you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Idk... a lot of gen Z people I know just don't drink at all

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    OP is referring to the j-curve historically seen in studies about drinking. Because researchers didn't control for people who stopped drinking after years of abuse or people who couldn't drink because of other health issues, it looked like having 0 drinks per day led to worse health outcomes than 1-2 drinks per day. Because of that, many health organizations spent decades telling people that 1-2 drinks per day was better for you than 0 drinks per day.

    Someone finally controlled for those variables a few years ago, and the j-curve vanished. Most health organizations now say they're is no amount of alcohol that is safe to consume.

    So it's got nothing to do with Gen Z drinking habit specifically, and the science has been corrected since. But a lot of people still internalized and parrot the "1-2 drinks is healthy" thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

    No amount of alcohol is safe? Is that like saying no amount of driving is safe?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 18 hours ago (1 child)

    Sure. Any driving you do increases your risk of death. But it's likely you need to drive for other reasons that reduce your risk of death (like buying food).

    Drinking is different because no one needs to drink.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 22 hours ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 20 hours ago (1 child)

    Exactly!

    I meant that plenty of people drink reasonable amounts alcohol all the time with no apparent issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 20 hours ago (1 child)

    It means that any amount of alcohol increases the odds of you dying sooner or having other negative health effects sooner (which will lead to you dying sooner). There is no amount that won't increase those odds. It says nothing about how much any given drink would impact your life span. I'm not saying it's negligible or significant, but I can't be bothered to look it up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

    Come on, you have to say it's positively correlated rather than causative that's the whole point of the thread.

    This isn't a hill I want to die on, but I don't think it's a meaningful claim without a bit more nuance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 hours ago

    No, it's causal.

    We know the mechanisms by which alcohol causes negative health effects, to basically all the systems in the body.

    It's not a particularly strong effect for the occasional drinker, but the degree of confidence we have in the correlation is very strong, and we have an underlying model of the biological mechanisms that cause poor health outcomes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

    Well, the WHO puts it in the same category as tobacco. Is tobacco just strongly correlated to cancer? And I don't need to say it is causative, because The Lancet did.

    You can stack that data up against your anecdotes however you like.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 16 hours ago

    I wonder if this is something that changed over time. As in preservatives and all sorts of chemicals being added to tobacco or alcohol. For example, I can smoke Japanese cigarettes without a problem. I've smoked Vietnam era MRE cigarettes, Old Ukrainian unfiltered cigarettes. But I can't smoke US made ones since around 2007, they make me sick and taste like ash.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 21 hours ago* (1 child)

    because they can't afford it. prices are up, incomes are down. Gen Z starting incomes aren't much higher than the start incomes of people from 10-20 year ago, but booze prices are triple what they were, i've actually seen them start to come down recently because well, even older folks can't afford $20 cocktails or $20 four packs of beer. when I was 25 $20 got you a 24 pack of craft beer. or a 48 of the cheap shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

    That might have something to do with it. But gen-z seems to have more a purity culture than millennials and gen-x had.

    Many are very into exercise and fitness from a very young age. Control their diets. Sleep super early, get up early.

    They are going less to clubs (and shitty dive bars). Doing less drugs. Having less sex.

    You can say its all because of money. But broke teenagers and young adults of previous generations had their fun, went out, destroyed their bodies. You know, it can be REALLY cheap to get fucked up and well, get fucked or fuck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago*

    it's not cheap to get fucked up anymore. it's not cheap to go out, all this tracks.

    gyms however, are still cheap.

    no idea what you are on about purity. i just know a lot of 22 year olds at my work who are broke and live at home. they are 'boring' and 'pure' because they don't have much other choice. they can't afford to party.

    sex rates also correlate highly to ecnomic conditions. nobody fucks and has babies when it's economically tough, and when we have good economy there is a baby boom.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago

    Yeah but these (usually flawed) studies that have wormed their way into the public consciousness were done long before gen z was drinking age. From up-to-date information it's pretty clear that any amount of any kind of alcohol is quite bad for you. Obviously increasing with quantity.

  • source
  • parent