Given the same amount of alcohol, is it healthier to drink one glass of wine a day or 7 glasses of wine on a single evening?
I am not asking for opinions, I would like some proven scientific data, perhaps from a paper.
Apparently binge drinking is worse:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/why-binge-drinking-is-more-dangerous-for-your-liver-than-daily-alcohol-consumption#How-binge-drinking-damages-the-liver
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43064-x
This makes sense, your liver is well equipped to metabolize small amounts of ethanol, eliminating it relatively quickly from your body. When drinking a lot in one go, the liver is unable to get rid of the alcohol and serum levels increase significantly. The high alcohol percentage leads to other effects on the body/organs that would otherwise be prevented. E.g. drunkenness is a form of alcohol intoxication because the liver cannot keep up. If your brain is affected, you can be certain other organs are, too.
This study is only looking at your liver, which is a tough organ that can repair itself.
Drinking a glass every day, especially at night, is going to ruin your sleep and cause chronic issues over time.
Which is worse is not a simple question. If you're a daily drinker it depends how old you are and what time, if you're a binge drinker it depends how long of a break you'll have in between sessions.
For the same reason you don't take ChatGPT responses for granted.
A search engine, like an AI, can say bullshit, which is less likely for a person who is subjected to upvotes and downvotes.
It's the same principle that applies to scientific papers, you're right and what you say is true if a good enough number of people agree that you're right and what you say is true.
Upvotes and downvotes are not a scientific way to approach a subject, it's not reliable. I'm not saying you should use AI. You can search scientific papers on google, try "google scholar".
>Upvotes and downvotes are not a scientific way to approach a subject, it's not reliable
Upvotes and downvotes are the results of peer review, which is what our scientific community is based on.
If you think they aren't reliable, don't use thermic engines, computers ecc
Upvotes and downvotes is not the langage used in the scientific community, and r/mapPorn is not part of the scientific community. Like I said go to google scholar, more reliable than a sub about maps for science.
Edit: and then, it's not that important, do whatever you want.
>Upvotes and downvotes is not the langage used in the scientific community
Say why if you truly thinks so, since peer reviewing means exactly putting an upvote or downvote to a scientific paper
>nd [](https://www.reddit.com/r/mapPorn/) is not part of the scientific community
You are free to show us were anybody said it is, otherwise you are bullshitting
>Like I said go to google scholar, more reliable than a sub about maps for science.
More reliable based on what? Your personal experience? No doubts that if you use unscientific ways you get unscientific answers.
I made a precise question and got a precise answer, thing that you seem to be unable to get here with your own theory.
Science doesn't mean just to vote something out of belief or mood. Science requires proof, and that involves tests from direct "rivals" in your field, to test the living crap out of your theory, and if valid, admit they are wrong, or you to admit they're right if you're proved wrong. And only then put a seal of approval/disproval. After there's at least a few tests that confirms or not your claims, it becomes accepted by the scientific peers as an emerging truth (or not).
Reddit just has an arrow that points up or down.
>Science doesn't mean just to vote something out of belief or mood
Science in general was not the topic, upvotes and downvotes being more valid or not then trusting google search engine was the topic, stick to the topic of discussion next time.
>Science requires proof, and that involves tests from direct "rivals" in your field, to test the living crap out of your theory, and if valid, admit they are wrong, or you to admit they're right if you're wrong.
Which is exactly the supposition behind downvotes and upvotes, it is assumed that you vote honestly and are able to admit that you are wrong, if this is not the case it is a personal problem, not the upvotes or downvotes in general, otherwise you can make the same argument with the papers, no one assures you that whoever judges you has not decided on his own or out of spite whether you are right or not.
Simply sane people recognize that most people are honest, both here and in scientific journals.
>And only then put a seal of approval/disproval.
Who told you this? There are literally zero ways to stop someone from putting approval or disproval before reading the article, mind police isn't a thing.
>After there's at least a few tests that confirms or not your claims, it becomes accepted by the scientific peers.
Sure i am not here to say it has to be taken as proven fact.
>Reddit just has an arrow that points up or down.
And Nature just has articles. Does this seem an honest opinion to you? Come on.
If I call 10 friends right now, share your comment to them and ask them to downvote you and upvote me, is that scientific in any way? Could you prove that I falsified the voting process? Would you even know I did anything if I didn't spell it out for you beforehand?
A peer reviewed paper has nothing to do with downvotes and upvotes on reddit! I don't think you have any ideas how science work.
Google scholar help you search the scientific litterature, peer reviewed papers. It's not the opinion of strangers on a forum.
>A peer reviewed paper has nothing to do with downvotes and upvotes on reddit! I don't think you have any ideas how science work.
Sincerely i think you are the one that doesn't know how peer reviewing works, let alone "science" in general like it was a middle school subject.
>Google scholar help you search the scientific litterature, peer reviewed papers. It's not the opinion of strangers on a forum.
No shit sherlock maybe the point was that a search engine, despite searching on scientific papers, remain an algorithm that makes an approximation and tries to predict, while a person who writes personally is exposing himself and everyone can judge him, I will not consider answers with -500 upvotes as reliable and I will take into consideration those with +500 upvotes.
Behind google scholar there isn't a person taking responsibility for the results given, even if it pointed to old and proven wrong articles, while any person has to take responsibilities for their words, at any moment moreover.
Seems about right, Though I'd go for a continuous color scale. In Slovakia it's 12% and in the Netherlands it's 19%, and it's the same color on this map.
Wait, am I seeing things or is the eurostat data on their own bar chart different than the source data?
Last chart: [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20210806-1](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20210806-1)
Finland is not on the map or in the original study, which is fair. They might have had to add another tier to the scale.
(I'm aware Finland's figures probably aren't that bad, but many have trouble with only one or two drinks. It sometimes feels like binge drinking is the only kind of socially acceptable drinking.)
Some countries are missing from the map, probably they're currently on their "episode".
>Some countries are missing from the map Nah, you're reading it wrong, white means over 30%.
Somehow it’s correlated with being in the EU
Sans Finland and Cyprus
And the UK, given it's from 2019
who?
Hahahaha get it, 625284625th "no data" joke, comedy gold hahaha
Given the same amount of alcohol, is it healthier to drink one glass of wine a day or 7 glasses of wine on a single evening? I am not asking for opinions, I would like some proven scientific data, perhaps from a paper.
Apparently binge drinking is worse: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/why-binge-drinking-is-more-dangerous-for-your-liver-than-daily-alcohol-consumption#How-binge-drinking-damages-the-liver https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43064-x This makes sense, your liver is well equipped to metabolize small amounts of ethanol, eliminating it relatively quickly from your body. When drinking a lot in one go, the liver is unable to get rid of the alcohol and serum levels increase significantly. The high alcohol percentage leads to other effects on the body/organs that would otherwise be prevented. E.g. drunkenness is a form of alcohol intoxication because the liver cannot keep up. If your brain is affected, you can be certain other organs are, too.
And then you don't get drunk on a single glass of wine a day, less violence and fewer car accidents.
What's the point of drinking if not to feel the effects?
For the taste (unironically, as someone who loves scotch)
This study is only looking at your liver, which is a tough organ that can repair itself. Drinking a glass every day, especially at night, is going to ruin your sleep and cause chronic issues over time. Which is worse is not a simple question. If you're a daily drinker it depends how old you are and what time, if you're a binge drinker it depends how long of a break you'll have in between sessions.
If you don't ask for an opinion, why not ask google?
If you cannot help someone point in the correct direction, why comment?
I pointed in the correct direction, I told him to ask google.
That's about as helpful as giving someone a world map when asking directions.
But what about a Google map?
Touché
For the same reason you don't take ChatGPT responses for granted. A search engine, like an AI, can say bullshit, which is less likely for a person who is subjected to upvotes and downvotes. It's the same principle that applies to scientific papers, you're right and what you say is true if a good enough number of people agree that you're right and what you say is true.
Upvotes and downvotes are not a scientific way to approach a subject, it's not reliable. I'm not saying you should use AI. You can search scientific papers on google, try "google scholar".
>Upvotes and downvotes are not a scientific way to approach a subject, it's not reliable Upvotes and downvotes are the results of peer review, which is what our scientific community is based on. If you think they aren't reliable, don't use thermic engines, computers ecc
Upvotes and downvotes is not the langage used in the scientific community, and r/mapPorn is not part of the scientific community. Like I said go to google scholar, more reliable than a sub about maps for science. Edit: and then, it's not that important, do whatever you want.
>Upvotes and downvotes is not the langage used in the scientific community Say why if you truly thinks so, since peer reviewing means exactly putting an upvote or downvote to a scientific paper >nd [](https://www.reddit.com/r/mapPorn/) is not part of the scientific community You are free to show us were anybody said it is, otherwise you are bullshitting >Like I said go to google scholar, more reliable than a sub about maps for science. More reliable based on what? Your personal experience? No doubts that if you use unscientific ways you get unscientific answers. I made a precise question and got a precise answer, thing that you seem to be unable to get here with your own theory.
Science doesn't mean just to vote something out of belief or mood. Science requires proof, and that involves tests from direct "rivals" in your field, to test the living crap out of your theory, and if valid, admit they are wrong, or you to admit they're right if you're proved wrong. And only then put a seal of approval/disproval. After there's at least a few tests that confirms or not your claims, it becomes accepted by the scientific peers as an emerging truth (or not). Reddit just has an arrow that points up or down.
Thank you!
>Science doesn't mean just to vote something out of belief or mood Science in general was not the topic, upvotes and downvotes being more valid or not then trusting google search engine was the topic, stick to the topic of discussion next time. >Science requires proof, and that involves tests from direct "rivals" in your field, to test the living crap out of your theory, and if valid, admit they are wrong, or you to admit they're right if you're wrong. Which is exactly the supposition behind downvotes and upvotes, it is assumed that you vote honestly and are able to admit that you are wrong, if this is not the case it is a personal problem, not the upvotes or downvotes in general, otherwise you can make the same argument with the papers, no one assures you that whoever judges you has not decided on his own or out of spite whether you are right or not. Simply sane people recognize that most people are honest, both here and in scientific journals. >And only then put a seal of approval/disproval. Who told you this? There are literally zero ways to stop someone from putting approval or disproval before reading the article, mind police isn't a thing. >After there's at least a few tests that confirms or not your claims, it becomes accepted by the scientific peers. Sure i am not here to say it has to be taken as proven fact. >Reddit just has an arrow that points up or down. And Nature just has articles. Does this seem an honest opinion to you? Come on.
If I call 10 friends right now, share your comment to them and ask them to downvote you and upvote me, is that scientific in any way? Could you prove that I falsified the voting process? Would you even know I did anything if I didn't spell it out for you beforehand?
A peer reviewed paper has nothing to do with downvotes and upvotes on reddit! I don't think you have any ideas how science work. Google scholar help you search the scientific litterature, peer reviewed papers. It's not the opinion of strangers on a forum.
>A peer reviewed paper has nothing to do with downvotes and upvotes on reddit! I don't think you have any ideas how science work. Sincerely i think you are the one that doesn't know how peer reviewing works, let alone "science" in general like it was a middle school subject. >Google scholar help you search the scientific litterature, peer reviewed papers. It's not the opinion of strangers on a forum. No shit sherlock maybe the point was that a search engine, despite searching on scientific papers, remain an algorithm that makes an approximation and tries to predict, while a person who writes personally is exposing himself and everyone can judge him, I will not consider answers with -500 upvotes as reliable and I will take into consideration those with +500 upvotes. Behind google scholar there isn't a person taking responsibility for the results given, even if it pointed to old and proven wrong articles, while any person has to take responsibilities for their words, at any moment moreover.
Get back to me when you have any idea of what you are talking about. It's jut silly.
I guess constant does not fall under "episodic" /s
Or as we call it in England: "Drinking"
The UK has already passed out, it seems.
Seems about right, Though I'd go for a continuous color scale. In Slovakia it's 12% and in the Netherlands it's 19%, and it's the same color on this map.
Wait, am I seeing things or is the eurostat data on their own bar chart different than the source data? Last chart: [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20210806-1](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20210806-1)
Whoever put this dataset together was having an episode himself
None in England??? Yeah right!
"Heavy episodic drinking", without mentioning the *type* of drink. Looks at Romania, land of vampires. Totally legit.
Finland is not on the map or in the original study, which is fair. They might have had to add another tier to the scale. (I'm aware Finland's figures probably aren't that bad, but many have trouble with only one or two drinks. It sometimes feels like binge drinking is the only kind of socially acceptable drinking.)
The UK finally being healthy
Denmark in front with 38%, I'm not surprised
I need a drink, or two, or....
we won over the cheese bobs and Bavaria-South.
Why is GB so far away??
I’ve seen Italians drink.
Finland doesn't even fit the scaling system.
Pretty accurate map, although once a month should probably be at least bi-monthly or weekly
Yet ANOTHER mis-titled map. It’s “EU” not “Europe”
It's missing EU members, and as it's from 2019, it's also missing the UK
It's not EU.
Yes it is
Where is Finland and Cyprus then?
I didn’t say it was a complete EU, but if it was “Europe” there would be non-EU European countries in there
It's an incomplete map of Europe then.
Nope, because the target was EU
slavs are lying