Certainly appreciate the kind words for our Pinot Noir : )
Yes—this type of study is associative, in the sense that people who accumulate more vigorous physical activity tend to have lower incidence of physical-activity–related cancers and lower cancer mortality (as well as lower all-cause mortality and reduced cardiometabolic risk (including type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease), after adjusting for multiple confounding factors.
I kinda of fixated on this (and cancer) given that alcohol exposure pushes risk in the opposite direction: my hope is that regular exercise can mitigate alcohol-related risks—perhaps modestly, perhaps meaningfully . At a minimum, this study adds to a growing body of literature demonstrating the positive, dose-dependent associations between physical activity and health outcomes. What is especially interesting here is the suggestion that some of these benefits may be achieved with less vigorous exercise than previously thought. That said, I would certainly not suggest reducing vigorous exercise based on these findings. Across many studies, the evidence consistently suggests that—for most people—more physical activity is better, with the usual caveat that extreme levels (elite athletes) carry their own risks.
I was poking around a bit – the American Cancer Society still cites a 2019 associative study showing that the equivalent of 2.5–5 hours of moderate-intensity activity per week (or 1.25–2.5 hours of vigorous activity) was associated with significant reductions in cancer risk, including colon and liver cancers—two of the cancers most often discussed in relation to alcohol exposure. That earlier 2019 study relied on self-reported activity data, whereas this newer 2025 study uses wearable-device data, which strengthens its reliability (even though as you noted participants did not always meet the ideal goal of one full week of 24-hour data per year).
Comparing these two studies activity-intensity equivalence ratio shifts from roughly 1:2 in the 2019 study to about 1:3.5 in the 2025 study for cancer mortality (vigorous exercise delivers more benefit than previously assumed). Also it is heartening to see lower incidence rates in this new study, not just mortality rates.
Did a dinner recently that would normally leave me hurting more the next AM (basically just a full bottle of wine for me). I took Z Biotics, a waterboy, 3 wine fix capsules… was still feeling it in the AM… another water boy / 2 wine fix in the AM … and then feeling pretty OK. I think additions of the waterboys is the biggest positive change to my routine.
just curious, what makes a methodology ‘bulletproof’ to you? known confounders can still contribute to residual confounding even after adjustment, not to mention the existence of unknown confounders which are entirely unidentified.
I’ve used the Waterboy Weekend Recovery now a few times after nights where I’d normally have a mild to moderate hangover, and I have to say I think it was too powerful (for me) in those instances. I developed a headache after and felt way worse than expected the rest of the day, and I’m guessing I just wasn’t dehydrated or hungover enough to require the gigantic electrolyte bomb (I didn’t exactly tie one on). I’m still experimenting with what works for me, so it’s also possible I just haven’t found the right combo (I did Myrkl before drinking > Cheers before bed > WWR when waking last go round).
I wouldn’t call it a gigantic electrolyte bomb; it’s less than you’d get from a serving of any fast food. It’s just absorbed quickly and helps with dehydration.
I’m on dry January for the moment, but I think I’m going to save my next use of it for a bit more of a bender… not that I do those as much anymore. If I get a late developing hangover without it, I’ll know it’s probably the Cheers or me getting older instead .
I haven’t personally done this, since I take NAC as a standing supplement, but I think the best move is to take NAC before and after drinking. The purpose is to encourage glutathione production and also directly bind acetaldehyde. Most NAC supplements that are oral have a quite short half-life of a few hours so I would imagine taking it just before drinking is ideal. That said, I take it every day, twice a day (including before bed), and I personally believe it is one of the important reasons I haven’t had a hang over in years now, and definitely used to get them before. I certainly don’t drink less per se, but I do make hydration a focus, though haven’t used any electrolytes.
Sorry if I’m repeating what others have already said, I think Michael Chang in particular seems to have a really good sense of practical supplementation that can really help around this space. I’d venture to guess that always taking NAC before and after drinking may even mitigate other chronic ill effects of acetaldehyde, but it won’t help with the other issues around heart rate and sleep.
Again, I’m not a doctor, biologist, etc., so perhaps Michael can talk more to this, but I’ve read you should be careful about taking NAC directly after drinking. Allegedly, it can counterintuitively increase damage done to the liver when alcohol is already present in your system. I’ve read it is recommended to take 60 minutes prior to drinking or to wait until the next day.
Interesting. Feels like we need a detailed mechanistic podcast and if it’s applicable in humans. Not sure they teach that level of detail in med school. You need a PhD probably in the subject.
I think nac is a more useful supplement when taken long term to ameliorate the long term effects of alcohol use as opposed to in the short term. For the purpose of hepatoprotection it’s typically given IV; I have doubts about its short term efficacy when given orally.
Just tried Zbiotics for the first time the last two nights. TL;DR is it seems to be the most effective supplement I’ve taken.
I did electrolytes plus 2 capsules Pregame and 3 capsules Wine Fix and Zbiotics. Then 2 capsules Wine Fix before bed with more electrolytes. I was pretty hungry and started with Champagne before the food arrived. Usually, I start to feel the buzz right away on an empty stomach, but I noticed that it felt like I wasn’t drinking at all.
Yesterday I had to wake up early after 6 hours sleep and that is usually tough, but I felt great. Last night I did the same regimen and had even more wine (12 bottles for 6 people with little left over) and woke up after 7 hours feeling great without even a little bit of brain fog.
I would say that I think it made me extra sleepy-tired as I crashed out yesterday afternoon for a nap and crashed out late this morning for a nap also. But without the brain fog, it basically felt like I didn’t drink at all.
I’m not saying Zbiotics is a silver bullet as I did hydrate and take my usual other supplements. But I’ve been doing this long enough and tried enough different supplements and protocols that I can confidently say Zbiotics does what it claims and very well. And it’s more than just the next day, I think it actually decreases BAC while drinking.
Sounds like you are having a similar experience as me, with Zbiotics/hydration being the best duo. I am curious though, what is impact you feel of wine fix, and have you tried dropping the wine fix and just seeing Zbiotics for a comparison?
Like I said this is the first weekend I’ve tried Zbiotics. The Wine Fix and Pregame and electrolytes has worked great in the past, I’ve just had some minor brain fog in the mornings which went away with Zbiotics. I would hesitate to pull those. I’d have to have a time with low stakes to try Zbiotics only.
I have used Zbiotics alone and it’s not nearly as effective as the combo. I’m gonna test the effects of Myrkl this next week, but otherwise I think the regimen is pretty dialed in.
. At a minimum, this study adds to a growing body of literature demonstrating the positive, dose-dependent associations between physical activity and health outcomes. What is especially interesting here is the suggestion that some of these benefits may be achieved with less vigorous exercise than previously thought. That said, I would certainly not suggest reducing vigorous exercise based on these findings. Across many studies, the evidence consistently suggests that—for most people—more physical activity is better, with the usual caveat that extreme levels (elite athletes) carry their own risks.
.