August 12th, 2024

The scientists accused of using 'flawed' research to tell you to stop drinking

Dr. Tim Stockwell's research suggests no safe alcohol level, influencing stricter guidelines globally. Critics challenge his findings, citing flaws and a neo-temperance movement advocating reduced consumption despite social benefits of moderate drinking.

Read original articleLink Icon
The scientists accused of using 'flawed' research to tell you to stop drinking

Recent research by Dr. Tim Stockwell, a British scientist, claims that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption, suggesting that even one drink a day could reduce life expectancy and increase cancer risk. His findings have influenced global drinking guidelines, prompting stricter regulations in countries like Canada and Australia, with potential changes in the US and UK on the horizon. However, Stockwell's research has faced significant criticism from peers who argue that it lacks solid scientific grounding and may be influenced by temperance movements. Critics accuse him of cherry-picking data to support his claims while ignoring studies that suggest moderate drinking can have health benefits, known as the J-curve theory. Stockwell defends his work, asserting that he based his conclusions on high-quality studies and that his critics are funded by the alcohol industry. The debate highlights a growing "neo-temperance movement" that seeks to equate alcohol with tobacco in terms of health risks, aiming to lower drinking guidelines further. Experts warn that this movement may overlook the social and psychological benefits of moderate drinking, which are difficult to quantify but play a significant role in community and individual well-being.

- Dr. Tim Stockwell's research claims no safe level of alcohol consumption.

- His findings have led to stricter drinking guidelines in several countries.

- Critics argue his research is flawed and influenced by temperance agendas.

- The debate centers on the balance between health risks and social benefits of moderate drinking.

- A "neo-temperance movement" is pushing for further reductions in alcohol consumption guidelines.

Link Icon 3 comments
By @hooverd - 2 months
There's no safe level of living. Maybe there's no safe level of alcohol if your risk tolerance is zero. Going out every weekend and getting hammered is obviously bad for you. Alcoholism is a problem. But I doubt my one or two cocktails a fortnight hobby is the same as the guy who downs a liter of bottom shelf vodka a day.
By @IndySun - 2 months
By @nataliste - 2 months
I own a Garmin watch. It doesn't have the capacity to monitor anything about my substance intake. When I drink anything, my stress level jumps up and my heart-rate variability (HRV) goes down, dramatically. My sleep quality also goes down, regardless of whether I drink water and B vitamins. It's pretty clear drinking isn't acutely healthy. I don't have strong opinions on the validity of the J-curve.

With all that said, it's also apparent that the social benefits of drinking are irreplaceable, particularly with regard to those for civilization which are similar to the benefits of tobacco and caffeine. All three lower social hurdles to the point that introverts can form new relationships and maintain them effectively. All three are able to frontload collective euphoria and force individuals to deal with the fallout. All three substances are lindy, but of the three, alcohol is the most lindy. That alcohol has been with us for (at least!) 12,000 years should probably be reason enough to suspect temperance's practicality and usefulness. Like vegan and carnivorous civilizations, alcohol-free civilizations (as in, have cities) don't actually exist. We also have pretty extensive records globally of daily drinking that far exceeds those recommended by the WHO, during eras of significantly worse healthcare, yet these civilizations prospered in spite of both. (It's frequently been argued that alcohol was drank because the water was unsafe, but this argument isn't very plausible. Generally everyone in the ancient world understood that boiling water made it safer to drink.)

With that said, drunkenness is categorically reviled in these civilizations, but generally regarded as a tolerable risk for all the other goods it provides. All-day drinking of low ABV drinks seems to be the optima, but you know, cars.

From ~375BC:

>Three bowls do I mix for the temperate: one to health, which they empty first, the second to love and pleasure, the third to sleep. When this bowl is drunk up, wise guests go home. The fourth bowl is ours no longer, but belongs to violence; the fifth to uproar, the sixth to drunken revel, the seventh to black eyes, the eighth is the policeman's, the ninth belongs to biliousness, and the tenth to madness and hurling the furniture.

Some things never change.