Is Moderate Drinking Healthy? Scientists Say the Idea Is Outdated
Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago
news.stanford.eduResearchstory
heatednegative
Debate
80/100
Alcohol ConsumptionHealth RisksPublic Health
Key topics
Alcohol Consumption
Health Risks
Public Health
A Stanford article challenges the idea that moderate drinking is healthy, sparking debate among HN commenters about the risks and cultural normalization of alcohol consumption.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
2h
Peak period
66
0-6h
Avg / period
16
Comment distribution96 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 96 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Aug 22, 2025 at 1:46 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Aug 22, 2025 at 4:00 AM EDT
2h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
66 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Aug 25, 2025 at 4:29 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 44981383Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 9:01:20 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
How does this insane number get unnoticed for so long. I really find it hard to believe. < One drink per day more dangerous than smoking a pack per day?
Edit: Ok, looked into the reference and it's a bit more subtle, though I can't find numbers for people not consuming anything, allthough one would think they'd get 0% alcohol related cancers.
"For example, a study of 226,162 individuals reported that the absolute risk of developing any alcohol-related cancer over the lifespan of a woman increases from approximately 16.5% (about 17 out of every 100 individuals) for those who consume less than one drink per week, to 19.0% (19 out of every 100 individuals) for those who consume one drink daily on average to approximately 21.8% (about 22 out of every 100 individuals) for those who consume two drinks daily on average (Figure 5). That is about five more women out of 100 who would have developed cancer due to a higher level of alcohol consumption."
Pretty significant, although "less than one drink per day" is a bit vague.
I suspect there's a lot we could learn about the health of eggs, for example, if we could just pay some prisoners to eat varying quantities of them for 20 years, then look at the development of their health.
This data is self reported of course, and "one drink daily" are people who actually drink a lot more.
If you actually drink less than daily, very little to worry about AFAICT.
I assume "alcohol related" in this context means that alcohol consumption increases the risk for those types of cancers, but you might still get those types of cancers even if you have never consumed any alcohol. And "less than once drink per week" is assumed to be almost the same as never consuming any alcohol at all, so 17% is the risk for women who never consume any alcohol.
Very poorly written I'd say.
That's like calling death from bleeding out "gun related death", because people who get shot often die of bleeding out.
And if you use alcohol for social lubrication, you only screw yourself over by never learning how to truly socialize and let go of inhibition naturally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
An espresso martini has 80% of your daily sugar intake. That's 25g of sugar. Moscow mule 75%, Sangria 70%. All of those in one single serving.
I'd wager most people don't stop at one drink.
Daiquiri has sugar. Espresso martini has sugar syrup. A gimlet has simple syrup. Irish coffee has sugar. Long Island Ice Tea has more sugar syrup than any single liquor. Mai Tai has simple syrup. Mojito has cane sugar.
Arguing that alcohol is bad because many popular drinks have too much sugar is simply a bizarre take. It's like worrying about second-hand smoke from too much gun violence.
I think normal cocktails can end up in similar place, especially if say juices are component.
OTOH, if you're eating tiramisu to get a buzz, you may be the world's most inefficient alcoholic ever.
That's probably the least true comment in this entire thread.
I'm not going to say alcohol is therapeutic, but it is considered a rite of passage the world over for a reason. For many it's their first time experiencing lowered inhibitions and handling adult consequences. That doesn't imply an addiction will follow, but it is very likely to expand their mind regarding what they believe about themselves and their identity. Those questions are at the heart of social anxiety.
I really don't know where society would be without alcohol. Probably much worse off. People would have their heads so far up their own asses they'd probably be even more anxious all the time.
Somehow alcohol always gets separate consideration and categorisation, while most people would laugh if asked "is moderate tobacco/meth/ecstasy/whatever use healthy?"
Moderate meth use, uh, what does moderate mean? But when I laugh it's more that I doubt the very premise.
Moderate ecstacy use, go for it.
Like heroin versus morphine, safe uses are probably possible, but highly risky.
The "drugs" of alcohol and caffeine are more deeply integrated into public social life. Wine is mentioned in the Bible. Beer is sold at family outings like baseball games. The White House serves alcohol at official state dinners. President Obama had the famous "beer summit" https://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+beer+summit&tbm=isch
Also, the existence of alcohol is caused by common natural processes. E.g. leaving apples or pears out on the kitchen counter too long and it naturally ferments which creates alcohol. I remember leaving some old pears in the kitchen and they eventually smelled like alcohol. I ate the pears and they definitely tasted like alcohol. The point is, alcohol can come into existence without even doing anything.
In contrast, the White House isn't handing out crystal meth or heroin at state dinners and there aren't any natural decaying processes that turns random food into ecstasy. Marijuana is natural but it isn't culturally accepted by the public. (President Clinton's "Yes, but I didn't inhale.")
Alcohol/caffeine have a lot of acceptable functional uses that the other drug categories don't have which is why society continues to talk about them as a separate class.
The point I'm trying to make is that society can't make progress towards unifying alcohol into a category with fetanyl -- because society will continue to use alcohol in socially acceptable functions.
It's not just about the past. It's this ongoing use of alcohol that's very different from fetanyl that will continue to keep alcohol as a separate category in the public's mind. Our future behaviors will keep reinforcing the separate categories in future discussions. Yes, you can scientifically unify "alcohol is a drug" together with "fetanyl is a drug" ... but our deep cultural integration with alcohol prevents society from doing that. E.g. Do we expect the bride of a future wedding in 2026 to choose which wine to serve at the reception? Yes and behaviors like that means we'll continue to categorize alcohol as a separate thing from fetanyl in 2026. If the hired wedding planner tells the bride, "how can you order wine when it's in the same scientific category of toxic danger like fetanyl?!?", that planner will get fired.
Yes I get that point. But that doesn't mean rather simple 'semantic' measures could be taken to make it more obvious alcohol is not exactly healthy. Instead of 'person was under influence of alcohol and cocaine' or 'drugs including alohol', instead of just 'drugs and alcohol'.
https://longnow.org/talks/02022-slingerland/
There’s also a lot of joy people get. Removing that joy might be a net negative over all. It’s like another said, cupcakes, ice cream, candy, donuts are bad for you but people get joy from them so we just encourage moderation
But the people who didn't drink at all often didn't drink because they self-excluded because of alcoholism or disease.
They weren't less healthy because they didn't drink, they didn't drink because they were less healthy.
Controlling for why people don't drink is difficult to do without introducing bias. So there are still two competing theories: either the non-drinkers were a less healthy cohort to begin with, or moderate drinking has net health benefits.
I don't know how that could have health benefits.
You're probably right, but science doesn't advance by saying, "Let's just assume I'm right, and go from there."
There's a good theory why moderate drinking is still unhealthy (self-exclusion of non-drinkers). There's no proven theory as to why moderate drinking should somehow increase health.
So while it's not perfect science, for the practical purpose of making life decisions, that's enough for me.
There's also a surprisingly strong link between alcohol use and exercise, that persists even when you look at "heavy drinking levels" [0].
In fact, given the fact that alcohol use has such a high effect on certain medical conditions, but such a low impact on all-cause mortality, you can be certain that alcohol use has some strong positive health effects. And it's down to individual circumstances whether the positives are likely to outweigh the negatives.
[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2747097/
Sure, but you can have an active social life without consuming alcohol and have the benefits of not drinking AND having an active social life.
> There's also a surprisingly strong link between alcohol use and exercise, that persists even when you look at "heavy drinking levels" [0].
Couldn't this be the same fallacy? i.e. the people who don't drink self-exclude from drinking AND exercise because they're sick or injured or whatever?
Or could it be that people who are more active in general just do both things more?
It's not the alcohol (ethanol) that has the health benefits, but the solution it's in. I think it applies mainly to wine, which has a bunch of anti-oxidants
Well, it doesn't seem so far fetched. Moderate alcohol use could definitely have a stress reducing effect and stress has well documented health impacts. And social drinking could easily have beneficial second order effects from social interaction.
Who knows if this is what's happening, but it's easy to spitball some benefits.
In a regulatory domain? Perhaps not; however, we did try prohibition. It didn't go well.
> Should have skull and crossbones on it.
Which didn't work. So some people go the idea to poison it. Then people learned to re-distill it to avoid the blindness it would otherwise cause.
> Makes about as much sense as huffing gasoline
Most people don't regularly drink to the kinds of excess that would make this an apt comparison.
... Because it was already there. The hypothetical would imply a world where people weren't already high functioning addicts
Social anxiety is the true poison in society. Without it, we wouldn't drink nearly as much.
I have nuanced takes that don't agree with the take that I just wrote, but I find there to be a kernel of truth in it. I've fought social anxiety for years, and started out clubbing sober when I was 17. I did start drinking around 18 but mostly out of curiosity. It was only around the age of 30 that I really noticed that by then I did it to alleviate social anxiety. It caught me off-guard since my teenage self would scoff at the idea of it. I'd never need alcohol to alleviate my social anxiety, I'd just grit through it and talk to whomever I want. I think I just became a bit comfortable and soft. It's easy-ish for me to switch back though due to the reference experiences I have being a teen, dealing with social anxiety sober. So that's a huge blessing. Not everyone is that lucky.
[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2566030/
The existing ones, sure - you get used to it. But for non-smokers, that's a visible indicator of what you're bringing on yourself if you start smoking, so it has a deterring value. It helps you to present an abstract idea into something palpable that you can't ignore that easily.
For scale context, the covid 19 vaccines killed almost as many people as alcohol yearly. Yet that one is "medicine" but alcohol is "poison"? Give me a break.
Of course there are morons who get killed by just about anything. Even water poisoning is a thing, and people HAVE died of it.
Sinners will die regardless of substance, because the wages of sin are death.
It makes far more sense than huffing gas.
It makes the most sense a couple maybe few times a year.
The worst thing to do is over hype the downsides. People tune out and then have no real guidance to draw from.
Caring about the health effects of casual drinking is like counting the calories in a cupcake. If it matters to you, it’s probably not for you.
Birds do as well. Trout do not (in the wild). The LCU drinker might be "some tetrapod".
More state sponsored propoganda to make us miserable. They don't like you having a few drinks with friends and speaking truths. It makes you hard to control and govern.
I want that on a t-shirt
There's a paragraph about alcohol.
You've just replicated the "Watchmaker" argument of creationists: "Random chance can't account for these low probabilities that we can't yet quantified."
This newer work seems basically to be arguing that the effect on the lefthand size of the curve is because drinking alcohol is so common that people who drink nothing are likely to be in poor health already.
https://www.quickwhip.de/collections/miami-magic/products/mi...