Image Credit: Freepik
Timothy had always been health-conscious. After years of social drinking, she decided to quit alcohol for good. But giving up the ritual of sipping on a drink at social gatherings felt impossible. That's when alcohol-free beer and wine seemed like the perfect alternative—offering the taste and experience without the intoxication. However, what Sarah didn't realize was that these supposedly "harmless" drinks might still be affecting her liver in ways she hadn't anticipated.
With a global shift toward healthier choices, the rise of alcohol-free beverages has been fuelled. Do these drinks, however, live up to their promise of being risk-free? New research shows that while they may eliminate the dangers of intoxication, they still pose metabolic and liver-related risks, which calls for moderation in the long run.
The first time you take a sip of an alcohol-free beverage, your body responds almost instantly. Anshul Singh, Lead Clinical Nutritionist and Dietetics Department says, "In as little as 10 minutes, your taste buds have picked up on the flavors, and your brain might even get a placebo effect, giving you the sensation that you're about to be drunk. Some alcohol-free drinks have up to 0.5% ABV, which goes into the bloodstream in minute quantities but will probably not affect you in any significant way."
By the 30-minute mark, your body has metabolized the sugars, artificial sweeteners, or additives in the drink. "Some people may experience a mild insulin spike, which can cause temporary energy boosts. Some non-alcoholic drinks also contain fermentation byproducts or botanical extracts that mimic the sedative effects of alcohol, causing slight drowsiness or relaxation," adds Anshul.
After 60 minutes, most of the drink has been metabolized. Although there is no risk of intoxication, repeated consumption can subtly affect metabolism, gut health, and even trigger cravings for alcohol among those in recovery. Those sensitive to sugar, caffeine, or preservatives might experience even more pronounced effects over time.
Your liver and gut health are connected, forming what is called the gut-liver axis. Anshul emphasises, "Even though drinks without alcohol seem harmless, they usually contain sugars, artificial sweeteners, and fermentation byproducts that can disturb this delicate balance."
Long-term consumption of these drinks may gradually affect digestion, liver detoxification, and overall metabolic health, making moderation necessary.
Even though these nonalcoholic beverages contain virtually insignificant alcohol, the liver processes them as well. "These small concentrations of alcohol-which may go as high as 0.5% ABV-trigger the liver's detoxification pathways but only at much weaker intensities compared to ordinary alcoholic drinks. But the added sugars, artificial sweeteners, and preservatives in the products could pose significant pressure on liver functions over the long term," explains Anshul.
High sugar intake causes insulin resistance, which can lead to the buildup of fat in the liver and increase the risk of developing NAFLD. Some fermentation byproducts in these beverages also trigger oxidative stress, which puts extra pressure on the liver. Though occasional consumption will not pose a significant threat, regular consumption might lead to chronic liver stress and metabolic imbalance.
Although trace amounts of alcohol exist in alcohol-free beer and wine, the body will still have to metabolize them. The body employs the same enzymatic pathways used for alcoholic beverages but at a much lower intensity. However, the added sugars, preservatives, and fermentation byproducts present their own set of challenges:
Alcohol-free drinks do not cause the liver to become overwhelmed as traditional alcohol does, although it does have a lower, but still important, risk for someone who is drinking too much. For someone with a problem of liver disease or metabolic syndrome, limiting alcohol-free drinks is also important.
Alcoholic beverages have always been a dangerous drink, but the safer option for those who want to avoid intoxication. However, it is not totally risk-free. Its impact on metabolism, gut health, and liver function cannot be ignored. Although they are not harmful at first, their consumption over a long period leads to insulin resistance, liver stress, and imbalance in the gut.
For the consumers who love these drinks, moderation is the way forward. The expert shares, "The choice of brands with the least additives, lower sugar, and natural ingredients will reduce risks. In addition, supplementing with a diet that is rich in antioxidants, fiber, and hydration can complement the liver in general."
For most, thought that adopting alcohol-free beverages was a healthier decision. On discovering their side effects on liver health, though, she learned to limit its intake and settle for alternatives that included infused sparkling water, herbal teas, or even kombucha with controlled sugar levels.
The bottom line? Alcohol-free doesn't mean consequence-free. The best way to achieve long-term health is by paying attention to what goes into the body and yet still enjoy social rituals of preference.
Anshul Singh is the Team Lead with the Clinical Nutrition and Dietetics Department at Artemis Hospitals in India.
Credit: Unsplash
Often, we underestimate the way our brain works and daydreaming has long been seen as a major sign of creativity. Many artists have used their imagination to bring their work to life. However, science offers a different perspective.
Coined in 2002 Dr. Eliezer Somer, those who experience “maladaptive daydreaming” often fantasize about celebrities, historical figures or idealized versions of themselves. Their imaginations are more elaborate, diverse, and complex as compared to other daydreamers.
A 2012 Consciousness and Cognition study found that maladaptive daydreamers spend, on average, 57 percent of their waking hours daydreaming far more than their counterparts.
Dr Somer explains: "The greatest difference is the maladaptive daydreamers reported that the activity interfered with their daily life. They also reported higher rates of attention-deficit and obsessive compulsive symptoms, and more than 80% used kinesthetic activity or movement when daydreaming, such as rocking, pacing or spinning"
He further noted that while everyone experiences moments of mind-wandering, it usually does not interfere with daily life. But maladaptive daydreaming does interfere in regular life. The condition has not been classified as a mental illness and there is no treatment for it yet.
Many Reddit users have shared their experiences with maladaptive daydreaming, often asking questions such as: “Is it normal to daydream for such long hours?”
While some responses described daydreaming as a form of dissociation when bored, others relied on music or movies to fuel fantasies of being a “better version” of themselves, often struggling to return to reality.
Here are some early signs of maladaptive daydreaming to keep an eye out for:
Rachel Bennett, a member of Dr. Somer’s online community, shared she usually dreams up new episodes of her favorite Japanese animé characters and TV shows. She’s also created four families of fictional characters which have grown with her over the years.
“I’d much rather stay home and daydream than go out,” she said.
Dr. Somer noted that about one-quarter of maladaptive daydreamers are trauma survivors who use daydreaming as an escape. Many report family members with similar tendencies, as well as being shy or socially isolated.
Meanwhile, a Harvard Medical study found that 80 percent of maladaptive daydreamers have ADHD, followed by anxiety disorders, depression, and OCD. Researchers believe daydreaming often acts as a coping mechanism for pent-up emotions that cannot be expressed in real life, so they are released through imagination instead.
Experts emphasize that maladaptive daydreaming is not an extreme condition requiring formal diagnosis, but many people have shared strategies that help:
Credits: iStock
In January 2026, a Guardian investigation uncovered something deeply unsettling. Google’s AI summaries, designed to quickly answer search queries, were giving users inaccurate health information. Some of the advice was not just misleading but potentially dangerous.
One striking example involved liver function tests. The AI presented incorrect “normal ranges,” which could make someone with a serious liver infection believe their reports were fine. Following the investigation, Google quietly removed AI Overviews for certain queries such as “normal range for liver function tests” and similar searches.
Soon after, another finding raised further alarm. Researchers discovered that Google’s AI Overviews frequently relied on YouTube rather than established medical websites when responding to health questions. Considering nearly two billion people use Google search every month, the implications were hard to ignore.
For years, doctors have warned about “Dr Google” and self diagnosis. But the situation has now moved beyond search results. People are increasingly asking AI tools directly for answers to complex medical problems.
The search optimization platform SE Ranking analyzed more than 50,000 health searches in Germany. The most cited source in AI responses was YouTube, which accounted for 4.43 percent of citations. That is about 3.5 times more than netdoktor.de, one of the country’s biggest consumer health portals. It was also cited more than twice as often as the well known medical reference MSD Manuals.
Only 34.45 percent of citations in AI Overviews came from reliable medical sources. Government health institutions and academic journals together contributed roughly one percent. No hospital network, university, or medical association came close to YouTube’s citation numbers.
Read: ChatGPT Health Explained: Will This New OpenAI Feature Replace Doctors?
The concern is simple. YouTube is a video platform, not a medical publisher. While qualified doctors upload educational videos, the platform also hosts wellness influencers, life coaches, and creators without medical training.
In one particularly worrying example, Google’s AI advised pancreatic cancer patients to avoid high fat foods. Medical experts say this recommendation is the opposite of what many patients actually need and could increase mortality risk.
AI Overviews also gave incorrect information about women’s cancer screening tests. Experts warned this could lead people to dismiss serious symptoms and delay diagnosis.
The shift is not limited to search engines. Chatbots are rapidly becoming everyday health advisers. OpenAI estimates about 40 million people globally use ChatGPT for healthcare guidance each day.
A 2026 Health and Media Tracking Survey by the Canadian Medical Association found roughly half of Canadians consult Google AI summaries or ChatGPT for medical concerns.
Read: AI Therapy Gone Wrong: Psychiatrist Reveals How Chatbots Are Failing Vulnerable Teens
The outcome has not been reassuring. People who followed AI advice for self diagnosis and treatment were five times more likely to experience negative health effects than those who did not.
Studies help explain why. A 2025 University of Waterloo study found GPT 4 answered open ended medical questions incorrectly about two thirds of the time. Another 2025 Harvard study showed chatbots often agreed with flawed assumptions instead of correcting users, such as confusion between acetaminophen and Tylenol.
Researchers say AI systems tend to be overly agreeable and confident, prioritizing helpful responses rather than critical reasoning.
Despite knowing AI can be wrong, many people still rely on it. Long waits for specialists, lack of family doctors, and limited access to healthcare make instant answers appealing.
The real concern is not curiosity but unquestioned trust. Looking up symptoms is one thing. Acting on AI advice without verification is another.
The technology is powerful and useful, but when confident sounding answers replace medical judgement, the consequences can affect real lives.
Credits: Canva
A new review published in The Lancet highlights how close this shift may be. The study underscores a hard truth: despite having effective medicines for years, global blood pressure control remains disappointingly poor. The real challenge, experts say, is not the absence of drugs—but problems with adherence, health systems, and long-term patient engagement.
Hypertension continues to be the leading cause of heart attacks, strokes and premature deaths worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines high blood pressure as readings at or above 140 mm Hg systolic and/or 90 mm Hg diastolic. A normal reading is below 120/80 mm Hg.
The numbers are staggering. Between 2024 and 2025, an estimated 1.4 billion adults aged 30 to 79—roughly one in three people in this age group—are living with hypertension globally. Nearly 44 percent do not even know they have it. Among those diagnosed, fewer than one in four have their blood pressure adequately controlled.
India reflects this alarming trend. The ICMR-INDIAB study (2023) estimated that about 315 million Indians—35.5 percent of the population—have hypertension. Data from NFHS-5 further showed that nearly half of hypertensive men and more than a third of hypertensive women in India do not have their condition under control.
For decades, hypertension treatment has relied on daily oral medications—often combinations of two or more drugs. These may include ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers paired with calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics.
On paper, these regimens are effective. In reality, adherence is the weak link.
Many patients with hypertension also manage diabetes, obesity or high cholesterol. The result is polypharmacy—multiple pills, multiple times a day. Over time, missed doses, side effects and simple “treatment fatigue” erode consistency. Therapeutic inertia—where doctors do not intensify treatment despite poor control—further worsens outcomes.
This is where long-acting injectable therapies come in. According to Dr Mohit Gupta, cardiologist at G B Pant Hospital and UCMS, the field is now moving toward therapies that may be administered just twice a year.
Unlike traditional medicines that work downstream to reduce blood pressure numbers, these new drugs target upstream molecular pathways that drive hypertension.
One promising approach involves small interfering RNA (siRNA) therapies that inhibit angiotensinogen production in the liver. By silencing this protein, they dampen the renin–angiotensin system—central to blood pressure regulation. Zilebesiran, developed by Roche and Alnylam, is currently in global phase 3 trials.
Another candidate, ziltivekimab by Novo Nordisk, targets inflammatory pathways increasingly linked to cardiovascular risk. There are also newer strategies aimed at selectively modulating aldosterone, a hormone that increases blood volume and pressure.
The appeal is simple: durability. A twice-yearly injection could eliminate the daily burden of pill-taking, improve adherence and provide more stable blood pressure control over time.
However, excitement is tempered by concern. Cost remains a major question. The recent introduction of inclisiran, an injectable cholesterol-lowering therapy priced between Rs 1.8 and 2.4 lakh annually in India, highlights affordability challenges.
Long-term safety is another critical issue. Hypertension is lifelong. Patients may require these treatments for decades. Experts stress the need for robust long-term data across diverse populations before widespread adoption.
The promise is undeniable. A twice-yearly injection that reliably controls blood pressure could transform preventive cardiology. But its true impact will depend not only on scientific success—but on accessibility, affordability and sustained safety.
© 2024 Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited