You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

IlyaShpitser comments on Moderate alcohol consumption inversely correlated with all-cause mortality - Less Wrong Discussion

0 Post author: michaelcurzi 11 July 2012 05:41PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (78)
Tags: alcohol mortality death health

Comments (78)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 11 July 2012 06:33:04PM *  6 points [-]

From the paper itself:

"Forty-eight curves (908 182 subjects and 86 941 deaths) were adjusted at least for age; among them, 28 were adjusted for social status too, and 10 for social status and dietary markers."

This is adjusting for 1-4 confounders out of many possible confounders. Even doing so they lost half of the association. Note that the scientists themselves do not claim a causal effect, but only association. It's reasonable to take their word for this.

I personally would not change dietary habits just based on studies like this.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 11 July 2012 08:57:24PM 3 points [-]

Note that the scientists themselves do not claim a causal effect, but only association.

They claim causation in several places, albeit sprinkled with perhapses and maybes. From the abstract:

potential windows of alcohol intake that may confer a net beneficial effect

From the Comment section:

...the benefit of light to moderate drinking remained in a range of undoubted public health value (15%-18%)...

...the maximum protection conferred by light to moderate drinking...

...the “real” (maximum) protection against total mortality associated with low levels of alcohol consumption would still be higher than 10%.

This is all causal language.

Comment author: James_Miller 11 July 2012 07:49:34PM -1 points [-]

It's reasonable to take their word for this.

No because saying alcohol is healthy could get them in lots of trouble.

I personally would not change dietary habits just based on studies like this.

Not even a little? Does it at least slightly increase your estimate of alcohol being healthy and so if at a social event deciding whether to have a drink shift your cost benefit analysis?

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 11 July 2012 08:06:21PM *  2 points [-]

| No because saying alcohol is healthy could get them in lots of trouble.

You may be right -- on the other hand, one can get a lot of publicity for a controversial finding. I don't think these sorts of studies use conservative language because they fear getting in trouble due to subject matter. I think they fear getting in trouble for using the wrong statistical methodology or the wrong language to describe it.

| Not even a little? Does it at least slightly increase your estimate of alcohol being healthy and so if at a social event deciding whether to have a drink shift your cost benefit analysis?

I am not a rationalist, and I don't use these kinds of cost benefit analyses when out drinking :). These sorts of studies are simply never a swing vote in my decision making. I agree that these studies are weak evidence.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit