• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Do Heavy Drinkers Outlive Nondrinkers?

rivrrat said:
Indeed.

Study: Alcohol Abstainers at Higher Risk of Depression - TIME
Click to expand...

All that may be true, but it would contradict the statement I made that you quoted, i.e. that the correlation does not mean causation. Though maybe that is what you were going for.


I've had a harder time making friendship bonds since way before I became a minority as a non-drinker. It may just be a correlated personality trait that people who have trouble with social interactions are less likely to want to drink.

Though I'm not quite sure why that would lead to a shorter life span. It's all speculatoin in the end.
 
rivrrat said:
Heavy Drinkers Outlive Nondrinkers, Study Finds - TIME

Why the **** hasn't anyone posted this yet? This is cause for a massive celebration with lots of alcohol! **** Yeah. I knew that wine I've been drinking nightly was good for something.

Related: Study: Alcohol Abstainers at Higher Risk of Depression - TIME
Click to expand...

The study didn't really examine causes-of-death and it's relation to drinking nor does it mention life-expectancy. It examined overall happiness and depression in regards to drinking.

People in the top fifth percentile of drinkers had the highest odds for anxiety. But it was abstainers who were at the highest risk for depression — higher even than the heaviest of drinkers. Why?

One reason is that the abstainers in the study sample were more likely to have illnesses such as osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia, and people with chronic illnesses are more prone to melancholy. Also, "some people assume it's healthier not to drink," says Skogen — which may be particularly true of those who have chronic illnesses. Finally, some abstainers were formerly heavy drinkers — alcoholics who had to give up the bottle. It makes sense that they would have more psychological distress than others, but only 14% of the abstainers in the Norway study fit this category.
Click to expand...

A flaw in their study (while it's interesting) is that they only questioned drinking "within the last two weeks" - not "over years" or "binge drinking" and so on.
Also, how drinking *affects you, socially* is related to society norms, cultural constructs and other things that govern how we *feel* - how we *act* and how we respond to various things.

Once difference that I've seen with Norwegians VS Americans is that they're far less concerned with physical appearance (much less issues with size/weight) over there - netting a happier mentality overall.

That being said - I've never met 'happy drinkers' so my personal experience is my reason for not drinking anymore. I've met a lot of 'angry drunks' though - far too damn many. It seems that people who *are* sad tend to drink to try to *make themselves happy* and it doesn't work at all *or* it wears off when the liquor dissipates.
 
Last edited:
Orion said:
Honestly... I don't get our society's obsession with longer life while not looking at ways to improve the human condition itself, and I am continually disappointed that the scientific establishment upholds such empty values. What about quality of life? Alcoholics may live longer according to this study, but at what price? Are they happy drowning their sorrows all the time?

I would rather live 10 years less but in satisfaction with my accomplishments and a sense of happiness than be a weekend binge drinker who works a 9-5 that hates his life. I seriously want to know where the financial support for this study came from.
Click to expand...

It said moderate drinkers lived the longest. I wouldn't call that binge drinking, or alcoholism. I drink 1 - 3 glasses of wine most nights, I'm hardly a binge drinker or an alcoholic because of that, nor do I do it to drown any sorrows and I certainly don't hate my life. Even when I *was* a heavy drinker I didn't do it because I hated my life, I did it because it was ****ing fun. ;)

Someone who is "drowning their sorrows" with heavy amounts of alcohol on a daily basis is hardly what this study is talking about.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
That being said - I've never met 'happy drinkers' so my personal experience is my reason for not drinking anymore. I've met a lot of 'angry drunks' though - far too damn many. It seems that people who *are* sad tend to drink to try to *make themselves happy* and it doesn't work at all *or* it wears off when the liquor dissipates.
Click to expand...

I guess I've been fortunate in that I've met very few angry/sad drinkers and mostly happy ones.
 
Sooo.. Do you consider drinking one to three drinks per day as moderate drinking? Why is it that 1-3 drinks a day is moderate but when it comes to snack foods that 2 or more a day is a no-no.
 
Orion said:
I know on a biochemical level, that if you introduce a toxin to the body, the liver will become much more active, and in turn will purge other toxins. For example, in TCM, people who have really bad psoriasis are often viewed as having built up toxicity in the body. We treat it by introducing some toxic herbs which kick the liver into high gear. Through purging the toxic herbs, other oxidants in the body get purged, and the skin clears up. Often, these herbs are introduced to the body through alcohol solutions, like warmed rice wine, because the alcohol will enter the liver directly and carry the herbs with it.
Click to expand...

Which toxic herbs?
 
Kali said:
Sooo.. Do you consider drinking one to three drinks per day as moderate drinking? Why is it that 1-3 drinks a day is moderate but when it comes to snack foods that 2 or more a day is a no-no.
Click to expand...

First off, the study defines moderate as 1 -3 drinks a day.

Secondly, what are you talking about? Are you really equating ADULT alcohol intake to a CHILD being permitted to eat unhealthy "snacks" on the taxpayers dime?
 
I just find it ironic that some of the food/health police peeps have no problems with people drinking that much a day but get all outraged over the thought of anybody eating a few snacks a day:)
 
Kali said:
I just find it ironic that some of the food/health police peeps have no problems with people drinking that much a day but get all outraged over the thought of anybody eating a few snacks a day:)
Click to expand...

I'm sure you would find it ironic since you made it all up.

No one has gotten outraged about anyone eating a few snacks a day. I couldn't ****ing care less. I also couldn't care less if people choose to drink themselves into oblivion 24/7. The only part I care about is if I'm footing the bill for it.

Need some more straw for your next strawman?
 
No one has gotten outraged about anyone eating a few snacks a day. I couldn't ****ing care less. I also couldn't care less if people choose to drink themselves into oblivion 24/7. The only part I care about is if I'm footing the bill for it.
Click to expand...

Regardless, you wouldn't be "footing the bill". It's not like either your tax dollars would go into a more efficient program or even that it's "your" tax dollars anyways.
 
rivrrat said:
Nope. If you read the link I posted, you see this:
Click to expand...

I find this line hilarious:

"heavy drinkers are less likely to die than people who have never drunk".

lolwut? Everyone, I mean everyone, has the same exact likelihood of dying: 100%.

The issue is not the likelihood of dying, it's the timing of it.
 
Drinking thins your blood making it less likely for you to suffer a stroke or a heart attack.
 
Don't ever mistake the fact that drinking kills people and it is one of the messiest nastiest most disgusting deaths you can suffer.

I know - I cannot count the number of patients with "Oesophageal Varicies" that I have nursed. Basically when the liver turns to stone, as it does with drink, the blood vessels back up with blood in the oesophagus (food pipe) just like varicose veins in the leg - only they will bleed and they bleed catastrophically. These patients end up with fresh blood pouring out of their mouths and noses and old blood squirting out the rear. NASTY!! But even liver failure without this is a revolting end - the gut fills with fluid until the patient looks 20 months pregnant, they swell all over and they become very short of breath. The ammonia in their system builds up and they become encephalopathic (demented - but only right at the end there are other neurological indicators like flapping tremor long before that) They become so short of breath every single breath is like climbing a mountain.

And in the area where I work I see our beautiful indigenous people of Australia dying at 36 years of age because of the drink
 
Don't ever mistake the fact that drinking kills people and it is one of the messiest nastiest most disgusting deaths you can suffer.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between being an alcoholic and being a moderate drinker. I have 3-4 drinks a week (beer, wine or cider), and have never had issues with my liver. :roll:
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I drink moderately (wine, beer, and hard cider), and have never had liver problems. There is such a thing as a healthy balance.
Click to expand...

That you know of. The liver, like the kidneys takes a hell of a lot of damage before it begins to fail - then it can go downhill rapidly. But the liver is not the only organ affected alcohol is a very toxic substance if taken in more than "moderate" amounts. And the real bitch of it? We actually do not know the exact "moderate amount' because it seems it is different for everyone
 
The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the abstainers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.
Click to expand...

I have two questions about the sample of this study.

1. I wonder how many of the heavy drinkers had already died of alcohol related diseases before the age of 55 compared with moderate and non-drinkers.
2. It refers to outpatient care. I would also wager that heaver consumers of alcohol would be more likely to have sought outpatient care for alcohol related problems than non-drinkers. Large numbers of non-drinkers would not need to seek outpatient care unless they had other health issues that needed to be addressed, which could increase the propability of early mortality.

Perhaps those concerns were answered in the study, but I didn't seem them accounted for in the article.
 
bowerbird said:
That you know of. The liver, like the kidneys takes a hell of a lot of damage before it begins to fail - then it can go downhill rapidly. But the liver is not the only organ affected alcohol is a very toxic substance if taken in more than "moderate" amounts. And the real bitch of it? We actually do not know the exact "moderate amount' because it seems it is different for everyone
Click to expand...

Oh good grief, there is reams of research on the subject. My 1 or 2 glasses of beer every day or so isn't going to send me into the intensive care unit anytime soon.

OMG! The SKY IS FALLING!!!!111!!! LIVERS ARE DYING!!!!!!

:roll:
 
ludahai said:
I have two questions about the sample of this study.

1. I wonder how many of the heavy drinkers had already died of alcohol related diseases before the age of 55 compared with moderate and non-drinkers.
2. It refers to outpatient care. I would also wager that heaver consumers of alcohol would be more likely to have sought outpatient care for alcohol related problems than non-drinkers. Large numbers of non-drinkers would not need to seek outpatient care unless they had other health issues that needed to be addressed, which could increase the propability of early mortality.

Perhaps those concerns were answered in the study, but I didn't seem them accounted for in the article.
Click to expand...

Good eye, Ludahai (I'm assuming that should rhyme :lol:). These are definitely plausible confounds of the study.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Oh good grief, there is reams of research on the subject. My 1 or 2 glasses of beer every day or so isn't going to send me into the intensive care unit anytime soon.

OMG! The SKY IS FALLING!!!!111!!! LIVERS ARE DYING!!!!!!

:roll:
Click to expand...

Hmmmm I think I have heard this style of rebuttal before - whenever someone posts something that others do not want to hear it is labelled "alarmism". But that is alright. Meanwhile I will continue to care for my poor wonderful and gentle indigenous people of Australia who are dying far far far too young of alcohol related diseases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom