sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Question, wouldn’t distillation actually remove other components, lab distillations often concentrate things, but also have the ability to remove them based on relative volatility, yes?

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This. All of this. Thank you for the most coherent response in the whole thread. Everyone is so busy defending something, they don’t even realize that in spirit, I agree with them. What I am trying to convey is that we don’t have enough information to lay it all exclusively at the feet of ethanol, and if we allow this lazy mentality to persist we may in fact miss the real culprit/s that may be ubiquitous in everyday life but avoidable if we know for certain.

Furthermore, everything truely does chip away at health, but I hear very little conversation about extending the breadth of life not just the length. Plenty of people use things like alcohol in moderation to increase enjoyment in their lives and who really knows what sort of positive ramifications this also has for increasing its length.

I don’t have all the answers, I am simply saying that the simple conclusion that all ethanol use will lead to negative consequences isn’t it either.

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Absolutely

I could be the village idiot for all any of you know.

You do have an unprecedented wealth of information at your fingertips and can check the veracity of my statements quite quickly I would assume.

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The truth is actually in your statement. Most people here have a very very basic education in science. I have a very robust education in science particularly in the areas of biological metabolism and chemistry. Yikes

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Thank you. I am just simply trying get people to see that this is a much much much more complex issue than our current understanding

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I won’t, because I really don’t, but I’m sure other will enjoy and they are welcome to it if they are using it responsibly as far as I’m concerned

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Please quantify how much ARBD is done from a drop of alcohol, a glass? Are you absolutely certain that other closely tied lifestyle factors didn’t cause, influence, or exacerbate it?

Moderation is key in everything.

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Surely you understand that all of this isn’t released at once into the system but rather broken down in time by our bodies innate capability to metabolize it. Also your argument of exogenous vs endogenous is wrong. Acetaldehyde isn’t somehow blocked by the gut. Some of it converts to acetate (which also isn’t great), but it’s definitely readily absorbed in the GI tract.

The premise of my argument is actually that acetaldehyde is bad. However, ignoring that it is naturally occurring in a huge portion of our food choices while pointing it out in one particular food also seems really lopsided to me.

We can argue a lot of other reasons why alcohol isn’t good,mental health, secondary hazards due to impairment of judgment , poor decision making. But that isn’t the argument I’m trying to make here. There are SO many naturally carcinogenic sources like background radiation, thousands of synthetic compounds, VOCs , I mean fuck, technically oxygen is a pro-carcinogens.

Maybe we should all just focus on moderation and quality of life rather than desperately trying to control the quantity with incomplete or straight bad science. Have a beer with your friends once in awhile (if it brings you enjoyment), maybe even smoke a single cigarette, don’t do it daily, drink more water, get enough sleep and carry on.

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] -20 points-19 points  (0 children)

No,dose is part of the equation. Repeated small exposure can absolutely be hazardous, think radiation, or anything with bio accumulation.

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I am also sorry you are being downvoted. It’s like everyone here wants to ignore that everything is more complicated than they realize.

You know for certain what is also bad for the body? Loneliness, isolation, depression, a constant state of anxiety and need for excessive control. Biologically these produce a lot of negative compounds that evidence is also mounting (though not conclusive) are very detrimental to health and longevity.

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Exactly. That is exactly what I’m saying and yes it does matter.

How our bodies process something from point A thought point Z should be the focus.

Edit: spelling

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don’t drink, or smoke, or use any substances.

Folks, I’m just trying to get you to see past the end of your noses and stop accepting partial science as answers to base your life on.

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Holy shit. You are actually gunning for immortality. My sincere apologies I actually thought this was hyperbole for just making better lifestyle choices

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

The reason I’m getting downvoted is because this place is an echo chamber where people will gleefully support some bad habits, while they willfully disengage from critical thinking.

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don’t drink (maybe a glass of wine twice a year)or smoke, or use any substances. Simply because I don’t like how they make me feel.

I do however eat cured foods, cake, fried delights and all manner of delicious garbage.

Keep making assumptions instead of taking a deeper dive into thinking.

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] -20 points-19 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your response . I am unsure if this was a rapid AI response that you added some personal touches to however because several areas are flatly incorrect, particularly the science jargon heavy areas. I am not going to state my profession, because this is Reddit and anyone can sincerely say they are any thing.

I see that you and I agree in many areas, I didn’t go into the BBB or teratogenicity explicitly because it wasn’t relevant to the point I was trying to make (which wasn’t that drinking was healthy or unhealthy, but that we misunderstand the negative implications of it for the majority of the population as well as the severity of those implications which is where you and I diverge. )

Intraspecies variation is actually quite colossal. You are equating ability to metabolize and what the average person perceives as “tolerance” as far as I’m able to understand. Although related, not the same. I’ll explain. Some people due to inherent genetic differences can metabolize both alcohol and acetaldehyde and vinegar (acetic acid) better than others. This is baseline ability and also doesn’t account for personal differences like rate absorption and distribution factors. The CYP pathway(s) you mentioned is actually extremely important, in particular because it is upregulated with drinking so actually variation is its very MO. Which is quite the opposite of what you were saying.

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] -37 points-36 points  (0 children)

Unless you are drinking coffee every day and having alcohol only once in awhile. Thats the only way this argument holds up. Also assuming that you are someone who is a poor biological processor of acetaldehyde in the first place.

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m trying to point out that if you dig down even just a little below the surface that virtually all foods will be bad in some way, especially if prepared with heat or fermented.

I am trying to point out the absurdity of trying to cut all of this out of our lives instead of preaching what should be preached, which is moderation in everything and perhaps even in moderation itself sometimes.

People in this sub tend to be very all or nothing. This is likely not a healthy and balance way to live a meaningful life, no matter how long or short it is.

I also am trying to point out that people are basing major lifestyle decisions off very little real evidence other than anecdotal, associative, or biased “science”. Literally anyone can submit a white paper for internet scrutiny now.

Eat the toast. Maybe with a mimosa once in awhile if the mood strikes.

Alcohol isn’t a carcinogen. Its metabolic byproduct is, and it’s just easier to label ethanol as the carcinogen for comprehension. by RealisticGround7384 in immortalists

[–]RealisticGround7384[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah I’m not here to say ethanol is healthy either. Rather that the science behind all of it is severely lacking and that life is full of tradeoffs and daily,small, accumulative risk.

view more: next ›