What's new

Major study debunks myth that moderate drinking can be healthy

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
217,988
LONDON (Reuters) - Blood pressure and stroke risk rise steadily the more alcohol people drink, and previous claims that one or two drinks a day might protect against stroke are not true, according to the results of a major genetic study.

The research, which used data from a 160,000-strong cohort of Chinese adults, many of whom are unable to drink alcohol due to genetic intolerance, found that people who drink moderately - consuming 10 to 20 grams of alcohol a day - raise their risk of stroke by 10 to 15 percent.

For heavy drinkers, consuming four or more drinks a day, blood pressure rises significantly and the risk of stroke increases by around 35 percent, the study found.

“The key message here is that, at least for stroke, there is no protective effect of moderate drinking,” said Zhengming Chen, a professor at Oxford University’s Nuffield Department of Population Health who co-led the research. “The genetic evidence shows the protective effect is not real.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that around 2.3 billion people worldwide drink alcohol, with average per person daily consumption at 33 grams of pure alcohol a day. That is roughly equivalent to two 150 ml glasses of wine, a large (750 ml) bottle of beer or two 40 ml shots of spirits.

This latest study, published in The Lancet medical journal, focused on people of East Asian descent, many of whom have genetic variants that limit alcohol tolerance.

Because the variants have specific and large effects on alcohol, but do not effect other lifestyle factors such as diet, smoking, economic status or education, they can be used by scientists to nail down causal effects of alcohol intake.

“Using genetics is a novel way ... to sort out whether moderate drinking really is protective, or whether it’s slightly harmful,” said Iona Millwood, an epidemiologist at Oxford who co-led the study. “Our genetic analyses have helped us understand the cause-and-effect relationships.”

The research team - including scientists from Oxford and Peking universities and the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, said it would be impossible to do a study of this kind in Western populations, since almost no-one there has the relevant alcohol-intolerance gene variants.

But the findings about the biological effects of alcohol should be the same for all people worldwide, they said.

Europe has the highest per person alcohol consumption in the world, even though it has dropped by around 10 percent since 2010, the WHO says, and current trends point to a global rise in per capita consumption in the next 10 years.

https://in.reuters.com/article/health-alcohol-stroke-idINKCN1RH0HX
 
People that hate on drinking for being "unhealthy" are the same people who don't think twice before feasting on junk food. No shortage of hypocrites.
 
The research, which used data from a 160,000-strong cohort of Chinese adults, many of whom are unable to drink alcohol due to genetic intolerance, found that people who drink moderately - consuming 10 to 20 grams of alcohol a day - raise their risk of stroke by 10 to 15 percent.

These sample had genetic intolerance to alcohol, so obviously drinking will not be healthy for them.

The research team - including scientists from Oxford and Peking universities and the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, said it would be impossible to do a study of this kind in Western populations, since almost no-one there has the relevant alcohol-intolerance gene variants

So they concede such a study has no relevance to western people. In short this study applies to only those people who are intolerant to alcohol, especially chinese.
 
People that hate on drinking for being "unhealthy" are the same people who don't think twice before feasting on junk food. No shortage of hypocrites.

Eating unhealthy food is terrible for you and kills a lot of people but food doesn't turn you violent or kills you instantly among other things which alchohol can lead to.
 
Almost teetotal nowadays, there is no “healthy” level of drinking only “less unhealthy” levels.
 
One drink and you are hooked. Better to stay away then be a so called "social drinker". That's like saying "I only drink poison, socially!!"
 
One drink and you are hooked. Better to stay away then be a so called "social drinker". That's like saying "I only drink poison, socially!!"

lol, i know people who drink maybe once every month or two. some people are more prone to addictions, others arent.

theres nothing healthy about drinking or smoking, but sensationalising something humans have done for thousands of years doesn't help anyone either.

you can do whatever u want, smoke, drink, etc, but if you limit to once or twice a month ur highly unlikely to do considerably more damage than the general base level living a sedentary lifestyle eating sugar and oil rich foods like most people in the developed world.
 
lol, i know people who drink maybe once every month or two. some people are more prone to addictions, others arent.

theres nothing healthy about drinking or smoking, but sensationalising something humans have done for thousands of years doesn't help anyone either.

you can do whatever u want, smoke, drink, etc, but if you limit to once or twice a month ur highly unlikely to do considerably more damage than the general base level living a sedentary lifestyle eating sugar and oil rich foods like most people in the developed world.

If Islam has disallowed liquor then that is good enough for me. I know how addictive alcohol is and how one drink can lead to many. Of course we have free choice just don't expect any sympathy when so called social drinkers become alcoholics. Even 1% of damage is too much for me, simple. It has been outlawed by Allah where as things like sugar have not been.
 
lol, i know people who drink maybe once every month or two. some people are more prone to addictions, others arent.

theres nothing healthy about drinking or smoking, but sensationalising something humans have done for thousands of years doesn't help anyone either.

you can do whatever u want, smoke, drink, etc, but if you limit to once or twice a month ur highly unlikely to do considerably more damage than the general base level living a sedentary lifestyle eating sugar and oil rich foods like most people in the developed world.

If Islam has disallowed liquor then that is good enough for me. I know how addictive alcohol is and how one drink can lead to many. Of course we have free choice just don't expect any sympathy when so called social drinkers become alcoholics. Even 1% of damage is too much for me, simple. It has been outlawed by Allah where as things like sugar have not been.
 
Eating unhealthy food is terrible for you and kills a lot of people but food doesn't turn you violent or kills you instantly among other things which alchohol can lead to.

Title says moderate drinking, not drinking till obliteration.
 
These studies have zero credibility.

They were inspecting the alcohol level. But did they controlled other aspects of life?

Anxiety and stress could trigger a stroke. If you are doing these studies in financially broken people, you'll have very high rate of possibility of stroke. And thats because of psychological factor only.
 
One drink and you are hooked. Better to stay away then be a so called "social drinker". That's like saying "I only drink poison, socially!!"

LOL said who ? Where do you come up with these assumptions ?lol
 
These studies have zero credibility.

They were inspecting the alcohol level. But did they controlled other aspects of life?

Anxiety and stress could trigger a stroke. If you are doing these studies in financially broken people, you'll have very high rate of possibility of stroke. And thats because of psychological factor only.

Correct, stress is the biggest killer. I knew of a few people how never had a drop of alcohol, and died of heart attacks under 40.
 
Eating unhealthy food is terrible for you and kills a lot of people but food doesn't turn you violent or kills you instantly among other things which alchohol can lead to.

Ironically, lack of food can cause one to turn to violence and crime.
 
One drink and you are hooked. Better to stay away then be a so called "social drinker". That's like saying "I only drink poison, socially!!"

Lol it doesn't work like that. I first drank around 12 years ago and in last 12 years I have never been addicted. There have been times where I have not drank for months. Drinking is fun when done at social gatherings and you know your capacity.
 
Lol it doesn't work like that. I first drank around 12 years ago and in last 12 years I have never been addicted. There have been times where I have not drank for months. Drinking is fun when done at social gatherings and you know your capacity.

Agreed. Don't know why Britain is making buying alcohol tougher every year, people should be allowed to judge for themselves what their limits are. I can see a time when the majority will have attitudes like ISIS police going round smashing the the bottles in off licences and pouring the alcohol down the drains.

You can laugh, but it wasn't that long ago you could smoke in pubs and restaurants, nowadays smokers are only seen skulking in back alleys taking a quick drag before someone walks by and reprimands them for polluting their airspace.
 
Agreed. Don't know why Britain is making buying alcohol tougher every year, people should be allowed to judge for themselves what their limits are. I can see a time when the majority will have attitudes like ISIS police going round smashing the the bottles in off licences and pouring the alcohol down the drains.

You can laugh, but it wasn't that long ago you could smoke in pubs and restaurants, nowadays smokers are only seen skulking in back alleys taking a quick drag before someone walks by and reprimands them for polluting their airspace.

I am smoker but I'll too have a restrictions on smoking in clubs or pubs. It makes the atmosphere somewhat uncomfortable (even for smokers).

In Moscow airport, smoking is allowed but there are some machines placed which sucks the smoke I guess. It was the first time I've seen an airport where you can just smoke anywhere.
 
These studies have zero credibility.I

They were inspecting the alcohol level. But did they controlled other aspects of life?

Anxiety and stress could trigger a stroke. If you are doing these studies in financially broken people, you'll have very high rate of possibility of stroke. And thats because of psychological factor only.

You do realise how a scientific study works right? They would have controlled for everything and more.
 
This study is flawed as it was done on those who had genetic intolerance to alcohol.

It would do you a lot of good if you actually looked up the study or at the very least, read the article.

They were specifically look at genetics, and the best way to do that is to carry the study out on those with a genetic intolerance. I can't really explain the entirety of of it to you as I don't have the time.

Read through, if you don't have a scientific background you won't understand much but then study further in the issue if you are serious. If you want to buty your head in the sand then you can also do that. B
 
It would do you a lot of good if you actually looked up the study or at the very least, read the article.

They were specifically look at genetics, and the best way to do that is to carry the study out on those with a genetic intolerance. I can't really explain the entirety of of it to you as I don't have the time.

Read through, if you don't have a scientific background you won't understand much but then study further in the issue if you are serious. If you want to buty your head in the sand then you can also do that. B

So all you have to say that you don't have time to explain it ( which means you have no clue ).

How can a study be taken seriously if it was done only on those with genetic intolerance to alcohol to show that any amount of alcohol is not good for health. It is obvious that those with intolerance to alcohol will not find alcohol healthy. :))
 
It would do you a lot of good if you actually looked up the study or at the very least, read the article.

They were specifically look at genetics, and the best way to do that is to carry the study out on those with a genetic intolerance. I can't really explain the entirety of of it to you as I don't have the time.

Read through, if you don't have a scientific background you won't understand much but then study further in the issue if you are serious. If you want to buty your head in the sand then you can also do that. B

Most old PPers knows my background so I won't go into that but this is in my field.

I'll state something simple. If you are carrying out an experiment for a factor, then you will have to isolate that system so that other factors don't manipulate the outcome. Is it happened in this case?

If you don't have time to come up with anything, then don't bother. In pak passion, we have constructive debate even with opposing views. Look at how others have responded and learn how to aruge.
 
So all you have to say that you don't have time to explain it ( which means you have no clue ).

How can a study be taken seriously if it was done only on those with genetic intolerance to alcohol to show that any amount of alcohol is not good for health. It is obvious that those with intolerance to alcohol will not find alcohol healthy. :))

This is not difficult, it explains it in the article, the reason those with a genetic intolerance to alcohol were looked at was to isolate any other factor that could lead to an increase in stroke (smoking, diet etc etc). I am not going to sit here and explain the basics of genetics and scientific studies to you. The fact that you believe this study is at falt for the above stated reason goes to show how little you know.

Most old PPers knows my background so I won't go into that but this is in my field.

I'll state something simple. If you are carrying out an experiment for a factor, then you will have to isolate that system so that other factors don't manipulate the outcome. Is it happened in this case?

If you don't have time to come up with anything, then don't bother. In pak passion, we have constructive debate even with opposing views. Look at how others have responded and learn how to aruge.

I have no argument in this case. I stated a simple fact pertaining to the study itself, the fact that you seem so annoyed goest o show how little you know about this field or in fact, I presume, any field which requires scientific study. YOu have failed to even understand the basic reasoning for those who carried out the study to include people with decreased alcohol tolerance (based on genetic factors, although all humans have a basic intolerance to alcohol and the body is designed to avoid such toxins, again, this is basic biology). If you can not grasp the basics, I am not sure why I should sit here and explain the foundations of both genetics and scientific studies to you.

I will however, state that this is not the first and only study of its kind (again, if you find this to be the first of its kind then you are once again behind the curve); a detailed study was carried out by the University of Washington which looked into alcohol consumption in 195 countries globally. To cut a long story short, their advice is that the best level of alcohol consumption is no alcohol consumption.

I think both these studies have been published in the Lancet Medical Journal, meaning they were peer reviewed by people with far greater scientific knowledge than me or you.

If you can counter the points they have raised in their studies (and the countless other studies out there) you are more than welcome to send those counter studies to me.
 
Lol it doesn't work like that. I first drank around 12 years ago and in last 12 years I have never been addicted. There have been times where I have not drank for months. Drinking is fun when done at social gatherings and you know your capacity.

It depends on the quantity your started with when you first became a boozer. Poison is still poison even if you only drink it sometimes.
 
It is pretty clear from the discussion above that few (if any) have read the original article, or even a reasonably well reported synopsis of the article. For those who do not have access to Lancet (ie, most of the world!) I would suggest a brief perusal of the report by Maria Cohut in "MEDICAL NEWS TODAY" published on 5th April. That will clear a lot of the cobwebs.

MAJORLY - the business about genetically determined alcohol intolerance & why this was a factor for the choice of the study population. Briefly, many east asians have deficiency of aldehyde dehydrogenase, an enzyme that helps metabolize chemicals that form after alcohol consumption. If you cannot metabolize & eliminate these compounds then it makes you flush & feel VERY unwell. So, you avoid drinking at all. I have had 3 chinese & malaysian colleagues who had this problem & others who didn't.
What this meant for the study was that you had 2 self-selected groups who randomised themselves - one group (with hydrogenase deficiency) who avoided drinking alcohol and the other group who drank normally. The researchers then compared the hypertension levels & strokes between these 2 groups. They found that even the moderate drinkers had higher blood pressure & slightly higher stroke risks than those who did not drink. The alcohol intolerance was just a marker of those who didn't drink & had nothing to do with the end-points.
However the researchers could find no difference in heart attack rates or even death rates.
Overall I did not find this to be a particularly interesting study though it did have very large number of subjects. But of course my own interests are in cardiac disease and much less in cerebral strokes. And I LOVE drinking wine. Predominantly Burgundy, Rhones & New Zealand Pinot.

If there is anything else anybody failed to grasp about this publication, do not hesitate to ask & I will do my best to clarify.
 
It is pretty clear from the discussion above that few (if any) have read the original article, or even a reasonably well reported synopsis of the article. For those who do not have access to Lancet (ie, most of the world!) I would suggest a brief perusal of the report by Maria Cohut in "MEDICAL NEWS TODAY" published on 5th April. That will clear a lot of the cobwebs.

MAJORLY - the business about genetically determined alcohol intolerance & why this was a factor for the choice of the study population. Briefly, many east asians have deficiency of aldehyde dehydrogenase, an enzyme that helps metabolize chemicals that form after alcohol consumption. If you cannot metabolize & eliminate these compounds then it makes you flush & feel VERY unwell. So, you avoid drinking at all. I have had 3 chinese & malaysian colleagues who had this problem & others who didn't.
What this meant for the study was that you had 2 self-selected groups who randomised themselves - one group (with hydrogenase deficiency) who avoided drinking alcohol and the other group who drank normally. The researchers then compared the hypertension levels & strokes between these 2 groups. They found that even the moderate drinkers had higher blood pressure & slightly higher stroke risks than those who did not drink. The alcohol intolerance was just a marker of those who didn't drink & had nothing to do with the end-points.
However the researchers could find no difference in heart attack rates or even death rates.
Overall I did not find this to be a particularly interesting study though it did have very large number of subjects. But of course my own interests are in cardiac disease and much less in cerebral strokes. And I LOVE drinking wine. Predominantly Burgundy, Rhones & New Zealand Pinot.

If there is anything else anybody failed to grasp about this publication, do not hesitate to ask & I will do my best to clarify.

Hello Doctor,

Just wondering if body mass has any effect on alcohol consumption ability? For example male vs female?
 
This is not difficult, it explains it in the article, the reason those with a genetic intolerance to alcohol were looked at was to isolate any other factor that could lead to an increase in stroke (smoking, diet etc etc). I am not going to sit here and explain the basics of genetics and scientific studies to you. The fact that you believe this study is at falt for the above stated reason goes to show how little you know.



I have no argument in this case. I stated a simple fact pertaining to the study itself, the fact that you seem so annoyed goest o show how little you know about this field or in fact, I presume, any field which requires scientific study. YOu have failed to even understand the basic reasoning for those who carried out the study to include people with decreased alcohol tolerance (based on genetic factors, although all humans have a basic intolerance to alcohol and the body is designed to avoid such toxins, again, this is basic biology). If you can not grasp the basics, I am not sure why I should sit here and explain the foundations of both genetics and scientific studies to you.

I will however, state that this is not the first and only study of its kind (again, if you find this to be the first of its kind then you are once again behind the curve); a detailed study was carried out by the University of Washington which looked into alcohol consumption in 195 countries globally. To cut a long story short, their advice is that the best level of alcohol consumption is no alcohol consumption.

I think both these studies have been published in the Lancet Medical Journal, meaning they were peer reviewed by people with far greater scientific knowledge than me or you.

If you can counter the points they have raised in their studies (and the countless other studies out there) you are more than welcome to send those counter studies to me.

The question is already in my previous post.

If you are carrying out an experiment for a factor, then you will have to isolate that system so that other factors don't manipulate the outcome. Is it happened in this case?

Since stroke is closely related with anxiety and stress, was the level of stress, anxiety is regulated?
 
This is not difficult, it explains it in the article, the reason those with a genetic intolerance to alcohol were looked at was to isolate any other factor that could lead to an increase in stroke (smoking, diet etc etc). I am not going to sit here and explain the basics of genetics and scientific studies to you. The fact that you believe this study is at falt for the above stated reason goes to show how little you know.

"I am not going to sit here and explain the basics of genetics and scientific studies to you" Which means you have no clue about it but want to pretend otherwise.

If the study is done on those who have intolerance to alcohol, obviously alcohol will not be good for them, in any quantity. So why waste time and money about a result which is a foregone conclusion. :))
 
People that hate on drinking for being "unhealthy" are the same people who don't think twice before feasting on junk food. No shortage of hypocrites.

And vice versa....look down on junk yet knocking back the drinks and fool themselves that their vice isn't as bad!
 
"I am not going to sit here and explain the basics of genetics and scientific studies to you" Which means you have no clue about it but want to pretend otherwise.

If the study is done on those who have intolerance to alcohol, obviously alcohol will not be good for them, in any quantity. So why waste time and money about a result which is a foregone conclusion. :))

That actually goes against everything that science teaches us. According to some PPers, we should take this "experiment" at its face value and consider it as the "truth" like gospels in Bible.

But doesn't science teaches us to ask questions when logic seems goes out of the window?
 
And vice versa....look down on junk yet knocking back the drinks and fool themselves that their vice isn't as bad!

Except no one drinks for fun. People start drinking to cope with depression and sadness.
 
Its banned in Islam and I don't think we need a study to prove it.

I think trying to find scientific reasoning for a religious prohibition is futile and fraught with major bias (confirmation bias).
 
Hello Doctor,

Just wondering if body mass has any effect on alcohol consumption ability? For example male vs female?

If by that you mean the ability to drink more without harm or feeling tipsy, then yes. Heavier people have a lower peak blood-stream alcohol level than lighter individuals, assuming the same amount of alcohol was consumed by both. They may also be able to "handle" long-term drinking slightly better.
Previously men were "allowed" 50% greater levels of intake per week, as a "safe" limit by NHS. However this has now been equalised to 15 units for both sexes.
Hope this helps.
 
People that hate on drinking for being "unhealthy" are the same people who don't think twice before feasting on junk food. No shortage of hypocrites.

Junk food is 'halal' whereas alcohol isn't. But you make a good point, junk food is junk at the end of the day, it will end up doing serious damage if consumed liberally.
 
The question is already in my previous post.

If you are carrying out an experiment for a factor, then you will have to isolate that system so that other factors don't manipulate the outcome. Is it happened in this case?


Since stroke is closely related with anxiety and stress, was the level of stress, anxiety is regulated?

And if you read the study it will be answered for you. Any scientific study that is carried out, specifically if it is published in a peer reviewed journal will be monitored for controls. The fact that you are even asking this question once again confirms my idea that you do not understand how a scientific study works.

Controls have to be identified, measured, worked into the study and expressed in writing and the analysis of that study. This is the very basics of science. Rather than making sarcastic comments to make yourself seem funny or smart, maybe read a book on the basics of scientific studies. I mean, I learned this when I was 16 or 17, before I even went to university. You seem to be an adult of a similar age so should know this too, if, as you claim, you have an understanding of science.


That actually goes against everything that science teaches us. According to some PPers, we should take this "experiment" at its face value and consider it as the "truth" like gospels in Bible.

But doesn't science teaches us to ask questions when logic seems goes out of the window?

Science does teach you to ask questions but how has logic gone out of the window? Are you seriously going to claim that alcohol being bad is illogical? Or are you still stuck on this "well genetic intolerance so study is wrong" idea? Which I decided to take the time to explain.

I also then quoted yet another, older study that came to the same conclusion. If alcohol being bad for you is somehow new news...then i have no idea what to say.

The worst part is, you are still stuck on your first point, although I answered it and countered it. You clearly do not have an open enough mind to discuss an issue you find personally objectionable.
 
I have known many alcoholics who started with being social drinkers. There is nothing lol about it at all.

Do you only attract alcoholics. Social drinkers ratio to Alcoholic is like 10,000 to 1. Surprised you happen to know "many". Stop pushing your religious **.
 
And if you read the study it will be answered for you. Any scientific study that is carried out, specifically if it is published in a peer reviewed journal will be monitored for controls. The fact that you are even asking this question once again confirms my idea that you do not understand how a scientific study works.

Controls have to be identified, measured, worked into the study and expressed in writing and the analysis of that study. This is the very basics of science. Rather than making sarcastic comments to make yourself seem funny or smart, maybe read a book on the basics of scientific studies. I mean, I learned this when I was 16 or 17, before I even went to university. You seem to be an adult of a similar age so should know this too, if, as you claim, you have an understanding of science.




Science does teach you to ask questions but how has logic gone out of the window? Are you seriously going to claim that alcohol being bad is illogical? Or are you still stuck on this "well genetic intolerance so study is wrong" idea? Which I decided to take the time to explain.

I also then quoted yet another, older study that came to the same conclusion. If alcohol being bad for you is somehow new news...then i have no idea what to say.

The worst part is, you are still stuck on your first point, although I answered it and countered it. You clearly do not have an open enough mind to discuss an issue you find personally objectionable.

So much words yet there's no answer. A simple yes or no would suffice.


If you are carrying out an experiment for a factor, then you will have to isolate that system so that other factors don't manipulate the outcome. Is it happened in this case?

If you understand scientific principles that accurate, it shouldn't be hard. Is it?
 
Regardless of perceived health benefits or risk (as with anything moderation is key), I prefer the government tax substances of "vice" like alcohol and marijuana than ban them. Let people decide what they wish to consume in their spare time not the state.

In Pakistan, many people actually die from katchi sharab or tainted liquor from illegal brewers.
 
Regardless of perceived health benefits or risk (as with anything moderation is key), I prefer the government tax substances of "vice" like alcohol and marijuana than ban them. Let people decide what they wish to consume in their spare time not the state.

In Pakistan, many people actually die from katchi sharab or tainted liquor from illegal brewers.
Yep and also we eat disgusting things like gutka...
 
Do you only attract alcoholics. Social drinkers ratio to Alcoholic is like 10,000 to 1. Surprised you happen to know "many". Stop pushing your religious **.

Being a Muslim I naturally see things through Islam. There are many alcoholics in the west, perhaps you have never opened your eyes or been out at night time.
 
Being a Muslim I naturally see things through Islam. There are many alcoholics in the west, perhaps you have never opened your eyes or been out at night time.

Not everyone that drinks is an alcoholic people can drink moderately
 
I drink around 60ml in working days and during weekends its mostly wine and occasionally beer mostly when hanging out with friends. I jog, do Yoga and cardio and a reasonably healthy guy by all medical parameters. Eating fast food and unhealthy junks do more harm to your body than moderately drinking quality Whisky or Brandy.
 
Except no one drinks for fun. People start drinking to cope with depression and sadness.

Sirji you have got to be kidding me right? While I agree you are right about some but most people drink to socialize, during parties and gatherings. In college hostel we used to get shitfaced on weekends, it was albeit not exactly socially compatible but was fun as hell with not an ounce of sadness. We still hangout in pubs although not as often as we used to due to family and work. Only one guy in our group turned out to be a genuine alcoholic, married his college sweetheart at a very young age and then got divorced. Rest of us are just your normal everyday folks not some brooding sad losers lol.
 
Last edited:
Most people in western societies only drink during social occasions or gatherings.

Depends on which western society you are talking about. A lot of European countries drink moderately, but in the UK, people tend to drink far more than the advised limits on those social occasions and gatherings. I don't know what it's like these days, but weekends were for going out and getting caned for teenagers when I was at that age.
 
Moderate eating of burgers and fries is not healthy too but it does not stop people from eating them.

Let people enjoy the things in life which brings them pleasure as long as they do not hurt anyone.
 
Moderate eating of burgers and fries is not healthy too but it does not stop people from eating them.

Let people enjoy the things in life which brings them pleasure as long as they do not hurt anyone.

Eating food doesnt lead to harming others, drinking alcohol does. Daft comparison.
 
lol. Not everyone who drinks wine goes to bed. Do you accept food doesn't turn a person violent but alcohol can?

That's why there are are laws to prevent negative effects of alcohol like underage alcohol sale, drunk driving, etc.

By the same token, driving a car should be bad too as a rash driver can kill people on the road.
 
That's why there are are laws to prevent negative effects of alcohol like underage alcohol sale, drunk driving, etc.

By the same token, driving a car should be bad too as a rash driver can kill people on the road.

lol.

Cars do not alter a persons brain which can lead to harm, which alcohol does. Try driving a car and then try drinking alcohol to see the difference.
 
lol.

Cars do not alter a persons brain which can lead to harm, which alcohol does. Try driving a car and then try drinking alcohol to see the difference.

Oh but they do. Traffic jams cause higher stress level, higher blood pressure, and fatigue. Then, the air pollution caused by cars have a long list of adverse effects. 1.25 million people die each year in car crashes, another 30 millions are injured. What's the solution? Ban driving?

You are failing to understand one simple concept. Alcohol's negative effects are well known and that is why there are laws to prevent people from getting hurt. If someone drinks despite knowing that alcohol is not good for them, it is their choice just like it is their choice to eat fast food even after knowing that such unhealthy food is going to block their arteries.

In a civilized world, you do not enforce your ideas on others. If someone drinks, it is their choice. If someone doesn't, none will pour it in your mouth. The same concept applies to vegetarians who keep shoving down their ideas on other people's throat.
 
Oh but they do. Traffic jams cause higher stress level, higher blood pressure, and fatigue. Then, the air pollution caused by cars have a long list of adverse effects. 1.25 million people die each year in car crashes, another 30 millions are injured. What's the solution? Ban driving?

You are failing to understand one simple concept. Alcohol's negative effects are well known and that is why there are laws to prevent people from getting hurt. If someone drinks despite knowing that alcohol is not good for them, it is their choice just like it is their choice to eat fast food even after knowing that such unhealthy food is going to block their arteries.

In a civilized world, you do not enforce your ideas on others. If someone drinks, it is their choice. If someone doesn't, none will pour it in your mouth. The same concept applies to vegetarians who keep shoving down their ideas on other people's throat.

lol. Nobody mentioned enforcing anything.

A car doesnt distort your mind, alcohol does. It's a stupid comparison. Even a pen can be dangerous but does this mean you compare pens with alcohol?
 
lol. Nobody mentioned enforcing anything.

A car doesnt distort your mind, alcohol does. It's a stupid comparison. Even a pen can be dangerous but does this mean you compare pens with alcohol?

French fries blocks your arteries. Eating them in moderation is bad too?
 
Being a Muslim I naturally see things through Islam. There are many alcoholics in the west, perhaps you have never opened your eyes or been out at night time.

That is a terrible way to look at everything. Law of average will come into play. If you assume people of X are bad, you see lot of X people, sooner or later you will run into someone that will confirm with your bias.
 
People that hate on drinking for being "unhealthy" are the same people who don't think twice before feasting on junk food. No shortage of hypocrites.

What an illogical comment. Hypothetically you can always burn off junk food calories. Food can at-least give you energy and keep you alive, unhealthy or not. Your liver still has to deal with alcohol no matter what once you consume it and your cells obviously don't get anything out of it.
 
What difference does it make? Both are harming your body physically.

You can burn the fat that would block your arteries if you exercise enough once you've ate. You can't exactly do the same to prevent damage with Alcohol. It's quite obvious and I have no idea how people don't understand this.
 
Except no one drinks for fun. People start drinking to cope with depression and sadness.

Yeah, most people drink for fun. It’s a social lubricant, jokes are funnier, people relax and enjoy themselves more.

Drinking to drown sadness is a bad idea because sadness floats.

Drinking to cope with depression is a really bad idea.
 
You can burn the fat that would block your arteries if you exercise enough once you've ate. You can't exactly do the same to prevent damage with Alcohol. It's quite obvious and I have no idea how people don't understand this.


That US journalist fellow showed that a fast food diet causes liver damage just as fast as excessive ethanol.
 
That is a terrible way to look at everything. Law of average will come into play. If you assume people of X are bad, you see lot of X people, sooner or later you will run into someone that will confirm with your bias.

Alcohol is poisons a person gradually. There is nothing terrible in saying this at all. I don't know what law of average has to do with this.
 
That US journalist fellow showed that a fast food diet causes liver damage just as fast as excessive ethanol.

This is true, but you're missing the point of my post. Regular exercise is able to massively reduce negative effects of fast food to your liver and burns the fat that can block arteries. This isn't quite the case with alcohol, which not only is bad for you liver, but also bad for your brain and obviously excessive drinking can very quickly lead to you losing control of your actions. There's only one way to stop alcohol constantly damaging you and that is to stop drinking it.

If you have fast food, yes it can easily be toxic for your internal organs if you let it build up, however doing regular exercise is good enough to stop you from having any health issues.

Generally, a person who orders fast food once a week and is physically active throughout the week is going to be much better off than a person who goes to the pub, drinks excessively and is physically throughout the week. It's actually such a massive difference that I'm surprised how people are able to compare the two despite so much scientific evidence being out there for everyone to see.
 
Muslims are always ready to jump on the bandwagon of science whenever it suits them for example in this case or when there is a study somehow proving disadvantages of pork.

But for thousands of other things, the community as a whole tends to put their head in the sand and ignore whats going on.
 
Muslims are always ready to jump on the bandwagon of science whenever it suits them for example in this case or when there is a study somehow proving disadvantages of pork.

But for thousands of other things, the community as a whole tends to put their head in the sand and ignore whats going on.

Its not a community as such, as Muslims are nearly 2 billion from all sorts or races and cultures. To generalise so many people from around the world, is pretty daft imo.

As for the comparison with food this is very stupid indeed. Obese people rarely kill others because they eat a lot of food. Drinking alcohol has been is the cause of many deaths from drink driving to violence.
 
Its not a community as such, as Muslims are nearly 2 billion from all sorts or races and cultures. To generalise so many people from around the world, is pretty daft imo.

As for the comparison with food this is very stupid indeed. Obese people rarely kill others because they eat a lot of food. Drinking alcohol has been is the cause of many deaths from drink driving to violence.

No. I know many people who will share and term studies which say pork is harmful as gospel but totally ignore studies which say beef is harmful for you eventhough there is as much if not more literature on that topic.
 
No. I know many people who will share and term studies which say pork is harmful as gospel but totally ignore studies which say beef is harmful for you eventhough there is as much if not more literature on that topic.

There are such people in all religions/cultures, not really a Muslim issue. Beef can be very good for you too, it depends on the source of the meat, how it's cooked and how much you eat. You simply cannot cannot compare food to alcohol, those who have in this thread cannot come up anything which Muslims do which is as harmful. The reason is simple in Islam anything harmful is forbidden.
 
Muslims are always ready to jump on the bandwagon of science whenever it suits them for example in this case or when there is a study somehow proving disadvantages of pork.

But for thousands of other things, the community as a whole tends to put their head in the sand and ignore whats going on.


It's not really a Muslim issue though is it. If you had a pet dog would you put beer in his water bowl to improve his health?
 
giphy.gif
 
In all seriousness, people should know their limits.

Believe it or not, its quite possible to get drunk and still remain within yourself enough to not make a pig of yourself/affect others. Its not like you go from totally sobre 1 second to falling over the place the next. If you pace it right, its entirely possible to have a few pints, enjoy yourself, then call it a night. Is knowing the limits in western society a problem? Absolutely, getting completely smashed is glorified among youth and joked about after, but for 99% of people its merely embarrassing, and nothing more.

Its easy to point at alcohol in cases of violence and death and blame it, reality is the sort of people who look to beat the crap out of someone whe they drink is the sort of person to look to beat the crap out of someone sober. Such a convenient excuse to blame the bottle, and not your own inner problems which lead to the issue.

Anyway, live and let live. Enjoy alcohol responsibly, no harm in it. Know when you have enough.
 
Back
Top