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.

What Happens in your Body within 10 Minutes of Drinking Alcohol-Free Beverages?

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.

How Alcohol-Free Drinks Affect Your Gut and Liver Connection

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."

• High sugar content may lead to insulin resistance, inflammation, and fat accumulation in the liver.
• Artificial sweeteners may change the gut microbiota, causing metabolic imbalances.
• Preservatives and artificial flavors can also enhance gut permeability, thus potentially leading to leaky gut syndrome.

Long-term consumption of these drinks may gradually affect digestion, liver detoxification, and overall metabolic health, making moderation necessary.

Do Alcohol-Free Drinks Still Trigger Liver Enzymes?

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.

Do Non-Alcoholic Beverages Affect Liver Detoxification?

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:

• Mild inflammation to the liver due to the additives and byproducts within the drinks.
• Insulin resistance resulting from excessive sugar intake, causing fat accumulation in the liver.
• Detoxification pathways are overburdened, and impairment of liver function occurs gradually.

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.

Should You Drink Alcohol-Free Beverages?

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.

A large population-based study from Linköping University in Sweden has found no evidence that COVID-19 vaccination caused a decline in childbirth during the pandemic, countering persistent rumors that mRNA vaccines affect fertility. The findings have been published in the peer-reviewed journal Communications Medicine.

The study was conducted amid widespread misinformation, particularly on social media, suggesting that COVID-19 vaccines reduce the chances of becoming pregnant. These claims gained traction as several countries, including Sweden, recorded a drop in birth rates during the later stages of the pandemic, prompting questions about a possible link to vaccination.

“Our conclusion is that it’s highly unlikely that the mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 was behind the decrease in childbirth during the pandemic,” said Toomas Timpka, professor of social medicine at Linköping University and one of the study’s authors.

Why Researchers Investigated the Claim

Since the early months of the pandemic, unverified claims about vaccines and fertility have circulated widely online. When official data later showed fewer babies being born in some regions, researchers decided to examine whether vaccination could plausibly explain the trend or whether other social and demographic factors were at play.

Read: Ahmedabad Toddler Swallows Hulk Toy, Showed X-Ray, Doctors Remove It Via Endoscopy

To address the issue, the research team carried out an extensive analysis using real-world healthcare data rather than surveys or self-reported outcomes.

Study Looks at Nearly 60,000 Women

The study analyzed health records of all women aged 18 to 45 years living in Region Jönköping County, a region with a total population of around 369,000 people. This amounted to nearly 60,000 women included in the analysis.

Between 2021 and 2024, about 75 per cent of these women received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Researchers examined data on childbirths, registered miscarriages, vaccination status and deaths using official healthcare records, allowing for a comprehensive comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

Importantly, the researchers adjusted their analysis for age, recognizing that age is one of the most significant factors influencing fertility and pregnancy outcomes.

No Difference in Births or Miscarriages

When childbirth rates were compared between vaccinated and unvaccinated women, the researchers found no statistically significant difference. The same held true for miscarriage rates among women who became pregnant during the study period.

“We see no difference in childbirth rates between those who have taken the vaccine and those who haven’t,” said Timpka. “We’ve also looked at all registered miscarriages among those who became pregnant, and we see no difference between the groups there either.”

These findings align with several earlier international studies that have similarly found no association between COVID-19 vaccination and reduced fertility.

Other Factors Likely Behind Falling Birth Rates

According to the researchers, the decline in childbirth observed during the pandemic is more plausibly explained by broader demographic and social trends.

People currently in their 30s, the age group most likely to have children, were born in the second half of the 1990s. That period was marked by economic challenges and lower birth rates in Sweden, meaning today’s pool of potential parents is smaller than in previous generations.

In addition, pandemic-related factors such as health concerns, economic uncertainty, delayed family planning and lifestyle changes during lockdowns may have contributed to fewer pregnancies.

One of the study’s key strengths is its large, representative sample drawn from an entire region rather than a selected group. By using verified healthcare records and accounting for age-related effects, the researchers aimed to minimize bias and improve reliability.

The study received financial support from several sources, including the Swedish Research Council.

In 2022, there were almost 20 million new cases of cancer and 9.7 million cancer-related deaths worldwide, noted the National Cancer Institute (US). By 2050, it is predicted that the number of new cancer cases will rise to 33 million per year, with deaths rising to 18.2 million. While there are many reasons for cancer, a new comprehensive study by the World Health Organization (WHO) revealed that there are two major habits that are the leading cause of cancer.

As per WHO, more than 38% of cancer cases worldwide are linked to modifiable risk factors. The study is published in the journal Nature Medicine and it suggests that millions of diagnoses each year could be avoided through lifestyle changes, medical interventions, and environmental improvements.

WHO Study Says These 2 Major Habits Could Cause Cancer

Tobacco Use

As per the Association of Tobacco Use and Cancer Incidence, in India, the risk of any cancer with smoke and smokeless tobacco is 2.71 and 2.68, respectively. The study noted that risk of cancer due to tobacco use is consistent especially in India. Site-specific analysis showed higher risks of respiratory system cancers of 4.97 and head and neck cancers of 3.95.

As per several studies, including Cancer Research UK and National Institutes of Health (NIH), tobacco causes approximately 2.5 million cancer deaths globally, every year. This means, it accounts for 1 in every 4 global cancer death. It is also linked to 16 to 20 different types of cancer.

The WHO ranked it as the top reason for cancer, which is responsible for 15% of all global cancer cases. The impact is more in men, leading to 23% more new diagnoses.

Alcohol Use

The WHO study ranks it as the second most significant lifestyle factor that accounts for 700,000 new cases annually, leading to 3.2% of global cancer cases.

As per the National Cancer Institute (US), alcohol consumption is a significant, preventable cause of cancer, responsible for an estimated 741,300 to 750,000 new cancer cases worldwide in 2020. It is linked to cancers of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, and breast. Even light-to-moderate drinking contributes, with about 185,100 cases annually tied to consuming two or fewer drinks per day.

What Are The Other Causes Of Cancer As Per WHO Study

Air pollution is a major cause of lung cancer, particularly in heavily polluted regions. In East Asia, for instance, around 15 per cent of lung cancer cases in women are linked to poor air quality. Experts say this underlines the urgent need for cleaner energy and stricter pollution controls.

Infections are another significant contributor, accounting for about 10 per cent of new cancer cases globally. High-risk strains of the human papillomavirus are the leading cause of cervical cancer, while stomach cancer is often linked to infections associated with unsafe water and poor sanitation.

Other important risk factors include high body mass index, lack of physical activity and excessive exposure to ultraviolet radiation, all of which continue to drive cancer rates across different populations.

The number of autistic women is same as the number of autistic men, but women know to hide it well, says research. A study published in the BMJ, found that while the rates of diagnosis for autistic is found among young boys and girls, rates are almost identical by the time they reach adulthood. However, these new findings have also shown that women are more likely to "mask" signs of autism in order to fit in. This is why their diagnosis is done far later.

What Did The Study Find Out?

This is the first major study to find such high levels of condition among women. Previously, diagnoses rates were four times higher among boys and men than females.

Specialists say the findings highlight the urgent need to move away from outdated stereotypes that still influence how autism is recognized and diagnosed.

The international study, led by researchers at the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden, examined autism diagnosis rates among people born in Sweden between 1985 and 2000. More than 2.7 million individuals were followed for up to 37 years, making it one of the most comprehensive studies of its kind.

By 2022, around 2.8 per cent of the population studied had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The data revealed a clear pattern. In early childhood, boys were far more likely than girls to receive an autism diagnosis. However, this gap steadily narrowed during adolescence.

By the time participants reached their late teens and early 20s, diagnosis rates among men and women were broadly similar. Researchers noted that the male to female ratio of autism diagnoses decreased over time to the point that it may no longer be distinguishable in adulthood.

A Catch-Up Effect in Adolescence

Dr Caroline Fyfe, lead author of the study from the University of Edinburgh, said autism has long been viewed as a condition that mainly affects males. While that pattern was still visible in children under 10, the picture changed rapidly during adolescence.

Read: Mattel Launches First-Ever Barbie With Autism

She explained that diagnoses among girls rose sharply in the teenage years, creating what researchers described as a female catch-up effect. By the age of 20, autism rates were almost equal between men and women. According to Dr Fyfe, this suggests late or missed diagnoses in females rather than a true biological difference between sexes.

Masking and Mental Health Misdiagnoses

Experts say one major reason for delayed diagnosis is masking. Girls and women are often more likely to imitate social behavior, maintain eye contact and suppress traits traditionally associated with autism. While this can help them fit in socially, it can also make their difficulties harder to identify in clinical settings.

Dr Judith Brown from the National Autistic Society said gender should never be a barrier to diagnosis or support. She noted that autistic women who are misdiagnosed often develop additional mental health challenges due to years without appropriate understanding or help.

She added that the exhaustion of constant masking can contribute to anxiety and depression, reinforcing the importance of recognizing autism earlier in girls.

Clinical Biases Under Scrutiny

Dr Steven Kapp, senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Portsmouth, said research has consistently shown that clinical biases play a role in under-recognizing autism in women and girls. He explained that subtler behaviors and social adaptation often lead clinicians to overlook autism in females.

A linked editorial written by a patient and advocate echoed these concerns, warning that autistic women are frequently labelled with mood or personality disorders while waiting for a correct diagnosis. As a result, many are forced to self-advocate simply to be recognized as autistic.

Experts say the findings should prompt changes in diagnostic approaches, ensuring that autistic girls and women are no longer left unseen.