Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schrödingers Cat)
    Meat doesn't have unique benefits, any meat substitutes do the same job...

    Alcohol isn't outweighed by negatives, drinking alcohol is better than not drinking alcohol at all.

    I think you're just a bit upset because you don't drink and can't accept the truth :rolleyes:

    As requested:

    http://www.psmag.com/health-and-beha...-healthy-87891

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-sex-life.html

    I think you're reading too in depth into this really, like all things in life food has benefits and consequences. Eating a lot of red meat actually increases the risk of cancer, as you said meat can be good for you but it also can be bad for you.
    No. absolute nonsense. Drinking alcohol is not at all better than not drinking alcohol. This shouldn't require citation of studies if one was aware of the biochemical effects of alcohol (which prove that it is indigestible and a toxin which results in deterioriation of one's liver over time, as well increased insulin resistance and greater chance of a slew of cancers and being obese) or had any common sense. Unfortunately in an attempt to justify unhealthy habits many people do believe nonsense studies based on correlation or pure bias funded by the alcohol industry.

    Anyway, firstly there is this:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19217456

    Which basically means alcohol is only healthy if you are unhealthy. Yet consuming alcohol while being unhealthy is not as healthy as not consuming alcohol while being healthy. But because most people ARE unhealthy this means epidemiological studies looking at how alcohol affects the average person leads to it being that alcohol helps the average person live longer. But that's due to them being unhealthy and so it doesn't mean alcohol is healthy. You get me? Yes, this is the problem with science when it doesn't think logically and this is why we have philosophy.

    The notion that one can look into something "too deeply" is absolute nonsense when the purpose of looking into something is to identify truth rather just be pragmatic. Pure laziness. The truth may be in principle impossible to achieve but it never hurts to keep trying to get as close to possible to it. Or maybe it does hurt if getting closer to that truth undermines one's personal ideology, but that's not something I subscribe to.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    If MDMA wasn't harmful when done too often, I'd gladly replace alcohol with it completely. It's 10x better in every way
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    If MDMA wasn't harmful when done too often, I'd gladly replace alcohol with it completely. It's 10x better in every way
    But... Alcohol is harmful when done too often too...

    The difference in the effects on our health from a moderate use of MDMA vs a moderate use of alcohol can't be that different (but maybe there are, I know little about the long-term effects of MDMA, although I doubt science does either since epidemiological surveys of illegal drug users are rare )
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    No. absolute nonsense. Drinking alcohol is not at all better than not drinking alcohol. This shouldn't require citation of studies if one was aware of the biochemical effects of alcohol (which prove that it is indigestible and a toxin which results in deterioriation of one's liver over time, as well increased insulin resistance and greater chance of a slew of cancers and being obese) or had any common sense. Unfortunately in an attempt to justify unhealthy habits many people do believe nonsense studies based on correlation or pure bias funded by the alcohol industry.

    Anyway, firstly there is this:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19217456

    Which basically means alcohol is only healthy if you are unhealthy. Yet consuming alcohol while being unhealthy is not as healthy as not consuming alcohol while being healthy. But because most people ARE unhealthy this means epidemiological studies looking at how alcohol affects the average person leads to it being that alcohol helps the average person live longer. But that's due to them being unhealthy and so it doesn't mean alcohol is healthy. You get me? Yes, this is the problem with science when it doesn't think logically and this is why we have philosophy.

    The notion that one can look into something "too deeply" is absolute nonsense when the purpose of looking into something is to identify truth rather just be pragmatic. Pure laziness. The truth may be in principle impossible to achieve but it never hurts to keep trying to get as close to possible to it. Or maybe it does hurt if getting closer to that truth undermines one's personal ideology, but that's not something I subscribe to.
    Nope, you're naive.

    I'm guessing you didn't know that our bodies naturally produce alcohol daily? Does this mean that we our constantly ruining our liver everyday?

    No, it doesn't.

    http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/Cont...l#.VMPkc_RdWHQ
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    But... Alcohol is harmful when done too often too...

    The difference in the effects on our health from a moderate use of MDMA vs a moderate use of alcohol can't be that different (but maybe there are, I know little about the long-term effects of MDMA, although I doubt science does either since epidemiological surveys of illegal drug users are rare )
    You can get away with drinking ~3x a week at university without any real long term consequences, as many students do. If you did MD that often for a year or two you'd definitely **** yourself up mentally, much moreso than with alcohol. But as an occasional drug, it doesn't even compare. Alcohol seems pointless in comparison
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    You can get away with drinking ~3x a week at university without any real long term consequences, as many students do. If you did MD that often for a year or two you'd definitely **** yourself up mentally, much moreso than with alcohol. But as an occasional drug, it doesn't even compare. Alcohol seems pointless in comparison
    Has this been shown to be the case in a study? Pure/diluted MDMA with non-drugs, not mixed MDMA from the streets from self-proclaimed-users.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    You can get away with drinking ~3x a week at university without any real long term consequences, as many students do. If you did MD that often for a year or two you'd definitely **** yourself up mentally, much moreso than with alcohol. But as an occasional drug, it doesn't even compare. Alcohol seems pointless in comparison
    this

    yourusername.jpg
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    Has this been shown to be the case in a study? Pure/diluted MDMA with non-drugs, not mixed MDMA from the streets from self-proclaimed-users.
    Unaware of any study that looks at that kind of frequency, and also there aren't going to be any human studies that look at pure MDMA for obvious reasons. Most of the evidence is anecdotal (though there is a huge amount of it, which definitely gives it some credibility).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    I agree with you entirely. I'm quite a rational person myself though so I had to research the health effects and other effects of alcohol quite thoroughly. You'll be glad to know that it is always invariably unhealthy for dietary consumption, much like chocolate-cake-induced-sugar in the morbidly obese (yes, I know the mobidly obese can die of starvation through hypoglycemia due to high insulin resistance, but cake derived sugar can always come from better sources, like fruits, which won't contribute to the insulin resistance and won't **** up their veins).

    I grew up in an environment where alcohol was abused by my grandfather. It's a horrible drug. Fortunately my mother and father aren't so bad, they just binge-drink and you know, it doesn't do their health any good but I respect their autonomy to make life choices, I'm not hating them as people for being obese and uneducated, BUT I still dislike the fact that -alcohol-consumption as a thing exists and uneducation as a thing exists.

    You are shaming alcohol consumers, but they ought to be shamed just like any drug consumer. We shame the heroin-taker, we shame the cocaine-taker, we shame the MDMA taker, we shame the alcohol taker, we shame the steroid taker, we shame the khat taker. Why do people choose to draw the line at alcohol? I see no reason for that. All unhealthy life decisions ought to be shamed. That's why I also shame people for being obese. They deserve to be shamed - unless of course they cannot help it, which is why I don't shame people I don't know, but if I know someone to be obese when they have no reason to be, I shame them and so I should. Ultimately they have a choice to be obese or not though, yes some choices are better than others but I think they should still have that choice. I also would tax them extra for being obese though to make them pay for the fact that they are being a disproportionately high weight on the NHS, but that's a different argument entirely and I'm going off topic :P
    Thank you the illegal drug taker is shamed so should the tobacco and alcohol taker be because if it is people won't do it as they do not want to be shamed but if it is supported and ok to do then people will do it. Also the problem is many are not educated enough about alcohol and often overdo it as it seems cool and grown up apparently.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schrödingers Cat)
    Nope, you're naive.

    I'm guessing you didn't know that our bodies naturally produce alcohol daily? Does this mean that we our constantly ruining our liver everyday?

    No, it doesn't.

    http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/Cont...l#.VMPkc_RdWHQ
    Biased would probably be more appropriate than naive.

    But no, I do know that and don't think it ruins our liver everyday. Our liver can tolerate so much of it, which is likely why it has developed to be our only regenerative organ too. Now, when the body is producing its own ethanol daily does it produce it all in one go in a short period of time? No. What happens afterwards? Does the ethanol just flow through our bloodstream? No, it is catabolized because if it wasn't we would die since, well, ethanol is toxic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_intoxication - You die of alcohol poisoning if you consume so much a short period of time that your body cannot metabolise it quick enough to prevent death through toxins in your blood. Toxins being your blood kills you because they kill cells!

    Any of amount of alcohol you consume is putting more pressure on your liver to get working and it kills cells. Sure, a few grams isn't going to kill you, just like getting punched in the face everyday won't kill you, but it's still better than not getting punched in the face everyday because you need to devote less resources to getting your skin on your face patched back up, same applies to your liver and other cells that ethanol kills when floating around your bloodstream un-metabolised (namely your red-blood cells which alcohol can enter through the membrane of and alter their structure).

    I am being biased in trying to defend this insofar that I'm looking for specific studies to defend my view here, now, I'm often open-minded, but here I'm merely sceptical, because I know of the effects of alcohol bio-chemically, to come to certain conclusions that alcohol gives. Given how large alcohol is in society and that funding for research comes from society I would expect most studies to say that it is good even if it wasn't. Hence my scepticism.

    Anyway, here's another study:
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/279480.php

    These studies, this one here and the one I posted before both try to eliminate the correlative issues concerning epidemiology and nutritional science in general, which is why I place stronger emphasis on them than I do a dozen other studies that contradict them. It's just better science. Now, I'm not going to claim we know for sure whether any alcohol consumption whatsoever is always, holistically, unhealthy - science cannot prove that and we humans never will be able to. What I will claim however is that there's still good reason to believe that it is true.

    I mean look at this:
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/273528.php

    That website you gave me earlier was still spouting the nonsense about fat being the cause of cholesterol increases which are the cause of heart disease which has not been proven causally once.

    It's not convincing, yet the reasons why alcohol consumption would be bad for you are quite obvious given what it does. Hence why common sense should tell you, alcohol isn't great for your heart. What does it do, what is so obvious? Here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=51m52s
    51:52 until 56:35 please.

    Incidentally by "toxin" I meant something that kills you if the body does nothing to get rid of it. Ethanol is precisely that. Sure some ethanol won't insta-kill you because our body can convert it into non-toxic substances. Same applies to EVERY TOXIN THAT EXISTS. In a sufficiently small amount no toxin, even the worst snake venom, would kill you. Now, the reverse is true that everything that exists will you kill if there is enough of it. Too much water in your blood and you die of water intoxication.

    So what I really mean by "toxin" is that it will kill you when it is in your body un-metabolised even in relatively low quantities compared to "non-toxin" substances.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    Biased would probably be more appropriate than naive.

    But no, I do know that and don't think it ruins our liver everyday. Our liver can tolerate so much of it, which is likely why it has developed to be our only regenerative organ too. Now, when the body is producing its own ethanol daily does it produce it all in one go in a short period of time? No. What happens afterwards? Does the ethanol just flow through our bloodstream? No, it is catabolized because if it wasn't we would die since, well, ethanol is toxic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_intoxication - You die of alcohol poisoning if you consume so much a short period of time that your body cannot metabolise it quick enough to prevent death through toxins in your blood. Toxins being your blood kills you because they kill cells!

    Any of amount of alcohol you consume is putting more pressure on your liver to get working and it kills cells. Sure, a few grams isn't going to kill you, just like getting punched in the face everyday won't kill you, but it's still better than not getting punched in the face everyday because you need to devote less resources to getting your skin on your face patched back up, same applies to your liver and other cells that ethanol kills when floating around your bloodstream un-metabolised (namely your red-blood cells which alcohol can enter through the membrane of and alter their structure).

    I am being biased in trying to defend this insofar that I'm looking for specific studies to defend my view here, now, I'm often open-minded, but here I'm merely sceptical, because I know of the effects of alcohol bio-chemically, to come to certain conclusions that alcohol gives. Given how large alcohol is in society and that funding for research comes from society I would expect most studies to say that it is good even if it wasn't. Hence my scepticism.

    Anyway, here's another study:
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/279480.php

    These studies, this one here and the one I posted before both try to eliminate the correlative issues concerning epidemiology and nutritional science in general, which is why I place stronger emphasis on them than I do a dozen other studies that contradict them. It's just better science. Now, I'm not going to claim we know for sure whether any alcohol consumption whatsoever is always, holistically, unhealthy - science cannot prove that and we humans never will be able to. What I will claim however is that there's still good reason to believe that it is true.

    I mean look at this:
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/273528.php

    That website you gave me earlier was still spouting the nonsense about fat being the cause of cholesterol increases which are the cause of heart disease which has not been proven causally once.

    It's not convincing, yet the reasons why alcohol consumption would be bad for you are quite obvious given what it does. Hence why common sense should tell you, alcohol isn't great for your heart. What does it do, what is so obvious? Here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=51m52s
    51:52 until 56:35 please.

    Incidentally by "toxin" I meant something that kills you if the body does nothing to get rid of it. Ethanol is precisely that. Sure some ethanol won't insta-kill you because our body can convert it into non-toxic substances. Same applies to EVERY TOXIN THAT EXISTS. In a sufficiently small amount no toxin, even the worst snake venom, would kill you. Now, the reverse is true that everything that exists will you kill if there is enough of it. Too much water in your blood and you die of water intoxication.

    So what I really mean by "toxin" is that it will kill you when it is in your body un-metabolised even in relatively low quantities compared to "non-toxin" substances.
    You're talking complete rubbish, by that definition 90% of everything in out body is a toxin :laugh:

    What I'm assuming here (correct me if I'm wrong) you're not a doctor but are studying biology or chemistry at GCSE and have misinterpreted these articles to suit yourself and make yourself feel better? :mmm:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    People who speak out against drinking like this almost certainly have no social skills
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schrödingers Cat)
    You're talking complete rubbish, by that definition 90% of everything in out body is a toxin :laugh:

    What I'm assuming here (correct me if I'm wrong) you're not a doctor but are studying biology or chemistry at GCSE and have misinterpreted these articles to suit yourself and make yourself feel better? :mmm:
    The "low quantities" bit is what is what you haven't understood.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morgan8002)
    The "low quantities" bit is what is what you haven't understood.
    No I have understood my point remains eminent
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    I think people who eat meat regularly who have damaged their body through doing so don't deserve new organs because there are others who need them more who don't eat meat. I hate meat eaters they annoy me I cannot look them straight in the eye how can someone pay or use someone else's money to damage their organs it is not fun or relaxing to damage your health?

    Repeat for fat people, cyclists, drivers, smokers and infinatum for anything that slightly lower a life expectancy that I don't do.
    cycling slightly lowers your life expectancy?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schrödingers Cat)
    Nope, you're naive.

    I'm guessing you didn't know that our bodies naturally produce alcohol daily? Does this mean that we our constantly ruining our liver everyday?

    No, it doesn't.

    http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/Cont...l#.VMPkc_RdWHQ

    The body does produce a small amount but its nothing compared to how much a person would drink. Plus the link you put isn`t really a credible scientific website.
    http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/10Octobe...age-sperm.aspx
    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...mation/264129/
    Also take into account the economic effects alcohol is having on the NHS and the number of drunk people who sometimes clog the A and E.
    http://www.theguardian.com/healthcar...eaths-cost-nhs
    Oh, Schrodinger you so silly why are you debating about something not relevant to your field ?This is even more silly than that time you tried to ditch Wave-Particle duality and promote the wave only interpretation(the silly bit was said in a joking tone ).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schrödingers Cat)
    You're talking complete rubbish, by that definition 90% of everything in out body is a toxin :laugh:

    What I'm assuming here (correct me if I'm wrong) you're not a doctor but are studying biology or chemistry at GCSE and have misinterpreted these articles to suit yourself and make yourself feel better? :mmm:
    Ugh, no, that doesn't make 90% of the things our body toxins since I said "relatively small", that is, relatively small in quantity compared to the other things which when in our blood kill us yet we don't call "toxins", aka, water, glucose, etc.

    I'm actually studying philosophy/economics formally at uni atm. I started the research on nutritional science in my own time though informally. I've done a fair of bit of philosophy of science though so I know how science works.

    I haven't misinterpreted any articles (positive claim you just made, show me why I should think that, I already told you what was wrong with the one's you linked and cited a study to back it up), it's just I have no reason to be biased towards showing the positive effects of alcohol consumption because when I do research I'm not paid to show such effects. Also, I know when there are logical inconsistencies in ****ty pieces of empirical research because I've studied philosophy, I'm aware of the epistemic limits of scientific studies and how they rarely prove causality.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kadak)
    The body does produce a small amount but its nothing compared to how much a person would drink. Plus the link you put isn`t really a credible scientific website.
    http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/10Octobe...age-sperm.aspx
    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...mation/264129/
    Also take into account the economic effects alcohol is having on the NHS and the number of drunk people who sometimes clog the A and E.
    http://www.theguardian.com/healthcar...eaths-cost-nhs
    Oh, Schrodinger you so silly why are you debating about something not relevant to your field ?This is even more silly than that time you tried to ditch Wave-Particle duality and promote the wave only interpretation(the silly bit was said in a joking tone ).
    Actually the body produces the same ethanol content equivalent to two drinks everyday, the source I quoted was reliable.

    Lmao, did you even read the articles you quoted? Evidently not because none of them back your point. Firstly the first article you quoted I stopped reading when I read ''Overall, there was no clear association between semen quality and alcohol intake'' and ''Men who did not drink any alcohol at all also had impaired sperm quality. ''

    In other words alcohol had no effect on sperm quality :thumbsup:

    The second article is also a joke, the experiment was carried out on rats not humans and you cannot just transfer such results onto a human because rats brains and humans brains although similar do not correspond in the same ways.

    Although drunk people are costing the NHS money obesity costs the NHS much more and is much more of a problem. (25% of adults in the UK are obese, the same can't be said about binge drinkers) We're also talking about moderate drinking not heavy binge drinking.

    Maybe you should stick to whatever you do, clearly isn't biology or chemistry. :fyi: I studied both chemistry and biology at A-level achieving top grades in both
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    Ugh, no, that doesn't make 90% of the things our body toxins since I said "relatively small", that is, relatively small in quantity compared to the other things which when in our blood kill us yet we don't call "toxins", aka, water, glucose, etc.

    I'm actually studying philosophy/economics formally at uni atm. I started the research on nutritional science in my own time though informally. I've done a fair of bit of philosophy of science though so I know how science works.

    I haven't misinterpreted any articles (positive claim you just made, show me why I should think that, I already told you what was wrong with the one's you linked and cited a study to back it up), it's just I have no reason to be biased towards showing the positive effects of alcohol consumption because when I do research I'm not paid to show such effects. Also, I know when there are logical inconsistencies in ****ty pieces of empirical research because I've studied philosophy, I'm aware of the epistemic limits of scientific studies and how they rarely prove causality.
    And I wasn't talking about water, don't you think potassium in relatively small amounts would kill us? Yet that is essential for chemical transfers in our body. There are a lot of others like chlorine and sodium chloride, iron, magnesium, calcium etc etc.

    That's what I thought I wannabe scientist, philosophy is a bit of rip off, it's like reading around science without actually understanding it then making stupid assumptions about things.

    The articles you quoted didn't back up your point so yes you misinterpreted them, you're talking about intoxication due to the liver not being able to break down the substances, but actually (you won't know because you don't drink) you don't get drunk off one pint do you? This is moderate consumption which will not get you drunk and so does not cause inebriation.

    Wow you must have been having fun at uni sober while all your ''mates'' were out drinking having a good time :mmm:

    Honestly I would give up being a T-total, there are much worse things in life and at the end of the day alcohol isn't going to kill you sooner and you only have one life so might as well have fun :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Posted from TSR Mobile

    Biology and Chemistry is a wide area and one subject on alcohol doesn't confirm your bio or chemistry credentials. You haven't responded to my physics comment even though your a physicist and that's actually whhat I wanted you to respond to and why you caught my attention 😢. You scared to talk about Wave particle duality and its interpretation physicist? 😜.Oh and tell me in 40 years how your liver holds 😉(not meant in a cynical way).
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.