ImReadyToQuit

I just read a story saying that heavy drinkers outlive non drinkers.. What are they smoking? I mean seriously..

I'm not going to post the story, but its stories like this that help lead people into insanity then if they are lucky recovery for the rest of their lives..

DayTrader

Nah, they just want to sell papers, magazines, get on tv shows and so on....... an what single group of ppl is more gullible than the delusional alcoholic who's desperately looking for any reason to continue?


...I originally meant that to be tongue in cheek but realized as I was typing it that there might be some truth in there.

CarolD

Media is rarely about absolute facts....IMO

I was interveiwed by The Washington Post and ABC news
concerning free health clinics in D.C. and how they
helped those without insurance ..the "working poor"

I had been a patient in one then went on to do
voulenteer time and fund raise for it.

Neither the paper or ABC brought out why funds
are crucial to keep the clinics running....

rws177

I think that the media spins a lot of unhealthy things in a postive light. McDonalds commercials do not show obese people with diabetic problems, just like bud light commericals do not show what alcoholism really does to a person. We both know the real horrors of drinking so try not to let the media effect your sobriety.

LaFemme

Someone I know posted that article on FB...it bummed me out too...we are in a way lucky because we can see through that garbage, but it makes me sad that kids, and people on their way to having problems will see an article like that and use it for an excuse. I wish that places that sold alcohol had to display a poster similar to the anti-smoking ones of smokers lungs...could you imagine how it would go to have to see a picture of a ruined liver every time you bought booze?

bdiddy5522

I don't think they live longer, it just seems that way because when life is miserable it seems to take forever to die. I felt like I was a practicing alcoholic for about 100 years when I was drinking, when in reality it was only a few years. Life sure drags on when it sucks. haha.

LovesToTravel

My husband heard the news and called me in to listen....what? I don't know what he was thinking....that I would start again...so I could live longer? and be miserable?

MaidenFan

this is indeed a joke. I heard of this ridiculas study also, and it is so stupid it makes me want to screem. I use to live in the heart of Cajun country where
drinking and celebrating is the way of life, And trust me the heavy drinkers are anything but long lived. Or at least if they live long they are miserable.

Mark75

Maybe heavy drinkers outlive non drinkers, but do alcoholics??????????

Che

What's the point in living a long time if you are dumb as a rock? In any case, there's no way it'd be true for 'heavy drinking.' You will die of liver cirrhosis far before any of the benefits would have a chance to help you... I only heard these things about light drinking, but even with that you are trading things off.

What annoys me more about media presentation of alcohol is how much they romanticise it and sexualise it in commercials. I have to tell myself 'all of those are just words' when I see things like that, because I know they have nothing to do with the product at all. Really, it's as bad a smoking ads used to be, and they should be banned as well.

HidLid

I read that earlier, it was the moderate drinkers (1-3 max per day) that had the significant increase in life. That goes back to the one glass of red wine sort of thing, not the case of beer nor 1/5 of vodka sort of thing. Between heavy and non-drinkers the results were slightly different, but without taking into account other considerations the difference IMO hold the chance of not being statistically significant.

It's also a journal article that was just published and has yet to be peer reviewed, so it's not like it's exactly cold hard fact.

LaFemme

This study is brought to you by the Alcohol Lobbyists of America;-)

Seriously, I did a little research online and found this article which describes how these surveys are skewed. They are skewed because the people in these surveys are not the same...the people falling in the drinking categories tend to be better educated, which means they take better care of their health and a number of other socio-economic factors.

Which leads to an interesting question "If these 'studies' are not accurate, why do they get so much press?" For the answer, please see the opening line of this post.

Che

That's true, LaFemme. With all studies, we have to be discerning individuals and find out what the facts are, not the summaries/conclusions of the 2bit journalists are. I find regardless of lobbying, journalists tend to be very tempted to make sensationalist statements, and will do so on very poor backing. Call me cynical, but this is why I don't read newspapers. I either read the study itself, or not at all.

LaFemme

The alcohol lobby means big $$$, they have also learned a lot from what went down with the cigarette industry...an interesting article:

The Alcohol Industry

LaFemme

Che the study does not explain that the results are inaccurate because the people in the study are not similar enough to make the claims they are making.

Yes the press does like a sensational article, they also like an easy article so if someone feeds them a press release they frequently publish it with little crictical thinking. Add to that the French Paradox which has been accepted for 18 years and this article is an easy swallow. The French Paradox also does not take into account genetic factors that might make French people less prone to heart disease with or without drinking.

DayTrader

see this....

Believe me, there's a LOT of "press" and "media" when it comes to the financial markets (which I've worked in for over 15 years). Television news shows, newspapers, magazines, the whooooole lot of 'em - THEY'RE IN BUSINESS TO MAKE A PROFIT. They make their $ by selling the news. They do that by getting viewers, subscribers, readers, etc to watch, read, buy etc. They also sell a whoooooole lot of advertising.

Now, if "they" report a story that says hard drinkers die sooner....... what's the interest in that? Since someone did a "study" and their facts came out different, every tv show, radio show, and so forth now has fodder for all the sheep to read about, watch interviews about, "learn" about (lol..yeah, right), study, produce counter studies..... etc etc. Regardless the outcome, the feeding frenzy is on......... AND THAT'S WHAT MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS WANT - IT'S HOW THEY STAY IN BUSINESS.

.....rant over.



(sheesh, I suppose "the media" should go on my current resentment inventory huh? )

bcboy

I read this report. Rubbish for sure

The definition of heavy drinker is so variable for each person / society. The fact that the 3rd leading cause of death in the USA / Canada is Alcohol puts this whole report in the compost.

Drinking heavy in my world was a 5th of vodka per day. If everyone was at this level of drinking I am sure Alcohol related deaths would be the number 1 leading cause of death and would trump all other causes of death combined.

What I found disturbing was the reason they gave non-drinkers the higher mortality rates vs heavy drinkers was the fact that non-drinkers were less social and had less friends with social outputs for the daily stresses of life. This type of reason is not something that can even be put into a proper study and is all hearsay.

Rubbish, all of it.

Boleo

I have read something like that many times but it compared "moderate drinkers" to non-drinkers. Moderate is something like 2-3 drinks per day for males and 1-2 for females.

I would like to know what they mean by "heavy drinkers" before I judge them.

Mat

I understand that many of you don't like the results of this study, but much of what is being said here is simply incorrect. The study was done by the RSA, a neutral scientific organization that is not in bed with any manner of alcohol corporation or lobby. If anything, most of the research they do is extremely objective and open to the public. This study was not skewed to make the results look good for any type of drinker, nor was it a junk study.

The study also controlled for many variables that others have not, such as socioeconomic status, etc. They used multiple sets of controls as well. It was a good study, and most of you who are bashing it may not have read the full study or even the abstract. Bashing ***** news... That's a different story haha.

The thing to keep in mind, is that heavy drinking is considered "3 or more drinks per day." So that group might be filled with people having 3-5 beers a night, not alcoholics(like us), who have 15.

I think that Mark75 said it best.

"Maybe heavy drinkers outlive non drinkers, but do alcoholics??????????"

I think the answer to that is a definitive "no."

JJB

Studies and statistics can be made to prove whatever you want them to.
Journalists are known for being heavy drinkers/active alcoholics so would be interested in creating such an article.
As has already been mentioned there is so much money in the alcohol industry that there is plenty of money to make research that will prove it not to be dangerous.

I have heard it has also been proved scientifically that a bird can't fly!
:rotfxko