Differentially private training algorithms provide protection against one of the most popular attacks in machine learning: the membership inference attack. However, these privacy algorithms incur a loss of the model's classification accuracy, therefore creating a privacy-utility trade-off. The amount of noise that differential privacy requires to provide strong theoretical protection guarantees in deep learning typically renders the models unusable, but authors have observed that even lower noise levels provide acceptable empirical protection against existing membership inference attacks. In this work, we look for alternatives to differential privacy towards empirically protecting against membership inference attacks. We study the protection that simply following good machine learning practices (not designed with privacy in mind) offers against membership inference. We evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art techniques, such as pre-training and sharpness-aware minimization, alone and with differentially private training algorithms, and find that, when using early stopping, the algorithms without differential privacy can provide both higher utility and higher privacy than their differentially private counterparts. These findings challenge the belief that differential privacy is a good defense to protect against existing membership inference attacks