Drinking helps you live longer. Period. Full stop.

[Blaidd Drwg]

Point: "Drinking is healthier than not drinking."

Counterpoint: That's an incorrect binary way of phrasing it. The accurate way to put it is: Consuming a certain quantity of alcohol per day is healthier than consuming more or less than that range.

Fair enough. More than 1 and less than 6 DRINKS PER DAY is definitely better. This is way above what most "authorities" recommend. That seems to be the point of the article.

However, consuming a lot more than the healthy range can shorten life quite a bit, while reducing quality of life considerably. The author's target demographic is the people who tend to drink so much that they are looking to solve a problem. Since those people tend (not 100%) to not be good candidates for drinking the healthy range, they would usually be better served by not drinking.

Author then makes laughably false statements like: "Societies that drink more are healthier than those who don't." It's obviously not true. He even includes liver disease.

Heaviest drinking country in the world: Maldova
Country with highest rate of cirrhosis in the world: Maldova

Assumes facts not in evidence.
Target demographic assumptions both irrelevant and misleading...
Using outlier to disprove the rule.

Why not take issue with the actual point of the article rather than cherry picking phraseology and assumed bias?

Well-informed Americans are often remarkably ignorant about the benefits of moderate drinking and think that abstinence is better for them.

The U.S. is not a heavy-drinking nation, yet its health outcomes are poor compared with other economically-advanced nations.

The worst drinking pattern is frequent binge-drinking, yet many Americans engage in such drinking (certainly young Americans), while thinking daily-but-moderate drinking is a sign of addiction.

In treatment and prevention, the American abstinence/just-say-no fixation can lead to tenuous, unrealistic efforts to abstain, efforts at which people frequently fail, only to engage in the highest-risk forms of binge consumption.

[bennyonesix]

I don't know, B16....I think 'subjective' actually matters here given our audience is for the most part, a bunch of washed-up meathead Gen X'ers with decent careers and lives. Also, 'scientific studies' are not really out there that show the full picture of what you're calling chronic use. There are a shit ton of people out there who are never polled or studied that don't even know they're at risk of strong withdrawals until they need to get their gallbladder removed or some shit like that requiring a few days of abstinence from an otherwise moderate drinker. I can't tell you how many people I personally know who don't go a day without a drink or three or five and every single one of them makes six figures and is for the most part, responsible with a nice life.

The 'spontaneous stop' is what I'm saying is more rare than you're implying.

I'd be really interested to hear what you (and anyone else) have to say about the first section (15 pages) of this book...



Google books link

https://books.google.com/books?id=mhYST ... an&f=false

I can't tell you how many people I personally know who don't go a day without a drink or three or five and every single one of them makes six figures and is for the most part, responsible with a nice life.

That isn't really probative of anything other than that the number of those people is > zero though, is it?

The 'spontaneous stop' is what I'm saying is more rare than you're implying.

I think you edge close to tautology here... When I say "spontaneous stop" I mean a period of chronic/exceeding moderate amount usage followed by a permanent cessation of the chronic/exceeding moderate usage. So, most people do not use drugs in a chronic/exceeding moderation manner. A small amount of people use drugs in such a chronic/exceeding moderate manner and spontaneously stop and do not relapse. A small amount of this small amount go through repeated periods of abstinence and chronic/exceeding moderate usage and almost always experience a desire for and intrusive thoughts about the drug in question.

Obviously, I prefer a more detailed description of what we are discussing... But I do think it is more useful and accurate.

[Grandpa's Spells]

The author's target demographic is the people who tend to drink so much that they are looking to solve a problem.

Assumes facts not in evidence.
Target demographic assumptions both irrelevant and misleading...
Using outlier to disprove the rule.

I'm not assuming facts. Here's the book the author's hawking, it's targeted at people with drinking problems. I mentioned it earlier but here you go:

Why not take issue with the actual point of the article rather than cherry picking phraseology and assumed bias?

OK

Well-informed Americans are often remarkably ignorant about the benefits of moderate drinking and think that abstinence is better for them.

No they aren't. The CDC recommends a couple drinks a day and he's not citing any evidence that most Americans aren't already aware of this. Well-informed Americans don't know? That's ridiculous.

The U.S. is not a heavy-drinking nation, yet its health outcomes are poor compared with other economically-advanced nations.

He's implying an inverse societal relationship between alcohol consumption and health outcomes, when we know that's not true. It's on him to draw parallels linking American's poor health to the fact that we don't drink enough.

The worst drinking pattern is frequent binge-drinking, yet many Americans engage in such drinking (certainly young Americans), while thinking daily-but-moderate drinking is a sign of addiction.

Most people understand binge drinking is a problem, while as above daily drinking is a problem or not depending on quantity, and most people know this. He's not citing any surveys to the contrary and the benefits of light-to-moderate drinking are exhaustively covered in the media.

In treatment and prevention, the American abstinence/just-say-no fixation can lead to tenuous, unrealistic efforts to abstain, efforts at which people frequently fail, only to engage in the highest-risk forms of binge consumption.

Again, he could cite evidence of this if it were the case, and is not doing so.

[Blaidd Drwg]

The CDC doesn't say that at all...

What does moderate drinking mean?
According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans,1 moderate alcohol consumption is defined as having up to 1 drink per day for women and up to 2 drinks per day for men. This definition is referring to the amount consumed on any single day and is not intended as an average over several days. The Dietary Guidelines also state that it is not recommended that anyone begin drinking or drink more frequently on the basis of potential health benefits because moderate alcohol intake also is associated with increased risk of breast cancer, violence, drowning, and injuries from falls and motor vehicle crashes.

All of these points were covered in the article. Basically if you're a woman or you're shitfaced...alcohol could be a problem. For everyone else it a boon which is being downplayed.

The fact he's shilling a book is irrelevant to his points at the bottom which you give a cursory dodge.

Again, doesn't your Nanny state apologist cape ever get to be a burden?

[Blaidd Drwg]

In fact...that shoudl be the title of the article which would meet the spells test.

The CDC should be saying:

If you don't have tits, drink up, but probably stop at about six pack so you don't argue with your wife or crash your car.

[The Venerable Bogatir X]

I don't know, B16....I think 'subjective' actually matters here given our audience is for the most part, a bunch of washed-up meathead Gen X'ers with decent careers and lives. Also, 'scientific studies' are not really out there that show the full picture of what you're calling chronic use. There are a shit ton of people out there who are never polled or studied that don't even know they're at risk of strong withdrawals until they need to get their gallbladder removed or some shit like that requiring a few days of abstinence from an otherwise moderate drinker. I can't tell you how many people I personally know who don't go a day without a drink or three or five and every single one of them makes six figures and is for the most part, responsible with a nice life.

The 'spontaneous stop' is what I'm saying is more rare than you're implying.

I'd be really interested to hear what you (and anyone else) have to say about the first section (15 pages) of this book...



Google books link

https://books.google.com/books?id=mhYST ... an&f=false

I can't tell you how many people I personally know who don't go a day without a drink or three or five and every single one of them makes six figures and is for the most part, responsible with a nice life.

That isn't really probative of anything other than that the number of those people is > zero though, is it?

The 'spontaneous stop' is what I'm saying is more rare than you're implying.

I think you edge close to tautology here... When I say "spontaneous stop" I mean a period of chronic/exceeding moderate amount usage followed by a permanent cessation of the chronic/exceeding moderate usage. So, most people do not use drugs in a chronic/exceeding moderation manner. A small amount of people use drugs in such a chronic/exceeding moderate manner and spontaneously stop and do not relapse. A small amount of this small amount go through repeated periods of abstinence and chronic/exceeding moderate usage and almost always experience a desire for and intrusive thoughts about the drug in question.

Obviously, I prefer a more detailed description of what we are discussing... But I do think it is more useful and accurate.

I do think it absolutely matters who is being lumped into a 'study' in terms of socio-economical status or whatever you want to call it. My problem with 'abuse' is within a completely different confines of someone who is on food stamps or someone who is a Hollywood A Lister. I don't believe it could ever be accurately measured. Most of us don't own up to how much we drink when we talk to a doc at our annual physical for justifiable fear of the documentation, alone.

Thanks for the new word: "tautology".

[bennyonesix]

What are you going to use the breathalyzer for?

-EDIT-

Sorry, how are you going to use the breathalyzer results?

[bennyonesix]

Wasn't that article 100% correlation and 0% causation?

And poorly written?

[Grandpa's Spells]

Again, doesn't your Nanny state apologist cape ever get to be a burden?

What nanny state, you goofball? You are wrapping up every extreme anti-drug position you can think of and are ascribing them to me even as I go out of my way to not advocate them. I've said more than once we should be using the Portugal model for drug regulation. The extent to which I soap box at all on this is to say that most people who are addicted to alcohol or drugs would usually be better off if they quit. Not everybody. Not AA for all heavy drinkers, and nothing mandated by government.

If that perspective just comes across as kooky talk, fine, but the people who tend to find this position crazy always just-so-happen to really like their drugs.

The guy makes his living telling addicts they can use. I would look elsewhere for objective analysis.

[Blaidd Drwg]

The guy makes his living telling addicts they can use. I would look elsewhere for objective analysis.

I'm saying that assumption right there ^^^^^is reductionist and stupid.

EDIT:

I forgot Spells is the IGX tarbaby.

[Koko, Beware]

I dunno...I thought one of the most compelling things the dude said was "you have to be good at abstinence to be good at moderation." That seems to me a pretty honest and practical take on the mechanics on how someone might begin to conceptualize moderation if they are looking to move in that direction from a problem area.

Related note: finishing up the new Gretchen Rubin book on habits (Better than Before) and while it is incredibly chirpy, almost naggy (and a good deal less scientifical than the excellent Charles DuHigg book on same subject), that exhaustingness is also exhaustive and has me thinking about abstinence in a new way--as a skill, something I'm actually quite good at and something that gives me a degree of pleasure to practice. To bring it back to the oft-mentioned Constructive Living, this feels to me like the choice to keep doing what needs to be done based on *what is*.

[The Venerable Bogatir X]

I dunno...I thought one of the most compelling things the dude said was "you have to be good at abstinence to be good at moderation."

Being good at it, yes, but that's not the same as being 'at peace' with it, as I think you'd agree. I think his idea of the 30 day reset of abstinence out of the gate makes complete sense and this is where people in Spells' example of failing to 'cut back' don't tend to do: that utterly difficult for many level setting.

[Koko, Beware]

Absolutely.

[Koko, Beware]

(and certainly more nuanced than making money telling addicts they ought to pick up)

[The Venerable Bogatir X]

What are you going to use the breathalyzer for?

-EDIT-

Sorry, how are you going to use the breathalyzer results?

Not quite sure, yet. Would be interesting for me to see how long/how much it takes me to blow a .04 or a .08 or where I'm at after 3-4 bourbons in 2 hours and then take it from there. I have not gotten 'bombed' since I started drinking again, nor is that a desire.

[Blaidd Drwg]

What are you going to use the breathalyzer for?

-EDIT-

Sorry, how are you going to use the breathalyzer results?

Not quite sure, yet. Would be interesting for me to see how long/how much it takes me to blow a .04 or a .08 or where I'm at after 3-4 bourbons in 2 hours and then take it from there. I have not gotten 'bombed' since I started drinking again, nor is that a desire.

If I understand it correctly, the way Andrew Hill has people using the breathlyzer is when they are having an evening with drinks, they are to take a reading after maybe two and then record how they feel , either by calling in to his staff or maybe leaving a note for themselves. The idea being that one needs to practice self awareness, when I feel like this...it translates to x amount drunk. ..Again recognizing triggers.

I'm not sure how different that translates for those people who really love the booze but I know having had the experience of taking medication that fuks with your tolerance....one minute you think, i'm fine, not really even buzzed and then suddenly you're off to a full on euphoric drunken wasteland....not having had a sense of anything in between. Not having a sense of the mileposts or triggers has got to make self awareness difficult.

[The Venerable Bogatir X]

DELETE

[The Venerable Bogatir X]

Delete

[The Venerable Bogatir X]

What are you going to use the breathalyzer for?

-EDIT-

Sorry, how are you going to use the breathalyzer results?

Not quite sure, yet. Would be interesting for me to see how long/how much it takes me to blow a .04 or a .08 or where I'm at after 3-4 bourbons in 2 hours and then take it from there. I have not gotten 'bombed' since I started drinking again, nor is that a desire.

If I understand it correctly, the way Andrew Hill has people using the breathlyzer is when they are having an evening with drinks, they are to take a reading after maybe two and then record how they feel , either by calling in to his staff or maybe leaving a note for themselves. The idea being that one needs to practice self awareness, when I feel like this...it translates to x amount drunk. ..Again recognizing triggers.

I'm not sure how different that translates for those people who really love the booze but I know having had the experience of taking medication that fuks with your tolerance....one minute you think, i'm fine, not really even buzzed and then suddenly you're off to a full on euphoric drunken wasteland....not having had a sense of anything in between. Not having a sense of the mileposts or triggers has got to make self awareness difficult.

Methinks and me guesses the benefit of using the breathalyzer would be exactly that base line of 'this is how I feel when I am at X'. Although 'X' will vary depending on a ton of stuff, which is why the '2 drinks a day' thing is bullshit, in general. However, if a firm line in the sand is drawn such as 'I will not go beyond .08' or whatever, that sort of takes care of one's opinion, whether they're sober, buzzed, happy, mad at the world, ect. The machine draws the line...a line one sets themselves.

[Shafpocalypse Now]

"you have to be good at abstinence to be good at moderation."

disagree completely

[Koko, Beware]

yeah as a blanket me too. I took it more as a conditional specific to his client base, but actually Bogatir's 'at peace with' might be more in line with the spirit of his statement.

Also funny hear Rogan describe drunk eyes as gerbil eyes and shark eyes iirc. A good listen and stayed pretty well on course.

[bennyonesix]

It will be a crime against humanity if Bogatir does not live blog his first evening with the Breathalyzer.

[The Venerable Bogatir X]

"you have to be good at abstinence to be good at moderation."

disagree completely

If you don't have even the smallest problem with a habit, you're completely right; otherwise, you're completely wrong: there has to be a level setting of sorts that can only come with a willful, 100% abandonment of what you might have a problem with: booze, blow, porn, or whatever, you cannot define your own moderation without a slate that's cleaned *after* a problem has been identified.

[Blaidd Drwg]

Also funny hear Rogan describe drunk eyes as gerbil eyes and shark eyes iirc.

That part totally resonated.

[The Ginger Beard Man]

If I understand it correctly, the way Andrew Hill has people using the breathlyzer is when they are having an evening with drinks, they are to take a reading after maybe two and then record how they feel , either by calling in to his staff or maybe leaving a note for themselves. The idea being that one needs to practice self awareness, when I feel like this...it translates to x amount drunk. ..Again recognizing triggers

That sounds like way too much work to be any fun at all, and having a few drinks should be fun.
It reminds me of the way people in Overeaters Anonymous have to carry a scale around so they can weigh everything they eat before they eat it, which just seems sad.
I'll leave it at that for now, as I haven't read the article or listened to the podcast yet.
(But whoever credited AA with a 10% success rate above: 1. In 16 years of AA I've never witnessed, or heard about, anyone counting heads or doing any kind of study, so I'm always skeptical of success rate figures. 2. Based on what I've seen myself, that seems a little high. It has worked for me so far, but I really have seen so many people come and go that I'm glad there aren't any figures.)