With the rise in nonalcoholic beverages, I’m curious if there’s any difference from someone switching to solely drinking NA beers (0.5% ABV or less), to someone who does not drink any alcoholic beverages at all. I’ll see articles suggest that it’s impossible to get drunk off NA beers alone, or that 10 NA’s are equal to one standard 12 oz serving of beer. Thus, wouldn’t the accumulation of drinking NA beers in moderation be harmful to human health?
The latest studies show there is no healthy level of alcohol consumption. Although I doubt they looked at consumption that low.
I think it would be impossible to measure the damage done by such low levels of consumption.
It’s likely soo low that it’s not worrying about
Edit:
>There is no safe level of alcohol consumption, new global study confirmshttps://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/187871/there-safe-level-alcohol-consumption-global/
Recent science has pointed to there being no healthy level of alcohol consumption. Ultimately, alcohol is a toxin and is poisonous to the human body, and this remains the same however much or little of it you drink.
However, if a drink has 0.5% ABV or less, the alcohol content is so low so as to make a negligible difference on your health. Unless you cannot tolerate any alcohol, our bodies can easily neutralize whatever’s in drinks like kombucha, NA beer, or orange juice as they’re being ingested.
When you abstain from so-called “alcoholic beverages,” you eliminate all of the negative effects of alcohol on your body. Your liver has one less toxin to rid from the body, and your overall health will benefit from this!
Edit: spelling and clarity
From a quick Googling of the nutritional value of NA beer, it looks like NA beer appears to contain a non-trivial number of calories that come almost entirely from sugar and with practically no other nutritional value.
The alcohol content might be low, but it looks like- on average- two NA beers are approximately the nutritional equivalent of one can of full-sugar coke.
Sugar should always be consumed in moderation.
Sure.
I dunno if the above apply if going from beer to nonalcoholic beverages. Money and environment yes, but not calories or risking a DUI.
I just drink water. Its free.
I stopped drinking as soon as I started taking edibles in very small amounts. I have no real interest in alcohol anymore. I don’t miss being hung over and feeling like crap for a day or two after a big drinking binge that’s for sure. And I do feel healthier overall. I also have anxiety, and was the kind of person who would replay scenarios in my head over and over again of things that I said to people when I was drunk. Never have to worry about that with weedHighly recommend
I know that there’s a notion around red wine that it contains antioxidants. Like one a week or two.
But it’s also possible that’s just a myth that people invented to feel good about drinking wine.
Also in some countries alcohol is simply a part of the culture. Again, wine especially isn’t really viewed as a traditional alcoholic beverage, but more like an extension of a meal in places like Spain and Italy.
But are there any health benefits from alcohol consumption? Most likely no. It’s a poison that your liver and kidneys have to work overtime to clear out of your system. And worse still it contains empty calories.
So when you take that into account, I’d consider those health benefits to abstinence.
EDIT: And this isn’t to say I’m against drinking. It’s fun. It’s fun to go out with friends and have some drinks. It was fun in college. It’s still fun now. But is it healthy from a physical perspective? No. But a night out with friends can be helpful from a mental health/stress perspective, I suppose. As long as you do it in moderation.
Interesting question. I’ll be happy to see more educated answers along here, but to 100% be alcohol free may be harder to acheive than you might think. The alcohol percentage found in NA beers can be also found in quite a few foods, which was a surpise to me.
A couple of examples were a very ripe banana at 0.4%ABV and a burger roll bun at 1.28%ABV.
Source:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5421578/
pop source:
https://steadydrinker.com/articles/foods-drinks-alcohol/
There is no safe amount of alcohol, so drinking any amount is never more beneficial than complete abstinence
The difference is that alcohol is a poison,and NA beverages don’t have that poison. There are certainly benefits to complete abstinence from alcohol considering it is a known carcinogen and screws with your liver. Alcohol is empty calories and it makes a lot of people want to eat more, unhealthy stuff. NA drinks do have calories and maybe unnecessary sugar, but they are worlds healthier than alcoholic beverages. Abstinence from alcohol has a lot of health benefits, and if NA bevs are used to supplement that abstinence, I think that’s fine.
Yes. Firstly, you set a good example for many people who over-consume and have health consequences.
Eg. A light brewed 0.0 beer in moderation (sparingly or infrequently) can be a lower environmental footprint cost to earth.
It’s not using huge quantities of refined sugar (lower hidden water costs, lower hidden soil depletion or land area and fertiliser use, or need for irrigation)
If you’re comfortable drinking it room temp or lightly cooled or can brew it yourself, you can avoid the pollution from electricity used to cool the traditional alcoholic drinks down to 4 degrees or less, or you can avoid boiling water up to 80 to 100 degrees Celsius as used in tea.
Beers and other alcohol free drinks (like 0.0 gin) I think sometimes can have a lower cost due to tax reductions - as the expensive healthcare is a big concern to government from even moderate consumers of alcohol.
The ability to fit in and give time to others socially who are drinking alcohol is a plus. This is as you can participate fully and enjoy the moments but have a clean breath and absolutely no liver clearing needed, even the smallest amount of alcohol I understand comes out in breathing and gets converted to acetylcholine in the liver.
The alcohol not consumed is actually a valuable fuel. It has a real cost. And a real value. The origin was soil, to grow the crops. So there would be some value where a certain amount of alcohol requires a certain amount of soil. I think the number or ratio is… much, much larger that is given credit to. As in, each bit of alcohol has a massive amount of land that has had to be diverted from use for food production, (alcoholic drinks are not foods) but more importantly, has taken from land than flora and fauna require for migration and survival and habitat for evolution through breeding in a rapid climate change scenario.
If you’re able to do 0.0 or abstain completely for extended periods to have absolute control over when you drink alcohol, you can probably drink low alcohol drinks if with people where it’s a bit unavoidable, people who are actually heavy or compulsive or regular consumers.
This helps you with giving time to them and maybe you can pull them out of some more self-destructive habits, or at least guide them to less polluting, or land-damaging or water consuming or hydrocarbon burning ways. Eg. A few drinks with someone who has a high electricity consumption might mean you can guide them to changes where they reduce their electricity consumption or water consumption. It’s a small thing but there’s a balance of costs and sometimes it’s difficult to get respect if you abstain completely and other people disrespect you as it’s culturally embedded or advertised to normalisation due to regulatory failures in governments or from industries that have limited self-regulatory capacities.
Health alone, the mouth microbiome probably has been altered. Perhaps you going to 0.0 indicates it’s time for some kisses and microbiome repair. :)
Yes no cardiomyopathy, no atrial fibrillation, no alcohol induced fatty liver disease, no cirrhosis (if it’s not too late yet), let alone the benefit of gaining less weight, which in turn=less joint issues with lighter weight etc etc albeit at least certain things mentioned won’t be as a result of your alcohol consumption.
Philosophically…..given the state of the world and all the pcb’s etc etc you’d be crazy not to have the odd drink or two…IMO anyway…
…given that this sub is about nutrition, I grabbed this;
>Alcohol use inhibits absorption of nutrients.
>
>healthy foodNot only is alcohol devoid of proteins, minerals, and vitamins, it actually inhibits the absorption and usage of vital nutrients such as thiamin (vitamin B1), vitamin B12, folic acid, and zinc.
>
>Thiamin (vitamin B1) is involved in the metabolism of proteins and fat and the formation of hemoglobin. It is also essential to optimal performance for its role in metabolizing carbohydrates.
>
>Vitamin B12 is essential to good health. It helps maintain healthy red blood and nerve cells.
>
>Folic acid is an integral part of a coenzyme involved in the formation of new cells; a lack of it can cause a blood disorder called “megaloblastic anemia”, which causes a lowering of oxygen-carrying capacity and thus negatively affects endurance activities.
>
>Zinc is also essential to your energy metabolic processes. Since alcohol depletes your zinc resources, the effect is an even greater reduction of your endurance.
Found it on google first hit - https://studenthealth.ucsd.edu/resources/health-topics/alcohol-drugs/nutrition-endurance.html#:\~:text=Alcohol%20use%20inhibits%20absorption%20of,%2C%20folic%20acid%2C%20and%20zinc.
Something that may interest you is looking into the blue zone diets, where people live the longest. I would look into the original blue zone areas to see if alcoholic beverages played any role. My first guess would be to look in Italy.I do not have a credible answer right now for your question, but an alternate answer.A problem with alcohol is the calories; soda and fruit drinks can be a source of increased caloric intake. Someone not drinking alcohol at all and switching to NA beer would increase caloric intake, which could lead to weight gain, which is not good or bad depending on goals. -DTR, Dietetics masters students