realized my drinking behavior was riskier than I appreciated.  10 drinks a week didn't seem immoderate to me, but it's heavy drinking according to the public health definitions.  People tend to hang out with people whose drinking behavior is similar to their own, which tends to make everyone think they are an "average" drinker no matter how much or how little they drink.  It's good to use an objective yardstick on your own drinking habits.

Thanks for linking the chart, super interesting.  I wonder how much of those 30% that report not drinking fall into the 18-21 category, are in their 80's and don't drink anymore (like both of my grandmas), or are former problem drinkers who have quit (many farm workers fall on either end of the spectrum - heavy drinking or no drinking - in my experience). I average around 2 drinks a week, and really doubt I drink more than 50% of the population from 21 to 60 years old, but if you're including the entire population, I can see it. I also wonder how pregnancy and breastfeeding would play into these rates.

slackmax

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1426
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2020, 09:15:44 AM »
I ordered a tall Stellllaaaaa beer at a professional ice hockey match the other day. The vendor (guy walking the stairs) cracks it open and yells "That'll be $14". If I had a beer, i would have done a spit-take. I paid, but not again, Satan, not again.

Sounds like Australia.

There is no $1 beer here.... your looking at $2 per small can minimum, anything out of a bottle is likely to be at least $3. Going out to a bar - $11 at least and upwards from there (unless its happy hour).


Wow! Give that $14 beer hawker a brutality bonus!

 And I'm still mad about them raising the price of any non macro pint to $5 at the bars.

I am making myself drinking less now, for general health purposes (down to 0 to 2 beers per day, from a high of 5 to 6 per day) but I still like going to the beer store to see what they have in the sale racks. Often can find 8% abv heavy good  ipa for $19.99 a case of 24. 

Someone mentioned Miller?  I recently discovered Miller High Life in the clear bottles. $15.95 a case of 24. I like it. It is now my cheap beer of choice, replacing (temporarily?) the Hamms 30 pack for $12.79. 

 BTW, I heard the new thinking is that neurons in the brain DO indeed replace themselves. The old thinking was that once a neuron is gone (killed off by alcohol, for instance) your neuron supply is permanently one count lower.  I may have misstated that somewhat, but I think the new thinking is that brain cells can 'grow back'.   
 

index

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2020, 10:00:40 AM »
$200 a month budget item for wine/beer/spirits here. Wine is the big budget item at $8 to $20 a bottle with a few $20 to $50 bottles sneaking in there too. So $2400 a year. We have dinner with friends once or twice a week and always bring a couple bottles to dinner, plus a bottle of wine with dinner occasionally. My grandfather is 91 is incredibly frugal but insists life is too short for cheap booze. He has had a couple fingers of single malt every night for 70ish years... 

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5227
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2020, 10:17:54 AM »
I got you all beat. I do a weekly trivia night, and for winning you win gift cards to the place for winning. Since we always place in top three, been drinking weekly for free. Actually enough gift cards I've used them a couple times non-trivia times to get a drink.


Some people have problems drinking. But, those are the same people who don't think they drink as much as they do, and are going to rationalize their drinking the most. So telling them scientifically is not going to help.

I do not believe having 1 drink = abusing alcohol. It DOES add value and enjoyment to my life, in moderation. But from my understanding of how they frame alcohol use, that there is no safe lower limit. With the one exception of women have a few glasses of red wine a week for heart protection, there really isn't any health benefits to drinking at all (except the enjoyment) Still, it would be throwing out centuries of culinary, cultural, social history and comraderie to throw out alcohol entirely.




 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2020, 11:44:57 AM »
Depending how much you drink, you may need to also factor in the financial costs of health problems caused by alcohol.  I'm assuming that you're too smart to drive after drinking, but for someone who does, they need to also factor in the cost of possibly wrecking their own vehicle and other people's vehicles.  For some people, the costs of drinking may include the costs of a divorce.  Of course this all depends on the amount drunk and the individual situation, but for a lot of people there are substantial hidden costs with alcohol consumption.

It is also very well documented within epidemiology research that people who consume 1-2 drinks/day live longer than people who do not drink at all. Once you go over 2 drinks per day, the health benefits disappear.

The science is still a bit unclear on this.  You're right that drinking appears to cause people to live longer, but your numbers are in question.  It's 2+ drinks a day that seemed to be most beneficial according to this study:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=17350977.  This science is still under review though - and seems to contradict an earlier study from the Lancet indicating that people who have 10 drinks a week die two years earlier than those who have 5 (https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/facts-about-alcohol-and-heart-health).

Mixed bag on this front really.  In general, studies have shown some protective benefits of moderate alcohol consumption related to heart and brain function, and some negatives related to cancer.  While it seems that some alcohol intake is better than none, I'm not sure if anyone can outright say that 1-2 drinks a day is a preferential (or even safe) amount.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #28 on: February 18, 2020, 12:29:59 PM »
Depending how much you drink, you may need to also factor in the financial costs of health problems caused by alcohol.  I'm assuming that you're too smart to drive after drinking, but for someone who does, they need to also factor in the cost of possibly wrecking their own vehicle and other people's vehicles.  For some people, the costs of drinking may include the costs of a divorce.  Of course this all depends on the amount drunk and the individual situation, but for a lot of people there are substantial hidden costs with alcohol consumption.

It is also very well documented within epidemiology research that people who consume 1-2 drinks/day live longer than people who do not drink at all. Once you go over 2 drinks per day, the health benefits disappear.

The science is still a bit unclear on this.  You're right that drinking appears to cause people to live longer, but your numbers are in question.  It's 2+ drinks a day that seemed to be most beneficial according to this study:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=17350977.  This science is still under review though - and seems to contradict an earlier study from the Lancet indicating that people who have 10 drinks a week die two years earlier than those who have 5 (https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/facts-about-alcohol-and-heart-health).

Mixed bag on this front really.  In general, studies have shown some protective benefits of moderate alcohol consumption related to heart and brain function, and some negatives related to cancer.  While it seems that some alcohol intake is better than none, I'm not sure if anyone can outright say that 1-2 drinks a day is a preferential (or even safe) amount.

Thanks for the links. The first set had some very interesting reading.

Seems to me that the question we should be asking is whether moderate drinking absent specific health issues (e.g. liver disease) causes undue harm. From what I can tell the answer to that is probably NO. 


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #29 on: February 18, 2020, 01:20:40 PM »
Depends.  Drinking is empty calories, and obesity isn't good for your health.  (Although, recent studies have indicated that for those over 70 you're more likely to live longer if your obese than 'correct' weight - https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/article/45/4/438/565599.  So if you're over 70 eat up!    :P   )

clarkfan1979

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3359
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Pueblo West, CO
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #30 on: February 18, 2020, 01:53:12 PM »
Depending how much you drink, you may need to also factor in the financial costs of health problems caused by alcohol.  I'm assuming that you're too smart to drive after drinking, but for someone who does, they need to also factor in the cost of possibly wrecking their own vehicle and other people's vehicles.  For some people, the costs of drinking may include the costs of a divorce.  Of course this all depends on the amount drunk and the individual situation, but for a lot of people there are substantial hidden costs with alcohol consumption.

It is also very well documented within epidemiology research that people who consume 1-2 drinks/day live longer than people who do not drink at all. Once you go over 2 drinks per day, the health benefits disappear.




The science is still a bit unclear on this.  You're right that drinking appears to cause people to live longer, but your numbers are in question.  It's 2+ drinks a day that seemed to be most beneficial according to this study:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=17350977.  This science is still under review though - and seems to contradict an earlier study from the Lancet indicating that people who have 10 drinks a week die two years earlier than those who have 5 (https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/facts-about-alcohol-and-heart-health).

Mixed bag on this front really.  In general, studies have shown some protective benefits of moderate alcohol consumption related to heart and brain function, and some negatives related to cancer.  While it seems that some alcohol intake is better than none, I'm not sure if anyone can outright say that 1-2 drinks a day is a preferential (or even safe) amount.

I have a Ph.D. in Social Psychology with a minor in Health Psychology. I teach college and cover this topic every semester. Scientists are in strong agreement that low alcohol consumption is associated with longer life expectancy in comparison to no alcohol consumption. I agree that the exact amount is not completely agreed upon. However, it is somewhere in the 1-2 drinks/day range. For a smaller woman, it's probably closer to one drink/day. For a larger male, it's probably closer to 2 drinks/day. It does not count if you drink 7 drinks on Saturday night and abstain the rest of the week.

There are 50+ academic papers with good data on this topic. Yes, other factors are considered. They are called covariates and put into the statistical analysis. No, it does not prove causation. It is currently believed that alcohol is associated with lower levels of bad cholesterol and higher levels of good cholesterol.

The reference that is used the most in psychology textbooks is below.

Britton, A., & Marmot (2004). Different measures of alcohol consumption and risk of coronary heart disease and all-cause mortality: 11-year follow of the Whitehall II Cohort Study. Addiction, 99, 109-116.

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5227
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #31 on: February 18, 2020, 02:11:23 PM »
And then there is this study, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180824103018.htm It's basically a huge meta analysis.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #32 on: February 18, 2020, 02:13:48 PM »
Depending how much you drink, you may need to also factor in the financial costs of health problems caused by alcohol.  I'm assuming that you're too smart to drive after drinking, but for someone who does, they need to also factor in the cost of possibly wrecking their own vehicle and other people's vehicles.  For some people, the costs of drinking may include the costs of a divorce.  Of course this all depends on the amount drunk and the individual situation, but for a lot of people there are substantial hidden costs with alcohol consumption.

It is also very well documented within epidemiology research that people who consume 1-2 drinks/day live longer than people who do not drink at all. Once you go over 2 drinks per day, the health benefits disappear.




The science is still a bit unclear on this.  You're right that drinking appears to cause people to live longer, but your numbers are in question.  It's 2+ drinks a day that seemed to be most beneficial according to this study:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=17350977.  This science is still under review though - and seems to contradict an earlier study from the Lancet indicating that people who have 10 drinks a week die two years earlier than those who have 5 (https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/facts-about-alcohol-and-heart-health).

Mixed bag on this front really.  In general, studies have shown some protective benefits of moderate alcohol consumption related to heart and brain function, and some negatives related to cancer.  While it seems that some alcohol intake is better than none, I'm not sure if anyone can outright say that 1-2 drinks a day is a preferential (or even safe) amount.

I have a Ph.D. in Social Psychology with a minor in Health Psychology. I teach college and cover this topic every semester. Scientists are in strong agreement that low alcohol consumption is associated with longer life expectancy in comparison to no alcohol consumption. I agree that the exact amount is not completely agreed upon. However, it is somewhere in the 1-2 drinks/day range. For a smaller woman, it's probably closer to one drink/day. For a larger male, it's probably closer to 2 drinks/day. It does not count if you drink 7 drinks on Saturday night and abstain the rest of the week.

There are 50+ academic papers with good data on this topic. Yes, other factors are considered. They are called covariates and put into the statistical analysis. No, it does not prove causation. It is currently believed that alcohol is associated with lower levels of bad cholesterol and higher levels of good cholesterol.

The reference that is used the most in psychology textbooks is below.

Britton, A., & Marmot (2004). Different measures of alcohol consumption and risk of coronary heart disease and all-cause mortality: 11-year follow of the Whitehall II Cohort Study. Addiction, 99, 109-116.


The study you mentioned doesn't seem to support your argument:

"The optimal frequency of drinking was between once or twice a week and daily, after adjustment for average volume consumed per week." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14678069


The minimum you're suggesting for health is the upper bound that the study suggests.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2020, 02:19:31 PM by GuitarStv »

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #33 on: February 18, 2020, 03:58:37 PM »
Depends.  Drinking is empty calories, and obesity isn't good for your health.  (Although, recent studies have indicated that for those over 70 you're more likely to live longer if your obese than 'correct' weight - https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/article/45/4/438/565599.  So if you're over 70 eat up!    :P   )

Choose your empty calories wisely! For me, a really good stout beats the heck out of a Big Mac.

clarkfan1979

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3359
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Pueblo West, CO
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #34 on: February 18, 2020, 04:02:29 PM »
And then there is this study, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180824103018.htm It's basically a huge meta analysis.

Meta-Analysis are great. However, this is a journalist summarizing the meta-analysis. I would love to read the actual meta-analysis when I have time. Science is boring. Journalists have a tendency to misreport findings on purpose to make the data more exciting.

 

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5267
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #35 on: February 18, 2020, 04:13:54 PM »
And then there is this study, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180824103018.htm It's basically a huge meta analysis.

Meta-Analysis are great. However, this is a journalist summarizing the meta-analysis. I would love to read the actual meta-analysis when I have time. Science is boring. Journalists have a tendency to misreport findings on purpose to make the data more exciting.

It must be this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30146330
« Last Edit: February 18, 2020, 04:16:52 PM by OtherJen »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #36 on: February 18, 2020, 04:19:17 PM »
Depends.  Drinking is empty calories, and obesity isn't good for your health.  (Although, recent studies have indicated that for those over 70 you're more likely to live longer if your obese than 'correct' weight - https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/article/45/4/438/565599.  So if you're over 70 eat up!    :P   )

Choose your empty calories wisely! For me, a really good stout beats the heck out of a Big Mac.

I'd take a good slice of chocolate cake over either.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #37 on: February 18, 2020, 04:26:52 PM »
Depends.  Drinking is empty calories, and obesity isn't good for your health.  (Although, recent studies have indicated that for those over 70 you're more likely to live longer if your obese than 'correct' weight - https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/article/45/4/438/565599.  So if you're over 70 eat up!    :P   )

Choose your empty calories wisely! For me, a really good stout beats the heck out of a Big Mac.

I'd take a good slice of chocolate cake over either.

Chocolate cake? Naah. Rhubarb pie!

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5267
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #38 on: February 18, 2020, 04:28:19 PM »
Depends.  Drinking is empty calories, and obesity isn't good for your health.  (Although, recent studies have indicated that for those over 70 you're more likely to live longer if your obese than 'correct' weight - https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/article/45/4/438/565599.  So if you're over 70 eat up!    :P   )

Choose your empty calories wisely! For me, a really good stout beats the heck out of a Big Mac.

I'd take a good slice of chocolate cake over either.

I have celiac disease, so I'll take a pour of really excellent tequila over all of those.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5854
  • Age: 16
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #39 on: February 18, 2020, 04:30:36 PM »
I got you all beat. I do a weekly trivia night, and for winning you win gift cards to the place for winning. Since we always place in top three, been drinking weekly for free. Actually enough gift cards I've used them a couple times non-trivia times to get a drink.


Some people have problems drinking. But, those are the same people who don't think they drink as much as they do, and are going to rationalize their drinking the most. So telling them scientifically is not going to help.

I do not believe having 1 drink = abusing alcohol. It DOES add value and enjoyment to my life, in moderation. But from my understanding of how they frame alcohol use, that there is no safe lower limit. With the one exception of women have a few glasses of red wine a week for heart protection, there really isn't any health benefits to drinking at all (except the enjoyment) Still, it would be throwing out centuries of culinary, cultural, social history and comraderie to throw out alcohol entirely.
God I love getting free booze at trivia. The high of winning it totally exceeds the monetary value and the booze value.

I need to assemble a team here.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10934
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #40 on: February 18, 2020, 05:02:20 PM »
I was skeptical at first, but after reviewing my drink purchases, 1.00 per drink "on average" checks out.

Beer: I buy 30 packs at $16.97 (Natural Light Naturday & Miller High Life). This is 57 cents/beer. On the high end, I buy Stone IPA cases for $31.50/24 beers for $1.32/beer. This averages to $0.95/beer

Whiskey/Bourbon: On the cheap end, I buy Kirkland Canadian Whiskey for .51 cents per shot. On the high end, I buy Breckenridge Bourbon/Whiskey for $1.53/ shot. This averages to 1.02/shot

Wine: Kirkland double bottles for $7.89. This is .99 cents/glass. Trader Joe's wine (Charles Shaw) at 0.75/glass. We also just bought some $15 bottles that were on sale at Sam's Club for $4.91/bottle. This ends up being $1.23/glass. Average of all 3 is .99/glass.

Average of all 3 is $0.99/drink. I am now a believer.
What does that come out to per year though?

Full disclosure: I like wine.  I like good wine.  I have been decreasing my intake, so I'd say a good 2/3 of what I buy (from local wine club memberships) gets drunk by someone else at parties and potlucks.  So my wine budget is $900 a year, and I probably drink $300 of that.

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8964
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #41 on: February 18, 2020, 06:00:13 PM »
Depending how much you drink, you may need to also factor in the financial costs of health problems caused by alcohol.  I'm assuming that you're too smart to drive after drinking, but for someone who does, they need to also factor in the cost of possibly wrecking their own vehicle and other people's vehicles.  For some people, the costs of drinking may include the costs of a divorce.  Of course this all depends on the amount drunk and the individual situation, but for a lot of people there are substantial hidden costs with alcohol consumption.

Or dead people.  And 10+ years in prison.    Which is where my niece is, and why.

clarkfan1979

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3359
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Pueblo West, CO
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #42 on: February 19, 2020, 07:03:24 AM »
I was skeptical at first, but after reviewing my drink purchases, 1.00 per drink "on average" checks out.

Beer: I buy 30 packs at $16.97 (Natural Light Naturday & Miller High Life). This is 57 cents/beer. On the high end, I buy Stone IPA cases for $31.50/24 beers for $1.32/beer. This averages to $0.95/beer

Whiskey/Bourbon: On the cheap end, I buy Kirkland Canadian Whiskey for .51 cents per shot. On the high end, I buy Breckenridge Bourbon/Whiskey for $1.53/ shot. This averages to 1.02/shot

Wine: Kirkland double bottles for $7.89. This is .99 cents/glass. Trader Joe's wine (Charles Shaw) at 0.75/glass. We also just bought some $15 bottles that were on sale at Sam's Club for $4.91/bottle. This ends up being $1.23/glass. Average of all 3 is .99/glass.

Average of all 3 is $0.99/drink. I am now a believer.
What does that come out to per year though?

Full disclosure: I like wine.  I like good wine.  I have been decreasing my intake, so I'd say a good 2/3 of what I buy (from local wine club memberships) gets drunk by someone else at parties and potlucks.  So my wine budget is $900 a year, and I probably drink $300 of that.

I probably average 10 drinks/week at home, so $10/week or $520/year. I used to live in Hawaii. Beers at regular price averaged $10 at restaurants, so we made a conscious decision to not do it. We would still do happy hours at the beach, but it was with our own cooler with sand in our toes. We only bought beers at restaurants when on vacation and visiting family. Over the past 4 years, I would probably spent $100/year on 15-20 beers at restaurants.

Since moving to Colorado in August, I probably get 2 beers at a restaurant twice a month. Once a month is a work event and once a month is with my wife. So now I am spending $25/month at restaurants for beers including tax and tip. This is another $300/year.

EricEng

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 605
  • Location: CO
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #43 on: February 19, 2020, 01:24:14 PM »
I'll see your infographic and raise you a masters degree and 10 years experience as a health services researcher.

I'm just saying you're oversimplifying and throwing around buzzwords without following your argument through to its logical end.  No one believes cigarettes don't cause cancer simply because the evidence is observational.
And I'll see your unnamed masters with a BS and ME in engineering and 10+ years doing r&d in tech fields.  Health? No, but I know how to spot BS studies and bogus science.

Your analogy of smoking is poor.  Smoking has measurable effects on lung capacity and visible tissue damage.  Smoking has extremely high correlations with lung cancer, etc.  What specific, measurable philological factor is drinking modifying to boost life expectancy?  By that same logic you could claim an expensive snake oil boosts life expectancy when the real reason is because rich people live longer (for multiple reasons) and they are the ones that can afford the snake oil.
Quote
I wonder how much of those 30% that report not drinking fall into the 18-21 category, are in their 80's and don't drink anymore (like both of my grandmas)
There are lots of non drinkers out there who aren't underage or extremely old. I always find it amusing how drinkers assume everyone else is drinking regularly like them.  I suspect it is because they tend to make friends with that hobby(drinking) and assume incorrectly that it is more common than it is.
Quote
There are 50+ academic papers with good data on this topic.
Well I claim there is 100 that say otherwise.  Unless someone provides actual peer reviewed studies that ruled out these other causes we are just shouting in the wind.

To make grandiose claims about overall life expectancy for minor activities is a stretch on minor low impact activities (light drinking, not smoking) that gets lost in the noise of life.   They need to point to specific changes that would in turn boost life expectancy, ie: makes your heart stronger, repairs your liver (lol), etc. For normal people there are a million factors that go into your life expectancy, the big things are going to determine the big results (obesity, smoking, exercise, etc).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMyXO2Lb568
Great analysis of most recent big 2018 meta anaylsis
« Last Edit: February 19, 2020, 01:32:24 PM by EricEng »

Gronnie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 630
  • Age: 38
  • Location: MN
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #44 on: February 19, 2020, 01:29:38 PM »
Grunch: Pretty much all epidemiological studies are complete bs. It's why we know so little about nutrition and most of what we thought we knew / know is wrong -- it's almost completely epidemiological studies.

SimpleCycle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Location: Chicago
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #45 on: February 19, 2020, 02:11:20 PM »
I'll see your infographic and raise you a masters degree and 10 years experience as a health services researcher.

I'm just saying you're oversimplifying and throwing around buzzwords without following your argument through to its logical end.  No one believes cigarettes don't cause cancer simply because the evidence is observational.
And I'll see your unnamed masters with a BS and ME in engineering and 10+ years doing r&d in tech fields.  Health? No, but I know how to spot BS studies and bogus science.

Your analogy of smoking is poor.  Smoking has measurable effects on lung capacity and visible tissue damage.  Smoking has extremely high correlations with lung cancer, etc.  What specific, measurable philological factor is drinking modifying to boost life expectancy?  By that same logic you could claim an expensive snake oil boosts life expectancy when the real reason is because rich people live longer (for multiple reasons) and they are the ones that can afford the snake oil.

My masters degree is in health services research.

If you read my posts, you'll see I'm not arguing with you that drinking boosts life expectancy.  I think your reading of the science is correct, assuming you agree that the research does not demonstrate life expectancy reductions from light to moderate drinking.

What I am arguing is that despite your claims to be a research expert, you are overstating what is needed to prove causation and underestimating the value of observational data.  There is a huge role for observational data in health research, it just requires proper techniques and correct interpretation.  In addition, while RCTs are the gold standard, there are tons of situations where RCTs are not feasible or unethical.  That doesn't mean we give up on doing science in those areas.  My point in bringing up smoking is that with a sufficient body of research, we believe causal statements based on observational data.

ditheca

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Age: 40
  • Location: ST GEORGE, UT
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #46 on: February 20, 2020, 01:32:23 AM »
Depending how much you drink, you may need to also factor in the financial costs of health problems caused by alcohol.  I'm assuming that you're too smart to drive after drinking, but for someone who does, they need to also factor in the cost of possibly wrecking their own vehicle and other people's vehicles.  For some people, the costs of drinking may include the costs of a divorce.  Of course this all depends on the amount drunk and the individual situation, but for a lot of people there are substantial hidden costs with alcohol consumption.

It is also very well documented within epidemiology research that people who consume 1-2 drinks/day live longer than people who do not drink at all. Once you go over 2 drinks per day, the health benefits disappear.

Does that research indicate if it's the health impacts of the alcohol, or the health impacts of the implied social network that is extending life expectancy? Or something else? Because I'll be perfectly honest, I have a hard time believing that someone who drinks a beer every day for years doesn't have a negative health impact over someone who didn't.

I have no trouble believing this.  People who stop drinking die in under a week.  Now, if want to convince me that regularly consuming a toxic drug (ethanol) has significant health benefits, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.  Go check the drunk driving statistics before you argue that alcohol promotes long life.

Imma

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3193
  • Location: Europe
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #47 on: February 20, 2020, 03:51:43 AM »

Quote
I wonder how much of those 30% that report not drinking fall into the 18-21 category, are in their 80's and don't drink anymore (like both of my grandmas)
There are lots of non drinkers out there who aren't underage or extremely old. I always find it amusing how drinkers assume everyone else is drinking regularly like them.  I suspect it is because they tend to make friends with that hobby(drinking) and assume incorrectly that it is more common than it is.


This is a discussion I've had with people lots of time. My partner is an artist and in his social circle people drink a lot. He has consciously cut back for health reasons and he feels much better even though he was never a heavy drinker (of course, n=1, just his personal experience). Drinking is a lot of empty calories and with diabetes, heart disease and obesity in his family and knowing that he quickly develops a beer belly when he's not watching his diet, I think it's quite likely that he's prolonging his life by cutting back. On the other hand, I'm a non-drinker (never drinker). I don't like the taste of alcohol, I don't like drunk people, there are alcoholics in my family, I also have underlying health issues that don't ban me from drinking but increase my chances of liver disease. I see no reason to drink.

In his social circle I'm the odd one out and some people feel personally attacked when I order sparkling water at a bar and they order liquor. (I always get the feeling they may not feel comfortable with their own heavy drinking and that's why they lash out, I never mention it). They will say stuff like 'no one doesn't drink' 'don't be such an extremist' 'why don't you just live a little' etc. I honestly just don't like it and don't feel like I'm missing out on anything. 

In my social circle there are plenty of people who don't drink. One of them because of their religion, one because they are a former problem drinker, most of them because they just don't care for alcohol. Some of them are moms who stopped drinking because of pregnancy/breastfeeding and never started drinking again because they realized they didn't miss alcohol. Not all of them are never-drinkers, some of them drink very moderately, as in, 1-20 glasses a year, a drink once or twice a month. My partner's friends have difficulty believing that because everyone they know drinks heavily.

In my family, not drinking or drinking very moderately is often part of a general healthy lifestyle with lots of exercise and vegetables. Some people have lived until 90+ but you can't just pin that on them not drinking. It's everything combined and a bit of luck. I only know one heavy drinker and smoker that lived until 90 though. Most of them died earlier, some in pretty brutal ways (as I said, we have alcoholics in the family). In my family people tend to drink more when they get older, because those retired people are just plain bored. Even though they don't seem to drink until the point of drunkenness, for elderly people even mild intoxication from alcohol can be dangerous. For example, one lady in my family (around 80 when it happened and to my knowledge not an alcoholic) isn't even very steady on her feet when she's sober and she slipped and bumped her head on her nightstand. She had a nasty cut on her head and she bled like crazy because she had been drinking and used blood thinners. She was so ashamed that a doctor might smell the alcohol on her breath that she didn't go to hospital until the next morning.

Gronnie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 630
  • Age: 38
  • Location: MN
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #48 on: February 20, 2020, 08:21:03 AM »
I have no trouble believing this.  People who stop drinking die in under a week.  Now, if want to convince me that regularly consuming a toxic drug (ethanol) has significant health benefits, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.  Go check the drunk driving statistics before you argue that alcohol promotes long life.

What does drunk driving have to do with it if, oh I don't know, someone doesn't do something ridiculously irresponsible like drink and drive? (hint: it has nothing to do with it and is a terrible, non-sequitur argument)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: After review, math checks out on "$1.00 per drink"
« Reply #49 on: February 20, 2020, 08:50:53 AM »
I have no trouble believing this.  People who stop drinking die in under a week.  Now, if want to convince me that regularly consuming a toxic drug (ethanol) has significant health benefits, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.  Go check the drunk driving statistics before you argue that alcohol promotes long life.

What does drunk driving have to do with it if, oh I don't know, someone doesn't do something ridiculously irresponsible like drink and drive? (hint: it has nothing to do with it and is a terrible, non-sequitur argument)

Agreed.  Drinking to excess or driving while drunk are both very bad for your mortality . . . but nobody has argued otherwise here.