# Dry January



## Gyakuto (Jan 3, 2023)

Brits generally drink too much alcohol (Seneca even made this observation of the ancient Britons). To rest their livers, some Brits have a ‘dry January‘ and abstain from alcohol for the month.

Has anyone tried this? Any observations or comments? Is there a similar thing in other countries?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 3, 2023)

At least where I'm from there's no tradition of that. But if someone does drink too much, and questioning if they have an issue, I've dared them to try a dry month and see how it goes. 

Some people struggle a lot with it. For a lot it ends up being more a social issue than anything-having to explain to people they just don't want to drink. Very similar to telling people you don't want to eat meat-the second (some) people find out, they make it their mission to 'break' you.


----------



## Steve (Jan 3, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> Brits generally drink too much alcohol (Seneca even made this observation of the ancient Britons). To rest their livers, some Brits have a ‘dry January‘ and abstain from alcohol for the month.
> 
> Has anyone tried this? Any observations or comments? Is there a similar thing in other countries?


I've heard about this for the last few years, and just read this article a few days ago.  Are you going to do it?  



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2022/12/27/dry-january-health-benefits/


----------



## drop bear (Jan 3, 2023)

One of my coaches is only drinking water for 8 days.


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 3, 2023)

Steve said:


> I've heard about this for the last few years, and just read this article a few days ago.  Are you going to do it?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2022/12/27/dry-january-health-benefits/


I don't drink alcohol so I'm on a 'dry life'! 

I used to drink the odd beer on a hot day but stopped because I simply don't like the taste. I dislike wine (sour grape juice as Sheldon Cooper correctly calls it!). If someone offered me alcohol I'd have a few sips (except wine) but I just prefer tea, coffee and Ribena!

The BBC Radio 4 had a 'You and Yours' programme about Dry January and I was surprised at the number of at what are now referred as 'functioning alcoholics' that are at large. I realised that a significant number of my friends would fall into this category drinking about 10-14 units of alcohol in a 24 hour period. The laissez faire attitude to drinking too much alcohol is rife in the UK. It doesn't help that alcohol advertising and regulation in the UK is controlled by the 'Portman Group', a quango made up of distillery companies! Self-regulation is stupid!


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 3, 2023)

drop bear said:


> One of my coaches is only drinking water for 8 days.


Why?


----------



## granfire (Jan 3, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> Why?


why not. 
it definitely has benefits. 
If only that it resets your pallet. 

there are 2 schools of alcohol consumption: 
You have one drink, you are an alcoholic (so everybody who regularly drinks alcohol is an addict)
And of course, as long as you can hold on to one blade of grass and not fall off the earth, you are good. 

And all the universe in between. 
I think 'fasts' help us discover what our habits are. Be it too much alcohol, food, or other activities. 
I think though it takes a bigger change in society, so we become more accepting of others. 
Be it the decision to remain alcohol-free, meatless, etc (or deeper-reaching issues, like gender identity and preferred romantic partners. it isn't going to hurt me to adjust my speech pattern to preferred pronouns and chosen names) 
More respect for our fellow man, not trying to convert them to be like us?

Although I have to say, it is not fun to be the only sober person among a bunch of drunks. 
Like being the designated driver at our adult relatives' New years party, or coming 'off shift' at a Carnival party, when the other guests have a 2 hour head start (and having to drive home after)


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 3, 2023)

granfire said:


> If only that it resets your pallet.


Thankfully that only takes me a glass of water and 20mins. I am blessed!


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 3, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> Brits generally drink too much alcohol (Seneca even made this observation of the ancient Britons). To rest their livers, some Brits have a ‘dry January‘ and abstain from alcohol for the month.
> 
> Has anyone tried this? Any observations or comments? Is there a similar thing in other countries?


I am participating in dry January. I don’t drink much, but it’s good to take breaks from sugars of any kind.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 3, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> Why?


Not him, but I do that every once in a while. Drinking too much sugary stuff can mess with my stomach, so getting a fresh restart can be nice. And helps if I realize I need to limit-when I start drinking soda/juice again, it's much lighter than it was beforehand.


----------



## Steve (Jan 3, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> I don't drink alcohol so I'm on a 'dry life'!
> 
> I used to drink the odd beer on a hot day but stopped because I simply don't like the taste. I dislike wine (sour grape juice as Sheldon Cooper correctly calls it!). If someone offered me alcohol I'd have a few sips (except wine) but I just prefer tea, coffee and Ribena!
> 
> The BBC Radio 4 had a 'You and Yours' programme about Dry January and I was surprised at the number of at what are now referred as 'functioning alcoholics' that are at large. I realised that a significant number of my friends would fall into this category drinking about 10-14 units of alcohol in a 24 hour period. The laissez faire attitude to drinking too much alcohol is rife in the UK. It doesn't help that alcohol advertising and regulation in the UK is controlled by the 'Portman Group', a quango made up of distillery companies! Self-regulation is stupid!


what’s the difference between a moderate drinker and a functioning alcohol?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 3, 2023)

Steve said:


> what’s the difference between a moderate drinker and a functioning alcohol?


Who you're asking. The usage of these terms is quite fluid (pun unintentional, but pretty good anyway).


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 3, 2023)

Steve said:


> what’s the difference between a moderate drinker and a functioning alcohol?


A moderate drinker is someone who drinks a moderate amount (depending on the entity/diagnostic tool, what's moderate changes. at my old hospital for men it was up to (not including) drinking 2 drinks 4+ times a week, or sessions of 7+ at once. 

Meanwhile a functional alcoholic isn't consistently defined the same way, but there's two 'layman definitions' that I've seen used the most. Both require that you can hold down a job/social relationships, but with the first definition it means that the person in question is always focusing on when they can drink next/thinking about drinking when they have to be sober, and the second definition is that while they drink sparingly enough they can function, when they do drink, they're still unable to stop until they blackout.


----------



## MetalBoar (Jan 3, 2023)

Steve said:


> what’s the difference between a moderate drinker and a functioning alcohol?


A functioning alcoholic is someone who has one more drink than you.


----------



## Buka (Jan 3, 2023)

I'm having a dry January. There will not be one single drop of Vermouth in my vodka martini.


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 3, 2023)

Steve said:


> what’s the difference between a moderate drinker and a functioning alcohol?


‘The terms “high-functioning alcoholic” or “functional alcoholic” have been previously used to describe someone struggling with alcohol use disorder (AUD) while still being able to maintain a job, friendships, and family life.’ www.healthline.com 

The BBC programme I listened to today said that according to hepatologists, there is now no safe level of alcohol consumption.


----------



## Steve (Jan 3, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> ‘The terms “high-functioning alcoholic” or “functional alcoholic” have been previously used to describe someone struggling with alcohol use disorder (AUD) while still being able to maintain a job, friendships, and family life.’ www.healthline.com


Makes sense. 



Gyakuto said:


> The BBC programme I listened to today said that according to hepatologists, there is now no safe level of alcohol consumption.


these kinds of extreme claims seem a little ridiculous to me.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 3, 2023)

Dirty Dog said:


> Who you're asking. The usage of these terms is quite fluid (pun unintentional, but pretty good anyway).


I think I can swallow that.


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 3, 2023)

Steve said:


> these kinds of extreme claims seem a little ridiculous to me.


Well, it’s like heavy metal exposure…no safe limit! I’m not referring to Iron Maiden, either.

The hepatologist who made this statement said that even he drank alcohol, fully understanding the risks.

Coincidently, I spent New Years eve with a hepatologist and his family (yes he was drinking). His team had just applied for a grant to fully study some preliminary findings of theirs: faecal transplants cure alcoholism!! Normalising the gut biome of alcoholics appears to positively affect their brains putting them of alcohol!


----------



## Steve (Jan 3, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> Well, it’s like heavy metal exposure…no safe limit! I’m not referring to Iron Maiden, either.


Really, though?  Is it? 


Gyakuto said:


> The hepatologist who made this statement said that even he drank alcohol, fully understanding the risks.


What are the risks, exactly?  I’m a healthy, average human being and I have a kombucha.  What’s the risk?  To be clear, I’m not trying to argue with you.  I think the hematologists you’re referencing are silly. 



Gyakuto said:


> Coincidently, I spent New Years eve with a hepatologist and his family (yes he was drinking). His team had just applied for a grant to fully study some preliminary findings of theirs: faecal transplants cure alcoholism!! Normalising the gut biome of alcoholics appears to positively affect their brains putting them of alcohol!



I’m not surprised. 

This seems apropos:


----------



## MetalBoar (Jan 3, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> ‘The terms “high-functioning alcoholic” or “functional alcoholic” have been previously used to describe someone struggling with alcohol use disorder (AUD) while still being able to maintain a job, friendships, and family life.’ www.healthline.com
> 
> *The BBC programme I listened to today said that according to hepatologists, there is now no safe level of alcohol consumption.*


I'd love to see their research (and pass it on to a friend).  Said friend is a truly world class expert in statistical analysis and data science (PHD and 25+ years of experience, recognized and respected in the field, etc.), is a profound health nut, and also likes to drink.  He wanted to know how much his drinking hurt his health and what the optimal level of consumption might be (zero, some, lots, unknown).  He did a very thorough meta-analysis of a huge number of studies on alcohol consumption and came to the conclusion, that to the extent that we had good data on the subject, in the case of moderate consumption*, the impact on all cause mortality and overall health was very small and that, depending on which studies you trusted, low to moderate consumption probably reduced risk of overall mortality.

This was 10-ish years ago, so we may have better and different data now, but based on some of the other things he had to say I kind of doubt it.  We're looking at almost entirely, or entirely, observational studies, the data is often (almost always?) self reported, the studies are frequently funded by entities with a clear bias (both alcohol producers or those favoring abstinence), and there are often confounding variables (heavy alcohol consumption is correlated with other drug use, etc.).  On the matter of self reported data, one of the funny things my friend pointed out was that if you looked at the data for alcohol sales in the UK and compared it to self reported consumption in the UK there were only two conclusions you could come to, 1) people are lying about how much they drink or 2) people are pouring more than half the alcohol they buy down the drain.    

Now, hepatologists are a bit focused in their outlook.  They see people who are sick or dying with liver problems, and alcohol consumption may simply be bad for your liver.  Whether it's always bad for the liver or not, my friend found no evidence that moderate consumption was bad for your longevity nor overall health, so while it may harm the liver it may have benefits that outweigh or at least balance that impact.  I don't really want die of liver disease, but I don't really want to die of heart disease, brain cancer, or pneumonia either.  

Overall I don't have much investment in the issue, but I do find it interesting.  I think I'll email my friend and ask him if his opinion has changed.  I don't really drink very much any more but I do like a glass of wine or a beer with a meal now and then and I also enjoy the occasional scotch or cocktail on a night out.  Something is likely to get me sooner or later, so I'm not going to sweat the occasional drink.  On the other hand, I've found that alcohol can disrupt my sleep and I have sleep issues, so my consumption is pretty low these days.  Going a month without drinking probably happens about as often as not and it's the rare month that I have more than a handful of drinks in total.

*I don't remember what qualified as moderate consumption, but I do remember that it was more than I expected.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 3, 2023)

There's a lot of different studies out there. Some say that moderate drinking is okay-no negative health benefits. Some say that it actually helps to drink a little bit. Some say that this is true only for wine, while others say it's for every. One found a correlation between health benefits and whether or not your job was stressful (can't remember if drinking was healthy for a stressful or stressfree job according to it). Some say any amount of alcohol is bad for your health. Some say alcohol's good for certain things, while bad for others. 

Most were finding correlations rather than causation. Never found anything strong enough to sway me towards a definitive answer regarding moderate alcohol consumption-the research seemed pretty clear on heavy drinking and binge-drinking though. Avoid those if your goal is long-term or short-term health.


----------



## granfire (Jan 3, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> Thankfully that only takes me a glass of water and 20mins. I am blessed!


not that way.
It does take a few days to get yourself used to more subtle tastes. 
like weaning yourself off sugar or sodium.


----------



## Steve (Jan 3, 2023)

Regarding drinking I would guess there’s an element of social engineering involved. I mean, I think we can all agree that excessive drinking leads to impaired judgement which can lead to a lot of bad things.  But that’s different from saying that alcohol in any amount is unsafe.


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 4, 2023)

Steve said:


> Really, though?  Is it?


It’s very similar, except most people generally don’t expose themselves to heavy metals


Steve said:


> What are the risks, exactly?  I’m a healthy, average human being and I have a kombucha.  What’s the risk?  To be clear, I’m not trying to argue with you.  I think the hematologists you’re referencing are silly.


Hepatolologists (liver specialists). They are internationally recognised researchers and clinicians. I have quite a bit of confidence in their opinions. 









						There is no safe level of alcohol consumption, new global study confirms | Imperial News | Imperial College London
					

Imperial researchers are among a team of international scientists to suggest there is no safe level of alcohol – the health risks outweigh benefits.




					www.imperial.ac.uk
				




To be clear, Imperial College, is the UK’s _top_ science research university…regularly rated above Cambridge and Oxford.

I think this is a glimpse of the issue. If a person’s alcohol consumption (or Mars Bar consumption in my case) is even slightly questioned, one witnesses a defensive attitude and even irritation. I’m sure nobody will take my Mars Bars away away, they’re just giving advice based upon empirical evidence that Mars Bars are bad for people like me (I chop the up into little slices and melt the for 24 seconds in the microwave and eat with a spoon. On Saturdays, I add a dollop of clotted cream. There is no safe level of clotted cream exposure 😳).


Steve said:


> I’m not surprised.


You’re not surprised that taking several tens of people’s faeces, homogenising, incubating and liquefying it and squirting a considerable volume of it up an alcoholic‘s jacksie cures them of a deeply entrenched, destructive behaviour? 😉


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 4, 2023)

MetalBoar said:


> , the impact on all cause mortality and overall health was very small and that, depending on which studies you trusted, low to moderate consumption probably reduced risk of overall mortality.


Small but not non-existent. 



MetalBoar said:


> This was 10-ish years ago, so we may have better and different data now, but based on some of the other things he had to say I kind of doubt it.


The passage of one year in research is 4.63 in human years (32.41 in dog years) 😑




MetalBoar said:


> We're looking at almost entirely, or entirely, observational studies, the data is often (almost always?)


All science is observational!



MetalBoar said:


> self reported, the studies are frequently funded by entities with a clear bias (both alcohol producers or those favoring abstinence), and there are often confounding variables (heavy alcohol consumption is correlated with other drug use, etc.).  On the matter of self reported data, one of the funny things my friend pointed out was that if you looked at the data for alcohol sales in the UK and compared it to self reported consumption in the UK there were only two conclusions you could come to, 1) people are lying about how much they drink or 2) people are pouring more than half the alcohol they buy down the drain.


Self-reporting (qualitative) data can be dubious so liver function (blood) tests act to give a quantitative snap shot of liver health.



MetalBoar said:


> Now, hepatologists are a bit focused in their outlook.


Of course! They’re mission is to enhance liver health and prevent disease and suffering.


MetalBoar said:


> They see people who are sick or dying with liver problems, and alcohol consumption may simply be bad for your liver.  Whether it's always bad for the liver or not, my friend found no evidence that moderate consumption was bad for your longevity nor overall health, so while it may harm the liver it may have benefits that outweigh or at least balance that impact.  I don't really want die of liver disease, but I don't really want to die of heart disease, brain cancer, or pneumonia either.
> 
> Overall I don't have much investment in the issue, but I do find it interesting.  I think I'll email my friend and ask him if his opinion has changed.


The data has, so I’m sure it has. I have to be clear, when scientists perform research, the have _statisticians_ analyse the data to see if the results are pure chance or have a causal link with some factor. Statisticians specialise in a particular field, too. Medicine, physics, public health, psychology  etc so you place your data before the most appropriate statistician rather than a ‘generalist’. I would be reluctant to give scientific opinion on the research coming out of CERN and instead rely upon experts in that field to give me their informed opinions.

I think the point is, alcohol is a metabolic ‘poison’. If you drink a couple of units of it everyday, it will probably not do the vast majority of people any harm. If a person has  poor liver function due to disease, lifestyle habits etc, then it might do harm. If you are personally happy with that small risk….if drinking 2 units a day, everyday is your raison d’ etre…then in _your_ opinion the benefits outweigh the potential risks. If you just drink alcohol  for something to do when your out and it’s ‘just there’ and your able to socialise and chat and be amiable without alcohol as a way of loosening up, then maybe reconsider your choices.


----------



## _Simon_ (Jan 4, 2023)

We don't have one in January, we have "Dry July" here, has a nice ring to it. I don't drink at all, but many people here really stick to the Dry July!


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 4, 2023)

_Simon_ said:


> We don't have one in January, we have "Dry July" here, has a nice ring to it. I don't drink at all, but many people here really stick to the Dry July!


I think Dry January, in the U.K., is strategically placed after Christmas when most people have overindulged and their livers are crying out for respite. 

I guess that’s the same for Australia where you have your Christmas in June 😐
(I’ve actually heard Brits say that about Christmas in Australia!)


----------



## _Simon_ (Jan 4, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> I think Dry January, in the U.K., is strategically placed after Christmas when most people have overindulged and their livers are crying out for respite.
> 
> I guess that’s the same for Australia where you have your Christmas in June 😐
> (I’ve actually heard Brits say that about Christmas in Australia!)


Hey that makes sense actually haha! Yeah midyear Christmas has become a bit of a thing of late, mainly restaurants doing special dinners etc, but none of our family do it. Very interesting!


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 4, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> It’s very similar, except most people generally don’t expose themselves to heavy metals
> 
> Hepatolologists (liver specialists). They are internationally recognised researchers and clinicians. I have quite a bit of confidence in their opinions.
> 
> ...


This is actually one of the studies I was referring to, I believe. The article does quote something interesting from one of the authors:
"Professor Sonia Saxena from Imperial’s School of Public Health is one of the authors on the paper. Speaking to the BBC, she said: “One drink a day does represent a small increased health risk, but adjust that to the UK population as a whole and it represents a far bigger number, and most people are not drinking just one drink a day.” 

I did a brief skim to remind myself of the study, and it appears that essentially what they're saying within it is that they can't statistically significant evidence of the health benefits through reviewing populations along with meta-analysis of the other studies on alcohol and health, with the exception of some heart health stuff, while it is very easy to verify the negative results/risks from alcohol use-so as a result, the safe bet is to not drink. 

The biggest point in the article to me is this: "They estimate that, for one year, in people aged 15-95 years, drinking one alcoholic drink a day increases the risk of developing one of the 23 alcohol-related health problems by 0.5%, compared with not drinking at all". Which I fully believe. But it does not account for if different types of alcohol are related to that (ie: is this a result of alcohol itself, or more a result of hops, or everything they may put in beer, or flavorings, or something else? And is wine still the exception or no?), and does not account for people that drink less than one alcoholic drink daily.

Again, I skimmed the article so may have missed something, and again I fully believe/agree with the results. But while it's definitely one of the more comprehensive studies out there, it's not fully comprehensive.


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2023)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> This is actually one of the studies I was referring to, I believe. The article does quote something interesting from one of the authors:
> "Professor Sonia Saxena from Imperial’s School of Public Health is one of the authors on the paper. Speaking to the BBC, she said: “One drink a day does represent a small increased health risk, but adjust that to the UK population as a whole and it represents a far bigger number, and most people are not drinking just one drink a day.”
> 
> I did a brief skim to remind myself of the study, and it appears that essentially what they're saying within it is that they can't statistically significant evidence of the health benefits through reviewing populations along with meta-analysis of the other studies on alcohol and health, with the exception of some heart health stuff, while it is very easy to verify the negative results/risks from alcohol use-so as a result, the safe bet is to not drink.
> ...


Sounds about right.  

To be clear, @Gyakuto, I'm not suggesting that alcohol is a health food.  I'm skeptical of the assertion that it is "unsafe in any amount."  I find that to be hyperbolic.  So, if I use vanilla extract in my cake, that's an unsafe amount of alcohol?  If I drink a kombucha?  If I have one beer in a year?  A decade?  Really?  Unsafe in any amount?  I'm skeptical. 

I would be very surprised if the experts could detect any difference between an average person who drinks one beer a month and a teetotaler.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 4, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> It’s very similar, except most people generally don’t expose themselves to heavy metals
> 
> Hepatolologists (liver specialists). They are internationally recognised researchers and clinicians. I have quite a bit of confidence in their opinions.
> 
> ...


🤣🤣🤣🥲


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 4, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> I think Dry January, in the U.K., is strategically placed after Christmas when most people have overindulged and their livers are crying out for respite.
> 
> I guess that’s the same for Australia where you have your Christmas in June 😐
> (I’ve actually heard Brits say that about Christmas in Australia!)


Correcto Mundo!


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 4, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> It’s very similar, except most people generally don’t expose themselves to heavy metals
> 
> Hepatolologists (liver specialists). They are internationally recognised researchers and clinicians. I have quite a bit of confidence in their opinions.
> 
> ...


I promise to be a good boy! I promise to change my destructive ways! Please don’t give me the communal fermented reverse enema!


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 4, 2023)

Steve said:


> Sounds about right.
> 
> To be clear, @Gyakuto, I'm not suggesting that alcohol is a health food.  I'm skeptical of the assertion that it is "unsafe in any amount."  I find that to be hyperbolic.  So, if I use vanilla extract in my cake, that's an unsafe amount of alcohol?  If I drink a kombucha?  If I have one beer in a year?  A decade?  Really?  Unsafe in any amount?  I'm skeptical.
> 
> I would be very surprised if the experts could detect any difference between an average person who drinks one beer a month and a teetotaler.


What does unsafe mean in this instance?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 4, 2023)

Saying "There is no safe amount" is not the same as saying "Drinking any amount will kill you".

What it actually does is recognize that people are not homogenous. And what is safe for one person can kill another.

As an example, there are tons of people with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Something like 30% of the population has this, mostly undiagnosed. And unless/until it progresses to cirrhosis, most will not have any symptoms.

Alcohol greatly increases the chances of NAFLD progressing to NASH or full on cirrhosis. It is certain that some of the people reading this have undiagnosed NAFLD. So there is no safe amount.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 4, 2023)

Dirty Dog said:


> Saying "There is no safe amount" is not the same as saying "Drinking any amount will kill you".
> 
> What it actually does is recognize that people are not homogenous. And what is safe for one person can kill another.
> 
> ...


That was my take. It sounds as if there was a disagreement based around the definition of unsafe.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 4, 2023)

Dirty Dog said:


> Saying "There is no safe amount" is not the same as saying "Drinking any amount will kill you".
> 
> What it actually does is recognize that people are not homogenous. And what is safe for one person can kill another.
> 
> ...


Personally, anything that has even a remote chance of resulting in fecal transplant sounds ”unsafe”.   Im going to have beer(s) on February 1st just the same, because I’m a daredevil.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 4, 2023)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> That was my take. It sounds as if there was a disagreement based around the definition of unsafe.


Because in this case it really cannot be quantified.


Wing Woo Gar said:


> Personally, anything that has even a remote chance of resulting in fecal transplant sounds ”unsafe”.


The most common reason for fecal transplant is recurring C. difficile infections. The most common cause of C. diff infections is antibiotics. But please do not refuse antibiotics because of this.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 4, 2023)

Any of you guys watch the episode of south park, where they try to get tom brady's poop (among others) for fecal transplants? That's what this reminds me of.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 4, 2023)

Dirty Dog said:


> Because in this case it really cannot be quantified.
> 
> The most common reason for fecal transplant is recurring C. difficile infections. The most common cause of C. diff infections is antibiotics. But please do not refuse antibiotics because of this.


Oh I know, I’m just joking. C diff is found in a significant number of surgical patients requiring repeat or revisions to orthopedic procedures where chronic osteomyelitis is a factor. Long term Vancomycin often appears in the history.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 4, 2023)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Any of you guys watch the episode of south park, where they try to get tom brady's poop (among others) for fecal transplants? That's what this reminds me of.


Lol!


----------



## MetalBoar (Jan 4, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> Small but not non-existent.


Yes, small, but non-existent.  Depending on which studies you choose to trust, it can be a small benefit to longevity and overall health or a small detriment.  Either way, a small impact.



Gyakuto said:


> All science is observational!


There's some debate about the reliability and value of observational studies, but there is most certainly a difference between a controlled, randomized, clinical trial and an observational study.



Gyakuto said:


> Self-reporting (qualitative) data can be dubious so liver function (blood) tests act to give a quantitative snap shot of liver health.


Yes, but if many people say they drink 2 drinks a day (moderate drinking according to the CDC) and in truth they drink 4 drinks a day (well over the line into heavy drinking according to the CDC), and you look at those blood tests and say those results apply to moderate drinking (as defined by the CDC) you're coming to inaccurate conclusions.  If people who say they are drinking 3-4 drinks a day are actually having 8, then you also have skewed data for what you're labeling as heavy drinking as well.  The blood test will tell you what their liver health looks like, but not how many drinks caused it. 



Gyakuto said:


> Of course! They’re mission is to enhance liver health and prevent disease and suffering.


I'm not saying that hepatologists are bad at their job, I'm saying that if your job is to take care of people with liver problems you're going to see a lot of people with liver problems and you're going to care about things that damage the liver.  You may be blinded to the overall impact of alcohol on your patients' heart health or risk of stroke or cancer or whatever.  If the data doesn't support the idea that those who consume alcohol are dying younger than those who don't, then either the data is wrong or insufficient, the damage to the liver is minimal enough to be irrelevant to overall longevity, or while the damage to the liver may be significant alcohol has some beneficial impact on other health conditions that outweighs this negative impact (on the general population - individual risk is of course, individual).  



Gyakuto said:


> I think the point is, alcohol is a metabolic ‘poison’. If you drink a couple of units of it everyday, it will probably not do the vast majority of people any harm. If a person has poor liver function due to disease, lifestyle habits etc, then it might do harm. If you are personally happy with that small risk….if drinking 2 units a day, everyday is your raison d’ etre…then in _your_ opinion the benefits outweigh the potential risks. If you just drink alcohol for something to do when your out and it’s ‘just there’ and your able to socialise and chat and be amiable without alcohol as a way of loosening up, then maybe reconsider your choices.


Lots of medications are also toxic, so the fact that alcohol is a "metabolic ‘poison’" doesn't guarantee that it can't be of benefit, or of no significant impact, to overall health.  As the old saying goes, "The difference between poison and medicine is in the dose".  Even water is toxic if you drink too much too quickly.  Lots of things can be bad for your health.  Sugar is bad for your health and fructose consumption is also correlated with fatty liver disease.  I'm still not sure that a strict ketogenic diet is necessary for health.  Similarly, I really doubt that we have enough information to say that a couple of drinks a day, much less a handful of drinks a month, is likely to have a measurable, detrimental impact on the average person.


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2023)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> What does unsafe mean in this instance?





Wing Woo Gar said:


> That was my take. It sounds as if there was a disagreement based around the definition of unsafe.


So what does unsafe in any amount mean?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 4, 2023)

Steve said:


> So what does unsafe in any amount mean?


I don’t know, actually. I’m curious though.


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2023)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I don’t know, actually. I’m curious though.


Me too. It sounds serious.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 4, 2023)

Steve said:


> Me too. It sounds serious.


Well yeah. Who woulda thunk it.?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 4, 2023)

Steve said:


> Me too. It sounds serious.


Anything to avoid the poo enema, except quitting drinking!  I figure I will just get drunk while they gimme the cure. Last hurrah ?


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2023)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Anything to avoid the poo enema, except quitting drinking!  I figure I will just get drunk while they gimme the cure. Last hurrah ?


poo enema?  What even is that?  I’m so confused right now. 

Also, can someone explain how alcohol caused *nonalcoholic* fatty liver disease (NAFLD)?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 4, 2023)

Steve said:


> poo enema?  What even is that?  I’m so confused right now.
> 
> Also, can someone explain how alcohol caused *nonalcoholic* fatty liver disease (NAFLD)?


Fecal transplant. It has been used to normalize the gut biome in humans.


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 5, 2023)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I promise to be a good boy! I promise to change my destructive ways! Please don’t give me the communal fermented reverse enema!


If you’re really bad, the put sand in the tube’s lube 😳


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 5, 2023)

Steve said:


> poo enema?  What even is that?  I’m so confused right now.


I’ll try!

There in mounting evidence that the population of ‘good’ bacteria in the gut have a significant effect on health and the mechanisms of that are being intensively investigated. Our modern lifestyles/diets are thought to alter the relative proportions of good and not-so-good bacteria and things like sugar, alcohol, Mars Bars and clotted cream often being quoted as bad things (😳🤤) to ingest for the gut’s healthy ‘biome’, as this balance of bacteria is called.

It has been suggested that drinking/eating good bacteria foods (sauerkraut, kombucha, Yakult, Kefir, kimchi etc) will help repopulate the guts biome with good bacteria. However the digestive system is designed to attenuate the amount of bacteria etc entering it (the bacteria static effect of 2 molar gastric hydrochloric acid, for example) and thus it’s difficult to get _sufficient_ amounts of these orally ingested good bacteria make it into the gut where they can repopulate it but not impossible. However, these protective mechanisms are ‘front-loaded’ in the gastrointestinal system (GI tract) because that it usually the direction in which bacteria enters the GI tract. So researchers thought of putting good bacteria into the GI system via the anus and into the intestines where they could proliferate and restore a healthy biome and the health benefits that brings. The faeces of healthy individuals is laden with the specifically good bacteria in all the right proportions so this became the candidate substance to wazz up the jacksie (technical phrase, that)

However, we can make the guts a more _hospitable_ place for good bacteria to grow by:

1) Trying to eat 30 different types of plants each week
2) Eating ‘colourful’ foods (rather than beige foods)
3) Adding fermented foods to your diet
4) Give you GI tract a break from digestion (time-restricted eating)
5) Limit refined (ultra refined) foods
(I copied this list from my TV screen where Prof Tim Spector happens to be talking about healthy guts on breakfast TV -  synchronicity!)


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 5, 2023)

MetalBoar said:


> Yes, small, but non-existent.  Depending on which studies you choose to trust, it can be a small benefit to longevity and overall health or a small detriment.  Either way, a small impact.


But an impact, supporting the ‘no safe limit’ suggestion by the experts.


MetalBoar said:


> There's some debate about the reliability and value of observational studies, but there is most certainly a difference between a controlled, randomized, clinical trial and an observational study.


Ah, we’re at odds here. I meant that looking at data is observational. I think you mean ‘self-reported data’. Yes, people lie about their alcohol, food, drug intake because they are often shameful of it! 😀 When my other half is taking a medical history from a new patient, she often doubles the self-reported amounts of alcohol in the notes (in pencil) and refers to liver function blood tests to verify or otherwise. Have you noticed that when a doctor wants to know how much you weigh, they confirm your reported weight by putting you on scales! 😂



MetalBoar said:


> Yes, but if many people say they drink 2 drinks a day (moderate drinking according to the CDC) and in truth they drink 4 drinks a day (well over the line into heavy drinking according to the CDC), and you look at those blood tests and say those results apply to moderate drinking (as defined by the CDC) you're coming to inaccurate conclusions.  If people who say they are drinking 3-4 drinks a day are actually having 8, then you also have skewed data for what you're labeling as heavy drinking as well.  The blood test will tell you what their liver health looks like, but not how many drinks caused it.


But the deleterious effects on the liver ( negative changes in liver function) are what are important, not the absolute amount of alcohol consumed. One pint of strong lager has a bigger negative affect on my liver than it would on a 6 foot 9 inch fat bloke!



MetalBoar said:


> I'm not saying that hepatologists are bad at their job, I'm saying that if your job is to take care of people with liver problems you're going to see a lot of people with liver problems and you're going to care about things that damage the liver.  You may be blinded to the overall impact of alcohol on your patients' heart health or risk of stroke or cancer or whatever.  If the data doesn't support the idea that those who consume alcohol are dying younger than those who don't, then either the data is wrong or insufficient,


Or the factors involved are extremely complex, show individual variation and non-linear. I think this is the case and you can’t be sure until you do the research. Small amounts of alcohol might be fine for me, but terrible for that the 6’9” bloke, but we don’t know until we see what alcohol does to us. Thus the safest thing to advise, for the whole population is ‘there is no safe limit’.



MetalBoar said:


> the damage to the liver is minimal enough to be irrelevant to overall longevity, or while the damage to the liver may be significant alcohol has some beneficial impact on other health conditions that outweighs this negative impact (on the general population - individual risk is of course, individual).


Interestingly, the experts expanded on their research findings by saying, the small benefits of drinking alcohol are obliterated by the deleterious effects of alcohol.



MetalBoar said:


> Lots of medications are also toxic, so the fact that alcohol is a "metabolic ‘poison’" doesn't guarantee that it can't be of benefit,


See above. I take medication that have terrible potential side effects, but they are better than the potential effects of my medical condition. My doctor and I have made an informed decision that I’m better off taking the medication, than not. Taking alcohol is a lifestyle choice.

>As the old saying goes, "The difference between poison and medicine is in the dose".

Plutonium? Asbestos? Old sayings often don’t bear close scrutiny

>Even water is toxic if you drink too much too quickly.

Well, it’s the _dilution_ affects of too much water that are bad for your health rather than water _itself_. Your electrolyte levels are altered beyond normal life-perpetuation physiological parameters. No amount of alcohol is required for a normal life.

 >Lots of things can be bad for your health.  Sugar is bad for your health and fructose consumption is also correlated >with fatty liver disease.

You mean over-consumption. We have to consume/convert into, some sugars or we would rapidly die. Alcohol is _not_ required in any amount for life.

>I'm still not sure that a strict ketogenic diet is necessary for health.

Yes, I agree. Any extreme should be viewed with suspicion - except drinking no alcohol 😉

>Similarly, I really doubt that we have enough information to say that a couple of drinks a day, much less a handful of >drinks a month, is likely to have a measurable, detrimental impact on the average person.

And world-class experts, based on current research, disagree with that. I’d go with peer-reviewed data than ‘gut instinct’.

(Sorry, I did something weird with the editing there, hence the chevrons)


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 5, 2023)

(May I say, many of the conversations we have on here are the most enjoyable, informative ones I’ve has since I gave up work. You can probably tell I like to be contrary and play devils advocate for the sake of intellectual jousting. Thank you all, so much…sincerely. Please do have a couple of drinks )

Right, where was I…🤔? Oh yes, _all_ alcohol is the devil’s semen, and you _all_ drink too much because you’re feeble-minded, have no discipline and self-medicate to boost your under-developed personalities and make you vaguely interesting to your preferred gender 😄 Actually, that’s why I do martial arts 😳


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 5, 2023)

Steve said:


> these kinds of extreme claims seem a little ridiculous to me.


I think claims like this tend to come from the variance in human response, and the speaker's risk aversion. So for _some people_ there may be no safe level of consumption. I can't find any evidence that this is a fair statement for people in general, especially given there have been studies that suggest some possible health benefits for some people from light consumption.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 5, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> But an impact, supporting the ‘no safe limit’ suggestion by the experts.


As someone pointed out, there are also sometimes small benefits listed. If there's a small chance of a small negative impact, and a small chance of a small positive impact, "safe" would appear to be hard to define.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 5, 2023)

I drank a lot in my Marine Corps days.  Tapered off afterwards.  Ended up drinking maybe a couple times a month, then a couple times a year, never to the point of being drunk anymore.

Now I'm on blood thinners.  Doctor says no more alcohol, it increases the effect of blood thinners and generally screws with the other meds I take for my heart.  So I stopped drinking.  Wasn't hard to go from a couple drinks a year to none.

I still like beer and bourbon, but I can't have any, so oh well.  No big deal.

The only thing that ticks me off is my cardiologist doesn't believe me.  I guess lots of people lie about it.  Every time I see him, he asks if I snore or have sleep apnea (I don't).  Then he asks me how much I drink.  I say "none" and he says "you need to tell me the truth."  I say "none" and he writes down "Patient claims not to snore, have sleep apnea, or drink alcohol."  FFS.

Is booze that pervasive that *everybody* drinks and lies about it?

Anyway.  I don't know if alcohol is a net benefit or not.  Doesn't matter to me.  Smoking was definitely bad for me and I quit a 2 pack a day habit nearly 20 years ago.  THAT was hard.  Giving up booze, no problem.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 5, 2023)

Steve said:


> Also, can someone explain how alcohol caused *nonalcoholic* fatty liver disease (NAFLD)?


It doesn't. Hence the name. But NAFLD has a habit of progressing to cirrhosis. Consuming alcohol with NAFLD can accelerate this process.

This sort of interaction between disease processes is not exactly uncommon. Another example would be Alpha-1 Antitrypsin deficiency emphysema. A genetic problem causes this particular type of bullous emphysema. Smoking, even though it doesn't cause the emphysema, will cause it to progress faster.

Basically, if you have an organ system that is failing or working less effectively than it should because of X, it's probably a bad idea to do Y, when Y also stresses that organ.


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 5, 2023)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The only thing that ticks me off is my cardiologist doesn't believe me.  I guess lots of people lie about it.  Every time I see him, he asks if I snore or have sleep apnea (I don't).  Then he asks me how much I drink.  I say "none" and he says "you need to tell me the truth."  I say "none" and he writes down "Patient claims not to snore, have sleep apnea, or drink alcohol."  FFS.


I wonder if that’s just the way he has to record it in your notes for legal reasons? Have you asked him?


Bill Mattocks said:


> Is booze that pervasive that *everybody* drinks and lies about it?


People are generally very defensive about their alcohol consumption and I don’t know why. Is it because it hints at being unable to control oneself? I suppose it’s the same for overeating with the blame going on easy availability of cheap calorific food, invasive advertising, heavy bones and hormonal issues! My bones are _very_ heavy, by the way.😑


Bill Mattocks said:


> Anyway.  I don't know if alcohol is a net benefit or not.  Doesn't matter to me.  Smoking was definitely bad for me and I quit a 2 pack a day habit nearly 20 years ago.  THAT was hard.  Giving up booze, no problem.


I remember an interview with Ozzy Osbourne in which he recounted how he managed to give up alcohol and drugs like heroine and cocaine with some serious effort, but cigarettes were the hardest of all of them to give up with frequent relapses! Astonishing, so well done Bill Mattocks!


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 5, 2023)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I still like beer and bourbon, but I can't have any, so oh well.  No big deal.


Does alcohol-free beer not suit you Bill? I quite like it as it has a nice hoppy finish to it. I noticed Christmas advertising of Gordon’s gin showing they now do a alcohol-free version…the first ‘free’ spirit of which I’ve become aware.

Or, if your a _real_ martial artist, you could swill it around your mouth and spit it out ! 😉💪🏽


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 5, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> Does alcohol-free beer not suit you Bill? I quite like it as it has a nice hoppy finish to it. I noticed Christmas advertising of Gordon’s gin showing they now do a alcohol-free version…the first ‘free’ spirit of which I’ve become aware.
> 
> Or, if your a _real_ martial artist, you could swill it around your mouth and spit it out ! 😉💪🏽


I honestly can't imagine myself drinking a non-alcoholic drink on purpose.  Nothing against them, they just don't appeal to me.  Maybe I'll try one someday.


----------



## Buka (Jan 5, 2023)

Non alcoholic drinks are like no contact sex, in my opinion.

As an Italian, red wine, in moderation, is not harmful. At least not to me and my genetic make up. Everything should be done in moderation. Especially moderation itself.


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2023)

Dirty Dog said:


> It doesn't. Hence the name. But NAFLD has a habit of progressing to cirrhosis. Consuming alcohol with NAFLD can accelerate this process.
> 
> This sort of interaction between disease processes is not exactly uncommon. Another example would be Alpha-1 Antitrypsin deficiency emphysema. A genetic problem causes this particular type of bullous emphysema. Smoking, even though it doesn't cause the emphysema, will cause it to progress faster.
> 
> Basically, if you have an organ system that is failing or working less effectively than it should because of X, it's probably a bad idea to do Y, when Y also stresses that organ.


Sure but this buries the lede.  Alcohol isn’t the problem; obesity and/or diabetes are.  If you weren’t overweight and insulin dependent, the alcohol wouldn’t be an issue.  

Just like a light mist isn’t a problem for driving, unless you’re running on bald tires. It’s broken logic.


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 5, 2023)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I honestly can't imagine myself drinking a non-alcoholic drink on purpose.  Nothing against them, they just don't appeal to me.  Maybe I'll try one someday.


So it’s the effect you drank for, not the taste?


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> So it’s the effect you drank for, not the taste?


Non alcoholic beers taste really raunchy.  Speaking just for myself, it’s definitely the taste.

Mocktails can be great though. Unlike NA beers, some liquors can be done pretty well without alcohol.  Gins in particular.   So a gin cocktail with an NA gin can be delightful.  To be clear, though, I wouldn’t drink it as the main component, like in a gin martini, but for gimlets or fizzes or gin mules etc, these are great.








						15 Best Non-Alcoholic Gins
					

With non-alcoholic spirits becoming more popular than ever before, we did some digging to bring you the best non-alcoholic gins




					manofmany.com
				




I’ve had a few of these and will vouch for their taste.


----------



## Buka (Jan 5, 2023)

For me, it's not the taste. Although I'd prefer something that tastes good over something that doesn't.

But it's all about the buzz. Having worked as a bartender, I think it's the norm.


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2023)

Buka said:


> For me, it's not the taste. Although I'd prefer something that tastes good over something that doesn't.
> 
> But it's all about the buzz. Having worked as a bartender, I think it's the norm.


I like for my buzz to taste good.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 5, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> Does alcohol-free beer not suit you Bill? I quite like it as it has a nice hoppy finish to it. I noticed Christmas advertising of Gordon’s gin showing they now do a alcohol-free version…the first ‘free’ spirit of which I’ve become aware.
> 
> Or, if your a _real_ martial artist, you could swill it around your mouth and spit it out ! 😉💪🏽


Blasphemer! Spit it out? That’s alcohol abuse!


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 5, 2023)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The only thing that ticks me off is my cardiologist doesn't believe me.  I guess lots of people lie about it.  Every time I see him, he asks if I snore or have sleep apnea (I don't).  Then he asks me how much I drink.  I say "none" and he says "you need to tell me the truth."  I say "none" and he writes down "Patient claims not to snore, have sleep apnea, or drink alcohol."  FFS.


Lying about alcohol consumption is so common that people do tend not to believe what you say. I've seen more than a few people with BAC's in the 250-300 range who insist that they only had 2 beers.

My somewhat cynical theory is that they start drinking, and when they have to stop and go pee, that's one...

As far as the other things, there may be some doubt simply because you have a lot of risk factors. If you've never had a formal sleep study done, then you don't really KNOW if you have sleep apnea. Same with snoring. Lots of people insist they don't snore, and do not understand why their spouse has a choking fit when they make this statement. 


Bill Mattocks said:


> Is booze that pervasive that *everybody* drinks and lies about it?


Yes. Not everybody, technically, but it's a ridiculously high percentage.


Bill Mattocks said:


> Anyway.  I don't know if alcohol is a net benefit or not.  Doesn't matter to me.  Smoking was definitely bad for me and I quit a 2 pack a day habit nearly 20 years ago.  THAT was hard.  Giving up booze, no problem.


I've read a number of fairly good studies that indicate nicotine is more addictive than heroin.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 5, 2023)

Steve said:


> Sure but this buries the lede.  Alcohol isn’t the problem; obesity and/or diabetes are.  If you weren’t overweight and insulin dependent, the alcohol wouldn’t be an issue.


Prevention is a grand idea. I'm all for it. Of course, there are plenty of non-obese, non-diabetic people with NAFLD. 

The point is that you generally do not know if you have NAFLD as an underlying condition unless/until it progresses to cirrhosis. Which is a little late, don't you think?

This was brought up as ONE example of underlying conditions that can cause even light alcohol consumption to result in major health problems. Not the sole example.

Yes, it is safe to say that a person in perfect health, with none of the asymptomatic disorders that affect the development of alcoholic liver disease, could drink in moderation without any problem developing (probably). But finding out if you have any of them would require a ridiculously expensive and invasive workup. Would 20 year old you want (and be able) to pay for that? Would 50 year old you? Because it sure wouldn't be covered by insurance.


Steve said:


> Just like a light mist isn’t a problem for driving, unless you’re running on bald tires. It’s broken logic.


Faulty analogy. To be accurate, there would have to be some reason why you couldn't know the tires were bald until after the mist hit.


----------



## MetalBoar (Jan 5, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> But an impact, supporting the ‘no safe limit’ suggestion by the experts.


I think I need you to define "no safe limit" before I'll be able to know how to respond, but I'll give my view as a starting point. 

If something does not show any apparent negative impact on my all cause risk of mortality, nor my general health, I do not care how much it increases my risk of mortality from some specific illness.  The boundary point for a safe limit, for me, would be the point at which it could be demonstrated that consuming a specific amount of alcohol increased my all cause risk of mortality or harmed my general health.  So, let's say 2 beers a night increased my relative risk for death from cirrhosis of the liver by 100% but doesn't change my absolute risk of death from all causes, then 2 beers a night is within safe limits by my definition.  If it could be demonstrated that cooking with a little red wine or adding vanilla extract to a recipe raised my absolute risk of all cause mortality, then I would agree that for all practical purposes, there was not a safe limit for alcohol consumption.



Gyakuto said:


> Ah, we’re at odds here. I meant that looking at data is observational. I think you mean ‘self-reported data’. Yes, people lie about their alcohol, food, drug intake because they are often shameful of it! 😀 *When my other half is taking a medical history from a new patient, she often doubles the self-reported amounts of alcohol in the notes (in pencil) and refers to liver function blood tests to verify or otherwise. Have you noticed that when a doctor wants to know how much you weigh, they confirm your reported weight by putting you on scales*! 😂


I hate to use Wikipedia as a source but I think it's accurate enough for the current purpose: Observational Study vs Randomized Controlled Trial

There is some debate about what can be concluded from observational studies.  The Cochrane Reviews, for example, has claimed that there is little difference in the results of randomized controlled trials and modern observational studies but last I looked at this there was still a lot of argument around the topic.  Until recently, observational studies were essentially always considered to have low empirical value and many researchers would make statements along the lines of, "If you're reading a paper and you see it's based on an observational study you can just stop reading."  Again, there's still debate about how much credibility they represent.

As to the part in *bold,* that may very well be a solid, practical approach for a medical practitioner, but it isn't scientific.  Unless maybe you've done a well conducted study that tells you how much people lie about their drinking first, or a clinical study where you directly measure the impact of alcohol consumption on the liver, in order to establish a relationship between the two.  My weight is my weight on the scale, but my liver function on a blood test is not my drinking history, unless we have some way to establish that it is. 



Gyakuto said:


> *But the deleterious effects on the liver ( negative changes in liver function) are what are important, not the absolute amount of alcohol consumed.* One pint of strong lager has a bigger negative affect on my liver than it would on a 6 foot 9 inch fat bloke!


Studies can only talk about groups and can't say much about individuals.  Even if we had a fantastic, perfectly conducted study we couldn't say that you or I would respond like the median participant in the study.  Not only size, but genetics and other lifestyle choices are likely to come into play.  So, we can't actually say that a random, 6'9" dude is going to have less impact on his liver than you without directly comparing both of your current biological states.  We can make some generalized predications, that will be more or less accurate depending on how close you both hew to the norm.

In response to the part in *bold* - As I said above, I don't care if something is bad for my liver if it doesn't actually increase my real risk of death or poor health, which seems to be the case with moderate alcohol consumption.  To re-phrase, I think it's reasonable to say that alcohol consumption damages the liver*.  I don't think it's reasonable to say that any liver damage is unsafe if it doesn't actually have any measurable impact on my perceived health, quality of life, or actual longevity.

It also sometimes seems like you are arguing that if we know someone's level of liver function we know how much they drink.  I don't know how you think we can know this if we are basing those metrics off of self reported data about drinking.  It seems like a circular argument, unless I'm missing something.

*Does any alcohol consumption, no matter how small, damage the liver for the average person?  If not, how much does it take to cause damage?  The liver can heal over time, how much time needs to pass between drinking sessions for the liver to have completely recovered?  If we don't know the answer to these questions we can't speak very knowledgeably about this piece of the puzzle. 


Gyakuto said:


> Or the factors involved are extremely complex, show individual variation and non-linear. I think this is the case and you can’t be sure until you do the research. Small amounts of alcohol might be fine for me, but terrible for that the 6’9” bloke, but we don’t know until we see what alcohol does to us. Thus the safest thing to advise, for the whole population is ‘there is no safe limit’.


Now that I read this point, I see that we're on the same page about much of what I said in the point above.

I also think I now see the crux of our disagreement.  Your definition of "safe" seems to mean proven safe, or absent any indication of risk.  I think that's an unreasonable standard and rapidly becomes absurd.  We may not know the absolute limits for everyone, but the data we have certainly seem to indicate there's no reason to think that even daily drinking of 1 or 2 alcoholic beverages makes a significant difference in health span nor lifespan for the average individual in terms of the direct toxic effects of alcohol*.   

Statements like, "there is no safe limit for alcohol consumption", become just so much noise and without meaning if that is our metric.  By that standard there is no safe limit for exercise nor for being sedentary, nor for walking down the street as they all increase risk of some negative outcome.  Why are we bothering with news articles and press releases over this?  How is it relevant to anyone's life?  I think we apply it to alcohol more freely and frequently than many other things that are similarly dangerous (or not dangerous) for moralistic, rather than scientific or practical reasons.

*The study you posted also takes alcohol related accidents and other injuries into account, so when including indirect effects such as these they conclude that it's a net detriment.  Based on my other readings on this topic, these concerns are particularly relevant for men in their 20's and almost irrelevant for women in their 60's, but mostly means it's not a big factor for most, if not all, of those participating in this thread, unless I'm very wrong in my estimations about the demographic being represented.


Gyakuto said:


> Interestingly, the experts expanded on their research findings by saying, the small benefits of drinking alcohol are obliterated by the deleterious effects of alcohol.


Depends on the study and which experts.  To claim we have anything close to a consensus at this point seems unreasonable.



Gyakuto said:


> And world-class experts, based on current research, disagree with that. I’d go with peer-reviewed data than ‘gut instinct’.


As above, _some _world class experts. 

This study, published in 2018, based on the criteria they selected, leads this set of researchers to conclude that, "Alcohol use contributes to health loss from many causes and exacts its toll across the lifespan, particularly among men. Policies that focus on reducing population-level consumption will be most effective in reducing the health loss from alcohol use."  Their definition of safe and their evaluation of risk may (or may not) be accurate for those stated goals when looking at a global population of drinkers, including Russia*.   Other studies, using different metrics and data, have come to different conclusions.  Those of us who don't live in Russia, are over 50, and don't seem to have a predisposition for liver problems may have a substantially different risk profile.  Regardless, I still think we're a long way from a consensus.

*From the study:

"Failing to address harms from alcohol use, particularly at high levels of consumption, can have dire effects on population health. The mortality crisis in Russia is a striking example, where alcohol use was the primary culprit of increases in mortality starting in the 1980s and led to 75% of deaths among men aged 15–55 years."


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2023)

Dirty Dog said:


> Prevention is a grand idea. I'm all for it. Of course, there are plenty of non-obese, non-diabetic people with NAFLD.
> 
> The point is that you generally do not know if you have NAFLD as an underlying condition unless/until it progresses to cirrhosis. Which is a little late, don't you think?
> 
> ...


You’re the one who brought up a disease not caused by alcohol in a discussion about alcohol.  I don’t know about most folks but my liver function, including ALT, is checked annually at my routine physical.  Millions of people safely consume alcohol daily. 

I honestly don’t know why I indulge you. It’s one thing to play devils advocate, but you’re just throwing out random things and trying to stir up conflict.  I don’t get you.  Is this fun for you?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 5, 2023)

Steve said:


> You’re the one who brought up a disease not caused by alcohol in a discussion about alcohol.


Sure, as a way to help explain why "there's no safe amount" is true. 


Steve said:


> I don’t know about most folks but my liver function, including ALT, is checked annually at my routine physical.  Millions of people safely consume alcohol daily.


That's nice. It doesn't really say anything meaningful about this subject, though.


Steve said:


> I honestly don’t know why I indulge you. It’s one thing to play devils advocate, but you’re just throwing out random things and trying to stir up conflict.  I don’t get you.  Is this fun for you?


I don't think most people have as much difficulty understanding the concept as you appear to. But that's ok.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 5, 2023)

Dirty Dog said:


> Lying about alcohol consumption is so common that people do tend not to believe what you say. I've seen more than a few people with BAC's in the 250-300 range who insist that they only had 2 beers.


It's always just 2 beers. Always.


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2023)

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't think most people have as much difficulty understanding the concept as you appear to. But that's ok.


I don’t know about most people. When I’m not around you seem to have no trouble finding others to bicker with. But it’s true I find it difficult to understand you.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 5, 2023)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> It's always just 2 beers. Always.


You been listening in on me?


----------



## Steve (Jan 5, 2023)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> It's always just 2 beers. Always.


That sounds like the name of a country song.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 6, 2023)

By the way my mate only did 6 days and then called it.


----------



## Steve (Jan 6, 2023)

I had a kombucha yesterday that was pushing .5% ABV.  I also had a glass of wine with dinner. I enjoyed both and loved to tell the tale.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> So it’s the effect you drank for, not the taste?


I've never had a non-alcoholic beverage that had the same taste as an alcoholic one. I'd certainly be interested in finding non-alcoholic versions of some things I really like the taste of.

Of course, sometimes I do just want that sedative effect.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2023)

Steve said:


> You’re the one who brought up a disease not caused by alcohol in a discussion about alcohol.  I don’t know about most folks but my liver function, including ALT, is checked annually at my routine physical.  Millions of people safely consume alcohol daily.
> 
> I honestly don’t know why I indulge you. It’s one thing to play devils advocate, but you’re just throwing out random things and trying to stir up conflict.  I don’t get you.  Is this fun for you?


I don't think the annual liver function check catches NAFLD very early. My mom had NAFLD that turned to cirrhosis (ending with a transplant). She has always had regular checkups with all the usual tests, and hers wasn't caught until it was a problem. So DD probably has a point about the risks we can't know about, and that might be the point of the "no safe limit". I still don't like the wording of it, though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2023)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> It's always just 2 beers. Always.


Some cops I worked with and those I trained with said this is _always _the answer at a traffic stop, no matter how drunk or sober-seeming.

I got pulled over on New Years some years ago (it was a spurious stop - he had no reason to stop me, other than the time and it being New Years), and I'd literally had 2 drinks that night - one at 10 and one at midnight - because I was the driver. I actually laughed when I had to answer the question, "How many drinks did you have tonight?"


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 6, 2023)

I don't have any stakes in this discussion, since I don't drink alcohol and never have. (No interest in anything that impairs my cognition and the few times I've been exposed to the taste of anything alcoholic I've found it unpleasant.)

But the question of "safe" or "unsafe" is interesting, because it involves complex evidence gathering, sophisticated math, the psychology of personal risk aversion, and personal values concerning what risks are worth taking.

You can certainly make a reasonable argument that there is no safe level of BJJ training. Even practicing with a focus on safety, the chance of serious injury is always non-zero and the chance of some sort of mild injury is almost inevitable in the long run. I've personally had a broken thumb, a dislocated shoulder, a broken wrist, probably a couple of concussions, had my eye poked a few times, and countless minor bumps, bruises, and sprains. To me, the benefits to the rest of my life have been worth it. To someone else they might not be.

I imagine that for those who choose to drink, you have to make similar calculations about whether the perceived benefits outweigh the perceived risks. (Although I've certainly known my share of people who have not been able to make those judgements and those decisions in any sort of rational and healthy way and have done irreparable damage to their lives as a result. Addiction sucks.)


----------



## Steve (Jan 6, 2023)

Gerry Seymour said:


> I don't think the annual liver function check catches NAFLD very early. My mom had NAFLD that turned to cirrhosis (ending with a transplant). She has always had regular checkups with all the usual tests, and hers wasn't caught until it was a problem. So DD probably has a point about the risks we can't know about, and that might be the point of the "no safe limit". I still don't like the wording of it, though.


I’m sorry to hear that.  So for her, alcohol was unsafe.  Not to be argumentative, but by definition, NAFLD, according to the Mayo Clinic, is a diagnosis specific to people who drink little or no alcohol.  

More relevant, is the goal here to eliminate risk?   Is that even reasonable?  I mean, by this logic, there is no safe amount of exercise, because one may have an asymptomatic condition that could be exacerbated by exercise and result in a life threatening cardiac event.  

What most folks are intuitively reacting to is that very broken logic.  X activity is unsafe for some people; ergo, it is unsafe for all people.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2023)

Steve said:


> I’m sorry to hear that.  So for her, alcohol was unsafe.  Not to be argumentative, but by definition, NAFLD, according to the Mayo Clinic, is a diagnosis specific to people who drink little or no alcohol.
> 
> More relevant, is the goal here to eliminate risk?   Is that even reasonable?  I mean, by this logic, there is no safe amount of exercise, because one may have an asymptomatic condition that could be exacerbated by exercise and result in a life threatening cardiac event.
> 
> What most folks are intuitively reacting to is that very broken logic.  X activity is unsafe for some people; ergo, it is unsafe for all people.


Yeah, I think that's a good summary of what I was thinking, Steve.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 6, 2023)

Gerry Seymour said:


> Some cops I worked with and those I trained with said this is _always _the answer at a traffic stop, no matter how drunk or sober-seeming.
> 
> I got pulled over on New Years some years ago (it was a spurious stop - he had no reason to stop me, other than the time and it being New Years), and I'd literally had 2 drinks that night - one at 10 and one at midnight - because I was the driver. I actually laughed when I had to answer the question, "How many drinks did you have tonight?"


Yup. I never believe that answer-whenever i drink i make sure to have either 1 or 2.5 so i can say the number if something happens and i get asked.


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 6, 2023)

MetalBoar said:


> I think I need you to define "no safe limit" before I'll be able to know how to respond, but I'll give my view as a starting point.
> 
> If something does not show any apparent negative impact on my all cause risk of mortality, nor my general health, I do not care how much it increases my risk of mortality from some specific illness.  The boundary point for a safe limit, for me, would be the point at which it could be demonstrated that consuming a specific amount of alcohol increased my all cause risk of mortality or harmed my general health.  So, let's say 2 beers a night increased my relative risk for death from cirrhosis of the liver by 100% but doesn't change my absolute risk of death from all causes, then 2 beers a night is within safe limits by my definition.  If it could be demonstrated that cooking with a little red wine or adding vanilla extract to a recipe raised my absolute risk of all cause mortality, then I would agree that for all practical purposes, there was not a safe limit for alcohol consumption.
> 
> ...


I think the crux for is that alcohol is such a low priority for _me_ - I don’t really like the taste, dislike the outlets from where it’s served and the clientele who frequent such places, especially after a few drinks. So in my case even a tiny increase in health risks due to imbibing alcohol (or supposed benefits) makes it worth my while cutting it out of _my_ diet. If anyone has a similar feeling toward alcohol as me, they too, might want to consider abstinence. 

If drinking alcohol is an important part of your life, then you have a more difficult decision to make and perhaps make that decision based on what the experts say (many of whom do appear to drink!). But if you’re drinking above recommended limits (14 units spread over 7 days, I think), then you should seriously think about reducing your intake. 

If I had to make a similar decision about pizza or Mars Bar intake after experts said there was no safe limit in consuming them, then it’d be a very difficult decision for me to make but I would seriously consider it based on my health and the evidence. Such things are not published lightly.


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 6, 2023)

Gerry Seymour said:


> I've never had a non-alcoholic beverage that had the same taste as an alcoholic one. I'd certainly be interested in finding non-alcoholic versions of some things I really like the taste of.


I think if you treat it like a different brand to your usual beer, or one of those supposed ‘craft beers’, it’ll change your perception of them. I think Heineken Zero lager tastes like Moosehead which I loved in the 80s (the sold it in Pizza Hut which I regularly frequented!


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 6, 2023)

Gerry Seymour said:


> , "How many drinks did you have tonight?"


<Hic> Good constanoon affable! I’ve only had tee martoonis <hic>


----------



## MetalBoar (Jan 6, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> I think the crux for is that alcohol is such a low priority for _me_ - I don’t really like the taste, dislike the outlets from where it’s served and the clientele who frequent such places, especially after a few drinks. So in my case even a tiny increase in health risks due to imbibing alcohol (or supposed benefits) makes it worth my while cutting it out of _my_ diet. If anyone has a similar feeling toward alcohol as me, they too, might want to consider abstinence.



I understand what you mean.  If you don't like it I don't think there's any compelling reason to drink, even if the most positive studies turn out to be accurate.



Gyakuto said:


> If drinking alcohol is an important part of your life, then you have a more difficult decision to make and perhaps make that decision based on what the experts say (many of whom do appear to drink!). But if you’re drinking above recommended limits (14 units spread over 7 days, I think), then you should seriously think about reducing your intake.


I guess there's a difference of degree here for us.  I'm not sure I would call alcohol an important part of my life at this point (there was a time when I would have said it was important socially), but I do enjoy the occasional drink.  And by occasional, I mean 14 units would be spread over 60 days or more.  The risks presented by even the most negative, legitimate, studies just don't seem so high as to require alcohol to be an important part of my life to imbibe on occasion.  Mere enjoyment seems sufficient.



Gyakuto said:


> If I had to make a similar decision about pizza or Mars Bar intake after experts said there was no safe limit in consuming them, then it’d be a very difficult decision for me to make but I would seriously consider it based on my health and the evidence. Such things are not published lightly.


See, now this is interesting.  I won't eat a Mars Bar, nor a Snickers, nor any of those candies with huge amounts of added sugar and I limit my pizza intake.  I love chocolate, but I find sugar to be _*very*_ addictive, and it doesn't even have to be married with chocolate.  I've never had a problem not drinking, even when I was genuinely a heavy drinker (by CDC standards), but if I eat a high sugar content chocolate bar or bowl of ice cream, etc. with regularity it's not long before my intake escalates and I have a hard time stopping the habit.  Based on the diabetes epidemic and observing the challenges faced by clients of mine who wished to lose weight, I'd guess that it's even more addictive for a lot of other people.

And, unfortunately, we've just seen a study published (have no idea how well conducted) that shows that an awful lot of chocolate is high in heavy metals, which scare me a lot more than alcohol.

I think added sugar should be modeled as a drug.  It adds no useful nutritional value, many people seem to have severe trouble managing their consumption, and overconsumption, which is easy to do, is rampant and can lead to poor health outcomes.  That doesn't mean nobody should ever consume it, but I wouldn't recommend it if it isn't an important part of your life .


----------



## Steve (Jan 6, 2023)

Gerry Seymour said:


> Yeah, I think that's a good summary of what I was thinking, Steve.


Hey, was answering on a phone so not writing at length, but I want to emphasize that I’m very sorry that your mom went through that.  In rereading my response to yiu, I hope it didn’t come across as crass. I was not in any way trying to minimize the seriousness of her medical condition or needing a liver transplant.  I hope it was clear, but if not, I hope it’s clear now.


----------



## Steve (Jan 6, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> I think the crux for is that alcohol is such a low priority for _me_ - I don’t really like the taste, dislike the outlets from where it’s served and the clientele who frequent such places, especially after a few drinks. So in my case even a tiny increase in health risks due to imbibing alcohol (or supposed benefits) makes it worth my while cutting it out of _my_ diet. If anyone has a similar feeling toward alcohol as me, they too, might want to consider abstinence.
> 
> If drinking alcohol is an important part of your life, then you have a more difficult decision to make and perhaps make that decision based on what the experts say (many of whom do appear to drink!). But if you’re drinking above recommended limits (14 units spread over 7 days, I think), then you should seriously think about reducing your intake.
> 
> If I had to make a similar decision about pizza or Mars Bar intake after experts said there was no safe limit in consuming them, then it’d be a very difficult decision for me to make but I would seriously consider it based on my health and the evidence. Such things are not published lightly.


There is no safe amount of chocolate


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 7, 2023)

MetalBoar said:


> I understand what you mean.  If you don't like it I don't think there's any compelling reason to drink, even if the most positive studies turn out to be accurate.


I’m a fully grown, reasonably confident man, but at NY, I was coerced into drinking beer by a tiny little woman! Peer pressure is so powerful. I managed to hide the half drunk bottle in a child’s toy box but the little sod found it and dobbed me in to his mum😡


MetalBoar said:


> I guess there's a difference of degree here for us.  I'm not sure I would call alcohol an important part of my life at this point (there was a time when I would have said it was important socially), but I do enjoy the occasional drink.  And by occasional, I mean 14 units would be spread over 60 days or more.  The risks presented by even the most negative, legitimate, studies just don't seem so high as to require alcohol to be an important part of my life to imbibe on occasion.  Mere enjoyment seems sufficient.


I do wonder if there’s a degree of manipulation by alcohol manufacturers. If you want to meet friends in the evening the only place you can go is a pub or for a more committed meal. The non-drinking students at my old place of work, lamented that the social gatherings organised by their university clubs and societies revolved around pub crawls, especially the sporting ones (which they rightly see as somewhat ironic!). But it’s all about deman. If nobody wants a late night coffee bar etc, then why would they open? Do they exist in the US? Ours close at about 7pm in well populated areas.


MetalBoar said:


> See, now this is interesting.  I won't eat a Mars Bar, nor a Snickers, nor any of those candies with huge amounts of added sugar and I limit my pizza intake.


I love Mars Bars but even I limit my intake to one a day and despite my love of pizza, I can’t remember the last time I had one. This is based on calorific content and sugar spikes reported as being bad by researchers. I can’t believe one or two Mars Bar a day is bad for me but they say it is. They don’t define ‘bad’ after all and what ‘bad’ does to my body. I bet they couldn’t differentiate between a 2-Mars Bar/day person and another who doesn’t eat them at all (see what I did there?😉).


MetalBoar said:


> I love chocolate, but I find sugar to be _*very*_ addictive,


And why is that a problem? It’s a natural substance found in fruit and…🤔….coconuts. Has somebody told you sugar is bad for you? 👨🏽‍🔬👩🏻‍🔬 I bet their stats are dubious. My grandmother had 17 sugars in her cup of tea (18 were too sweet for her) and she lived until she was 56!


MetalBoar said:


> and it doesn't even have to be married with chocolate.  I've never had a problem not drinking, even when I was genuinely a heavy drinker (by CDC standards), but if I eat a high sugar content chocolate bar or bowl of ice cream, etc.


I dont like ice cream. When I tell people that, they look at me like I’m a puppy-kicker! 😳


MetalBoar said:


> with regularity it's not long before my intake escalates and I have a hard time stopping the habit.


We are evolutionarily primed to seek out sugary (carb-rich) food because they are highly calorific and kept primordial humans well fuelled, so maybe the reward centres in the striatum of the brain are highly activated by sugars. Thus  Berries were favoured over…kale (🤢 I hate kale) We find sugar tastes pleasant compared to kale


MetalBoar said:


> Based on the diabetes epidemic and observing the challenges faced by clients of mine who wished to lose weight, I'd guess that it's even more addictive for a lot of other people.


Evolution!🥳


MetalBoar said:


> And, unfortunately, we've just seen a study published (have no idea how well conducted) that shows that an awful lot of chocolate is high in heavy metals, which scare me a lot more than alcohol.


….and there’s no safe limit of heavy metal exposure 😉


MetalBoar said:


> I think added sugar should be modeled as a drug.


They tried something like that here in the U.K. and it didn’t go down well. We do have a sugar tax and does seem to have reduced consumption, but not enough.


MetalBoar said:


> It adds no useful nutritional value, many people seem to have severe trouble managing their consumption, and overconsumption, which is easy to do, is rampant and can lead to poor health outcomes.  That doesn't mean nobody should ever consume it, but I wouldn't recommend it if it isn't an important part of your life .


Have you heard of a substance called ‘miraculin’. It’s found in a West African fruit, Synsepalum dulcificum or miracle fruit. If you swill miraculin around your mouth for a minute or so it inhibits the ‘bitter’ and ‘sour’ taste buds so any subsequent food tastes much sweeter. Pineapple bursts with flavour, apples are so tasty. It’s amazing and using it _drastically_ reduces the amount of sugar your require on your food to get an enjoyable effect. Tate and Lyle, the sugar manufacturers, bought the rights to it and forbade it to be sold! I used to buy it from Amazon (USA) as it wasn’t available here in the U.K. for the dental student’s taste labs and it went down very well! Be warned, however. The packet advise suggested the effects only last 30-40 minutes when in fact it’s more like  2-3 hours and miraculin once _ruined_ a meal out I had with an old girlfriend….sweet pizza, sweet beer, disgustingly sweet cheese cake 🤢😒


----------



## Steve (Jan 7, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> I’m a fully grown, reasonably confident man, but at NY, I was coerced into drinking beer by a tiny little woman! Peer pressure is so powerful. I managed to hide the half drunk bottle in a child’s toy box but the little sod found it and dobbed me in to his mum😡
> 
> I do wonder if there’s a degree of manipulation by alcohol manufacturers. If you want to meet friends in the evening the only place you can go is a pub or for a more committed meal. The non-drinking students at my old place of work, lamented that the social gatherings organised by their university clubs and societies revolved around pub crawls, especially the sporting ones (which they rightly see as somewhat ironic!). But it’s all about deman. If nobody wants a late night coffee bar etc, then why would they open? Do they exist in the US? Ours close at about 7pm in well populated areas.
> 
> ...


there is an incredibly large body of data that proves living inevitably leads to dying. There is no safe amount of living one can do.


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 7, 2023)

Steve said:


> there is an incredibly large body of data that proves living inevitably leads to dying. There is no safe amount of living one can do.


I never touch life, it's disgusting and for the weak-minded.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 8, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> I think if you treat it like a different brand to your usual beer, or one of those supposed ‘craft beers’, it’ll change your perception of them. I think Heineken Zero lager tastes like Moosehead which I loved in the 80s (the sold it in Pizza Hut which I regularly frequented!


Oh, I've definitely had a couple of non-alcoholic beers I liked. They just didn't taste like actual beer to me. They're a different drink.

Part of the trouble for me is that there are so many beers I don't care for (every pilsner and IPA right off the bat), to start with, and those are usually the ones non-alcoholic beers strive to be similar to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 8, 2023)

Steve said:


> Hey, was answering on a phone so not writing at length, but I want to emphasize that I’m very sorry that your mom went through that.  In rereading my response to yiu, I hope it didn’t come across as crass. I was not in any way trying to minimize the seriousness of her medical condition or needing a liver transplant.  I hope it was clear, but if not, I hope it’s clear now.


Nah, I caught your meaning, Steve. And thanks. She's been doing very well since the transplant.

If anyone else out there has to deal with a loved one going through liver failure, I feel for you - it's tough to see.


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 8, 2023)

Steve said:


> There is no safe amount of chocolate


How very DARE you! - Richard Tapper Cadbury


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 8, 2023)

Gerry Seymour said:


> Oh, I've definitely had a couple of non-alcoholic beers I liked. They just didn't taste like actual beer to me. They're a different drink.


Beer has such a wide range of flavours though. I could drink a German smoked beer or a German chocolate beer and doubt I was  even drinking ‘beer’ except they have a bitter taste. But beer it is. So when I would drink alcohol-free beer, I’d just consider it to be a niche beer.


Gerry Seymour said:


> Part of the trouble for me is that there are so many beers I don't care for (every pilsner and IPA right off the bat), to start with, and those are usually the ones non-alcoholic beers strive to be similar to.


Oh yes I agree. I want my beer cold, fizzy and bitter with minimal taste. 

Real ale is a big thing here in the U.K., with bearded men drinking small bottles of cloudy concoctions, often with bit’s floating in it, at room temperature in dark scruffy hostelries and thinking they’re sophisticated connoisseurs and look down on lager-drinkers. Real ales seem to have a vile ‘sour’ note to them that I can’t abide 🤢

I once looked after a delightful elderly gentleman in the late 1980s, who was a brewer for Chester Ales. He claimed that if you lifted the lids on the mash vats, you’d see a layer of dead cockroaches on top of the mix 😳 I’m a bloody _vegetarian_! 😭


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 8, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> I’ll try!
> 
> 
> 1) Trying to eat 30 different types of plants each week
> ...



I watched that too, just before Christmas I came out of hospital after spending 7 days on the medical ward as my stomach was digesting itself. I told the doctor that's what it felt like,  he nodded and said yeah, basically it is. 😥😥 I did not expect that.
Massive dose of antibiotics, took ages to feel better and now have to watch for ulcers.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 8, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> 4) Give you GI tract a break from digestion (time-restricted eating)


I've never been able to do this one. Not eating for an extended period (12 hours if overnight, much shorter during the day) leads me to one sort of gastric distress or another. Some are only uncomfortable, and others are downright distressing. I thought this would go away as I aged (I assumed when I was younger it was simply because of my runaway metabolism). But I still can't skip lunch without consequences.


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 8, 2023)

Gerry Seymour said:


> I've never been able to do this one. Not eating for an extended period (12 hours if overnight, much shorter during the day) leads me to one sort of gastric distress or another. Some are only uncomfortable, and others are downright distressing. I thought this would go away as I aged (I assumed when I was younger it was simply because of my runaway metabolism). But I still can't skip lunch without consequences.


Gastric irritation-like symptoms? Does that bright pink liquid stuff you have in the US help at all?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 8, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> Gastric irritation-like symptoms? Does that bright pink liquid stuff you have in the US help at all?


Food helps more than anything, but an antacid will help sometimes. In the worse cases, it pretty much has to be food and antacid, plus a couple of hours.


----------



## Gyakuto (Jan 8, 2023)

Gerry Seymour said:


> Food helps more than anything, but an antacid will help sometimes. In the worse cases, it pretty much has to be food and antacid, plus a couple of hours.


Sounds like your sacral chakra has been possessed by a fox spirit 🐕 😑


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 8, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> Sounds like your sacral chakra has been possessed by a fox spirit 🐕 😑


And here I thought it was just my gut being a compete bastard.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Jan 8, 2023)

Gyakuto said:


> Sounds like your sacral chakra has been possessed by a fox spirit 🐕 😑


🤣


----------

