While younger generations are drinking less, adults aged 50 to 64 are drinking more, causing a shift reshaping the US bar scene

Alcohol consumption has decreased across the United States in recent years, particularly among adults under age 40, but there is one older demographic in which more people are drinking than before the Covid-19 pandemic – and more are doing so heavily, according to a new study.

For the first time since before the pandemic, the percentage of US adults who drink any alcohol decreased between 2022 and 2024, according to the report in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. People from 50 to 64, which roughly corresponds with gen X, were the only age group in which drinking continued to increase.

They are likely hurting their health by imbibing, according to the latest science, but they are also helping keep open bars. Such businesses have struggled as younger generations, the drivers of nightlife, move away from booze.

  • deHaga@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    There is alcohol in lots of food including bread. Your liver is quite capable of handling alcohol.

    • DrunkenDuckling@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Baking evaporates all but trace amounts of alcohol…

      Our livers can handle most poisons but they all, alcohol included, take their toll.

    • Zacryon@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      It seems you have neither read my comment properly, nor the WHO statement. This is about alcoholic beverages as usually sold and consumed. No statement was made about alcohol content in apples, bread, and alike.

      • deHaga@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health

        It is

        • Zacryon@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          Yeah now you are starting to troll. Click on the link. Read what I have written before the link.

          • deHaga@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            I’m not. Just debating it.

            Much earlier, alcohol has already been assigned to the highest class of carcinogenic substances, class 1. It sits in the same class as radiation, tobacco and asbestos.

            Tobacco contains about 250 carcinogens when combusted, that’s way more harmful than alcohol.

            They may be in the same class, but the risk profile is much lower for alcohol. The most common is colorectal cancer, and the risks are minimal

            For every 1,000 heavy drinkers over a lifetime, roughly 11 additional cases of colorectal cancer would be expected compared to 1,000 non-drinkers

            • riverdoc@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              I think this is a good example of risk through the lens of policy versus risk through the lens of personal choices.

              There is no safe amount of alcohol when it comes to a government recommending the use of a substance. The decision to say “one glass a day” by the government has been shown to lead to adverse health outcomes in the population.

              You are speaking to the chance that a single individual will experience adverse health outcomes from choosing for themselves to have a glass a day. You are probably right that on an individual basis it is a reasonable risk to take (though I don’t know what the exact numbers suggest).

              People often confuse policy level risk assessments with individual risk assessments, without considering the law of large numbers, and how a policy maker must make decisions for the population, not an individual.

              • deHaga@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                I think it’s also relevant to your genes. My family has made whisky since the 1600s, they seem well accustomed to it.