nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Units of alcohol per week...

Hector Savage

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/alcohol-support/calculating-alcohol-units/

men and women are advised not to drink more than 14 units a week on a regular basis

Seriously ? I thought I didn't drink much and I probably average about 18/20 units a week, so according to this I drink too much ...

Is there an Irish version to this nonsense, I thought the "limit" should have been around 30 units a week ...

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ohnonotgmail

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s not the NHS’ job to find a limit that gets you drunk and makes you feel good about the amount you’ve had. It’s just their job to tell people what’s an amount, beyond which they’ll likely cause serious harm.

I know I went well over the recommendation at the weekend. It’s not the recommendation’s fault.

Is the issue not that the recommendation is not actually scientific? If there was any science behind it the recommended limits worldwide would be similar but they are not. It is the same with the "5 a day" nonsense for fruit and veg. They literally just made up a number that they thought people might actually be able to achieve. no science behind the reasoning.

El_Duderino 09

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is the issue not that the recommendation is not actually scientific? If there was any science behind it the recommended limits worldwide would be similar but they are not. It is the same with the "5 a day" nonsense for fruit and veg. They literally just made up a number that they thought people might actually be able to achieve. no science behind the reasoning.

Depends on how similar you want them to be.

None of them set a limit of 200 units a week. Most are clustered around 15-30 units a week. So it’s not a precise consensus.

I’m pretty sure nobody thinks booze is a health product. So it’s just a matter of defining “harm” and determining the amount of booze that’s likely to cause “harm” in a population where everyone is different.

Wouldn’t it be a bit mad if they claimed x units per week would cause precisely the same harm to every single person in the world?

Ipso

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is the issue not that the recommendation is not actually scientific? If there was any science behind it the recommended limits worldwide would be similar but they are not. It is the same with the "5 a day" nonsense for fruit and veg. They literally just made up a number that they thought people might actually be able to achieve. no science behind the reasoning.

Given that they end up dealing with any health problems associated with alcohol, it's understandable they would want people to drink less.

ohnonotgmail

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Depends on how similar you want them to be.

None of them set a limit of 200 units a week. Most are clustered around 15-30 units a week. So it’s not a precise consensus.

I’m pretty sure nobody thinks booze is a health product. So it’s just a matter of defining “harm” and determining the amount of booze that’s likely to cause “harm” in a population where everyone is different.

Wouldn’t it be a bit mad if they claimed x units per week would cause precisely the same harm to every single person in the world?

The range goes from 12.5 to 35. thats a pretty wide range. In order to define the harm caused you should have some scientific basis for what you are saying. I dont that is too much to expect from the medical profession.

Ipso wrote: »

Given that they end up dealing with any health problems associated with alcohol, it's understandable they would want people to drink less.

That doesnt justify pulling a number from your arse.

Jimmy_Conway

About 10 a month, not even that

meeeeh

Reed Obedient Stepladder wrote: »

Plenty of people with kids still enjoy an active social life and go out drinking regularly, some disappear off the face of the earth and give up on having the craic but most do not.

Having the craic isn't defined by how much alcohol you manage to guzzle. Personal Issues forum is full of people who were growing up in a house where parents had plenty of your type of craic.

We still go out and I still drink more than recommended amount every so often but there are fewer opportunities. I also love a glass of wine with food but the best wine is too good to get drunk on.

skallywag

Great idea for a thread, cannot believe such a topic does not get done regularly on Boards ...

Edgware

Simple rule.
When you are lying on the floor in your own vomit and after soiling your trousers having consumed 20 units of Guinness stop and start on units of vodka or whiskey

skallywag

Edgware wrote: »

Simple rule.
When you are lying on the floor in your own vomit and after soiling your trousers having consumed 20 units of Guinness stop and start on units of vodka or whiskey

That would be a little over 8 pints of Guinness.

I think a simpler rule would be if you are going to soil your trousers after 8 pints of Guinness then do not bother with them at all.

Old Irish saying #1 : 'If you can't drink don't drink'

skallywag

hurler32 wrote: »

Will alcohol be like smoking in years to come ?

That's an interesting question. I always found it odd that there are official statements that a few drinks a week is OK, but you never hear that smoking 5 cigarettes a week is fine.

I do not think that there is any real safe limit at all for drink, after all alcohol is intrinsically a poison to the human body.

It is pretty much ingrained into so many cultures now that advocating a total abstinence policy will come with a whole heap of social issues. Just imagine if governments attacked the drink issue the same way that they do with smoking.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Reed Obedient Stepladder wrote: »

Plenty of people with kids still enjoy an active social life and go out drinking regularly, some disappear off the face of the earth and give up on having the craic but most do not.

Wait. Hold on. I don’t really drink. Does this mean the craic can’t be had by me?

irelandrover

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Wait. Hold on. I don’t really drink. Does this mean the craic can’t be had by me?

Yeah. Also means you don't have a social life.

elperello

They claim that 3 pints is a binge drinking episode.
I know guys who would drink 3 pints while deliberating on whether to go on the drink for the day or not.

runawaybishop

skallywag wrote: »

That's an interesting question. I always found it odd that there are official statements that a few drinks a week is OK, but you never hear that smoking 5 cigarettes a week is fine.

I do not think that there is any real safe limit at all for drink, after all alcohol is intrinsically a poison to the human body.

It is pretty much ingrained into so many cultures now that advocating a total abstinence policy will come with a whole heap of social issues. Just imagine if governments attacked the drink issue the same way that they do with smoking.

Alcohol has proven health benefits so it's not odd that you hear about them. Smoking does not have health benefits so why would you hear about them?

Interestingly nicotine does have some health benefits and helps ward off Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and there are lots of papers investigating this

El_Duderino 09

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The range goes from 12.5 to 35. thats a pretty wide range. In order to define the harm caused you should have some scientific basis for what you are saying. I dont that is too much to expect from the medical profession.

It’s not small compared to what people can drink.

So what exact do you consider “harm”? A 2% increased risk of heart disease? A 10% increased risk of liver disease? A 20% increased risk of cancer?

Like I said earlier, it will depend on how exactly you define harm and what increase in the risk of harm you consider to be enough alcohol to cause that harm at a population level.

It’s not an exact science and it will obviously take some interpretation. But that is not the same as plucking numbers out of the sky as you said.

ceadaoin.

The limit is pretty arbitrary tbh and most people can drink more than that without any adverse health effects. I suppose it's set low to cover the people who may have more of an propensity to damage due to underlying issues which they may not be aware of.

Dont get blackout drunk on a frequent basis and dont drink every single day and you'll more than likely be grand.

skallywag

runawaybishop wrote: »

...Smoking does not have health benefits so why would you hear about them?

Interestingly nicotine does have some health benefits and helps ward off Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and there are lots of papers investigating this

Are you not immediately contradicting yourself there, no?

runawaybishop

skallywag wrote: »

Are you not immediately contradicting yourself there, no?

No, the health benefits of nicotine are wiped out by the cancer from smoking, so it's not advertised.

Beechwoodspark

elperello wrote: »

They claim that 3 pints is a binge drinking episode.
I know guys who would drink 3 pints while deliberating on whether to go on the drink for the day or not.

Just on a serious note 3 pints of standard 4.3% beer would be about 6 units out of the 14 limit for the ENTIRE week.

skallywag

runawaybishop wrote: »

No, the health benefits of nicotine are wiped out by the cancer from smoking, so it's not advertised.

The health benefits from alcohol are wiped out by liver disease, heart disease, etc. No?

How is this argument different to yours?

runawaybishop

skallywag wrote: »

The health benefits from alcohol are wiped out by liver disease, heart disease, etc. No?

There is a safe amount of alcohol that extends your life, every cigarette is considered life limiting.

Fyi alcohol has benefits for heart health.

elperello

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Just on a serious note 3 pints of standard 4.3% beer would be about 6 units out of the 14 limit for the ENTIRE week.

Correct.
But tell that to your average porter shark.

skallywag

runawaybishop wrote: »

There is a safe amount of alcohol that extends your life, every cigarette is considered life limiting.

I guess you mean life limiting unless you happen to be prone to dementia, in which case cigarettes are considered positive (papers, etc. As you say ...)

runawaybishop

skallywag wrote: »

I guess you mean life limiting unless you happen to be prone to dementia, in which case cigarettes are considered positive (papers, etc. As you say ...)

Nicotine, not cigarettes.

skallywag

runawaybishop wrote: »

Nicotine, not cigarettes.

Well, in the same vein I could argue 'Alcohol, not beer/whiskey'.

Etc.

Seamai

Over the last 10 years I'd been averaging 7 or 8 units a week, maybe a little more during the summer. This time last year I was put on antidepressants so I cut it out except for the occasional single glass of wine with dinner or the odd shandy, mostly it's alcohol free beer and to be honest it's been great, I don't miss it at all, I was out on Saturday night with friends and one of them said he didn't know how I did it, It's actually pretty easy given how bad my hangovers were after only a few drinks. Holiday's have been great, up and out early with a clear head, the one thing that surprised me though was Italy on holidays last month, I couldn't find one bar that served alcohol free beer, when I asked why, I don't think they saw the point of it, strange for a society where getting drunk in public is considered the ultimate social faux pas.

runawaybishop

skallywag wrote: »

Well, in the same vein I could argue 'Alcohol, not beer/whiskey'.

Etc.

You could, but it would be a stupid argument. Before you post something else maybe go and spend 5 minutes looking this up.

KaneToad

Reed Obedient Stepladder wrote: »

Plenty of people with kids still enjoy an active social life and go out drinking regularly, some disappear off the face of the earth and give up on having the craic but most do not.

Since when does active social life = drinking ?

skallywag

runawaybishop wrote: »

You could, but it would be a stupid argument. Before you post something else maybe go and spend 5 minutes looking this up.

What is stupid about my point?

Nicotine is delivered through cigarettes. Alcohol is delivered through drinks such as beer, wine, gin, etc.

Where are we not seeing eye to eye? I'm not seeing it myself.

robman60

skallywag wrote: »

What is stupid about my point?

Nicotine is delivered through cigarettes. Alcohol is delivered through drinks such as beer, wine, gin, etc.

Where are we not seeing eye to eye? I'm not seeing it myself.

You can take nicotine (patches for example) without the harm of smoking. You can't take alcohol without the harm of alcohol.