Recent large Jama study on alcohol/wine
2026 Jan 19, 10:16am 563 views 32 comments
by mell follow (12)
"Wine preference and drinking only during meals were associated with lower all-cause mortality only in participants with health-related risk factors (wine preference: HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97; drinking only during meals: HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.97), as well as in participants with socioeconomic risk factors (wine preference: HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90; drinking only during meals: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89) (Table 3). Drinking only during meals was also associated with lower cancer mortality in participants with health-related risk factors (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99) or socioeconomic risk factors (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94) (Table 3). Furthermore, in individuals with socioeconomic risk factors, wine preference was associated with lower cancer mortality (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.99) and drinking only during meals with lower CVD mortality (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-1.00) (Table 3). Adhering to both drinking patterns was associated with lower all-cause, cancer, and CVD mortality in drinkers with health-related or socioeconomic risk factors, and to a lesser extent, with lower all-cause death in drinkers without health-related risk factors (eTable 2 in Supplement 1). Importantly, wine preference and drinking during meals modified the association of mean alcohol intake with mortality: the excess risk of all-cause, cancer, and CVD death for high-risk drinkers, of all-cause and cancer death for moderate-risk drinkers, and of cancer death for low-risk drinkers vs occasional drinkers was attenuated and even lost among individuals with these drinking patterns (Table 4). Analyses excluding participants with prevalent cancer at baseline for cancer mortality, or those with prevalent CVD at baseline for CVD mortality showed consistent results (eTables 3-6 in Supplement 1)."
« First « Previous Comments 16 - 32 of 32 Search these comments
16
Al_Sharpton_for_President
@
2026 Jan 20, 2:57pm
Al_Sharpton_for_President
@
2026 Jan 20, 2:57pm
So I was shopping for salt at the local super. Came across a brand with Yellow Prussiate of Soda in it. WTF? Looked it up and put it the fuck back.
Yellow Prussiate of Soda (YPS, Na4[Fe(CN)6]·10H2O) is an approved anticaking agent in table salt. Given that it is a cyanide salt, its use as a food additive is surprising.
Yellow Prussiate of Soda (YPS, Na4[Fe(CN)6]·10H2O) is an approved anticaking agent in table salt. Given that it is a cyanide salt, its use as a food additive is surprising.
17
Patrick
@
2026 Jan 20, 6:53pm
Patrick
@
2026 Jan 20, 6:53pm
Al_Sharpton_for_President says
Yes, that's strange. Don't let sunlight shine on it:
Yellow Prussiate of Soda
Yes, that's strange. Don't let sunlight shine on it:
Despite containing cyanide ligands, it has low toxicity because it does not readily release free cyanide under normal conditions; the acceptable daily intake is 0–0.025 mg/kg body weight. However, exposure to strong acids or UV light can lead to the formation of highly toxic hydrogen cyanide gas.
18
goofus
@
2026 Jan 21, 1:20am
Patrick says
Like pH 2 stomach acid. “Food science.” How many Frankenstein potions hide behind the GRAS (generally regarded as safe) category?
Al_Sharpton_for_President says
Yellow Prussiate of Soda
Yes, that's strange. Don't let sunlight shine on it:
Despite containing cyanide ligands, it has low toxicity because it does not readily release free cyanide under normal conditions; the acceptable daily intake is 0–0.025 mg/kg body weight. However, exposure to strong acids or UV light can lead to the formation of highly toxic hydrogen cyanide gas.
Like pH 2 stomach acid. “Food science.” How many Frankenstein potions hide behind the GRAS (generally regarded as safe) category?
19
Robert Sproul
@
2026 Jan 21, 6:48am
goofus says
"The U.S. doesn’t maintain a single definitive tally of all GRAS substances; many are self-affirmed without FDA notification."
"Self affirmed" by industry. LOL.
How many Frankenstein potions hide behind the GRAS (generally regarded as safe) category?
"The U.S. doesn’t maintain a single definitive tally of all GRAS substances; many are self-affirmed without FDA notification."
"Self affirmed" by industry. LOL.
21
clambo
@
2026 Jan 21, 5:24pm
Alcohol in the body is converted to acetyl aldehyde, which is poisonous.
Aldehydes are all toxic; would you drink a shot glass of formaldehyde (formalin)?
There is no level of alcohol consumption which is entirely safe; how much poison you like your body to process is up to you.
Aldehydes are all toxic; would you drink a shot glass of formaldehyde (formalin)?
There is no level of alcohol consumption which is entirely safe; how much poison you like your body to process is up to you.
22
Patrick
@
2026 Jan 21, 7:06pm
Patrick
@
2026 Jan 21, 7:06pm
Grok:
Acetaldehyde → Acetate (via aldehyde dehydrogenase, or ALDH enzyme, primarily ALDH2 in mitochondria): Acetaldehyde is rapidly converted to acetate (acetic acid), which is much less toxic and harmless in small amounts.
Acetate is then further broken down into water and carbon dioxide (or used for energy via the Krebs cycle).
The critical factor is that ALDH is extremely efficient in most people:It has a very low Km (high affinity for acetaldehyde), meaning it works quickly even at low concentrations.
Acetaldehyde levels remain very brief and low (typically in the micromolar range, e.g., ~1–5 μM in normal individuals after moderate drinking).
Dose matters hugely: Moderate intake (e.g., 1–2 standard drinks) produces acetaldehyde at levels the body's ALDH can handle quickly. The toxin is detoxified almost as fast as it's produced.
23
mell
@
2026 Jan 21, 8:41pm
clambo says
The any amount of "poison" is harmful assumption has been contradicted by empirical studies. Apart from the fact that it's quickly broken down during low to moderate consumption, the same has been said about radiation.
However studies have shown that people often live longer (with lower cancer mortality rates) in places with moderate to high background radiation. Hormesis is believed to be a major factor for this phenomenon.
There is likely something similar at play for alcohol, which would explain the Mediterranean/French paradox.
Alcohol in the body is converted to acetyl aldehyde, which is poisonous.
Aldehydes are all toxic; would you drink a shot glass of formaldehyde (formalin)?
There is no level of alcohol consumption which is entirely safe; how much poison you like your body to process is up to you.
The any amount of "poison" is harmful assumption has been contradicted by empirical studies. Apart from the fact that it's quickly broken down during low to moderate consumption, the same has been said about radiation.
However studies have shown that people often live longer (with lower cancer mortality rates) in places with moderate to high background radiation. Hormesis is believed to be a major factor for this phenomenon.
There is likely something similar at play for alcohol, which would explain the Mediterranean/French paradox.
24
clambo
@
2026 Jan 21, 9:31pm
Why do you have a hangover?
Because you consumed a toxic chemical previously.
Because you consumed a toxic chemical previously.
26
Ceffer
@
2026 Jan 22, 12:39am
Ceffer
@
2026 Jan 22, 12:39am
Sorry to burst the alcohol industry propaganda bubble. Maybe they should buy her off.
I would say the nicotine stuff makes it a daily double.
original link
I would say the nicotine stuff makes it a daily double.
original link
27
HeadSet
@
2026 Jan 22, 3:14pm
HeadSet
@
2026 Jan 22, 3:14pm
clambo says
Actually, the hangover is from dehydration, which in addition to the other deleterious effects.
Why do you have a hangover?
Because you consumed a toxic chemical previously.
Actually, the hangover is from dehydration, which in addition to the other deleterious effects.
28
HeadSet
@
2026 Jan 22, 3:15pm
HeadSet
@
2026 Jan 22, 3:15pm
Patrick says
More for making a beer belly.
Acetate is then further broken down into water and carbon dioxide (or used for energy via the Krebs cycle).
More for making a beer belly.
30
mell
@
2026 Jan 22, 3:55pm
HeadSet says
Again this is not a scientific method. You could say the same thing about exercise, but the interim side effects (soreness, tiredness, even hypoxia) make you stronger in the long run.
There are plenty of meds which can cause herxheimer reactions or similar interim effects but actually heal your body.
Its totally possible and conceivable that there is a sweet spot at a specific dosage, and it may not 100% coincide with whether you feel any side effects or not, though often side effects indicate a problem, esp. when severe.
Patrick says
Too much of it.
If you can feel any effects, that is enough to do damage.
Again this is not a scientific method. You could say the same thing about exercise, but the interim side effects (soreness, tiredness, even hypoxia) make you stronger in the long run.
There are plenty of meds which can cause herxheimer reactions or similar interim effects but actually heal your body.
Its totally possible and conceivable that there is a sweet spot at a specific dosage, and it may not 100% coincide with whether you feel any side effects or not, though often side effects indicate a problem, esp. when severe.
31
Patrick
@
2026 Jan 22, 5:04pm
Patrick
@
2026 Jan 22, 5:04pm
Literally the oldest human ever, Jeanne Calment, drank port every day and lived to be 122.
That anecdote is special because she is the record holder, and definitely drank alcohol.
But it also holds statistically. People who never drink alcohol are certainly reducing their own life expectancy. Brave AI:
That anecdote is special because she is the record holder, and definitely drank alcohol.
But it also holds statistically. People who never drink alcohol are certainly reducing their own life expectancy. Brave AI:
Light drinkers have a lower risk of premature death compared to teetotalers, according to multiple studies analyzing large populations. A key study published in PLOS Medicine using data from nearly 100,000 U.S. adults aged 55 to 74 found that individuals who consumed seven alcoholic drinks per week—about one drink per day—had the lowest combined risk of dying or developing cancer over a nine-year period. This group showed a 7% lower risk of early death or cancer diagnosis compared to lifelong teetotalers.
However, this protective effect is seen only in light drinkers. Heavier drinking—three drinks per day—increased the risk of cancer or premature death by 20%.
32
Patrick
@
2026 Jan 22, 5:06pm
Patrick
@
2026 Jan 22, 5:06pm
https://theconversation.com/light-drinkers-at-a-lower-combined-risk-of-earlier-death-or-developing-cancer-98404
Graph is somewhat contradictory to previous comment, not showing the 20% increase in death at 3 drinks per day, but the general idea still holds that a small amount of alcohol has some protective effects.
Graph is somewhat contradictory to previous comment, not showing the 20% increase in death at 3 drinks per day, but the general idea still holds that a small amount of alcohol has some protective effects.
« First « Previous Comments 16 - 32 of 32 Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,364,949 comments by 15,738 users - MolotovCocktail, Patrick online now