WEBVTT - What's the deal with alcohol?

0:00:01.480 --> 0:00:03.400
<v Speaker 1>Emily. I don't know if I've ever told you this,

0:00:03.600 --> 0:00:08.280
<v Speaker 1>but this is not the first podcast idea I've ever had. Well,

0:00:08.360 --> 0:00:13.319
<v Speaker 1>this actually is the second on the list, and the first, okay,

0:00:13.360 --> 0:00:16.239
<v Speaker 1>ready was going to be it's me and my wife

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:19.440
<v Speaker 1>were both doctors, as you know, and we were going

0:00:19.640 --> 0:00:27.160
<v Speaker 1>to sit and drink alcohol and talk through medical studies together.

0:00:27.920 --> 0:00:30.560
<v Speaker 1>And do you know what I was going to call it?

0:00:31.640 --> 0:00:33.239
<v Speaker 2>No, But first of all, I love it, and I

0:00:33.280 --> 0:00:35.080
<v Speaker 2>hope you should also. I think you should also make

0:00:35.080 --> 0:00:37.040
<v Speaker 2>this if one podcast is not enough, I would listen

0:00:37.080 --> 0:00:38.360
<v Speaker 2>to that. But what is the title?

0:00:38.760 --> 0:00:39.800
<v Speaker 1>Docs on the Rocks?

0:00:40.240 --> 0:00:43.479
<v Speaker 2>That is so plascular? I love everything about it. Is

0:00:43.520 --> 0:00:45.760
<v Speaker 2>the problem that your wife is too smart to get

0:00:45.800 --> 0:00:46.720
<v Speaker 2>involved with this with you?

0:00:47.240 --> 0:00:50.440
<v Speaker 1>Yes, that is one hundred percent of problem. I was enthusiastic.

0:00:50.479 --> 0:00:53.040
<v Speaker 1>I brought as I bought two microphones. I was like,

0:00:53.240 --> 0:00:55.720
<v Speaker 1>and it'll be like date night. It's like, but we're

0:00:55.720 --> 0:00:58.280
<v Speaker 1>going to record it and we're gonna have drinks and

0:00:58.320 --> 0:01:00.480
<v Speaker 1>then there would be a segment at the end, maybe

0:01:00.520 --> 0:01:01.880
<v Speaker 1>at the beginning of the end. I didn't really think

0:01:01.920 --> 0:01:03.960
<v Speaker 1>it through, but like, what are we drinking tonight? Like

0:01:04.040 --> 0:01:07.000
<v Speaker 1>maybe one night it's some wine, maybe something maybe it's

0:01:07.000 --> 0:01:11.399
<v Speaker 1>a fancy cocktail of some kind, and you know, I

0:01:11.480 --> 0:01:14.160
<v Speaker 1>would be me and she would be like a normal person,

0:01:14.280 --> 0:01:17.520
<v Speaker 1>a more normal person. I think it works, and I

0:01:17.600 --> 0:01:18.039
<v Speaker 1>think it's so.

0:01:18.160 --> 0:01:23.200
<v Speaker 2>Great, and I'm also feel like she said no, and

0:01:23.200 --> 0:01:26.440
<v Speaker 2>then you were like, who's next. I'll go to Emily.

0:01:26.480 --> 0:01:31.640
<v Speaker 2>She'll probably come. You'll probably be Emily's game.

0:01:32.840 --> 0:01:35.319
<v Speaker 1>But I'm excited that to at least like have a

0:01:35.319 --> 0:01:37.160
<v Speaker 1>little bit of the vibe of docks on the rocks

0:01:37.200 --> 0:01:39.880
<v Speaker 1>right now because we're talking about alcohol though it's early.

0:01:39.920 --> 0:01:41.399
<v Speaker 2>When we're Perry, what are you drinking?

0:01:41.760 --> 0:01:45.800
<v Speaker 1>Drink any It's just a vodka enema, so technically nothing.

0:01:46.040 --> 0:01:50.720
<v Speaker 2>I'm drinking a Fair Life Nutrition Plan protein shake, which

0:01:50.800 --> 0:01:53.160
<v Speaker 2>is a touch of gin.

0:01:54.680 --> 0:01:56.840
<v Speaker 1>Okay, alcohol coming right up.

0:01:59.480 --> 0:02:02.560
<v Speaker 2>I'm Emily. I'm an economist and a data expert.

0:02:02.640 --> 0:02:04.720
<v Speaker 1>And I'm Perry Wilson. I'm a medical doctor.

0:02:05.200 --> 0:02:08.480
<v Speaker 2>It's Thursday, July twenty third, twenty twenty six. And this

0:02:08.600 --> 0:02:10.200
<v Speaker 2>is wellness.

0:02:09.520 --> 0:02:13.520
<v Speaker 1>Actually, because you're getting a staggering amount of health and

0:02:13.560 --> 0:02:17.560
<v Speaker 1>wellness information nowadays from every source imaginable, and some of

0:02:17.560 --> 0:02:19.079
<v Speaker 1>it is awesome and.

0:02:19.120 --> 0:02:24.280
<v Speaker 2>Some of it is well actually bull Fortunately, we are

0:02:24.320 --> 0:02:26.880
<v Speaker 2>both people who know how to read studies, how to

0:02:26.919 --> 0:02:29.480
<v Speaker 2>parse the data, and can tell you what's worth thinking

0:02:29.480 --> 0:02:31.760
<v Speaker 2>about and what you can safely ignore.

0:02:32.040 --> 0:02:34.320
<v Speaker 1>But before we dig in, a note that this podcast

0:02:34.440 --> 0:02:37.000
<v Speaker 1>is for educational purposes and should not be construed as

0:02:37.000 --> 0:02:40.240
<v Speaker 1>medical advice. We don't know your unique situation, so talk

0:02:40.240 --> 0:02:42.120
<v Speaker 1>to your doctor for personal health decisions.

0:02:42.960 --> 0:02:46.120
<v Speaker 2>This week we're asking what's the deal with alcohol? Harry

0:02:46.120 --> 0:02:48.240
<v Speaker 2>and I will give the official smasher pass, and then

0:02:48.280 --> 0:02:50.600
<v Speaker 2>we'll get to your question of the week. But first

0:02:50.680 --> 0:02:53.040
<v Speaker 2>let's do the health news roundup. After the break.

0:03:05.160 --> 0:03:08.359
<v Speaker 1>And we're back with the health news of the week. Emily,

0:03:08.680 --> 0:03:12.000
<v Speaker 1>there is one thing that keeps coming across my health

0:03:12.000 --> 0:03:16.120
<v Speaker 1>news feed over and over and over again as frequently

0:03:16.520 --> 0:03:20.119
<v Speaker 1>as many people across the country are running to the bathroom,

0:03:20.200 --> 0:03:24.520
<v Speaker 1>and that is, of course, cyclospora. What is the latest

0:03:24.520 --> 0:03:26.440
<v Speaker 1>status of the cyclospora outbreak?

0:03:26.919 --> 0:03:29.080
<v Speaker 2>So I should say we're recording this at ten thirty

0:03:29.120 --> 0:03:33.000
<v Speaker 2>six am on Tuesday, so it is very possible that

0:03:33.240 --> 0:03:36.520
<v Speaker 2>something else will have happened. I cannot explain to you

0:03:36.680 --> 0:03:40.600
<v Speaker 2>how insane the public health messaging has been around this.

0:03:41.040 --> 0:03:45.040
<v Speaker 2>So at the end of last week they had identified

0:03:45.120 --> 0:03:48.120
<v Speaker 2>Iceberg Lettuce as a core cause. And the way they

0:03:48.160 --> 0:03:50.480
<v Speaker 2>did that is like in Michigan, they talked to a

0:03:50.520 --> 0:03:53.480
<v Speaker 2>subset of the people who had the explosive diarrhea, like

0:03:53.880 --> 0:03:56.360
<v Speaker 2>a huge share of them had eaten a Taco Bell

0:03:56.440 --> 0:03:59.360
<v Speaker 2>and of those, like ninety percent had eaten iceberg lettuce

0:03:59.360 --> 0:04:01.080
<v Speaker 2>at Taco Bell. So it was like, okay, it's probably

0:04:01.080 --> 0:04:03.640
<v Speaker 2>the iceberg letus from Taco Bell. And then they traced

0:04:03.640 --> 0:04:05.360
<v Speaker 2>that back to Taylor Farms, who traced it back to

0:04:05.400 --> 0:04:07.560
<v Speaker 2>a single plant in Mexico, who then said, okay, let's

0:04:07.600 --> 0:04:09.800
<v Speaker 2>just recall all of the iceberg lettuce from that plant

0:04:09.840 --> 0:04:13.000
<v Speaker 2>because it seems plausible it has cyclospora. That felt like, okay,

0:04:13.040 --> 0:04:15.480
<v Speaker 2>we're kind of getting there. That seems like the answer.

0:04:15.720 --> 0:04:17.440
<v Speaker 1>This is how epidemiology works.

0:04:17.520 --> 0:04:20.120
<v Speaker 2>Then over the weekend, the FDA said that they had

0:04:20.200 --> 0:04:23.880
<v Speaker 2>tested some iceberg lettuce, not from Taco Bell, but some

0:04:23.920 --> 0:04:26.240
<v Speaker 2>other iceberg lettuce from Tailor Farms, and they had found

0:04:26.320 --> 0:04:29.080
<v Speaker 2>cyclospora parasites on it. And it was like, okay, that's

0:04:29.120 --> 0:04:31.440
<v Speaker 2>like check. Now we're even more sure.

0:04:31.800 --> 0:04:32.440
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

0:04:32.560 --> 0:04:34.720
<v Speaker 2>Then they walked that back and they said, actually, that

0:04:34.760 --> 0:04:39.320
<v Speaker 2>particular test maybe was a false positive. Okay, everything else

0:04:39.400 --> 0:04:42.320
<v Speaker 2>is still true. All the taco bell stuff, all the epidemiology,

0:04:42.360 --> 0:04:47.080
<v Speaker 2>all of this is still true. But then Taylor Farms said, oh,

0:04:47.120 --> 0:04:49.240
<v Speaker 2>now the FDA has said it's not us, which is

0:04:49.240 --> 0:04:51.839
<v Speaker 2>not what the FDA said. And then the FDA was like, no,

0:04:51.920 --> 0:04:55.840
<v Speaker 2>we didn't, we didn't apologize, and then people started talking

0:04:55.880 --> 0:04:57.960
<v Speaker 2>about how Taylor Farms had given Donald Trump a million

0:04:58.000 --> 0:05:02.960
<v Speaker 2>dollars like over the weekend. And I think fundamentally the

0:05:03.000 --> 0:05:07.719
<v Speaker 2>messages donate Iceberg. Let us right now. But it could

0:05:07.800 --> 0:05:08.720
<v Speaker 2>not be more stupid.

0:05:08.720 --> 0:05:12.280
<v Speaker 1>I confusing, It is so confusing. I did dig in

0:05:12.360 --> 0:05:15.200
<v Speaker 1>a little bit to like the various tests that are

0:05:15.279 --> 0:05:20.359
<v Speaker 1>used to essay for cyclospora and the false positive rates.

0:05:20.720 --> 0:05:25.720
<v Speaker 1>I mean they're not zero, but they're very low. You know,

0:05:25.960 --> 0:05:28.599
<v Speaker 1>they have specificity of ninety eight to one hundred percent,

0:05:28.680 --> 0:05:31.520
<v Speaker 1>so false positive rates of sub two percent. So there's

0:05:31.760 --> 0:05:32.880
<v Speaker 1>I mean, it's always possible.

0:05:32.920 --> 0:05:35.279
<v Speaker 2>Of course, now you're the tin hat. You're joining the

0:05:35.320 --> 0:05:38.640
<v Speaker 2>tin Hath conspiracy theory of like the FDA is being

0:05:38.640 --> 0:05:40.760
<v Speaker 2>bought off by something.

0:05:40.920 --> 0:05:42.360
<v Speaker 1>I'm just asking questions, Emily.

0:05:42.680 --> 0:05:45.080
<v Speaker 2>It's a little suss, a little sus. If the kids

0:05:45.120 --> 0:05:48.000
<v Speaker 2>would say, there's something going on, I don't know what

0:05:48.000 --> 0:05:48.280
<v Speaker 2>it is.

0:05:48.360 --> 0:05:51.159
<v Speaker 1>Can I tell you the most genius thing that happened

0:05:51.160 --> 0:05:53.560
<v Speaker 1>this weekend is we were out celebrating a friend's birthday

0:05:53.880 --> 0:05:56.000
<v Speaker 1>and it was like a fun night, and we go

0:05:56.080 --> 0:05:57.760
<v Speaker 1>back to their house at the end of the night

0:05:57.800 --> 0:06:01.280
<v Speaker 1>and someone's like, let's door dash bunch of taco bell

0:06:02.040 --> 0:06:05.920
<v Speaker 1>and the theory here was there is no better time

0:06:06.520 --> 0:06:08.560
<v Speaker 1>to door dash a bunch of talk. This is going

0:06:08.600 --> 0:06:10.400
<v Speaker 1>to be the healthiest talk of my husband ever.

0:06:10.520 --> 0:06:12.440
<v Speaker 2>Is as the economist firm of that which he's like,

0:06:12.480 --> 0:06:14.520
<v Speaker 2>tacobo must be so cheap. Right now, we should go

0:06:14.560 --> 0:06:16.039
<v Speaker 2>you know how much food you can get for almost

0:06:16.080 --> 0:06:19.600
<v Speaker 2>nothing and there won't be any lines. Mean, we're thinking,

0:06:19.720 --> 0:06:24.880
<v Speaker 2>we're thinking the same the time. But guys still avoid

0:06:24.920 --> 0:06:28.200
<v Speaker 2>iceberg lettus for the moment unless you know where it

0:06:28.240 --> 0:06:31.599
<v Speaker 2>was grown and it was like your backyard, all right.

0:06:31.760 --> 0:06:35.680
<v Speaker 2>Next up, aging research is setting upper bounds on our

0:06:35.760 --> 0:06:39.960
<v Speaker 2>human life span. Disappointing news for Brian Johnson and for

0:06:40.000 --> 0:06:43.039
<v Speaker 2>the rest of us. But what does this say? How

0:06:43.080 --> 0:06:44.599
<v Speaker 2>old could I live to be?

0:06:45.800 --> 0:06:48.760
<v Speaker 1>These studies are entirely theoretical and always so interesting to me.

0:06:49.880 --> 0:06:52.040
<v Speaker 1>Like people have asked the question, this isn't what this

0:06:52.080 --> 0:06:53.880
<v Speaker 1>study is about. But people have asked the question, like

0:06:53.880 --> 0:06:55.920
<v Speaker 1>what if you what if the only thing that could

0:06:55.960 --> 0:06:59.839
<v Speaker 1>kill you was accidents? Right, like like you're basically a mortal,

0:07:00.080 --> 0:07:01.840
<v Speaker 1>you're an l or something, but like you can get

0:07:01.920 --> 0:07:03.919
<v Speaker 1>killed if you fall out of a tree or something

0:07:03.960 --> 0:07:06.119
<v Speaker 1>like that, but you'll never get sick, you'll never get old.

0:07:06.680 --> 0:07:09.479
<v Speaker 1>And you can model this mathematically because you know what

0:07:09.560 --> 0:07:12.240
<v Speaker 1>like the rate of accidents, fatal accidents are And it

0:07:12.280 --> 0:07:14.160
<v Speaker 1>turns out I'm not going to get exactly right, but

0:07:14.240 --> 0:07:16.240
<v Speaker 1>it turns out like unaverage, people would live to be

0:07:16.280 --> 0:07:18.960
<v Speaker 1>seven hundred or eight hundred years old if the only

0:07:19.000 --> 0:07:21.920
<v Speaker 1>thing that could kill you was getting in an accident. Okay, cool.

0:07:22.440 --> 0:07:26.680
<v Speaker 1>This study looked at DNA mutations, so as you age

0:07:26.680 --> 0:07:29.560
<v Speaker 1>your DNA, you know, little gamma rays come from outer

0:07:29.640 --> 0:07:33.640
<v Speaker 1>space and they mutate DNA, and they asked the question,

0:07:33.880 --> 0:07:36.840
<v Speaker 1>if this is the only thing that can kill you,

0:07:37.080 --> 0:07:40.120
<v Speaker 1>are these like random gamma rays? Like we fix everything else, right,

0:07:40.120 --> 0:07:42.720
<v Speaker 1>there's no heart disease, there's no cancer, but we can't

0:07:42.720 --> 0:07:45.480
<v Speaker 1>fix the random gamma rays mutating your DNA. What's the

0:07:45.520 --> 0:07:48.640
<v Speaker 1>maximum you can live? And the overall answer it was

0:07:48.680 --> 0:07:50.800
<v Speaker 1>one hundred and forty six to one hundred and ninety

0:07:50.800 --> 0:07:56.000
<v Speaker 1>four years. This was limited mostly by problems in your heart,

0:07:57.240 --> 0:08:01.880
<v Speaker 1>which the DNA mutation accumulation would cause fatal heart ysfunction

0:08:01.960 --> 0:08:05.120
<v Speaker 1>at about one hundred and fifty years. Similar levels in

0:08:05.160 --> 0:08:08.080
<v Speaker 1>the brain. Interestingly, the liver, which is always just like

0:08:08.600 --> 0:08:11.720
<v Speaker 1>down to party, could go for thousands of years before

0:08:11.840 --> 0:08:14.600
<v Speaker 1>it would kill you from just DNA mutations alone. And

0:08:14.680 --> 0:08:17.960
<v Speaker 1>so the researchers are saying, like, Okay, this is like

0:08:19.200 --> 0:08:23.280
<v Speaker 1>longevity people. You know, this is the upper limit here,

0:08:23.320 --> 0:08:25.680
<v Speaker 1>like you fix all the other stuff, you know, this

0:08:25.760 --> 0:08:27.040
<v Speaker 1>is what's going to get you. But of course, like

0:08:27.080 --> 0:08:28.440
<v Speaker 1>if you fix all the other stuff, I don't know,

0:08:28.520 --> 0:08:29.440
<v Speaker 1>can't wait fix totally.

0:08:29.480 --> 0:08:31.040
<v Speaker 2>I mean, this seems ridiculous. I don't know if these

0:08:31.040 --> 0:08:33.440
<v Speaker 2>people have not watched Futurama where you just put your

0:08:33.480 --> 0:08:36.520
<v Speaker 2>heads in the in the continue to watch Futurama. That

0:08:36.559 --> 0:08:38.240
<v Speaker 2>was so great. People just live forever and their heads

0:08:38.240 --> 0:08:39.840
<v Speaker 2>were like and these like it was just their head

0:08:39.920 --> 0:08:42.720
<v Speaker 2>in like a little tube or whatever. I don't know

0:08:42.720 --> 0:08:45.560
<v Speaker 2>how it worked, but it's yeah, yeah, like all the less,

0:08:45.600 --> 0:08:49.480
<v Speaker 2>so get with it, aging researchers. But but I think

0:08:49.480 --> 0:08:53.360
<v Speaker 2>it's like, mathematically, this is a super interesting approach. I

0:08:53.440 --> 0:08:54.480
<v Speaker 2>like it I like it a.

0:08:54.400 --> 0:08:57.959
<v Speaker 1>Lot of Yeah, that's kind of fun. Let's move on

0:08:58.360 --> 0:09:06.719
<v Speaker 1>to talk about Secretary of str I mean, I think

0:09:06.800 --> 0:09:11.679
<v Speaker 1>legally it's still the Secretary of Defense, but whoever he

0:09:11.800 --> 0:09:16.319
<v Speaker 1>is has a plan to test all I guess nope, male.

0:09:16.400 --> 0:09:21.120
<v Speaker 2>Sorry, it's to test all people in the military for testosterone,

0:09:21.280 --> 0:09:24.880
<v Speaker 2>including ladies. Spoiler, they don't have very much.

0:09:25.280 --> 0:09:28.719
<v Speaker 1>Oh geez, Okay. I love when stories are even stupider

0:09:29.000 --> 0:09:30.920
<v Speaker 1>than I assume more.

0:09:30.760 --> 0:09:33.079
<v Speaker 2>Logic than than he was going with this.

0:09:33.920 --> 0:09:36.800
<v Speaker 1>So I think the overall, at least the overall idea

0:09:36.880 --> 0:09:42.720
<v Speaker 1>here is that they want to identify people with low

0:09:42.800 --> 0:09:47.880
<v Speaker 1>testosterone and presumably to supplement it in order to increase

0:09:47.920 --> 0:09:51.599
<v Speaker 1>the efficacy of the armed forces. If you want to

0:09:51.640 --> 0:09:55.040
<v Speaker 1>go back in time to our testosterone replacement therapy episode,

0:09:55.120 --> 0:09:57.480
<v Speaker 1>you can get all the science about why this is

0:09:57.480 --> 0:10:02.000
<v Speaker 1>a bad idea, including the fact testosterone supplementation doesn't end

0:10:02.080 --> 0:10:05.720
<v Speaker 1>up doing much for men except increasing libido, and testing

0:10:05.760 --> 0:10:09.960
<v Speaker 1>testosterone levels is not really recommended unless you're having libido

0:10:10.160 --> 0:10:13.040
<v Speaker 1>or rectile dysfunction problems. And I don't think that's what

0:10:13.400 --> 0:10:17.000
<v Speaker 1>the Secretary of War is worried about. God, I hope

0:10:17.000 --> 0:10:17.439
<v Speaker 1>it's not that.

0:10:18.760 --> 0:10:20.520
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I mean I think his you know, I think

0:10:20.559 --> 0:10:24.520
<v Speaker 2>he's sort of pitching an idea here that's like, I mean,

0:10:24.559 --> 0:10:28.640
<v Speaker 2>we've seen this, this is Captain America. But I think

0:10:28.920 --> 0:10:32.720
<v Speaker 2>you know, FDA approved level of testosterone supplementation will not

0:10:32.760 --> 0:10:36.160
<v Speaker 2>produce Captain America. No, So I'm not really sure where

0:10:36.160 --> 0:10:37.760
<v Speaker 2>we're going with this issue.

0:10:37.920 --> 0:10:40.720
<v Speaker 1>I mean, yeah, you could like juice up all the

0:10:40.920 --> 0:10:44.559
<v Speaker 1>army people. You've give them real steroids, like anabolic steroids,

0:10:44.559 --> 0:10:47.040
<v Speaker 1>and you know, have them go into roid rage in

0:10:47.080 --> 0:10:49.160
<v Speaker 1>the battlefield. I'm not really sure that's what we want.

0:10:49.200 --> 0:10:51.679
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. This feels I don't exactly know how

0:10:51.720 --> 0:10:57.360
<v Speaker 1>to put this, but this obsession with testosterone and sperm

0:10:57.440 --> 0:11:02.600
<v Speaker 1>count and stuff feels like this is what my kids

0:11:02.720 --> 0:11:06.800
<v Speaker 1>would say. It's like small dick energy. Okay, that's what

0:11:06.840 --> 0:11:07.120
<v Speaker 1>this is.

0:11:07.679 --> 0:11:08.440
<v Speaker 2>That's what it is like.

0:11:08.880 --> 0:11:13.959
<v Speaker 1>Just you don't have to prove your manliness constantly by

0:11:14.040 --> 0:11:17.000
<v Speaker 1>like announcing it to the world and performing it just

0:11:17.120 --> 0:11:20.040
<v Speaker 1>like be a good dude, Jesus, be a good dude.

0:11:20.080 --> 0:11:22.880
<v Speaker 2>But consider getting your sperm count and disosterone levels and

0:11:22.920 --> 0:11:26.040
<v Speaker 2>a small tattoo in a place that you know, just

0:11:26.120 --> 0:11:28.600
<v Speaker 2>people might see, like on your cheek.

0:11:29.480 --> 0:11:32.920
<v Speaker 1>Consider the lower back. That's what I want all our army,

0:11:34.920 --> 0:11:37.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, like that's it, That's what I'm talking about.

0:11:37.960 --> 0:11:39.240
<v Speaker 2>It's amazing, that's what I want.

0:11:39.800 --> 0:11:43.760
<v Speaker 1>Let's make that manly, all right. I think with those

0:11:43.800 --> 0:11:48.240
<v Speaker 1>news items under our belt, let's take a dive into alcohol.

0:11:49.000 --> 0:11:51.880
<v Speaker 1>And you know, I think we can actually skip this

0:11:52.080 --> 0:11:56.160
<v Speaker 1>entire episode because someone has summed it up more perfectly

0:11:56.880 --> 0:12:00.400
<v Speaker 1>than you and I ever could. Emily. Let me play

0:12:00.480 --> 0:12:01.120
<v Speaker 1>the clip to.

0:12:01.240 --> 0:12:07.319
<v Speaker 3>Welcome because of and solution to all of life's problems.

0:12:09.120 --> 0:12:11.800
<v Speaker 2>Homer is very wise. He's wise.

0:12:12.280 --> 0:12:14.920
<v Speaker 1>This is the best episode if you're a Simpsons fan.

0:12:15.160 --> 0:12:17.920
<v Speaker 1>The prohibition episode is so great when he becomes the

0:12:17.920 --> 0:12:21.640
<v Speaker 1>beer baron and Marge is actually proud of him for

0:12:21.720 --> 0:12:25.440
<v Speaker 1>doing something clever as he's filling bowling balls with hooch,

0:12:25.679 --> 0:12:29.160
<v Speaker 1>and like there's a whole system of pipes that takes

0:12:29.160 --> 0:12:31.240
<v Speaker 1>sit from the bowling alley to mose bar. Such a

0:12:31.240 --> 0:12:36.480
<v Speaker 1>classic alcohol Emily has been around for quite some time.

0:12:36.960 --> 0:12:42.120
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, people have been fermenting things for a very long time.

0:12:42.880 --> 0:12:47.800
<v Speaker 2>I think the first confirm fermentation is seven thousand BCE,

0:12:48.160 --> 0:12:50.280
<v Speaker 2>so that's what nine thousand years ago.

0:12:50.559 --> 0:12:51.200
<v Speaker 1>That's a long time.

0:12:51.920 --> 0:12:54.480
<v Speaker 2>I mean, fermentation is not hard, you leave stuff. You

0:12:54.480 --> 0:12:57.360
<v Speaker 2>could imagine how this happens, right, You make some stuff

0:12:57.400 --> 0:12:59.200
<v Speaker 2>with rice, you leave it out for a little while,

0:13:00.040 --> 0:13:02.640
<v Speaker 2>you're thirsty, you taste it, you realize it doesn't taste

0:13:02.640 --> 0:13:05.360
<v Speaker 2>that great. But boy, is this fun? And then we're

0:13:05.400 --> 0:13:06.959
<v Speaker 2>kinda off to the races.

0:13:07.240 --> 0:13:11.040
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. Absolutely, And it's not just humans who do this amazingly.

0:13:11.920 --> 0:13:15.600
<v Speaker 1>So a brief list of animals who have been documented

0:13:15.640 --> 0:13:18.480
<v Speaker 1>to actively seek out fermented fruits. So these are animals

0:13:18.480 --> 0:13:21.360
<v Speaker 1>basically that like, there'll be a you know, fruit rotting

0:13:21.480 --> 0:13:25.600
<v Speaker 1>essentially becomes alcoholic over time. Here's some animals that like

0:13:25.920 --> 0:13:30.079
<v Speaker 1>to play around with these chimpanzees, black handed spider monkeys,

0:13:30.360 --> 0:13:35.360
<v Speaker 1>African elephants, tree shrews, and even fruit flies. Although apparently

0:13:35.400 --> 0:13:38.800
<v Speaker 1>fruitflies aren't getting drunk. They're laying their eggs in fermented

0:13:38.800 --> 0:13:42.960
<v Speaker 1>fruit because the antiseptic properties of alcohol prevent some egg

0:13:43.000 --> 0:13:46.640
<v Speaker 1>diseases on fruitfly eggs. That's nice.

0:13:48.040 --> 0:13:51.480
<v Speaker 2>So people have been consuming alcohol, either for fun or

0:13:51.640 --> 0:13:56.000
<v Speaker 2>you know, in some periods, beer was a sort of

0:13:56.080 --> 0:14:00.080
<v Speaker 2>much safer way to consume liquid than water because it

0:14:00.120 --> 0:14:03.280
<v Speaker 2>was much less likely to be full of cholera and

0:14:03.320 --> 0:14:06.400
<v Speaker 2>so on. So we really, alcohol is you know, it's

0:14:06.400 --> 0:14:09.959
<v Speaker 2>one of our oldest customs. The Romans loved wine. Every

0:14:10.600 --> 0:14:11.760
<v Speaker 2>everybody loves alcohol.

0:14:12.080 --> 0:14:14.840
<v Speaker 1>Everybody loves alcohol. Why are they telling us it's so

0:14:14.880 --> 0:14:15.480
<v Speaker 1>bad for us?

0:14:15.520 --> 0:14:16.959
<v Speaker 2>Then? I don't know. I guess we're ready to get

0:14:16.960 --> 0:14:18.960
<v Speaker 2>into that. But it is. It has been popular for

0:14:19.000 --> 0:14:20.480
<v Speaker 2>many millennia, let's put it that way.

0:14:21.360 --> 0:14:24.760
<v Speaker 1>On the medical side, a bit of fun history of prohibition.

0:14:24.840 --> 0:14:27.320
<v Speaker 1>Not that prohibition was that fun. So US Prohibition was

0:14:27.320 --> 0:14:30.360
<v Speaker 1>from nineteen twenty to nineteen thirty three. The Eighteenth Amendment

0:14:30.400 --> 0:14:32.160
<v Speaker 1>ban the sale of alcohol at that time, but it

0:14:32.200 --> 0:14:35.400
<v Speaker 1>did carve out an exception for medicine, and so you

0:14:35.400 --> 0:14:39.760
<v Speaker 1>could get a prescription for medicinal whiskey. And apparently in

0:14:39.800 --> 0:14:45.000
<v Speaker 1>that period doctors wrote an estimated eleven million prescriptions for

0:14:45.160 --> 0:14:51.360
<v Speaker 1>medicinal whiskey, treating ailments ranging from indigestion to depression, usually

0:14:51.480 --> 0:14:54.359
<v Speaker 1>charging a hefty fee for those prescriptions.

0:14:54.520 --> 0:14:57.520
<v Speaker 2>What else is new that sounds right? I mean, Prohibition

0:14:57.600 --> 0:15:02.520
<v Speaker 2>is a very interesting historical episode, obviously, because there were

0:15:02.560 --> 0:15:04.040
<v Speaker 2>a lot of social problems. There are a lot of

0:15:04.040 --> 0:15:07.440
<v Speaker 2>social problems caused by alcohol. You can see the instinct,

0:15:07.920 --> 0:15:11.280
<v Speaker 2>and yet you seem to really backfire in a lot

0:15:11.320 --> 0:15:14.280
<v Speaker 2>of ways. It was certainly unpopular in addition to generating

0:15:14.280 --> 0:15:18.280
<v Speaker 2>a lot of mob related crime and apparently fake prescriptions.

0:15:18.680 --> 0:15:20.680
<v Speaker 1>You banned stuff that is really easy to make in

0:15:20.720 --> 0:15:22.200
<v Speaker 1>your own home, and people are going to make it

0:15:22.280 --> 0:15:23.680
<v Speaker 1>in their own home totally.

0:15:23.720 --> 0:15:25.000
<v Speaker 2>Have you ever made your own alcohol?

0:15:25.320 --> 0:15:28.720
<v Speaker 1>I have. I brew I've brewed my own beer. That's

0:15:28.760 --> 0:15:31.360
<v Speaker 1>all I've done. I've never distilled anything, but I had

0:15:31.360 --> 0:15:34.800
<v Speaker 1>fun brewing my own beer. I made this very delicious

0:15:34.840 --> 0:15:37.960
<v Speaker 1>tasting IPA that was not very high in alcohol content,

0:15:38.320 --> 0:15:40.160
<v Speaker 1>which is now like a popular thing.

0:15:40.840 --> 0:15:42.920
<v Speaker 2>One time in college, one of my roommates brought back

0:15:44.040 --> 0:15:50.280
<v Speaker 2>raisin based homemade liquor from Christmas break. It was bad. Actually,

0:15:50.560 --> 0:15:54.080
<v Speaker 2>I wouldn't recommend making hard Linger out of raisins.

0:15:54.800 --> 0:15:58.480
<v Speaker 1>One thing I used to see in Pennsylvania are people

0:15:58.760 --> 0:16:03.240
<v Speaker 1>who would come in with chronic lead toxicity, which can

0:16:03.280 --> 0:16:09.440
<v Speaker 1>present doctors as the triad of kidney disease, gout, and hypertension.

0:16:09.960 --> 0:16:12.720
<v Speaker 1>And what we would occasionally trace it back to are

0:16:12.760 --> 0:16:19.120
<v Speaker 1>people making moonshine, because in Appalachia, people will often distill

0:16:19.200 --> 0:16:22.360
<v Speaker 1>the liquor. The moonshine liquor in old car radiators, which

0:16:22.560 --> 0:16:26.480
<v Speaker 1>used to be lead lined and so the lead would

0:16:26.520 --> 0:16:28.680
<v Speaker 1>leach out into the moonshine. Then they drink moonshine. They'd

0:16:28.720 --> 0:16:32.200
<v Speaker 1>come and see us with gout and kidney disease.

0:16:32.600 --> 0:16:36.640
<v Speaker 2>Yikes. Okay, all right, so don't make your moonshine and

0:16:36.680 --> 0:16:40.840
<v Speaker 2>your car radiator more. You know, how does alcohol work,

0:16:41.040 --> 0:16:44.240
<v Speaker 2>doctor Perry, Let's do it. What are the reasons the

0:16:44.320 --> 0:16:48.440
<v Speaker 2>alcohol is fun? Basically, that's the first question.

0:16:48.680 --> 0:16:51.160
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it works in your brain. It actually works like

0:16:51.240 --> 0:16:52.960
<v Speaker 1>a lot. We have drugs that kind of work in

0:16:53.080 --> 0:16:56.720
<v Speaker 1>similar ways, and alcohol sort of touches on all of these.

0:16:56.760 --> 0:16:59.640
<v Speaker 1>So the primary one that you'll read about is that

0:16:59.800 --> 0:17:04.000
<v Speaker 1>if it stimulates the GABBA receptor in the brain. This

0:17:04.359 --> 0:17:08.960
<v Speaker 1>is the same receptor that benzodiazepines like adavan, valuum, those

0:17:09.000 --> 0:17:12.439
<v Speaker 1>types of drugs bind too, So it gives that sort

0:17:12.480 --> 0:17:17.439
<v Speaker 1>of tired, sleepy, funky feeling that comes with stimulation of

0:17:17.480 --> 0:17:22.160
<v Speaker 1>that receptor. But it also blocks the NMDA receptor. That

0:17:22.359 --> 0:17:24.880
<v Speaker 1>is what ketamine does, so it has a little bit

0:17:24.920 --> 0:17:28.200
<v Speaker 1>of the depressiant effect or the dissociative effect that you

0:17:28.280 --> 0:17:31.840
<v Speaker 1>see with ketamine. It causes dopamine release in the brain,

0:17:31.960 --> 0:17:35.359
<v Speaker 1>which is why it feels pleasant and happy and good

0:17:35.640 --> 0:17:40.359
<v Speaker 1>at least for most people, and it releases endogenous opioids,

0:17:40.400 --> 0:17:44.160
<v Speaker 1>so it has even an opioid effect in the brain.

0:17:44.320 --> 0:17:47.360
<v Speaker 1>So it kind of it's like it's like an amazing

0:17:47.400 --> 0:17:51.879
<v Speaker 1>cocktail note pun intended of drugs that people like to

0:17:51.920 --> 0:17:55.080
<v Speaker 1>abuse because it makes their brain feel nice and it

0:17:55.119 --> 0:17:56.160
<v Speaker 1>also makes you peel lot.

0:17:56.359 --> 0:18:02.000
<v Speaker 2>Okay, So we talked about prohibition and and post prohibition,

0:18:02.080 --> 0:18:04.680
<v Speaker 2>Americans have been drinking a lot. But actually in the US,

0:18:04.720 --> 0:18:06.679
<v Speaker 2>the amount that people drink has been going down very

0:18:06.680 --> 0:18:10.320
<v Speaker 2>precipitously over time. There was a sort of bump up

0:18:10.520 --> 0:18:12.960
<v Speaker 2>over the last short period. There was a bump up

0:18:13.320 --> 0:18:17.720
<v Speaker 2>during COVID wheneveryone was at home drinking, but it has

0:18:17.960 --> 0:18:20.800
<v Speaker 2>continued a downward slide and we are now seeing both

0:18:20.840 --> 0:18:23.240
<v Speaker 2>the sort of the lowest levels of drinking, the most

0:18:23.320 --> 0:18:27.320
<v Speaker 2>number of people who are totally sober, and also a

0:18:27.359 --> 0:18:31.520
<v Speaker 2>lot of discussion in I would say, the wellness and

0:18:31.640 --> 0:18:37.040
<v Speaker 2>health space about how much alcohol is okay and more

0:18:37.119 --> 0:18:40.360
<v Speaker 2>and more a message that none is okay. I would say,

0:18:40.359 --> 0:18:43.159
<v Speaker 2>the kind of there's a piece of health messaging that

0:18:43.240 --> 0:18:45.000
<v Speaker 2>comes some of it from the government, some of it

0:18:45.080 --> 0:18:48.600
<v Speaker 2>from official sources, some of it from online that's in

0:18:48.680 --> 0:18:52.199
<v Speaker 2>the space of you know, the appropriate amount is really none,

0:18:52.440 --> 0:18:56.200
<v Speaker 2>and that even a small amount is bad for your health,

0:18:56.680 --> 0:18:59.760
<v Speaker 2>and how bad is not so clear, and that's the

0:18:59.760 --> 0:19:02.040
<v Speaker 2>piece of the messaging. I'm most interested in looking at

0:19:02.040 --> 0:19:03.840
<v Speaker 2>the data on today because I think it's the piece

0:19:03.840 --> 0:19:06.520
<v Speaker 2>that's most relevant for a lot of people. But before that,

0:19:06.560 --> 0:19:09.320
<v Speaker 2>I actually do want to touch just briefly on the

0:19:09.400 --> 0:19:14.880
<v Speaker 2>question of problematic drinking, because these are fundamentally somewhat different questions,

0:19:14.920 --> 0:19:17.400
<v Speaker 2>And the question of you know, is it okay three

0:19:17.440 --> 0:19:19.040
<v Speaker 2>times a week to have a glass of wine with

0:19:19.080 --> 0:19:22.600
<v Speaker 2>dinner is pretty different from you know, how do we

0:19:22.640 --> 0:19:24.720
<v Speaker 2>think about someone who from whom alcohol is getting in

0:19:24.720 --> 0:19:27.960
<v Speaker 2>the way of their life or their family's life or

0:19:28.000 --> 0:19:31.280
<v Speaker 2>other things. But that is an issue for many people.

0:19:31.320 --> 0:19:33.840
<v Speaker 2>Alcohol is something a lot of people have a problem

0:19:33.840 --> 0:19:37.000
<v Speaker 2>with and abuse. And it's also very clear in the

0:19:37.080 --> 0:19:39.520
<v Speaker 2>data that heavy drinking is associated with quite a lot

0:19:39.520 --> 0:19:43.200
<v Speaker 2>of bad outcomes. There are large estimates of amount of

0:19:43.240 --> 0:19:46.760
<v Speaker 2>access death from heavy drinking. So I'm not even sure

0:19:46.800 --> 0:19:49.879
<v Speaker 2>how to separate these, and I think it gets complicated

0:19:49.920 --> 0:19:52.720
<v Speaker 2>because there's a continuum, it's not just two groups of people.

0:19:52.800 --> 0:19:55.240
<v Speaker 2>But I do want to try hard in the discussion

0:19:55.280 --> 0:19:57.680
<v Speaker 2>to sort of separate those two things.

0:19:58.320 --> 0:20:00.560
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I couldn't agree more. I think I think most

0:20:00.840 --> 0:20:03.159
<v Speaker 1>people you know, if you have alcohol use disorder, if

0:20:03.160 --> 0:20:05.359
<v Speaker 1>your alcohol use is affecting your daily life, if you

0:20:05.359 --> 0:20:09.359
<v Speaker 1>feel guilty about drinking, if a loved one has brought

0:20:09.359 --> 0:20:11.600
<v Speaker 1>it up to you that perhaps you're drinking too much,

0:20:11.640 --> 0:20:13.679
<v Speaker 1>if you need to drink after you wake up in

0:20:13.720 --> 0:20:18.159
<v Speaker 1>the morning, Like, there are plenty of signals of problematic drinking,

0:20:18.240 --> 0:20:21.560
<v Speaker 1>and that is a group of people who need to

0:20:21.560 --> 0:20:25.000
<v Speaker 1>seek some help because it definitely is associated with many

0:20:25.040 --> 0:20:28.040
<v Speaker 1>bad health outcomes and of course life outcomes. And that's

0:20:28.080 --> 0:20:30.639
<v Speaker 1>not really what we're talking about today. We're talking to

0:20:31.119 --> 0:20:34.879
<v Speaker 1>the majority of people who may drink a bit, they

0:20:34.960 --> 0:20:38.920
<v Speaker 1>drink moderately, who are hearing all these statements that every

0:20:38.920 --> 0:20:41.240
<v Speaker 1>single glass of wine you have, every single drink is

0:20:41.359 --> 0:20:43.600
<v Speaker 1>poison and want to know if that's true or not.

0:20:43.720 --> 0:20:45.879
<v Speaker 1>And that's where we have to break down the data.

0:20:46.119 --> 0:20:49.439
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, before we leave the question of problematic drinking, this

0:20:49.560 --> 0:20:51.919
<v Speaker 2>is actually a space where we could do another episode

0:20:51.960 --> 0:20:53.600
<v Speaker 2>on it. But there's a space where there is an

0:20:53.640 --> 0:20:57.800
<v Speaker 2>increasingly interesting discussion about different possible treatments. There's been some

0:20:57.840 --> 0:21:01.800
<v Speaker 2>evidence of gilp ones have improved alcohol use disorder. There's

0:21:01.840 --> 0:21:05.960
<v Speaker 2>a drug called nltroc zone which people have used, and

0:21:06.200 --> 0:21:10.080
<v Speaker 2>actually a variety of interesting ways to try to limit

0:21:10.119 --> 0:21:12.240
<v Speaker 2>alcohol use. So that's for another day, but let me

0:21:12.280 --> 0:21:14.600
<v Speaker 2>just leave here by saying, if you are struggling with

0:21:14.640 --> 0:21:16.840
<v Speaker 2>alcohol use disorder, if you feel like alcohol is getting

0:21:16.840 --> 0:21:19.040
<v Speaker 2>in the way of your life, that really is something

0:21:19.080 --> 0:21:22.679
<v Speaker 2>to seek treatment for, and it is there are an

0:21:22.720 --> 0:21:26.800
<v Speaker 2>increasing number of possible solutions that might be helpful.

0:21:27.800 --> 0:21:31.919
<v Speaker 1>Sounds good for the rest of you. We are going

0:21:31.960 --> 0:21:35.040
<v Speaker 1>to dig into the data about light to moderate drinking

0:21:35.280 --> 0:21:36.639
<v Speaker 1>and its health effects if any.

0:21:37.040 --> 0:21:45.600
<v Speaker 2>After the break, Okay, Perry, we are back and we're

0:21:45.600 --> 0:21:48.440
<v Speaker 2>going to talk about what the data says on light

0:21:48.600 --> 0:21:52.399
<v Speaker 2>to moderate drinking. And I want to play you a

0:21:52.680 --> 0:21:54.879
<v Speaker 2>clip of somebody's feeling about this.

0:21:55.160 --> 0:21:57.040
<v Speaker 4>It's one of those areas where you don't understand the

0:21:57.119 --> 0:21:59.960
<v Speaker 4>hidden cost until you really give it up for a while.

0:22:00.040 --> 0:22:02.359
<v Speaker 4>And then I think about my own relationship with drinking,

0:22:02.440 --> 0:22:04.360
<v Speaker 4>and I stopped drinking at thirty years old and now

0:22:04.400 --> 0:22:07.120
<v Speaker 4>thirty three, and I had just drank because I just drank.

0:22:07.160 --> 0:22:09.040
<v Speaker 4>I'd never ran the experiment of just giving it up

0:22:09.080 --> 0:22:11.120
<v Speaker 4>for a while, and then like, I don't know, must

0:22:11.119 --> 0:22:12.440
<v Speaker 4>maybe I was at thirty one. I thought, you know,

0:22:12.520 --> 0:22:14.160
<v Speaker 4>I have a drink again, because now I could really

0:22:14.200 --> 0:22:16.159
<v Speaker 4>ab test it. I had a year of not drinking,

0:22:16.480 --> 0:22:18.840
<v Speaker 4>decided to have a drink again. It ruined three days

0:22:18.880 --> 0:22:21.280
<v Speaker 4>of my life. I had a couple of glasses of wine,

0:22:21.320 --> 0:22:23.760
<v Speaker 4>didn't get drunk. It ruined three days of my life

0:22:23.760 --> 0:22:26.399
<v Speaker 4>because of the domino effected course, sort it meant that

0:22:26.440 --> 0:22:28.520
<v Speaker 4>I got worse sleep that night, and then because I

0:22:28.520 --> 0:22:31.080
<v Speaker 4>got worse sleep that night, I more poorly the next

0:22:31.160 --> 0:22:33.760
<v Speaker 4>day because my my dopamine system or whatever, the quartersole

0:22:33.760 --> 0:22:37.399
<v Speaker 4>system was all messed up. And then I podcasted worse.

0:22:37.720 --> 0:22:40.080
<v Speaker 4>I didn't go to the gym the day after that,

0:22:40.080 --> 0:22:42.120
<v Speaker 4>that day all the day after because of that, because

0:22:42.119 --> 0:22:44.399
<v Speaker 4>I felt really bad. I then slept worse. And I

0:22:44.400 --> 0:22:45.720
<v Speaker 4>could track all of this on my week hashtag and

0:22:45.760 --> 0:22:48.720
<v Speaker 4>hashtag sponsor, hashtag investor whatever. Yeah, And I was like,

0:22:48.760 --> 0:22:51.840
<v Speaker 4>oh my god, the three glasses of wine had this

0:22:52.080 --> 0:22:55.200
<v Speaker 4>hidden domino effect that I must have been living with, yeah,

0:22:55.200 --> 0:22:56.160
<v Speaker 4>for my whole life.

0:22:56.320 --> 0:22:58.719
<v Speaker 1>I like how one of his metrics was like, oh,

0:22:58.800 --> 0:23:02.320
<v Speaker 1>I'm not as good at podcasting after I drink, which

0:23:02.720 --> 0:23:05.560
<v Speaker 1>definitely I was like, oh, no, did you drink last night?

0:23:05.600 --> 0:23:07.320
<v Speaker 1>I had a gossip of wine last night, or maybe

0:23:07.600 --> 0:23:08.399
<v Speaker 1>slightly more than that.

0:23:08.920 --> 0:23:11.840
<v Speaker 2>I don't. I don't drink, actually.

0:23:12.280 --> 0:23:15.080
<v Speaker 1>You don't drink alcohol ever what not?

0:23:15.280 --> 0:23:18.480
<v Speaker 2>Ever, I very occasionally drink, and I used to drink more,

0:23:18.520 --> 0:23:21.240
<v Speaker 2>but at this point I maybe like maybe once every

0:23:21.280 --> 0:23:22.040
<v Speaker 2>couple of months.

0:23:22.200 --> 0:23:24.040
<v Speaker 1>I feel like they should have come out earlier in

0:23:24.080 --> 0:23:25.600
<v Speaker 1>the episode. But that's okay.

0:23:26.480 --> 0:23:30.119
<v Speaker 2>I will tell you I more or less quid drinking

0:23:30.160 --> 0:23:33.399
<v Speaker 2>because it really affects my whoop recovery score. It's the

0:23:33.440 --> 0:23:35.960
<v Speaker 2>same reason as every other thing I do. Very Actually,

0:23:36.600 --> 0:23:38.720
<v Speaker 2>it's like twelve percent of my whoop and that's.

0:23:38.600 --> 0:23:43.720
<v Speaker 1>It so amazing. I mean, how do you you know,

0:23:43.840 --> 0:23:46.080
<v Speaker 1>forget your troubles at the end of the day. How

0:23:46.080 --> 0:23:46.240
<v Speaker 1>do you.

0:23:46.240 --> 0:23:50.560
<v Speaker 2>Wildly I just like, look at my whoop recovery score.

0:23:50.560 --> 0:23:53.920
<v Speaker 2>I'm like, okay, I don't, I am it's not something

0:23:53.960 --> 0:23:56.840
<v Speaker 2>I miss. I really like, I really non alcoholic beer.

0:23:57.720 --> 0:23:59.640
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I don't mind something not alcoholic.

0:23:59.359 --> 0:24:01.639
<v Speaker 2>Bear fan of But yeah, anyway, I don't drink. So

0:24:01.880 --> 0:24:04.000
<v Speaker 2>that's why I'm so much better at podcasting than you.

0:24:05.400 --> 0:24:08.439
<v Speaker 1>I guess that does explain quite a bit. Everyone Emily

0:24:08.520 --> 0:24:12.640
<v Speaker 1>is a teetotaler, and I there's this old joke which is,

0:24:13.000 --> 0:24:15.040
<v Speaker 1>if you ask a doctor what the definition of an

0:24:15.040 --> 0:24:17.520
<v Speaker 1>alcoholic is, the answer is, well, anyone who drinks more

0:24:17.560 --> 0:24:18.560
<v Speaker 1>than I do.

0:24:20.720 --> 0:24:24.960
<v Speaker 2>So so if you ask not a doctor. But the

0:24:25.080 --> 0:24:29.640
<v Speaker 2>US dietary guidelines, we actually have some I would say

0:24:29.680 --> 0:24:34.320
<v Speaker 2>they're fluid guidelines, but we have some US dietary guidelines

0:24:34.359 --> 0:24:39.600
<v Speaker 2>about how much alcohol is considered recommended. And again these

0:24:39.640 --> 0:24:41.600
<v Speaker 2>things are always like, what do you mean recommended, Like

0:24:41.640 --> 0:24:44.480
<v Speaker 2>that's a good amount, that's too lit with. But those

0:24:44.600 --> 0:24:47.919
<v Speaker 2>numbers in the US Dietary Guidelines from twenty twenty to

0:24:47.920 --> 0:24:50.399
<v Speaker 2>twenty twenty five were less than or equal to one

0:24:50.440 --> 0:24:53.120
<v Speaker 2>drink a day for women two drinks a day for men.

0:24:54.000 --> 0:24:57.760
<v Speaker 2>In the twenty twenty six guidelines, they just went with less,

0:24:58.400 --> 0:25:00.840
<v Speaker 2>so I don't know, that's not a number, But the

0:25:00.880 --> 0:25:03.320
<v Speaker 2>twenty six guidelines are a bit different. So just not

0:25:03.440 --> 0:25:05.440
<v Speaker 2>so much is where they want.

0:25:05.440 --> 0:25:07.440
<v Speaker 1>I should have said fewer. I feel like that's okay.

0:25:07.480 --> 0:25:07.840
<v Speaker 3>Fewer.

0:25:09.080 --> 0:25:12.159
<v Speaker 2>The American Heart Association is in the range of like

0:25:12.200 --> 0:25:14.880
<v Speaker 2>two drinks a day probably limited risk. The World Health

0:25:14.960 --> 0:25:19.680
<v Speaker 2>Organization says none, So there is you know, everyone kind

0:25:19.680 --> 0:25:22.840
<v Speaker 2>of agrees that you should keep it low, but people

0:25:23.119 --> 0:25:27.600
<v Speaker 2>differ on what that means or how bad it is.

0:25:27.840 --> 0:25:30.719
<v Speaker 2>And the reason for that is that the data is

0:25:32.160 --> 0:25:36.600
<v Speaker 2>mostly trash. Actually, when we are talking about light drinking.

0:25:36.800 --> 0:25:39.240
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I think before we dig in, we're going to

0:25:39.320 --> 0:25:42.840
<v Speaker 1>dig into some of the risks cancer, cardiovascular disease, and

0:25:42.880 --> 0:25:45.120
<v Speaker 1>so on in a minute. But to set the stage,

0:25:45.520 --> 0:25:48.760
<v Speaker 1>there is a problem in the literature. There's the standard

0:25:48.760 --> 0:25:51.760
<v Speaker 1>problem of observational data, which we'll get to talk about

0:25:51.760 --> 0:25:55.160
<v Speaker 1>this a lot. But there's another problem which is called

0:25:55.240 --> 0:25:57.360
<v Speaker 1>or one way we can call it is linear extrapolation.

0:25:58.119 --> 0:26:02.400
<v Speaker 1>And that's when you have have an exposure that has

0:26:02.440 --> 0:26:05.199
<v Speaker 1>a dose. So it's not just like yes, no, you

0:26:05.240 --> 0:26:08.399
<v Speaker 1>take a medication, but it has a dose associated with it,

0:26:08.800 --> 0:26:11.760
<v Speaker 1>and you have a wide range of those doses, and

0:26:12.000 --> 0:26:14.359
<v Speaker 1>you're looking at a large data set where some people

0:26:14.359 --> 0:26:16.879
<v Speaker 1>have very high doses of the thing like alcohol, and

0:26:16.920 --> 0:26:19.119
<v Speaker 1>some people are very low, and some people have none.

0:26:19.320 --> 0:26:20.960
<v Speaker 1>And you look at the rates of some outcome and

0:26:21.000 --> 0:26:24.560
<v Speaker 1>you draw a line, You fit a line of best

0:26:24.560 --> 0:26:28.679
<v Speaker 1>fit to all of these data points. And one of

0:26:28.680 --> 0:26:31.960
<v Speaker 1>the risks of doing that is that if the risk

0:26:32.240 --> 0:26:36.560
<v Speaker 1>actually clusters at the high end fitting a line can

0:26:36.600 --> 0:26:40.040
<v Speaker 1>be inappropriate. There can be threshold effects. For example, we

0:26:40.080 --> 0:26:42.479
<v Speaker 1>see this not only with alcohol, but for example, with

0:26:43.200 --> 0:26:47.440
<v Speaker 1>radiation dosages. So a lot of the sort of quote

0:26:47.480 --> 0:26:50.040
<v Speaker 1>unquote risk of getting a chest X right for example,

0:26:50.080 --> 0:26:53.240
<v Speaker 1>which is a vanishingly small amount of radiation, they'll be like, oh,

0:26:53.240 --> 0:26:56.480
<v Speaker 1>it increases your risk of cancer by zero point zero

0:26:56.600 --> 0:26:59.840
<v Speaker 1>zero zero three percent every chest X ray. Well, actually

0:27:00.040 --> 0:27:02.879
<v Speaker 1>that data is coming from the cancer rate of people

0:27:02.920 --> 0:27:06.720
<v Speaker 1>who were like in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and surrounding areas, who

0:27:06.760 --> 0:27:09.280
<v Speaker 1>got you know, thousands of times the doses and then

0:27:09.440 --> 0:27:12.679
<v Speaker 1>a linear extrapolation down to getting one one thousands of

0:27:12.720 --> 0:27:15.600
<v Speaker 1>the dose, and that's just not always accurate in biology.

0:27:15.680 --> 0:27:18.040
<v Speaker 1>So that's a big meta problem we're going to have

0:27:18.040 --> 0:27:19.800
<v Speaker 1>to face with all this stuff. And I think that's

0:27:19.800 --> 0:27:22.200
<v Speaker 1>why the who comes out and says like no level

0:27:22.320 --> 0:27:25.440
<v Speaker 1>is safe, because they're extrapolating. They're extrapolating.

0:27:25.840 --> 0:27:30.760
<v Speaker 2>And then of course we have our standard observational data problem.

0:27:31.119 --> 0:27:33.720
<v Speaker 2>There's a little you know, we'll talk I think maybe

0:27:33.720 --> 0:27:35.760
<v Speaker 2>at a couple of places where you've got a little

0:27:35.760 --> 0:27:38.439
<v Speaker 2>bit of randomized data on sort of small things, but

0:27:38.480 --> 0:27:41.480
<v Speaker 2>for the most part this is going to come from

0:27:41.600 --> 0:27:45.520
<v Speaker 2>data that compares people who drink different amounts and looks

0:27:45.600 --> 0:27:51.360
<v Speaker 2>at their outcomes and tries to adjust for some differences

0:27:51.480 --> 0:27:54.520
<v Speaker 2>across them, but is not going to be able to

0:27:54.560 --> 0:27:57.840
<v Speaker 2>do that in a complete way. And I actually think

0:27:58.240 --> 0:27:59.919
<v Speaker 2>sometimes we talk about this, I think it can be

0:28:00.040 --> 0:28:02.199
<v Speaker 2>quite opaque to people, like what do you mean They

0:28:02.200 --> 0:28:04.000
<v Speaker 2>couldn't adjust for the things like what do you mean

0:28:04.040 --> 0:28:08.040
<v Speaker 2>they couldn't see enough details about about people. But in

0:28:08.080 --> 0:28:11.040
<v Speaker 2>these studies you will see things about people like did

0:28:11.119 --> 0:28:13.880
<v Speaker 2>they go to college, how much income do they have?

0:28:14.240 --> 0:28:17.480
<v Speaker 2>You know, kind of in some broad buckets, but you

0:28:17.640 --> 0:28:22.280
<v Speaker 2>won't see all of the little details. And like, to

0:28:22.320 --> 0:28:25.000
<v Speaker 2>go back to our conversation about our behaviors, you and

0:28:25.040 --> 0:28:27.800
<v Speaker 2>I actually in these studies to this researchers would look

0:28:27.880 --> 0:28:31.280
<v Speaker 2>very similar other than our gender, right, we both we

0:28:31.359 --> 0:28:34.040
<v Speaker 2>actually went to the same college. Forget they never see that,

0:28:34.080 --> 0:28:35.879
<v Speaker 2>but we went to you know, we both went to college.

0:28:35.920 --> 0:28:38.680
<v Speaker 2>We probably are in similar income brackets, we have you know,

0:28:38.960 --> 0:28:42.800
<v Speaker 2>similar other kinds of risk factors. But let's say you

0:28:42.800 --> 0:28:46.000
<v Speaker 2>were running a study where the outcome was like you know,

0:28:46.280 --> 0:28:48.720
<v Speaker 2>some kind of like votumax or some like sort of

0:28:48.760 --> 0:28:54.000
<v Speaker 2>cardiovascular performance when we run that study, you drink more

0:28:54.040 --> 0:28:56.760
<v Speaker 2>than I do, and we're going to see, like that's

0:28:56.840 --> 0:28:58.800
<v Speaker 2>going to if you and I are like representative, it's

0:28:58.800 --> 0:29:00.600
<v Speaker 2>going to look like, boy, not drink is really good

0:29:00.600 --> 0:29:03.120
<v Speaker 2>for your VOTWO max. But actually the reason I don't

0:29:03.200 --> 0:29:05.480
<v Speaker 2>drink is because I'm doing every possible thing in my

0:29:05.520 --> 0:29:07.920
<v Speaker 2>whole life to invest in the VOTWO max, which the

0:29:07.960 --> 0:29:11.160
<v Speaker 2>researchers will never see. And that's the kind of example

0:29:11.280 --> 0:29:14.200
<v Speaker 2>of where like there's so much in the data and

0:29:14.280 --> 0:29:18.880
<v Speaker 2>it's all causing itself that it's really hard to draw conclusions,

0:29:19.000 --> 0:29:21.720
<v Speaker 2>especially when you're talking about you know, what's the impact

0:29:21.800 --> 0:29:25.560
<v Speaker 2>of one drink or two drinks, which where those impacts

0:29:25.560 --> 0:29:29.640
<v Speaker 2>are very very small relative to the size of these biases.

0:29:29.920 --> 0:29:31.440
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and this is one of the reasons I think

0:29:31.560 --> 0:29:36.080
<v Speaker 1>red wine in particular, for like twenty years was a

0:29:36.120 --> 0:29:39.400
<v Speaker 1>health food to some extent, because there was observational research

0:29:39.800 --> 0:29:41.720
<v Speaker 1>that said, oh, you know, drinking a glass or two

0:29:41.760 --> 0:29:43.600
<v Speaker 1>of red wine today is associated with the lower risk

0:29:43.680 --> 0:29:46.120
<v Speaker 1>of cardiovascular disease and so on and so forth, And

0:29:46.200 --> 0:29:49.960
<v Speaker 1>that is true associationally, like there's a correlation there, But

0:29:50.480 --> 0:29:53.840
<v Speaker 1>who's the type of person who drinks red wine, especially

0:29:53.960 --> 0:29:56.960
<v Speaker 1>versus other types of alcohol. Right, Yeah, it's rich people.

0:29:57.480 --> 0:30:00.760
<v Speaker 1>It's you know, people who eat a very different diet

0:30:00.840 --> 0:30:03.560
<v Speaker 1>than people who are drinking even beer or hard alcohol

0:30:03.600 --> 0:30:05.640
<v Speaker 1>or things like that. And we sort of know this

0:30:05.720 --> 0:30:10.320
<v Speaker 1>is BS because the explanation outside of confounding was, oh, no,

0:30:10.400 --> 0:30:13.040
<v Speaker 1>red wine has these stuff in it, like recept stalls

0:30:13.120 --> 0:30:17.360
<v Speaker 1>extre which is this special thing, and that's actually what's

0:30:17.400 --> 0:30:19.440
<v Speaker 1>protecting your heart. And then they did a randomized child

0:30:19.440 --> 0:30:20.800
<v Speaker 1>They're like, well, you don't need to the red wine.

0:30:20.880 --> 0:30:24.560
<v Speaker 1>Let's just synthesize recever trawl and we'll give half the

0:30:24.600 --> 0:30:26.479
<v Speaker 1>people that in half placebo and we'll see what their

0:30:26.480 --> 0:30:29.040
<v Speaker 1>heart attack rate is and bupkus, nothing whatsoever.

0:30:29.600 --> 0:30:32.040
<v Speaker 2>But I actually think that's a particularly good example of

0:30:32.080 --> 0:30:34.760
<v Speaker 2>yet another problem here, which is we started telling people

0:30:34.760 --> 0:30:36.680
<v Speaker 2>in the nineteen seventies red wine is good for you,

0:30:37.000 --> 0:30:39.040
<v Speaker 2>and then who are the people who started drinking red wine?

0:30:39.120 --> 0:30:40.600
<v Speaker 2>Is the people who are like, oh, I'm really interested

0:30:40.640 --> 0:30:42.400
<v Speaker 2>investing in my health, I'm doing all this other stuff,

0:30:42.400 --> 0:30:44.280
<v Speaker 2>I'm going to add some red wine. Then you come

0:30:44.280 --> 0:30:46.240
<v Speaker 2>back to look at them later, it looks like red

0:30:46.280 --> 0:30:49.960
<v Speaker 2>wine is even better because now it's even more selected

0:30:50.160 --> 0:30:53.640
<v Speaker 2>so right right, anyway, this you know, you know how

0:30:53.680 --> 0:30:55.520
<v Speaker 2>I feel about selection vibe.

0:30:55.520 --> 0:30:57.400
<v Speaker 1>I know, but don't worry because I have a Mendelian

0:30:57.440 --> 0:31:02.480
<v Speaker 1>randomization loiety and deep cut for podcast listeners. We know

0:31:02.520 --> 0:31:03.360
<v Speaker 1>how much about my.

0:31:03.440 --> 0:31:06.840
<v Speaker 2>Ex boyfriends in the studies here, all right.

0:31:06.760 --> 0:31:09.640
<v Speaker 1>Let's talk about cancer. That's the elephant in the room.

0:31:09.800 --> 0:31:12.480
<v Speaker 1>I think these days when we're talking about alcohol, and

0:31:12.600 --> 0:31:15.600
<v Speaker 1>I will say from the doctor perspective that there's biologic

0:31:15.640 --> 0:31:20.720
<v Speaker 1>plausibility here. Alcohol is metabolized in primarily in the liver,

0:31:20.800 --> 0:31:25.240
<v Speaker 1>but also in the gut to acid aldehyde. Acid aldehyde

0:31:25.920 --> 0:31:30.200
<v Speaker 1>damages DNA. It does. It is a DNA toxin. We

0:31:30.360 --> 0:31:33.160
<v Speaker 1>know that that happens if you put outset aldehyde on

0:31:33.320 --> 0:31:36.560
<v Speaker 1>cells in a petri dish. Therefore, if you have that

0:31:36.600 --> 0:31:38.520
<v Speaker 1>floating around your body for too long, maybe it can

0:31:38.600 --> 0:31:42.480
<v Speaker 1>damage DNA. Damaged DNA leads to cancer. It's so facto

0:31:42.880 --> 0:31:44.600
<v Speaker 1>alcohol causes cancer.

0:31:45.000 --> 0:31:48.280
<v Speaker 2>And in the observational data, you know, if you look

0:31:48.320 --> 0:31:52.360
<v Speaker 2>at like you fit a trend to the entire distribution

0:31:52.400 --> 0:31:56.680
<v Speaker 2>I'm drinking, you definitely see higher cancer rates with heavier drinking.

0:31:57.600 --> 0:32:01.479
<v Speaker 2>But when you try to limit down to smaller amounts

0:32:01.480 --> 0:32:04.320
<v Speaker 2>of drinking, even in these data, which again have these

0:32:04.360 --> 0:32:09.560
<v Speaker 2>other biases. The effects are either zero or really really

0:32:10.120 --> 0:32:13.640
<v Speaker 2>very tiny, and for example, a lot of these find

0:32:13.880 --> 0:32:17.680
<v Speaker 2>kind of almost no increased risk for people who are

0:32:17.720 --> 0:32:21.600
<v Speaker 2>saying not smokers, and that suggests that maybe some behaviors

0:32:21.720 --> 0:32:24.240
<v Speaker 2>like smoking are also driving some of what we're seeing

0:32:24.320 --> 0:32:27.560
<v Speaker 2>in the relationship, because those seem to move together.

0:32:27.760 --> 0:32:33.200
<v Speaker 1>So yep, absolutely, there's the confounding of smoking, which is

0:32:33.240 --> 0:32:35.840
<v Speaker 1>that when people who drink are more likely to smoke,

0:32:35.880 --> 0:32:38.000
<v Speaker 1>and even when people drink, they might be more likely

0:32:38.000 --> 0:32:40.720
<v Speaker 1>to smoke, even if they're not sort of chronic smokers.

0:32:40.960 --> 0:32:44.560
<v Speaker 1>That's an issue. There is also likely some synergy here

0:32:44.760 --> 0:32:49.520
<v Speaker 1>where the cancer promoting effects of smoke and the potential

0:32:49.600 --> 0:32:52.360
<v Speaker 1>cancer promoting effects of alcohol sort of work together to

0:32:52.440 --> 0:32:55.800
<v Speaker 1>increase the risk more dramatically. I think, Emily, you're referring

0:32:55.840 --> 0:32:58.560
<v Speaker 1>to this big study of two hundred thousand health professionals

0:32:58.600 --> 0:33:01.520
<v Speaker 1>in the US and the BMJ in fifteen, which basically

0:33:01.560 --> 0:33:06.360
<v Speaker 1>showed that across kind of reasonable amounts of consumption, that

0:33:06.400 --> 0:33:10.000
<v Speaker 1>there is no increased cancer risk among non smokers. There's

0:33:10.040 --> 0:33:12.160
<v Speaker 1>an exception to this, which is breast cancer in women,

0:33:12.240 --> 0:33:15.600
<v Speaker 1>and this is one that keeps coming up so it's

0:33:15.680 --> 0:33:18.640
<v Speaker 1>very clear that alcohol doesn't increase the risk of all cancers.

0:33:19.000 --> 0:33:22.280
<v Speaker 1>Even in the bad observational data. The cancers that are

0:33:22.320 --> 0:33:25.920
<v Speaker 1>associated with alcohol intake mostly kind of lie in the

0:33:25.960 --> 0:33:28.320
<v Speaker 1>GI trap, like the area of your body that gets

0:33:28.320 --> 0:33:32.120
<v Speaker 1>exposed to the alcohol, so mouth and oral cancer, stomach cancer,

0:33:32.240 --> 0:33:36.160
<v Speaker 1>colon cancer. But then breast cancer always stands out as

0:33:36.440 --> 0:33:40.680
<v Speaker 1>a signal that we continue to see. So I am

0:33:40.680 --> 0:33:43.400
<v Speaker 1>a little bit more worried about that. But you've heard

0:33:43.440 --> 0:33:45.200
<v Speaker 1>that my wife is a breast cancer surgeon, so that

0:33:45.240 --> 0:33:47.240
<v Speaker 1>one always is the monkey on my back.

0:33:47.320 --> 0:33:49.360
<v Speaker 2>And I will say, even you know, in those the

0:33:50.000 --> 0:33:53.120
<v Speaker 2>kind of size of the impact at small levels or

0:33:53.160 --> 0:33:55.120
<v Speaker 2>drinking is very small. And I guess this gets to

0:33:55.200 --> 0:33:57.920
<v Speaker 2>another piece of this, which is which we can sort

0:33:57.960 --> 0:34:00.280
<v Speaker 2>of talk about it maybe more at the end. I

0:34:00.280 --> 0:34:02.480
<v Speaker 2>think it's a it's a broader picture. But even the

0:34:02.520 --> 0:34:05.480
<v Speaker 2>places where people would say, you know, maybe there's some

0:34:05.640 --> 0:34:08.600
<v Speaker 2>hint of an increase in breast cancer, it's really really

0:34:09.280 --> 0:34:10.000
<v Speaker 2>really small.

0:34:10.320 --> 0:34:13.600
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, And it is not the major risk factor for

0:34:13.640 --> 0:34:14.280
<v Speaker 1>breast cancer.

0:34:14.560 --> 0:34:16.480
<v Speaker 2>It's not the major risk factor for breast cancer. And

0:34:16.520 --> 0:34:18.239
<v Speaker 2>I think we want to think about, you know, like

0:34:18.320 --> 0:34:21.000
<v Speaker 2>that trades off against say the fact that you might

0:34:21.080 --> 0:34:24.440
<v Speaker 2>enjoy this, And this is surrounds all of this conversation

0:34:24.520 --> 0:34:27.799
<v Speaker 2>that we're kind of looking for evidence that alcohol is

0:34:27.840 --> 0:34:30.640
<v Speaker 2>like somehow good for you, as opposed to saying, you know,

0:34:30.680 --> 0:34:32.000
<v Speaker 2>there are a lot of things we do that are

0:34:32.040 --> 0:34:34.960
<v Speaker 2>not health investments and that maybe even have some small

0:34:35.000 --> 0:34:38.040
<v Speaker 2>negative impacts that we like, and that's you know, yeah,

0:34:38.200 --> 0:34:41.120
<v Speaker 2>there's other reasons that people engage in these activities other

0:34:41.200 --> 0:34:42.279
<v Speaker 2>than that they're a health food.

0:34:42.680 --> 0:34:44.680
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and I did. I worked pretty hard. We'll get

0:34:44.719 --> 0:34:47.360
<v Speaker 1>there to try to find actual hard data that alcohol

0:34:47.440 --> 0:34:49.960
<v Speaker 1>is good for you. We'll get there in a minute.

0:34:49.960 --> 0:34:53.160
<v Speaker 2>But I will say, like another place that that Like

0:34:53.280 --> 0:34:56.040
<v Speaker 2>in this BMJ study, one of the things you see,

0:34:56.120 --> 0:34:58.680
<v Speaker 2>for example, is people who drink a little bit relative

0:34:58.680 --> 0:35:00.400
<v Speaker 2>to not at all, which is kind of the parison

0:35:00.440 --> 0:35:02.239
<v Speaker 2>we're looking at, are actually quite a bit more likely

0:35:02.280 --> 0:35:07.080
<v Speaker 2>to have had a mammogram. So that one interpretation of

0:35:07.120 --> 0:35:08.880
<v Speaker 2>some of this is maybe some of the cancer that

0:35:08.920 --> 0:35:13.200
<v Speaker 2>we're seeing is actually like screening and not actual diagnosis,

0:35:13.200 --> 0:35:15.320
<v Speaker 2>which again gets into the hole like it's just really

0:35:15.320 --> 0:35:18.759
<v Speaker 2>really hard to interpret observational data when you're seeing such

0:35:18.840 --> 0:35:21.160
<v Speaker 2>small effects because a billion different things in the data

0:35:21.239 --> 0:35:22.839
<v Speaker 2>billion different differences might drive them.

0:35:23.480 --> 0:35:26.880
<v Speaker 1>Absolutely. Let's try to get away from observational data. So

0:35:26.960 --> 0:35:33.120
<v Speaker 1>I'm going to talk to you about a Mendelian randomization study. Okay,

0:35:33.280 --> 0:35:35.640
<v Speaker 1>let's do the one that appeared in Cancer in twenty

0:35:35.680 --> 0:35:37.759
<v Speaker 1>twenty two. So for those of you who weren't here

0:35:37.760 --> 0:35:41.440
<v Speaker 1>the last time when Emily, let's just say where it

0:35:41.480 --> 0:35:44.440
<v Speaker 1>got heated about this study design. The idea of Mendelian

0:35:44.480 --> 0:35:48.520
<v Speaker 1>randomization is that in this case, some people are genetically

0:35:48.560 --> 0:35:52.200
<v Speaker 1>predisposed to drink more alcohol than others. We know that

0:35:52.200 --> 0:35:55.520
<v Speaker 1>there are certain gene variants that just meet and that

0:35:55.680 --> 0:35:58.279
<v Speaker 1>mean all else being equal, you're going to drink a

0:35:58.360 --> 0:36:00.719
<v Speaker 1>little bit more. Maybe it hits you in the right way,

0:36:00.760 --> 0:36:04.439
<v Speaker 1>it's more pleasurable. You all might know some people who

0:36:04.800 --> 0:36:08.440
<v Speaker 1>actually genetically almost can't drink alcohol. You know, many people

0:36:08.440 --> 0:36:14.000
<v Speaker 1>of Asian ancestry lack the aldehyde dehydrogenase activity to appropriately

0:36:14.040 --> 0:36:16.480
<v Speaker 1>process alcohol, and it becomes very unpleasant to drink even

0:36:16.520 --> 0:36:18.920
<v Speaker 1>small amounts of alcohol. So there are genetic determinants of

0:36:18.920 --> 0:36:21.440
<v Speaker 1>how much alcohol you take. In this study in Cancer

0:36:21.440 --> 0:36:24.760
<v Speaker 1>in twenty twenty two looked at breast cancer risk. Again,

0:36:24.840 --> 0:36:28.160
<v Speaker 1>something I'm concerned about when it comes to alcohol intake,

0:36:28.640 --> 0:36:34.480
<v Speaker 1>and the model that predicted alcohol intake full stop showed

0:36:34.520 --> 0:36:37.279
<v Speaker 1>that people genetically predisposed to drink more alcohol over their

0:36:37.280 --> 0:36:40.920
<v Speaker 1>lives had no higher risk of breast cancer. But another

0:36:41.000 --> 0:36:44.120
<v Speaker 1>model which looked at the genetic risk of problematic drinking,

0:36:44.320 --> 0:36:48.160
<v Speaker 1>which is a separate genetic risk model, did show an

0:36:48.200 --> 0:36:51.960
<v Speaker 1>increase risk of breast cancer. And so one possible interpretation

0:36:52.200 --> 0:36:56.000
<v Speaker 1>of that could be that, you know, load to moderate

0:36:56.160 --> 0:36:59.239
<v Speaker 1>amounts of alcohol intake don't increase your risk of breast

0:36:59.239 --> 0:37:01.960
<v Speaker 1>cancer equal, but problematic intake does.

0:37:03.239 --> 0:37:06.439
<v Speaker 2>Okay, I guess, I mean sure, I guess that could

0:37:06.440 --> 0:37:06.960
<v Speaker 2>be an introvert.

0:37:07.040 --> 0:37:09.040
<v Speaker 1>Okay, let's move on before Emily says anything else.

0:37:09.520 --> 0:37:14.120
<v Speaker 2>I hate this method. I've please just I can't do

0:37:14.200 --> 0:37:17.359
<v Speaker 2>it again. But I think that there are a lot

0:37:17.400 --> 0:37:19.920
<v Speaker 2>of other things that these genetic variants might be linked to.

0:37:20.120 --> 0:37:23.160
<v Speaker 2>And I don't really think this is any better than

0:37:23.960 --> 0:37:26.719
<v Speaker 2>anything else. But I will say that it is not

0:37:26.840 --> 0:37:29.560
<v Speaker 2>inconsistent with this broader picture that maybe at high levels,

0:37:29.640 --> 0:37:32.760
<v Speaker 2>problematic drinking could be linked with a higher risk of cancer.

0:37:32.800 --> 0:37:36.040
<v Speaker 2>I'm not sure we learn anything particular from this particular

0:37:36.480 --> 0:37:39.879
<v Speaker 2>stupid technology. All right, that's I'm going to leave it there.

0:37:40.080 --> 0:37:42.800
<v Speaker 1>Bottom line cancer if you drink, don't smoke.

0:37:43.239 --> 0:37:45.120
<v Speaker 2>My husband told me last week it was like too

0:37:45.200 --> 0:37:49.719
<v Speaker 2>much Medellia completely, So I'm just gonna I'm just gonna stop.

0:37:50.520 --> 0:37:54.640
<v Speaker 1>Okay, please see prior episode for Emily's rant. All right,

0:37:54.840 --> 0:37:58.279
<v Speaker 1>alcohol maybe modest effects on cancer. We're not too worried

0:37:58.280 --> 0:38:01.200
<v Speaker 1>about load of matter intake. Don't smoke while you are drinking.

0:38:01.719 --> 0:38:04.800
<v Speaker 2>Smoke, don't smoke. Oh yeah, cooking is associated with cancer.

0:38:04.840 --> 0:38:07.759
<v Speaker 1>Don't smoke, right, right, right, sorry, don't smoke at all. Okay, smoke,

0:38:07.800 --> 0:38:11.400
<v Speaker 1>but also don't smoke while're drinking. Even just the one.

0:38:12.320 --> 0:38:15.680
<v Speaker 1>Let's talk about heart disease. I think it actually back

0:38:15.680 --> 0:38:18.520
<v Speaker 1>in the day that was the bigger sort of both conservative.

0:38:18.560 --> 0:38:21.520
<v Speaker 1>First of all, is like is it cardioprotective? Then you're right,

0:38:21.600 --> 0:38:22.719
<v Speaker 1>is it good for your heart? And then is it

0:38:22.760 --> 0:38:27.359
<v Speaker 1>bad for your heart? One slam dunk effect I will

0:38:27.360 --> 0:38:30.760
<v Speaker 1>give you for alcohol on the heart is blood pressure. Totally.

0:38:31.080 --> 0:38:33.960
<v Speaker 1>We know from randomized trials. You take people in the lab,

0:38:34.120 --> 0:38:36.280
<v Speaker 1>you give them alcohol, or you give them place Ebo

0:38:36.320 --> 0:38:42.400
<v Speaker 1>alcohol and their blood pressure goes up. But this effect

0:38:42.600 --> 0:38:48.319
<v Speaker 1>is small. So one meta analysis I was looking at

0:38:48.400 --> 0:38:51.759
<v Speaker 1>that integrated these results from randomized trials and the journal Hypertension.

0:38:51.760 --> 0:38:54.239
<v Speaker 1>This is sort of an older study, but I mean

0:38:54.239 --> 0:38:56.879
<v Speaker 1>this has been study for a long time. One drink

0:38:57.000 --> 0:39:00.840
<v Speaker 1>less per day led to about a one millimeters of

0:39:00.840 --> 0:39:05.080
<v Speaker 1>mercury lower systolic blood pressure. That's the top numbers. So

0:39:05.320 --> 0:39:08.160
<v Speaker 1>I believe this is true, but the effect is not huge.

0:39:08.200 --> 0:39:10.560
<v Speaker 1>That being said, if you're struggling with high blood pressure,

0:39:10.840 --> 0:39:12.200
<v Speaker 1>alcohol ain't helping.

0:39:12.920 --> 0:39:14.560
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I mean, I will say when I look when

0:39:14.600 --> 0:39:16.960
<v Speaker 2>you dig into sort of some of the studies that

0:39:17.040 --> 0:39:21.560
<v Speaker 2>make this up, they are mostly randomized trials that start

0:39:21.560 --> 0:39:24.160
<v Speaker 2>with a population that's drinking quite a lot and then

0:39:24.239 --> 0:39:26.840
<v Speaker 2>have to sort of encourage comes to drink to drink less.

0:39:26.880 --> 0:39:28.600
<v Speaker 2>So like in one of these studies, you know, average

0:39:28.640 --> 0:39:32.040
<v Speaker 2>consumption at the start is like thirty six strenths a week.

0:39:32.920 --> 0:39:34.640
<v Speaker 2>That's a lot. I mean, that's more than that's more

0:39:34.680 --> 0:39:35.400
<v Speaker 2>than five rimes.

0:39:35.280 --> 0:39:35.600
<v Speaker 1>More than me.

0:39:35.800 --> 0:39:39.840
<v Speaker 2>Like, that's just barely and so I think there's a

0:39:40.280 --> 0:39:43.640
<v Speaker 2>There again, is a little bit of this interpolation issue,

0:39:43.800 --> 0:39:47.200
<v Speaker 2>which is it's less clear if you are drinking one

0:39:47.280 --> 0:39:49.680
<v Speaker 2>drink every day, if going down to zero would actually

0:39:49.680 --> 0:39:52.319
<v Speaker 2>have an impact on your blood pressure. That would be

0:39:52.680 --> 0:39:54.680
<v Speaker 2>that would be measurable, but it is worth saying, you

0:39:54.680 --> 0:39:56.640
<v Speaker 2>know again, if you are struggling with this, it's something

0:39:56.960 --> 0:39:59.760
<v Speaker 2>something to try based on that data.

0:40:00.080 --> 0:40:03.080
<v Speaker 1>It is as nephrologists like me kidney doctors deal with

0:40:03.360 --> 0:40:06.680
<v Speaker 1>complex hypertension. That's one of our sub sub specialties, and

0:40:06.719 --> 0:40:09.319
<v Speaker 1>it's always on our checklist. Like, oh, you know, drink

0:40:09.400 --> 0:40:09.960
<v Speaker 1>less alcohol.

0:40:10.280 --> 0:40:14.600
<v Speaker 2>Heart disease in general has the J shaped curve. Drinking

0:40:14.920 --> 0:40:18.000
<v Speaker 2>a little bit. J shaped curves love it because there's

0:40:18.000 --> 0:40:22.520
<v Speaker 2>so much okay J shaped curve where, which means that

0:40:22.760 --> 0:40:24.840
<v Speaker 2>the people with the lowest risk of heart disease are

0:40:24.880 --> 0:40:30.279
<v Speaker 2>people who drink some but not very much or very little. Now,

0:40:30.360 --> 0:40:33.680
<v Speaker 2>of course, people who drink a little bit are kind

0:40:33.680 --> 0:40:35.640
<v Speaker 2>of different from both the people who don't drink in

0:40:35.680 --> 0:40:38.279
<v Speaker 2>all of the people who drink a lot in ways

0:40:38.280 --> 0:40:40.879
<v Speaker 2>that are observable and ways that are not observable, And

0:40:40.960 --> 0:40:44.080
<v Speaker 2>so it has been very difficult to figure out whether

0:40:44.120 --> 0:40:47.680
<v Speaker 2>this J shaped relationship is a real thing or just

0:40:48.400 --> 0:40:51.759
<v Speaker 2>an artifact of observational bias.

0:40:52.000 --> 0:40:55.120
<v Speaker 1>It's the second yeah, and it's the J shaped curve

0:40:55.160 --> 0:40:57.560
<v Speaker 1>that led to a lot of that one to two

0:40:57.640 --> 0:41:00.200
<v Speaker 1>drinks a day is heart healthy. There's just an other

0:41:00.239 --> 0:41:03.160
<v Speaker 1>Simpsons quote where oh my god, another great episode where

0:41:03.200 --> 0:41:08.279
<v Speaker 1>Homer gets hired by Hank Scorpio and their life is

0:41:08.360 --> 0:41:10.960
<v Speaker 1>just perfect there, but the perfection of their life sort

0:41:10.960 --> 0:41:14.480
<v Speaker 1>of gives them on Nui and Marge. You see her

0:41:14.560 --> 0:41:17.239
<v Speaker 1>drinking and eventually they tell Homer that they can't live

0:41:17.239 --> 0:41:20.000
<v Speaker 1>in this beautiful place anymore. And Marge is like, I'm

0:41:20.080 --> 0:41:22.600
<v Speaker 1>drinking half a glass of wine a day. I know

0:41:22.680 --> 0:41:24.560
<v Speaker 1>the doctors say you're supposed to drink a glass, but

0:41:24.600 --> 0:41:29.919
<v Speaker 1>I just can't drink that much. So, you know, anyway, Sorry,

0:41:30.560 --> 0:41:32.600
<v Speaker 1>that's what the doctors say. And it's this j shape

0:41:32.640 --> 0:41:35.799
<v Speaker 1>curve that led to that belief. But one thing that

0:41:36.520 --> 0:41:38.759
<v Speaker 1>sounds simple, but people really didn't account for in the

0:41:38.800 --> 0:41:43.279
<v Speaker 1>early observational studies that people with chronic health conditions might

0:41:43.320 --> 0:41:47.240
<v Speaker 1>be avoiding alcohol because they make their chronic health conditions worse.

0:41:47.800 --> 0:41:52.080
<v Speaker 1>You know, people with cancer undergoing therapy are going to

0:41:52.160 --> 0:41:55.879
<v Speaker 1>drink less than people who aren't, And so you get

0:41:55.920 --> 0:41:58.680
<v Speaker 1>this tale where non drinkers have a higher risk of

0:41:58.800 --> 0:41:59.919
<v Speaker 1>a lot of different things.

0:42:00.320 --> 0:42:02.760
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, that is called reverse causality. We have a different

0:42:02.840 --> 0:42:05.680
<v Speaker 2>name for them. And yeah, so that shows up there,

0:42:05.680 --> 0:42:08.280
<v Speaker 2>and I think over time, people have kind of moved

0:42:08.760 --> 0:42:10.960
<v Speaker 2>interesting aspect for me of this whole discussion is we

0:42:11.040 --> 0:42:13.839
<v Speaker 2>had this J shape curve, and over time we've kind

0:42:13.840 --> 0:42:17.839
<v Speaker 2>of moved away from the J shape curve into sort

0:42:17.880 --> 0:42:22.759
<v Speaker 2>of arguing that this positive effect is gone and so

0:42:22.840 --> 0:42:27.880
<v Speaker 2>it's really just only the increase. But somehow many people

0:42:27.880 --> 0:42:29.960
<v Speaker 2>who are making that argument are making it like, well,

0:42:30.000 --> 0:42:31.680
<v Speaker 2>the people who are not drinking at all are totally

0:42:31.719 --> 0:42:33.640
<v Speaker 2>different from the people who drink a little bit, But

0:42:33.680 --> 0:42:36.040
<v Speaker 2>those people are then unable to understand the argument that

0:42:36.080 --> 0:42:38.359
<v Speaker 2>the people who drink a lot are also different. It's

0:42:38.400 --> 0:42:41.960
<v Speaker 2>like we're only interested in understanding bias in support of

0:42:42.160 --> 0:42:44.440
<v Speaker 2>view that we are hoping to hold right.

0:42:44.320 --> 0:42:48.680
<v Speaker 1>Right right. For what it's worth, I did pull a

0:42:48.760 --> 0:42:53.440
<v Speaker 1>Mendelian rantimization article Circulation Genomic and Precision Medicine twenty twenty

0:42:53.480 --> 0:42:56.800
<v Speaker 1>which looked at cardiovascular disease based on genetic predisposition to

0:42:56.840 --> 0:43:01.800
<v Speaker 1>alcohol intake and basically found more or less bup kiss.

0:43:02.239 --> 0:43:06.080
<v Speaker 1>They did find higher risk of stroke in people who

0:43:06.160 --> 0:43:09.279
<v Speaker 1>were genetically predisposed to alcohol intake and higher risk of

0:43:09.320 --> 0:43:13.640
<v Speaker 1>peripheral arterial disease, but most of the other signals were

0:43:13.680 --> 0:43:16.880
<v Speaker 1>pretty weak in that analysis. But no protection, certainly no

0:43:17.320 --> 0:43:18.320
<v Speaker 1>heart health signal.

0:43:18.480 --> 0:43:21.600
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I don't think I don't think it's reasonable to say,

0:43:21.680 --> 0:43:24.760
<v Speaker 2>based on the data that alcohol protects you from heart disease.

0:43:24.960 --> 0:43:28.440
<v Speaker 2>I think there's also pretty limited evidence that at moderate

0:43:28.520 --> 0:43:30.080
<v Speaker 2>levels it is bad for you.

0:43:30.520 --> 0:43:31.759
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, bad for your heart.

0:43:32.960 --> 0:43:35.520
<v Speaker 2>Okay, let's talk about a couple of things where I

0:43:35.560 --> 0:43:38.480
<v Speaker 2>think this we maybe have better evidence that there are

0:43:38.480 --> 0:43:43.920
<v Speaker 2>some impacts. So one is anxiety and depression, which alcohol

0:43:44.000 --> 0:43:47.400
<v Speaker 2>use disorder in particular really makes quite a lot worse.

0:43:47.400 --> 0:43:48.839
<v Speaker 2>And we have a lot of we have a lot

0:43:48.880 --> 0:43:49.560
<v Speaker 2>of evidence on that.

0:43:49.960 --> 0:43:52.480
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it's just not this is not a treatment for anxiety.

0:43:52.520 --> 0:43:55.000
<v Speaker 1>I know people think it is, and there's a lot

0:43:55.040 --> 0:43:58.240
<v Speaker 1>of self medication going on with alcohol and anxiety and depression,

0:43:58.320 --> 0:44:02.000
<v Speaker 1>but there's no evidence that people with those clinical diagnoses

0:44:02.040 --> 0:44:04.040
<v Speaker 1>that alcohol has any benefit. In fact, there's quite a

0:44:04.040 --> 0:44:06.359
<v Speaker 1>lot of evidence that it makes it worse. That ain't

0:44:06.360 --> 0:44:09.799
<v Speaker 1>the solution. Now, this is different than alcohol acting as

0:44:09.840 --> 0:44:13.399
<v Speaker 1>a social lubricant. We're not talking about just kind of

0:44:13.719 --> 0:44:15.520
<v Speaker 1>I get a little anxious when I meet new people.

0:44:15.560 --> 0:44:18.200
<v Speaker 1>We're talking about actual anxiety depression. But I just want

0:44:18.239 --> 0:44:20.120
<v Speaker 1>to put it out there that this is not we're

0:44:20.160 --> 0:44:21.560
<v Speaker 1>not going to see any benefit. We're only going to

0:44:21.560 --> 0:44:23.279
<v Speaker 1>see harm with alcohol in those conditions.

0:44:24.120 --> 0:44:27.000
<v Speaker 2>The other place I think is we're talking about is sleep.

0:44:27.480 --> 0:44:31.839
<v Speaker 2>I think there's actually very little question that alcohol, even

0:44:31.880 --> 0:44:36.560
<v Speaker 2>at relatively low levels, makes people sleep worse. Yeah, so

0:44:36.840 --> 0:44:40.680
<v Speaker 2>people have you know, like it increases your resting heart rate,

0:44:40.719 --> 0:44:44.319
<v Speaker 2>it lowers the quality of your sleep. And this is

0:44:44.400 --> 0:44:47.920
<v Speaker 2>true for healthy people even with again sort of relatively

0:44:48.640 --> 0:44:52.399
<v Speaker 2>mild amounts of alcohol consumption. So you know, I think

0:44:52.719 --> 0:44:54.439
<v Speaker 2>this is the kind of thing that you can get

0:44:54.480 --> 0:44:57.279
<v Speaker 2>into with the wellness. Like, you know, it made my

0:44:57.320 --> 0:45:00.319
<v Speaker 2>resting heart rate three units hire and tiers. All of

0:45:00.320 --> 0:45:02.800
<v Speaker 2>the problems with that, it's not really clear why. Again,

0:45:02.840 --> 0:45:06.600
<v Speaker 2>sort of from a longevity or clinical meaningful health perspective,

0:45:06.680 --> 0:45:09.680
<v Speaker 2>that matters. I will say, if you are looking to

0:45:09.719 --> 0:45:15.240
<v Speaker 2>optimize tomorrow's performance in some you know, podcast or sporting event,

0:45:16.200 --> 0:45:19.359
<v Speaker 2>you know it is perhaps not the best active Most

0:45:19.400 --> 0:45:22.400
<v Speaker 2>people do not drink before a race. I will say that.

0:45:22.920 --> 0:45:27.120
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, So give me some feedback everyone after this episode,

0:45:27.960 --> 0:45:34.040
<v Speaker 1>how my performance, my performance was. I think it's worth

0:45:34.160 --> 0:45:38.640
<v Speaker 1>mentioning that, yes, illlcohol clearly disrupts sleep. It also has

0:45:38.680 --> 0:45:41.520
<v Speaker 1>an effect of suppressing rem sleep, which is dreaming sleep

0:45:41.760 --> 0:45:46.040
<v Speaker 1>that's through that Gabba receptor antagonism, So benzodiazepines have the

0:45:46.040 --> 0:45:51.040
<v Speaker 1>same effect. In fact, psychiatrists will use benzodiazepines to treat

0:45:51.040 --> 0:45:55.200
<v Speaker 1>people who have chronic nightmares like PTSD induced nightmares and

0:45:55.200 --> 0:45:58.400
<v Speaker 1>things like that, to suppress the dreams. But in general,

0:45:58.440 --> 0:46:00.080
<v Speaker 1>you don't want to suppress your rem sleep. That's a

0:46:00.160 --> 0:46:03.680
<v Speaker 1>lot of memory consolidation happens and learning happens, and so

0:46:04.200 --> 0:46:09.040
<v Speaker 1>that's yet another reason to limit alcohol, especially right before bed.

0:46:09.640 --> 0:46:11.920
<v Speaker 2>I think a lot of people, in the case of

0:46:11.920 --> 0:46:14.440
<v Speaker 2>alcohol use disorder. It is common for people to use

0:46:14.480 --> 0:46:16.600
<v Speaker 2>alcohol to fall asleep, and then they're often up in

0:46:16.640 --> 0:46:18.759
<v Speaker 2>the middle of the night because alcohol will help you

0:46:18.800 --> 0:46:20.960
<v Speaker 2>fall asleep at the beginning of the night to some extent,

0:46:21.040 --> 0:46:21.560
<v Speaker 2>but then.

0:46:22.320 --> 0:46:24.760
<v Speaker 1>You withdraw essentially exactly.

0:46:24.840 --> 0:46:26.520
<v Speaker 2>Withdrawal disrupts your sleep later.

0:46:26.760 --> 0:46:31.360
<v Speaker 1>Right, and and alcohol is constantly getting metabolized, and especially

0:46:31.719 --> 0:46:35.759
<v Speaker 1>if you are a frequent user of alcohol, then that

0:46:35.800 --> 0:46:38.120
<v Speaker 1>withdrawal that happens at two three am. I mean, we've

0:46:38.120 --> 0:46:40.600
<v Speaker 1>all been there, maybe not you, Emily, but or in

0:46:40.640 --> 0:46:42.040
<v Speaker 1>college if you remember, I.

0:46:42.000 --> 0:46:43.120
<v Speaker 2>Have been there, You've been there.

0:46:43.160 --> 0:46:44.960
<v Speaker 1>At the two to three am you wake up, you're

0:46:44.960 --> 0:46:47.279
<v Speaker 1>sort of you feel hyper, you feel uncomfortable's hard to

0:46:47.360 --> 0:46:50.440
<v Speaker 1>fall back asleep. Not great, not great, folks.

0:46:50.360 --> 0:46:52.759
<v Speaker 2>Okay, but let's talk about where alcohol is great, which

0:46:52.760 --> 0:46:54.719
<v Speaker 2>is making parties more fun. Right.

0:46:55.239 --> 0:46:59.880
<v Speaker 1>Basically, this is it's like everything in medicine is risk benefit,

0:47:00.080 --> 0:47:02.200
<v Speaker 1>and we've given you a lot of risks and we

0:47:02.280 --> 0:47:06.279
<v Speaker 1>don't have much benefits to share except that it is

0:47:06.400 --> 0:47:09.600
<v Speaker 1>fun and it makes social interactions, which is.

0:47:09.600 --> 0:47:11.520
<v Speaker 2>A real benefit. I mean, I think that is, like,

0:47:11.920 --> 0:47:16.040
<v Speaker 2>you know, it's an aspect of this conversation that's very frustrating. Again,

0:47:16.200 --> 0:47:18.760
<v Speaker 2>is this piece of it where it's like we're looking

0:47:19.239 --> 0:47:22.480
<v Speaker 2>for evidence that alcohol is like broccoli and it's not.

0:47:22.680 --> 0:47:25.200
<v Speaker 2>It's not like broccoli. Okay, Broccoli like you can have

0:47:25.239 --> 0:47:27.720
<v Speaker 2>as much of it as you want. It's super energy, dense,

0:47:27.840 --> 0:47:30.400
<v Speaker 2>a lot of fiber, Nature's brew. Broccoli is great for you,

0:47:30.400 --> 0:47:33.239
<v Speaker 2>a lot of vitamins. Whatever. Alcohol is not broccoli. But

0:47:33.800 --> 0:47:36.600
<v Speaker 2>we're talking about it like if it's not broccoli, it's

0:47:36.640 --> 0:47:39.640
<v Speaker 2>basically cocaine, and it's like at low levels, it's also

0:47:39.680 --> 0:47:41.319
<v Speaker 2>not cocaine. And I think we got to kind of

0:47:41.360 --> 0:47:43.640
<v Speaker 2>like find the middle here.

0:47:44.120 --> 0:47:45.440
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, what is is it? Bacon?

0:47:47.000 --> 0:47:49.880
<v Speaker 2>I think it's like dorito. It's like Dorito's or bacon

0:47:50.000 --> 0:47:53.239
<v Speaker 2>or something. It's like it's like fun, It's like it's

0:47:53.280 --> 0:47:55.239
<v Speaker 2>sometimes food, you know, all right.

0:47:56.280 --> 0:48:01.120
<v Speaker 1>I like that. The studies of alcohol and its social

0:48:01.120 --> 0:48:04.799
<v Speaker 1>effects are really fascinating. And whenever I read these, I

0:48:05.040 --> 0:48:07.279
<v Speaker 1>get sad. The eye study kidney disease, and I don't

0:48:07.280 --> 0:48:10.080
<v Speaker 1>actually get to run these trials. So these are studies.

0:48:10.239 --> 0:48:12.759
<v Speaker 1>These alcohol researchers bring people into the lab. Some of

0:48:12.800 --> 0:48:15.160
<v Speaker 1>them have their lab set up like a bar to

0:48:15.320 --> 0:48:18.399
<v Speaker 1>like have the full experience, so they have a bar

0:48:18.520 --> 0:48:20.799
<v Speaker 1>in their lab and then they're measuring out all these

0:48:20.840 --> 0:48:25.160
<v Speaker 1>precise amounts of alcohol. There's a fun study in psychological

0:48:25.200 --> 0:48:27.840
<v Speaker 1>science in twenty twelve. They took seven hundred and twenty

0:48:27.840 --> 0:48:32.279
<v Speaker 1>people strangers in groups of three, and they put them

0:48:32.280 --> 0:48:34.680
<v Speaker 1>in a room and they randomize them to drink alcohol

0:48:34.760 --> 0:48:37.200
<v Speaker 1>versus placebo, and then they saw, you know, how they

0:48:37.280 --> 0:48:39.680
<v Speaker 1>felt they just interacted and how they felt about each other.

0:48:39.800 --> 0:48:44.080
<v Speaker 1>And those who got the alcohol reported as significantly enhanced

0:48:44.200 --> 0:48:47.239
<v Speaker 1>positive affect, So good feelings about the other people are

0:48:47.280 --> 0:48:52.560
<v Speaker 1>reduced negative affect and increased self reported bonding. In short,

0:48:52.960 --> 0:48:54.960
<v Speaker 1>they had a good time and they made some friends.

0:48:55.200 --> 0:48:58.000
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, which is really that's what that's what's for, man,

0:48:58.080 --> 0:49:00.439
<v Speaker 2>that's what it's for. I don't know. I think that's

0:49:00.480 --> 0:49:04.040
<v Speaker 2>what I'm curious here. What is the placebo like? Does

0:49:04.080 --> 0:49:05.239
<v Speaker 2>it taste like alcohol?

0:49:05.719 --> 0:49:09.960
<v Speaker 1>Yeah? They do. They have stuff that tastes alcohol ish,

0:49:10.040 --> 0:49:12.919
<v Speaker 1>like medicinal I think maybe quinine or things. In some

0:49:13.000 --> 0:49:15.760
<v Speaker 1>studies now they are using alcohol free beer and alcohol

0:49:15.880 --> 0:49:19.439
<v Speaker 1>alcohol free wine de alcoholized wine, which now doesn't taste

0:49:19.440 --> 0:49:22.000
<v Speaker 1>as crappy as it did ten years ago. A lot

0:49:22.040 --> 0:49:24.359
<v Speaker 1>of advances I think. I don't know. Athletic I think

0:49:24.440 --> 0:49:25.040
<v Speaker 1>is pretty.

0:49:24.760 --> 0:49:27.120
<v Speaker 2>Good, but no, the beer is great, the alcohol free

0:49:27.120 --> 0:49:29.200
<v Speaker 2>wine is I still haven't made any progress on that.

0:49:29.719 --> 0:49:32.560
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. So yeah. And there are some other studies as

0:49:32.600 --> 0:49:37.000
<v Speaker 1>well that show, for example, in social interactions with alcohol

0:49:37.120 --> 0:49:43.000
<v Speaker 1>compared to without alcohol, alcohol consumption moderated seven of ten

0:49:43.040 --> 0:49:48.280
<v Speaker 1>associations between state social anxiety and indicators of healthy social interactions.

0:49:48.960 --> 0:49:52.280
<v Speaker 1>What this means is that you measure someone's general social anxiety,

0:49:52.360 --> 0:49:55.120
<v Speaker 1>how nervous they are, and how well they interact with

0:49:55.200 --> 0:49:58.440
<v Speaker 1>new people, and across seven of ten of those metrics,

0:49:58.600 --> 0:50:03.440
<v Speaker 1>alcohol improved the social interaction. So you don't want to

0:50:03.480 --> 0:50:06.960
<v Speaker 1>go too crazy when you're meeting new people like you know,

0:50:07.600 --> 0:50:12.080
<v Speaker 1>but it smooth things over. It does, it.

0:50:11.960 --> 0:50:15.120
<v Speaker 2>Does, and I think that's that's worth Uh, that's worth noting.

0:50:15.160 --> 0:50:18.439
<v Speaker 2>I mean, interacting with other people who you haven't met

0:50:18.440 --> 0:50:22.200
<v Speaker 2>before is one of my nightmares, and so I actually

0:50:22.280 --> 0:50:23.440
<v Speaker 2>really appreciate this.

0:50:24.239 --> 0:50:26.040
<v Speaker 1>I'm trying to imagine how you even do it. I

0:50:26.280 --> 0:50:28.279
<v Speaker 1>assume you just say hi, I'm Emily. Here is my

0:50:28.560 --> 0:50:30.719
<v Speaker 1>Whoop score for recovery score for today.

0:50:31.280 --> 0:50:34.919
<v Speaker 2>I don't like it. I don't I'm for someone whose

0:50:34.960 --> 0:50:37.279
<v Speaker 2>life is spent so aggressively in the public eye. I

0:50:37.320 --> 0:50:41.560
<v Speaker 2>am surprisingly shy and weird at parties, so.

0:50:42.160 --> 0:50:48.520
<v Speaker 1>I'm not entirely surprised that the nicest way you've a

0:50:48.520 --> 0:50:49.040
<v Speaker 1>long time.

0:50:49.239 --> 0:50:50.799
<v Speaker 2>I'm sure you were in college parties with me when

0:50:50.800 --> 0:50:52.000
<v Speaker 2>I was probably also super weird.

0:50:53.600 --> 0:50:55.200
<v Speaker 1>H No, you're always I was drinking.

0:50:55.200 --> 0:50:55.880
<v Speaker 2>Okay, let's move on.

0:50:55.920 --> 0:50:59.279
<v Speaker 1>Always wonderful and charming. I threw in a study for

0:50:59.320 --> 0:51:02.960
<v Speaker 1>you about I always have to find something about endurance athletes.

0:51:03.000 --> 0:51:06.120
<v Speaker 1>So do you buy the idea? As as told in

0:51:06.200 --> 0:51:09.600
<v Speaker 1>Sports Medicine twenty twenty six, a journal, we like that

0:51:10.160 --> 0:51:15.839
<v Speaker 1>the observational links between alcohol and death overall mortality were

0:51:16.000 --> 0:51:19.359
<v Speaker 1>restricted to only the twenty percent of people who got

0:51:19.360 --> 0:51:21.640
<v Speaker 1>the least amount of exercise. So if you're in the

0:51:21.640 --> 0:51:26.400
<v Speaker 1>top eighty percent of exercisers, the alcohol effect goes away.

0:51:26.800 --> 0:51:27.239
<v Speaker 1>Is that nice?

0:51:27.280 --> 0:51:30.680
<v Speaker 2>No, don't don't. I don't believe in this because it

0:51:30.719 --> 0:51:35.600
<v Speaker 2>is the set of people who are exercising are very

0:51:35.600 --> 0:51:37.279
<v Speaker 2>different from the set of people who are not. In

0:51:37.320 --> 0:51:40.360
<v Speaker 2>the people who are exercising wealth alcohol, like those differences

0:51:40.440 --> 0:51:44.200
<v Speaker 2>are smaller. This just feels to me like it is

0:51:44.719 --> 0:51:50.759
<v Speaker 2>entirely driven by different kinds of complicated biases. And so

0:51:50.800 --> 0:51:54.840
<v Speaker 2>it's good to exercise, but it doesn't mean that you

0:51:54.880 --> 0:51:58.759
<v Speaker 2>can just you shouldn't drink while you exercise. Don't put

0:51:58.800 --> 0:52:01.719
<v Speaker 2>fight in you're in your water bottle, my friends, it's

0:52:01.719 --> 0:52:02.160
<v Speaker 2>not good.

0:52:03.000 --> 0:52:05.120
<v Speaker 1>At the same birthday party, I was telling you about

0:52:05.239 --> 0:52:08.279
<v Speaker 1>that where the taco bell incident happened back in the

0:52:08.360 --> 0:52:10.719
<v Speaker 1>news portion of the show. What we did is one

0:52:10.760 --> 0:52:15.640
<v Speaker 1>of these group bikes where there's twelve people on a bike.

0:52:15.640 --> 0:52:18.000
<v Speaker 1>I don't know if you have one ountain Rhode Island,

0:52:18.080 --> 0:52:20.680
<v Speaker 1>and you bike around the city from bar to bar.

0:52:20.760 --> 0:52:22.960
<v Speaker 1>But it's really hard, like you get a real workout.

0:52:23.000 --> 0:52:25.960
<v Speaker 1>I was sweating and I loved it. I was drinking.

0:52:26.120 --> 0:52:28.680
<v Speaker 1>I was exercising and I was like, this is a

0:52:28.680 --> 0:52:31.759
<v Speaker 1>great combo. I feel good in so many ways.

0:52:32.000 --> 0:52:34.520
<v Speaker 2>I feel like you're on the bike with twelve other

0:52:34.600 --> 0:52:35.520
<v Speaker 2>people on the scene.

0:52:35.600 --> 0:52:38.879
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it's a big oval of pedals, and so there's

0:52:38.880 --> 0:52:42.319
<v Speaker 1>a driver and everyone's pedaling together and the driver is

0:52:42.320 --> 0:52:46.120
<v Speaker 1>steering it around the streets of New Haven. It's fun,

0:52:46.520 --> 0:52:49.000
<v Speaker 1>but it's a work. I think you're at a hill

0:52:49.000 --> 0:52:50.719
<v Speaker 1>and everyone's like, oh no, it's a hill, and then

0:52:50.800 --> 0:52:54.400
<v Speaker 1>at the red lights he makes you drink. Wow.

0:52:55.080 --> 0:52:57.360
<v Speaker 2>I mean, I grew up in New Haven and I

0:52:57.360 --> 0:53:00.600
<v Speaker 2>never knew about this amazing bike. Okay, option, I'm totally

0:53:00.600 --> 0:53:01.040
<v Speaker 2>doing that.

0:53:02.200 --> 0:53:04.319
<v Speaker 1>All right. People are going to ask us, and so

0:53:04.719 --> 0:53:07.160
<v Speaker 1>I'm going to ask you, Emily, who doesn't drink, and

0:53:07.200 --> 0:53:09.800
<v Speaker 1>you can ask me who does. How much is okay

0:53:09.800 --> 0:53:10.240
<v Speaker 1>to drink?

0:53:12.800 --> 0:53:17.680
<v Speaker 2>I think, in my view, is in moderation, which is

0:53:17.680 --> 0:53:23.239
<v Speaker 2>defined by yourself. So I would generally tell people I

0:53:23.280 --> 0:53:26.400
<v Speaker 2>wouldn't have more than two drinks a day, because I

0:53:26.400 --> 0:53:29.560
<v Speaker 2>think as you get up above there, you start seeing

0:53:29.600 --> 0:53:32.799
<v Speaker 2>some of these impacts on more meaningful impacts on things

0:53:32.840 --> 0:53:37.440
<v Speaker 2>like sleep. But I certainly would not tell people not

0:53:37.520 --> 0:53:39.080
<v Speaker 2>to drink at all. I don't think that the data

0:53:39.320 --> 0:53:39.800
<v Speaker 2>supports that.

0:53:40.760 --> 0:53:44.359
<v Speaker 1>I agree. My party line is I tell people they

0:53:44.360 --> 0:53:48.520
<v Speaker 1>can drink just enough, and it's their job to figure

0:53:48.520 --> 0:53:50.879
<v Speaker 1>out what just enough is and to try to draw

0:53:50.920 --> 0:53:53.399
<v Speaker 1>the line there. This is also something you can experiment with.

0:53:53.560 --> 0:53:55.799
<v Speaker 1>I told you on a prior episode that I did

0:53:55.840 --> 0:53:58.200
<v Speaker 1>dry January this year, so I didn't drink for a month,

0:53:58.239 --> 0:54:00.600
<v Speaker 1>and I was waiting to feel as a maaz as

0:54:00.800 --> 0:54:02.640
<v Speaker 1>everyone says you're going to feel, and it's like, oh,

0:54:02.680 --> 0:54:04.920
<v Speaker 1>my sleep is so good and my energy and my focus,

0:54:04.960 --> 0:54:08.040
<v Speaker 1>and I really just didn't feel any different. And that

0:54:08.120 --> 0:54:09.640
<v Speaker 1>was a valuable experiment for me.

0:54:09.800 --> 0:54:11.400
<v Speaker 2>But you can do that, and I will say I

0:54:12.239 --> 0:54:15.360
<v Speaker 2>also experimented with this, had more or less the opposite experience,

0:54:15.400 --> 0:54:19.760
<v Speaker 2>which is totally changes how I feel in the morning.

0:54:19.840 --> 0:54:23.319
<v Speaker 2>And I think that's that's why self experimentation is helpful.

0:54:25.000 --> 0:54:28.279
<v Speaker 1>All right, Emily, smash or pass alcohol?

0:54:29.600 --> 0:54:30.920
<v Speaker 2>Smash in moderation.

0:54:32.200 --> 0:54:37.400
<v Speaker 1>Yep, I am a smash. You know, alcohol is proof

0:54:37.440 --> 0:54:41.160
<v Speaker 1>that God loves us. I believe it. So that's it.

0:54:41.520 --> 0:54:43.719
<v Speaker 1>That's it for alcohol. You're mail bag question of the

0:54:43.760 --> 0:54:45.160
<v Speaker 1>Week after the break.

0:54:50.560 --> 0:54:54.319
<v Speaker 3>Hi, Emily and Perry. This is Kristen in Minneapolis. My

0:54:54.440 --> 0:54:59.120
<v Speaker 3>question for you is about sleep apnea. Perry. You mentioned

0:54:59.160 --> 0:55:02.239
<v Speaker 3>you had it in an earlier episode, and I was

0:55:02.239 --> 0:55:04.640
<v Speaker 3>wondering if you would talk a little bit more about

0:55:04.680 --> 0:55:09.600
<v Speaker 3>how to recognize it in someone someone who snores, like

0:55:10.760 --> 0:55:12.360
<v Speaker 3>say my husband.

0:55:13.280 --> 0:55:16.319
<v Speaker 2>Thanks so much, Okay, Perry, I'm going to pass this

0:55:16.360 --> 0:55:18.360
<v Speaker 2>one to you as someone who has been through these

0:55:18.560 --> 0:55:19.480
<v Speaker 2>this testing.

0:55:21.000 --> 0:55:24.040
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, so for those of you who haven't gone through

0:55:24.040 --> 0:55:28.040
<v Speaker 1>all the episodes. I have sleep apnia, use a seapap

0:55:28.320 --> 0:55:31.080
<v Speaker 1>and that is something an intervention actually that has made

0:55:31.400 --> 0:55:32.879
<v Speaker 1>I think my life a little better. I do think

0:55:32.880 --> 0:55:35.640
<v Speaker 1>I have more energy using seapap. But more importantly, my

0:55:36.360 --> 0:55:38.680
<v Speaker 1>wife still sleeps in the same bed with me, which

0:55:38.719 --> 0:55:43.400
<v Speaker 1>is nice because snoring is the primary symptom of obstructive

0:55:43.400 --> 0:55:46.839
<v Speaker 1>sleep apnia. Virtually everyone with obstructive sleep apnia is going

0:55:46.880 --> 0:55:51.400
<v Speaker 1>to snore. Not everyone who snores has obstructive sleep apnia.

0:55:51.440 --> 0:55:55.120
<v Speaker 1>That's how to think about this. The diagnosis of OSA

0:55:55.680 --> 0:56:00.440
<v Speaker 1>requires a sleep study, that's the standard. This can be

0:56:00.560 --> 0:56:03.040
<v Speaker 1>done in a sleep clinic where you actually go somewhere

0:56:03.080 --> 0:56:04.520
<v Speaker 1>and you're in a bed and they have all sorts

0:56:04.560 --> 0:56:07.160
<v Speaker 1>of monitors on you. But actually they've gotten really good

0:56:07.200 --> 0:56:11.400
<v Speaker 1>now about doing this in your own home using portable devices,

0:56:11.440 --> 0:56:14.800
<v Speaker 1>and what they're measuring for obstructive sleep apneas not snoring,

0:56:14.880 --> 0:56:18.480
<v Speaker 1>but what are called apneas, so the cessation of breathing

0:56:19.080 --> 0:56:23.960
<v Speaker 1>and hypopnias, which are periods of low levels of breathing.

0:56:24.000 --> 0:56:26.000
<v Speaker 1>So they're measuring how your chest is moving up and

0:56:26.040 --> 0:56:28.239
<v Speaker 1>down and their criteria for how many of those and

0:56:28.280 --> 0:56:30.640
<v Speaker 1>how long they last to make the diagnosis.

0:56:31.400 --> 0:56:33.680
<v Speaker 2>Is there a way to tell if you are just

0:56:33.760 --> 0:56:37.680
<v Speaker 2>a person who's a very loud snorer whether you are

0:56:38.480 --> 0:56:41.840
<v Speaker 2>not breathing like based on the noise? Is there a

0:56:41.880 --> 0:56:43.200
<v Speaker 2>noise diagnostic?

0:56:43.840 --> 0:56:51.160
<v Speaker 1>I mean spouses, bed partners can usually tell the person

0:56:51.160 --> 0:56:53.920
<v Speaker 1>who is awake listening to you snore, will hear periods

0:56:53.960 --> 0:56:56.960
<v Speaker 1>of apnea and or can hear periods of apnea and

0:56:57.000 --> 0:56:59.359
<v Speaker 1>get nervous about it. You would think that someone would

0:56:59.360 --> 0:57:01.399
<v Speaker 1>invent an app if that records you're snoring or something

0:57:01.440 --> 0:57:03.560
<v Speaker 1>it gives you you would a risk store and maybe

0:57:03.600 --> 0:57:06.359
<v Speaker 1>one exists, but none, certainly none are FDA approved for

0:57:06.640 --> 0:57:11.799
<v Speaker 1>diagnostic diagnostic purposes. Tamor, our producer, just came up with

0:57:11.880 --> 0:57:14.759
<v Speaker 1>the idea that it should be called app nia, which

0:57:14.800 --> 0:57:19.439
<v Speaker 1>is genius patent pending wellness. Actually that's ours now. It'll

0:57:19.480 --> 0:57:21.440
<v Speaker 1>be on the app store next week.

0:57:22.120 --> 0:57:24.840
<v Speaker 2>My last question on this, and I'm just going to

0:57:24.880 --> 0:57:28.800
<v Speaker 2>say this is just a personal question, is what's the

0:57:29.560 --> 0:57:32.680
<v Speaker 2>let's say your partner is allowed snore but doesn't have

0:57:32.800 --> 0:57:37.040
<v Speaker 2>sleep apnea. What are some ways other than kicking to

0:57:37.200 --> 0:57:38.920
<v Speaker 2>get them to stop snoring?

0:57:39.200 --> 0:57:39.720
<v Speaker 1>Yeah?

0:57:39.840 --> 0:57:40.240
<v Speaker 2>Do you know?

0:57:40.560 --> 0:57:45.560
<v Speaker 1>I do? Yeah? So yes, Waking them up not ideal

0:57:46.400 --> 0:57:50.480
<v Speaker 1>because it'll come right back. Sleep position is the main one.

0:57:50.560 --> 0:57:53.120
<v Speaker 1>So snoring happens usually for most people and they're sleeping

0:57:53.120 --> 0:57:57.040
<v Speaker 1>on their back. People will tend to roll back onto

0:57:57.040 --> 0:57:58.960
<v Speaker 1>their back once they fall asleep, if that's their comfortable

0:57:59.000 --> 0:58:02.280
<v Speaker 1>sleep position. I have had some patients who have sown

0:58:02.400 --> 0:58:05.360
<v Speaker 1>a tennis ball into a pajama shirt so that if

0:58:05.360 --> 0:58:07.840
<v Speaker 1>they lie on their back, it sort of digs into

0:58:07.880 --> 0:58:10.080
<v Speaker 1>them princess in the pea style, So they have to

0:58:10.080 --> 0:58:12.919
<v Speaker 1>turn over to your sort of retraining. There are oral

0:58:12.960 --> 0:58:17.000
<v Speaker 1>appliances that advance the jaw a little bit. I actually

0:58:17.080 --> 0:58:19.360
<v Speaker 1>used one of these before I got my CPAP machine,

0:58:19.720 --> 0:58:22.640
<v Speaker 1>and that opens up the oral pharynx so that snoring

0:58:22.680 --> 0:58:25.320
<v Speaker 1>doesn't happen. They can be kind of uncomfortable. It's uncomfortable

0:58:25.320 --> 0:58:28.960
<v Speaker 1>for me, but their dentists who specialize in this. There

0:58:29.000 --> 0:58:33.960
<v Speaker 1>are surgeries that can eliminate snoring, soft palette surgeries, and

0:58:34.000 --> 0:58:38.760
<v Speaker 1>then for people with an elevated BMI weight losses, a

0:58:38.880 --> 0:58:40.360
<v Speaker 1>primary method to reduce storing.

0:58:40.840 --> 0:58:42.439
<v Speaker 2>So I'm hearing kicking.

0:58:43.080 --> 0:58:44.720
<v Speaker 1>Or tennis ball in the back of the.

0:58:44.680 --> 0:58:45.640
<v Speaker 2>Shkicking or tennis ball.

0:58:45.800 --> 0:58:47.480
<v Speaker 1>Okay, both are fun.

0:58:50.520 --> 0:58:53.040
<v Speaker 2>All right? That is it for us today. Stick with

0:58:53.120 --> 0:58:56.200
<v Speaker 2>us next week when we'll ask what's the deal with

0:58:56.320 --> 0:58:56.960
<v Speaker 2>the sun.

0:59:00.040 --> 0:59:00.120
<v Speaker 4>On?

0:59:00.160 --> 0:59:00.800
<v Speaker 1>What the hell is?

0:59:01.480 --> 0:59:04.480
<v Speaker 2>We'll get into it anyway.

0:59:04.720 --> 0:59:06.280
<v Speaker 1>Is it? Is it a god?

0:59:07.480 --> 0:59:11.480
<v Speaker 2>Come back? Next week you'll find out. Wellness Actually is

0:59:11.560 --> 0:59:16.280
<v Speaker 2>produced in association with iHeartMedia. Our senior producer is Tamar Avishaik.

0:59:16.680 --> 0:59:20.320
<v Speaker 2>Our executive producer at iHeart is Jennifer Bassett. Our theme

0:59:20.360 --> 0:59:23.000
<v Speaker 2>music is by Eric Deutsch, and our content is for

0:59:23.120 --> 0:59:24.360
<v Speaker 2>educational purposes only.

0:59:25.040 --> 0:59:27.320
<v Speaker 1>If you like the show, help other people find us,

0:59:27.680 --> 0:59:30.439
<v Speaker 1>leave a rating and review on Apple Podcasts or your

0:59:30.520 --> 0:59:33.240
<v Speaker 1>podcatcher of choice, and help us spread the word about

0:59:33.280 --> 0:59:36.320
<v Speaker 1>the show. You can follow us on Instagram at Wellness

0:59:36.360 --> 0:59:39.560
<v Speaker 1>Actually pod and don't forget We want to hear from you.

0:59:39.960 --> 0:59:42.480
<v Speaker 1>Head over to Wellness Actually dot fm and leave us

0:59:42.480 --> 0:59:45.080
<v Speaker 1>a question for our mailbag, or suggest a topic for

0:59:45.120 --> 0:59:45.760
<v Speaker 1>a future show.

0:59:46.560 --> 0:59:49.200
<v Speaker 2>We'll let the influencers have the last word. I don't

0:59:49.200 --> 0:59:53.360
<v Speaker 2>want to alarm anyone, but I think there's a hockey

0:59:53.440 --> 0:59:56.080
<v Speaker 2>call in this story. Do we have a word, sense

0:59:56.160 --> 0:59:59.880
<v Speaker 2>of well being and any Sorry my speech, You're right,

1:00:00.160 --> 1:00:10.400
<v Speaker 2>give me noth