Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related

2323 readers

278 users here now

Health: physical and mental, individual and public.

Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.

See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.

Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.

Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.

Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.

Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

WhoRoger@lemmy.world

RoyalEngineering@lemmy.world

Awa@lemmy.world

147

Moderate drinking not better for health than abstaining, analysis suggests (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/health@lemmy.world

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I'm familiar with Harley Benton! A buddy of mine got one of their teles for a little of nothing. Fit and finish of his is on par with the higher end Squires or the Indonesian G&Ls, neither of which are too bad and the Benton was a third of the price. The pickups are subjective, but I like them better than the classic vibe ones. Switch is chunkier, too.

I ain't mad at HB.