Zoomers lack of alcohol consumption and their mental state overall makes me wonder if the physical consequences of drinking don't really outweigh the psychological benefits.
>>16987816correlation is never causation
>>16987817INCORRECT
>>16987816Alcohol can also cause psychological problems, too.
>>16987833True. However I'd argue responsible alcohol consumption benefits outweights that on a pobalational scale
>>16987836>responsible alcohol consumptionNo such thing exists. Ethanol metabolizes into acetaldehyde which anally rapes your DNA.
>>16987840I didn't say otherwise I said the psychological strain of abstaining is worse
>>16987840My DNA deserves it for setting up a metabolic pathway to create the thing anally raping it
Alcohol is responsible for billions of births and great debate. But the negative sides can outweigh the pros.
>>16987840The metabolism of alcohol is the same as the metabolism of sugar.
>>16988075Neither glucose nor fructose metabolize into acetaldehyde by default, which ethanol always does.
>>16987816>>16987840All-cause mortality studies on drinkers find that only heavy ones have higher fatality rates than abstainers. Regardless of what the mechanistic studies say, poisoning yourself a little bit is pretty healthy according to epidemiology.
>>16987840Small amounts of alcohol exist in nature, as fermented fruit. Wild animals consume it naturally, probably since the beginning of time.What they don't is consuming refined alcohol
>>16988087Any amount of ethanol directly increases your risk of developing cancer, even if by a tiny amount like 7~10%. That's simply in the very nature of what the molecule does, it turns into a carcinogen that directly attacks DNA.>>16988091Yeah we're constantly exposed to trace amounts of toxins of all sorts, we can handle that for the most part.
Again, we're not denying the physical harm alcohol causes. We're postulating that the psychological benefits have been severely understated
>>16988112>Any amount of ethanol directly increases your risk of developing cancer, even if by a tiny amount like 7~10%Still worth it given other effects according to:>Alcohol consumption and all-cause and cause-specific mortality among US adults: prospective cohort study>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12916-023-02907-6>>16988125I'm denying the physical harm outweighs the physical benefits until you hit heavy drinker status. Slightly increased cancer risk is outweighed by lower risks of CVD, chronic respiratory tract diseases, Alzheimer’s disease, influenza, and pneumonia.
>>16988141Not the guy you're replying to, but the tl;dr for a non-sci guy would be "doctors in the 90s were right when they said a glass of wine in the evening is probably beneficial overall"?
>>16987817correlation is correlated with causation. pseud.
>>16987840meanwhile, in reality, a drink a day reduces all cause mortality.
>>16988210Ironically per the graph you can even bump that up to 2 drinks a day and still be a hair under the teetotaler all-cause-mortality rate
>>16988210>>16988211Funny enough, journalistcucks keep completely misinterpreting the /sci/ that keeps dropping on this shit, such as this article...>Scientists confirm alcohol is, in fact, bad for you despite civilization's vigorous objections>https://boingboing.net/2026/05/26/scientists-confirm-alcohol-is-in-fact-bad-for-you-despite-civilizations-vigorous-objections.htmlYet you go look up the new study...>A review of the relationship between dimensions of alcohol consumption and the burden of disease: 2026 update including Mendelian randomisation studies>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.70435>Relationships are J-shaped for IHD, ischaemic stroke, and type 2 diabetes, with lower risk at low-to-moderate consumption (generally only without heavy episodic drinking).>J-shapedJust like the graphic there. Teetotaling to minimize cancer risk is a psyop that isn't worth it.
>>16988112Utterly fake and gay.
Maybe we could try cooler drugs for society than cucked alcohol...
>>16987840>>16988112>>16988220Why are people claiming you should not consume any alc arguing in such a Jewish way? It's always the disregard of any common sense and picking sone ultra mainstream studies. And no compromise. That makes me wonder. I think op is right. Tho alc can have negatives psychologically aswell. But can have positives for the body I think. The poison a bit, every week or less. And I think a ful drunk state every month or few months is actually good. It increases blood flow in the body a lot and I think it flashes out sone shit. Especially it keeps the brain flexible.
>>16988091The amount in nature has no effect on the human body, but drinking just a bit of alcohol definitely does.
>>16988609This is a retarded post.>a little bit of alc has no effect>a little bit of alc has effectIf you eat several very ripe fruit you can have the alc if a beer
>>16987816Alcohol should be diluted to 3%.
>>16988697False, that's just inefficient. Alcohol should be increased to the hygroscopic limit of 95%. At that point it will literally chemically extract moisture from the atmosphere if the percentage gets any higher.
>>16988703can we just top it out at like 90%? getting that last 5% is absurdly difficult. not even everclear gets close.
>>16988777Acceptable, but no lower.
