Isn't that the point of drinking it?
this post was submitted on 04 May 2026
67 points (94.7% liked)
science
27010 readers
484 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
How little? Doesn't the human body make small quantities itself?
The article is the most misleading bullshit ever. It’s based on “low-risk” as the threshold for the population in the research.
That is literally the entire point of the study. How is that misleading?
A little alcohol is too broad. It's intentionally misleading by being vague.
The very first sentence is
A new study examined the impact of alcohol consumption in healthy adults who did not report drinking more than the accepted ‘low-risk’ alcohol limits.
Which makes it very clear that by "little" in the title (they do not say "little" in the article) they mean "below the low-risk limit", and that "low-risk" is a technically defined term. Here is also the very first sentence of the abstract of the paper which the article is about, which they link to and is free to read:
Low-level alcohol consumption at or below current guidelines (≤1 standard drink equivalent/day for females, ≤2 standard drink equivalents/day for males)
What more do you want?
2 drinks a day is a lot of alcohol imo. I'd love a study that looks at more normal amounts of alcohol (imo being less than 0.5 drinks a day on average)
I think one of the main points of this study is exactly to show that studying such smaller quantities would be worthwhile and could have tangible health implications
They are addressing a common myth that a small amount of alcohol has health benefits, which has always been bullshit junk science promoted by beer and wine industry and european culture.
It was true 250 years ago in the time of cholera, when it was safer to drink weak ales than local water supplies.
Yeah I have 1-3 drinks per week.
but some governments call this a safe level.
Canada, updated in 2023 but was 2x this before:
0 drinks/week: No risk; better health and sleep.
1–2 drinks/week: Low risk; likely to avoid alcohol-related consequences.
3–6 drinks/week: Moderate risk; increased risk of developing several types of cancer.
7+ drinks/week: Increasingly high risk of heart disease or stroke.
These articles trigger drinkers.
They studied people who were having 2 drinks or less per day. The higher the lifetime consumption of alcohol the lower the cerebral blood flow especially in older age.
When I read studies like this, I wonder what variables they aren't including. What else causes impaired blood flow in the brain? Anything? If anything else does, it is affected by consuming alcohol? Does alcohol impare flow more or less than the other thing(s)? For example if extreme stress impared blood flow but alcohol decreased the stress and then impared blood flow but impared it less than the stress did, alcohol would be a positive, but if it aded to the impairment, it would be a negative. Ancedotally I know plenty of people, now in their late 80s and 90s who have drank moderately and it doesn't seem to have caused them any significant issues. I also know teatotallers that haven't made it to age 65 without the beginning of dementia type deficits.
Ancedotally I know plenty of people, now in their late 80s and 90s who have drank moderately and it doesn’t seem to have caused them any significant issues.
Which is why anecdotes are ignored in science.
What else causes impaired blood flow in the brain?
Alcohol impairs brain blood flow by causing stiffening of blood vessels, inducing oxidative stress that damages cellular structures, and reducing overall cerebral perfusion—particularly in the frontal and temporal lobes. Even low levels of consumption can reduce blood flow, which impairs oxygen delivery, causes cognitive decline, and increases the risk of brain atrophy.
This is not new or controversial.
Yeah, that's one of the reasons why laypersons shouldnt really read studies in isolation. A single study isnt the whole picture, and isnt meant to be. It is meant to ask and answer a specific question that can fit into the whole picture of our understanding.
I think there is something of a secular neo-temperance movement going on right now, where people talk about how alcohol is soooo bad for you. And to be sure, alcohol is bad for you - anyone who's had a hangover can tell you that. But life doesn't have to be about being "optimally healthy", and sacrificing a bit of health for a bit of fun is totally reasonable - you could say all the same things about, say, chocolate cake.
sacrificing a bit of health for a bit of fun is totally reasonable
So it's not possible to have fun and be sociable without alcohol or other intoxicant? What does that say about society?
Aaaaand the secular neo-temperance crowd has arrived.
Of course it is possible to have fun without alcohol. I might get some friends together to go for a nice hike on a sunday, where we can exercise and talk and goof around and have a good time in nature, and that is fun. And then afterwards, maybe we finish the day by going to a brewery and having a couple beers and eating some french fries, and that is also fun. But there is no pressure to join for the second part, or to drink or eat the french fries if you do join. You can just be sober and have a good time too. I just personally enjoy drinking, so I do it on occasion, and my life is better for it.
Basically all psychoactive substances do. Where these changes happen determines what kind of an effect it will have. For alcohol, we know that flow is altered in the balance centre for example, which is why people on alcohol walk and talk weird
Alcohol is not psychoactive, it is neurotoxic. It effects the cerebellum, which controls balance by constantly firing neurons. The effect is ataxia, which is a disorder or many causes aside from ethanol. This is why the doctors office test for ataxia is similar to the police roadside sobriety test.
Yes, exactly. Thank you for clarifying
I don't care.