Units of alcohol per week...

Naggdefy · 01-11-2019 1:30am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It does actually. You don’t know what’s going on with the drunk person. Not a notion.

And as pointed out by somebody else, an injury being self-inflicted is beside the point. It’s not a consideration in how serious the injury/ailment is. That might annoy you but that doesn’t matter. Feelings - also not a consideration.

It matters to me personally. That's what I'm saying. I get annoyed if I feel adults, who should know better, are ahead of me in A&E because they were in a drunken row for instance. I'm not speaking from a medical point of view.

Hint: Goodbye now. I don't have the time or inclination to engage in a secondary school debate.

Greyfox · 01-11-2019 1:54am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So, how do you define genuine risk? What constitutes a genuine risk to you?

Something that could eventually put me in hospital, cause family/relationship problems, effect my career, batter my bank balance, dangerous blood pressure or enough drink to make you sick. The people who give alcohol advice should do a better job of targeting there message towards those at risk of the above.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It does actually. You don’t know what’s going on with the drunk person. Not a notion.

That's true. But theirs also the fact that plenty of times the drunk person ends up been ok and that drunk person was still an assh*le to nurses and other patients. Drunks in A&E are usually a nightmare to deal with

tuxy · 01-11-2019 2:07am

Greyfox wrote: »

That's true. But theirs also the fact that plenty of times the drunk person ends up been ok and that drunk person was still an assh*le to nurses and other patients. Drunks in A&E are usually a nightmare to deal with

Still nicer to staff than sober travellers though.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 01-11-2019 2:11am

Naggdefy wrote: »

It matters to me personally. That's what I'm saying. I get annoyed if I feel adults, who should know better, are ahead of me in A&E because they were in a drunken row for instance. I'm not speaking from a medical point of view.

Hint: Goodbye now. I don't have the time or inclination to engage in a secondary school debate.

You probably shouldn’t have then.

El_Duderino 09 · 01-11-2019 9:02am

Greyfox wrote: »

Something that could eventually put me in hospital, cause family/relationship problems, effect my career, batter my bank balance, dangerous blood pressure or enough drink to make you sick. The people who give alcohol advice should do a better job of targeting there message towards those at risk of the above.

Ok. So what % risk increase would you consider significant or how would you measure it and deem it a fair risk to take seriously?

Note at this point I’ve asked the question 3/4 times and you’re struggling to actually answer it. Can you put a number on it? I think it’s clear that you don’t know - why would any lay person be able to answer the question? But you’re critiquing the guidance as not good enough so validates the question of what you would consider good enough/significant/genuine enough risk or however you want to phrase it.

You’ve answered in qualitative terms. Now I’m asking for a number. % risk increase. If you can’t do it this, that’s fine. Just say so. But the also say why you feel you can critique the current level as being too low.

Cheers.

Greyfox · 01-11-2019 11:51am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. So what % risk increase would you consider significant or how would you measure it and deem it a fair risk to take seriously?

Note at this point I’ve asked the question 3/4 times and you’re struggling to actually answer it. Can you put a number on it? I think it’s clear that you don’t know - why would any lay person be able to answer the question? But you’re critiquing the guidance as not good enough so validates the question of what you would consider good enough/significant/genuine enough risk or however you want to phrase it.

You’ve answered in qualitative terms. Now I’m asking for a number. % risk increase. If you can’t do it this, that’s fine. Just say so. But the also say why you feel you can critique the current level as being too low.

Cheers.

I don't need to answer it as I never said I was an expert. It's also even a difficult answer for experts as it varies depending on the diet and how active the person is and past health issues. My point is more about how silly the advice sounds when its so far removed from what Irish people think. People arent going to adjust there thinking, maybe they should but its deluded to think they will so the best thing to do is to give advise that may be listened to, I'm not asking them to change there facts.

If people feel advice is silly they will ignore it and pretty much all drinkers are ignoring this which means there likely ignoring the other advise in relation to liver damage, blood pressure and depending on alcohol which is a bad thing. The advice implys that having a few quiet pints at a slow pace with friends is dangerous, its really stupid to imply this. To follow that advice means depriving yourself of a night out with friends and no advise should be implying dont go out with your friends (Yes I know you could go out and not drink but in Ireland this is very hard)

I am critiqueing the current advice as I believe its poor advice due to it been almost impossible to follow.

El_Duderino 09 · 01-11-2019 12:17pm

Greyfox wrote: »

I don't need to answer it as I never said I was an expert. It's also even a difficult answer for experts as it varies depending on the diet and how active the person is and past health issues. My point is more about how silly the advice sounds when its so far removed from what Irish people think. People arent going to adjust there thinking, maybe they should but its deluded to think they will so the best thing to do is to give advise that may be listened to, I'm not asking them to change there facts.

If people feel advice is silly they will ignore it and pretty much all drinkers are ignoring this which means there likely ignoring the other advise in relation to liver damage, blood pressure and depending on alcohol which is a bad thing. The advice implys that having a few quiet pints at a slow pace with friends is dangerous, its really stupid to imply this. To follow that advice means depriving yourself of a night out with friends and no advise should be implying dont go out with your friends (Yes I know you could go out and not drink but in Ireland this is very hard)

I am critiqueing the current advice as I believe its poor advice due to it been almost impossible to follow.

Like I said, you can’t answer it. And you’d look a fool if you tried because you don’t have any expertise to make such a claim. But what you don’t seem to see is that you look equally foolish for disagreeing with the advice the experts give, because you don't like the advice.

Going out with friends is great fun and is good for social relationships, mental health, sharing stories and experience and offering support. Drinking is harmful to the body so it’s a trade off. And you now know that more that about 3 pints is likely doing harm to the body.

Nobody is telling you what to do. You can choose to drink as much as you like m and you know the risks of drinking 3 or 6 or 9pints, you can do it in an informed way. Job’s oxo. It’s not their job to make you happier about the amount you drink or to stop you drinking.

They could change the facts or tell you that 8 pints wont harm the body as long as you sup them at a reasonable rate, with friends and in nice middle class surrounds and you’re having a good time and don’t cause any trouble for anyone else. But that would be untrue. So I’m happy with them just sticking to the facts.

jh79 · 01-11-2019 12:30pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Like I said, you can’t answer it. And you’d look a fool if you tried because you don’t have any expertise to make such a claim. But what you don’t seem to see is that you look equally foolish for disagreeing with the advice the experts give, because you don't like the advice.

Going out with friends is great fun and is good for social relationships, mental health, sharing stories and experience and offering support. Drinking is harmful to the body so it’s a trade off. And you now know that more that about 3 pints is likely doing harm to the body.

Nobody is telling you what to do. You can choose to drink as much as you like m and you know the risks of drinking 3 or 6 or 9pints, you can do it in an informed way. Job’s oxo. It’s not their job to make you happier about the amount you drink or to stop you drinking.

They could change the facts or tell you that 8 pints wont harm the body as long as you sup them at a reasonable rate, with friends and in nice middle class surrounds and you’re having a good time and don’t cause any trouble for anyone else. But that would be untrue. So I’m happy with them just sticking to the facts.

The advice is that the cumulative effect of drinking 3 / 6 / 9 pints on a regular basis will increase your risk of certain illnesses. It doesn't mean irregular bouts of 3/6/9 pints will damage your health in the long term.

Sunny Disposition · 01-11-2019 12:30pm

Greyfox wrote: »

I don't need to answer it as I never said I was an expert. It's also even a difficult answer for experts as it varies depending on the diet and how active the person is and past health issues. My point is more about how silly the advice sounds when its so far removed from what Irish people think. People arent going to adjust there thinking, maybe they should but its deluded to think they will so the best thing to do is to give advise that may be listened to, I'm not asking them to change there facts.

If people feel advice is silly they will ignore it and pretty much all drinkers are ignoring this which means there likely ignoring the other advise in relation to liver damage, blood pressure and depending on alcohol which is a bad thing. The advice implys that having a few quiet pints at a slow pace with friends is dangerous, its really stupid to imply this. To follow that advice means depriving yourself of a night out with friends and no advise should be implying dont go out with your friends (Yes I know you could go out and not drink but in Ireland this is very hard)

I am critiqueing the current advice as I believe its poor advice due to it been almost impossible to follow.

Its definitely not almost impossible to follow, its just inconvenient.

If people don't want to adjust their drinking that's up to them, but they deserve to have the information.

Large bottle small glass · 01-11-2019 2:03pm

The controversial Scottish doctor's take on alcohol including links to a few interesting studies

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2017/04/16/what-causes-heart-disease-part-xxix-part-b/

Cyrus · 01-11-2019 2:30pm

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

The controversial Scottish doctor's take on alcohol including links to a few interesting studies

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2017/04/16/what-causes-heart-disease-part-xxix-part-b/

he is speaking about moderate alcohol intake, i dont think anyone is taking issue with that here, rather some want to change the definition to what suits their definition of moderate.

01-11-2019 2:38pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. So what % risk increase would you consider significant or how would you measure it and deem it a fair risk to take seriously?
.

It’s a pity the people peddling the 3 drinks is a binge wouldn’t give the actual risk numbers. Saying that drinking more than 3 drinks in a sitting is bad for your health and going on like it’s some big risk factor is nonsense. We are talking at well under 1% risk increases but it’s takes about like you are 100% guaranteeing yourself health problems. It’s total nonsense.

El_Duderino 09 · 01-11-2019 2:52pm

Reed Obedient Stepladder wrote: »

It’s a pity the people peddling the 3 drinks is a binge wouldn’t give the actual risk numbers. Saying that drinking more than 3 drinks in a sitting is bad for your health and going on like it’s some big risk factor is nonsense. We are talking at well under 1% risk increases but it’s takes about like you are 100% guaranteeing yourself health problems. It’s total nonsense.

Id probably start by suggesting you don't but words in their mouth. The 3 drink heuristic is to set the level of risk of death or serious injury at about the same risk as driving. This isn't secret information. Driving is seen as a risk but an acceptable risk but we don't take kindly to any additional risk like driving dangerously, over the speed or alcohol limit, driving while doing makeup or texting.

Nobody said there's a big risk or imminent death beyond 3 pints. If you held that misconception then I might see where your mistake originates.

Hector Savage · 01-11-2019 2:54pm

John_Rambo wrote: »

I'm just going to put this out there.

I worked in an advertising agency where one of the account directors drank at lunch time, and straight after work till he was incoherent. He was never sober after 3pm and was usually drunk until 10am! He didn't have kids, didn't drive and arrived in to work late showered in aftershave with minty breath even though he kept himself clean and had good hygiene.

I've never met a more popular man. He'd a lovely way about him, clients loved him, both women and men, he got the accounts in and I'm talking the big ones, car manufacturers, mobile phone companies (gold), whiskey clients with buckets of money.. the lot of them. I was the creative director and was very very fond of him and happily covered for him so many times.

His biggest skill aside from his charisma was his excellent delegation.. Hired people to do the jobs he'd be too sozzled to deal with and hired companies to do jobs the agency could have handled but skipped his role.

He lost his job because of his boozing, but it had nothing to do with his performance. The accounts person that took over was super diligent, highly qualified and excellent but simply couldn't pull in the big clients.

I'm still in touch with him, he's very very bitter about loosing his job, knows why he did and see's the client loss in the agency. Unfortunately he doesn't have the income to sustain his habit now and is slowly loosing his health and hygiene. He's living in less salubrious areas every year and is a bit messier every time I meet him.

It's pure Madmen stuff. At one stage the agency had an eight million turnover because of him, but some busy body caught him out on something we knew he did (drink heavily on the job) and the agency is suffering from his loss!

Madmen!

What a little f*cking rat whoever snitched on him !
Some PC correct little wanker, probably totally incompetent but knows how to play the work politics gams so keeps afloat that way.

Cyrus · 01-11-2019 2:57pm

Hector Savage wrote: »

What a little f*cking rat whoever snitched on him !
Some PC correct little wanker, probably totally incompetent but knows how to play the work politics gams so keeps afloat that way.

doesnt sound like someone snitched

Ardillaun · 01-11-2019 3:24pm

If you drink at home, or from bottles in the pub, and are used to seeing drinks in mls, UK units are much easier to calculate and understand than Irish standard drinks, whatever they are. I don’t know why the HSE bothered to come up with its own lingo of ‘standard drinks’ (an outdated American term) based on alcohol weight rather than volume when a somewhat different but better way of measuring intake is right next door in the UK and is much easier to understand, as the understandable confusion above illustrates. 1 UK unit is roughly equivalent to .8 Irish drinks (.789 more precisely) so 14 UK units, the UK low-risk recommendation for everybody, are equivalent to 11.2 Irish standard drinks and the Irish limit for men, 17 standard drinks, is 21.5 UK units, 50% higher than the UK recommendation. I think that is correct?

IS A UNIT OF ALCOHOL THE SAME AS A STANDARD DRINK?
No. This is a common source of confusion, particularly on labelling, but it is important to note they are not the same. One UK unit contains 8 grams of pure alcohol, compared to 10 grams in one Irish standard drink. Alcohol guidelines are typically set by the Department of Health in each country, so try to keep this in mind if you see unit content displayed on a can or bottle label and follow the guidance for Ireland.

https://www.drinkaware.ie/facts/what-is-a-standard-drink

http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/ccalcoh1.htm

To figure out the Irish angle for a genuinely standard 750 ml bottle of wine, I would calculate the UK units first (e.g. 750 mls of 14% wine is 10.5 units because 1 litre of 14% would be 14 units - it’s that simple) then multiply it by .8 to get 8.4 Irish drinks. There may be more important things for the HSE to be doing - what’s with that daft drink measure cup? My advice would be to ignore the Irish system altogether and go with the UK recommendations. Their limit of 14 units per week is based on epidemiological data. As more data comes in, the advice will probably be tweaked but the basic message is that alcohol can be hazardous in fairly small amounts by the standards of some Irish people. The added risk is not large at 14 but that is where it starts and you’d expect the government to tell you that.

runawaybishop · 01-11-2019 3:32pm

Ardillaun wrote: »

I don’t know why Ireland bothered to come up with its own system of ‘standard drinks’ (an outdated American term) when a slightly different but better way of measuring intake is right next door in the UK and is so easy to understand. The percentage volume of alcohol is listed on bottles, not the percentage weight that our system depends on.

There must be more important things to be doing. My advice would be to ignore the Irish system altogether and go with the UK recommendations. Their limit of 14 units per week is based on epidemiological data that showed an increased death rate beyond that. As more data comes in, the advice will probably be tweaked but the basic message is that alcohol can be hazardous in fairly small amounts by the standards of some Irish people.

What data, exactly, is it based on? The guy who created the system admitted it was largely guesswork and several studies have shown up to 50 units a week is beneficial.

Cyrus · 01-11-2019 3:58pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

What data, exactly, is it based on? The guy who created the system admitted it was largely guesswork and several studies have shown up to 50 units a week is beneficial.

what studies have shown 50 units a week is beneficial?

Ardillaun · 01-11-2019 4:08pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

What data, exactly, is it based on? The guy who created the system admitted it was largely guesswork and several studies have shown up to 50 units a week is beneficial.

The articles are available and you can access them. I will post them as well when I take a look at them again. Interpreting massive amounts of data is going to lead to many different conclusions, even if each country looked at the same data which they don’t. From basic common sense, it would be strange if an intoxicating substance was good for you in large doses.

The whole unhealthy teetotaller concept is also coming under renewed criticism from physicians. This cohort includes former alcoholics and people who are too ill to drink for various reasons. The advice from responsible quarters is clear: do not start drinking for health reasons.

facehugger99 · 01-11-2019 4:26pm

Life is bad for your health.

I drink socially and might have a couple of beers at home watching the football during the week.

I don’t really care if it’s bad for me are not.

Having said that, if you’re in your 30’s or 40’s and still going on all day benders, well that’s a bit sad IMO. Family life comes first, I’d rather spend quality time with my kids.

Ardillaun · 01-11-2019 4:31pm

So, the more liberal Irish recommendations for men are still roughly no more than two 750 ml bottles of 14% wine per week while women, who tend to be fonder of the stuff, should drink no more than c. one litre. Not much, really. It’s easy to slip into the wine o’clock mentality and finish a bottle on a regular basis which is why doctors are seeing an uptick in cirrhosis in Ireland among young women who would not consider themselves alcoholics.

Sunny Disposition · 01-11-2019 4:56pm

Go to 9:50 in the Adrian Chiles documentary and they explain a little bit about the limits. There's also some interesting stuff about mental health and alcohol.

Mic 1972 · 01-11-2019 6:06pm

Naggdefy wrote: »

It matters to me personally. That's what I'm saying. I get annoyed if I feel adults, who should know better, are ahead of me in A&E because they were in a drunken row for instance. I'm not speaking from a medical point of view.

Hint: Goodbye now. I don't have the time or inclination to engage in a secondary school debate.

I totally agree it this

nacho libre · 01-11-2019 7:16pm

Mic 1972 wrote: »

I totally agree it this

I have to disagree slightly. What if you are an adult who is a social drinker on a night out and you end up in A+E because of an unprovoked assault on a night out. People minding their own business unfortunately do get attacked randomly with no provocation invloved. In the main though I would agree with you.

Homelander · 01-11-2019 8:16pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

Having said that, if you’re in your 30’s or 40’s and still going on all day benders, well that’s a bit sad IMO. Family life comes first, I’d rather spend quality time with my kids.

Loads of people in their 30's and 40's don't have kids. Nothing remotely sad about enjoying a regular session in that context.

Greyfox · 01-11-2019 10:01pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But what you don’t seem to see is that you look equally foolish for disagreeing with the advice the experts give, because you don't like the advice.

It's the definition of "binge drinking" that I disagree with rather than their advice. I feel their is advantages to changing the definition to mean 5 or 6 pints a night due to most people not been able to get their head around the idea of 3 or 4 pints over 5 hours been a binge. I am not asking them to change their research or asking them to change the level of alcohol that causes damage I'm suggesting changing what we mean by a binge.

El_Duderino 09 · 01-11-2019 11:36pm

Greyfox wrote: »

It's the definition of "binge drinking" that I disagree with rather than their advice. I feel their is advantages to changing the definition to mean 5 or 6 pints a night due to most people not been able to get their head around the idea of 3 or 4 pints over 5 hours been a binge. I am not asking them to change their research or asking them to change the level of alcohol that causes damage I'm suggesting changing what we mean by a binge.

Ok. So they define a binge as the amount beyond which harm is likely caused. I’ve asked you what you define as a harm and it takes as few posts to get to the point that you don’t know how you’d define it.

Noe that you’re informed on the matter, you read “the amount beyond which harm is likely caused” when you read binge.

Binge just means excessive. It’s a completely normal use of binge if it likely causes harm.

You probably use “binge” colloquial to mean getting drunk. It just means excessive. But if that’s your problem, then you’re problem is very small, right?

Foweva Awone · 02-11-2019 12:52am

Reed Obedient Stepladder wrote: »

It’s very funny how you think you can make such a diagnosis. It’s complete nonsense.

I’m a very middle of the road, average drinker among the very wide array of people I know, be they friends, work colleagues, family or just acquaintances.

It's common for heavy/problem drinkers to surround themselves by people who are as bad as or worse than themselves, in order to justify/minimise their own drinking.

From what you've described in this thread, it's very possible you're a functional alcoholic or heading that way. That won't last forever, you'll either decide to cop on and cut back, or you'll come to a point where the consequences of your drinking will catch up on you. Your liver will give in, or your relationship will break down, or your employer will start asking questions about your questionable personal hygiene and slipping performance at work.

You don't seem to be open to feedback (denial!) but I'd just say to you ... what's so bad about your life that you need to be constantly escaping it? Instead of depending on a substance to escape your reality, why not consider changing your reality? Make the changes necessary in order to love yourself and love your life, and you'll be too busy enjoying it to want to regularly switch off from it.

andekwarhola · 02-11-2019 1:16am

The vast majority of people could be healthier in some way.

Most of us have reasonable vices that fall outside of abuse, whether it's semi-regular junk food, over-drinking or anything else. It's not a problem at all unless it's overly excessive or not balanced by restraint in other areas of life.

These threads just end up being deserted, save for tediously evangelical ex-boozehounds or - serious or ficticious - 'legends of the sesh' ©.

Everybody else has long departed.

chandlerbing2 · 02-11-2019 1:19am

There’s three types of people:
1) Addictive personalities which causes you to drink.
2)Mental health/Anxiety issues which causes you to drink
3) Mentally sound people who don’t need to drink and enjoy a glass of wine or a beer now and then or don’t drink

If your abusing alcohol your falling under the first two above and not mentally strong enough to just have one drink or a lucozade instead

Pintman Paddy Losty · 02-11-2019 12:37pm

andekwarhola wrote: »

The vast majority of people could be healthier in some way.

Most of us have reasonable vices that fall outside of abuse, whether it's semi-regular junk food, over-drinking or anything else. It's not a problem at all unless it's overly excessive or not balanced by restraint in other areas of life.

These threads just end up being deserted, save for tediously evangelical ex-boozehounds or - serious or ficticious - 'legends of the sesh' ©.

Everybody else has long departed.

Which camp do you fall in to horse?

Mic 1972 · 02-11-2019 1:53pm

As they say, the most difficult step for an alcoholic is overcoming denial ;-)

Graces7 · 02-11-2019 2:06pm

Naggdefy wrote: »

Easy for you to talk, it's serious pain and to have to sit behind drunken gob****es, in no immediate danger, for 6/7 hours.

In many other countries they work a "drunk tank" system in A and E. Filter out the obvious drunks and treat them separately.

02-11-2019 2:50pm

Homelander wrote: »

Loads of people in their 30's and 40's don't have kids. Nothing remotely sad about enjoying a regular session in that context.

Nothing wrong with it for people with kids either, a few of the give up on lifers will disagree but who cares what they think.

Foweva Awone wrote: »

It's common for heavy/problem drinkers to surround themselves by people who are as bad as or worse than themselves, in order to justify/minimise their own drinking.

From what you've described in this thread, it's very possible you're a functional alcoholic or heading that way. That won't last forever, you'll either decide to cop on and cut back, or you'll come to a point where the consequences of your drinking will catch up on you. Your liver will give in, or your relationship will break down, or your employer will start asking questions about your questionable personal hygiene and slipping performance at work.

You don't seem to be open to feedback (denial!) but I'd just say to you ... what's so bad about your life that you need to be constantly escaping it? Instead of depending on a substance to escape your reality, why not consider changing your reality? Make the changes necessary in order to love yourself and love your life, and you'll be too busy enjoying it to want to regularly switch off from it.

I have no idea how you are coming to this conclusion, I’m not even on the same planet as an alcoholic never mind heading that way. I, like most people in the county like to have a good session once or twice a week, that’s totally normal. Then on occasion there are bigger weekends on the beer for various reasons, all totally normal.

As for surrounding myself with heavy drinkers, my core group of friend are the ones I made in primary school yet we all have similar attitudes to drink. People I made friends with through work tended to be people I got on with in work but many just happen to like a good session because guess what most people too so the chances are if you make a new friend they will be found of a few pints to unwind after a hard week.

I’m escaping nothing, I enjoy drinking, enjoy the taste, I like being in pubs, I enjoy the effects of alcohol. It’s just very very enjoyable. I don’t need to make any changes I very much enjoy my life thanks aside from drinking and the times I go drinking.

This is like some yank therapy group at this stage in here, this is Ireland ffs!!

elperello · 02-11-2019 3:00pm

andekwarhola wrote: »

The vast majority of people could be healthier in some way.

Most of us have reasonable vices that fall outside of abuse, whether it's semi-regular junk food, over-drinking or anything else. It's not a problem at all unless it's overly excessive or not balanced by restraint in other areas of life.

These threads just end up being deserted, save for tediously evangelical ex-boozehounds or - serious or ficticious - 'legends of the sesh' ©.

Everybody else has long departed.

It's a bit like closing time in the local.
Still arguing going out the door.
And another thing......

Pac1Man · 02-11-2019 6:15pm

Reed Obedient Stepladder wrote: »

Nothing wrong with it for people with kids either, a few of the give up on lifers will disagree but who cares what they think...

Oh my god!

I'm seriously worried now..

Can someone please check on the poster 'End of The Road'? I spotted this post by Nox that they haven't thanked (#735). Any updates would be greatly appreciated.

Ted_YNWA · 02-11-2019 6:21pm

Pac1Man wrote:

Can someone please check on the poster 'End of The Road'? I spotted this post by Nox that they haven't thanked (#735). Any updates would be greatly appreciated.

Mod

Let's not takes digs at other posters.

andekwarhola · 02-11-2019 6:56pm

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Which camp do you fall in to horse?

Exactly in between

anewme · 03-11-2019 10:23pm

I've been doing a bit of research into alcohol on families and have come across some documentaries that people may be interested in.

Louis Theroux documentary Drinking to Oblivion
Saving Ed Mitchell
Rain In My Heart

DaeryssaOne · 04-11-2019 1:23pm

Nox I have no interest in going over all the alarming points you've raised already in this thread, plenty of other people have tried to get through to you already so I'm not going to bother.

The only thing I would like to point out is that it is completely thick ignorant of you to assume that when people slow down on the drink / going out on benders every weekend they are 'giving up on life'. If anything they are finally getting a life and realising there's more to do out there than listening to the same rubbish jokes and drunken stories from the same sad few lads propping up the bar every weekend.

Ardillaun · 04-11-2019 4:13pm

As the UK government says, the public has a right to be told of these hazards and the authorities have an obligation to inform:

The UK CMOs’ guidelines and the Guidelines Development Group report1 that underpins them, have been developed on the principles that:

People have a right to accurate information and clear advice about alcohol and its health risks.
Consequently the guidelines have been developed so that the known health risks of different levels and patterns of drinking, particularly for people who want to know how to keep long term health risks from regular drinking of alcohol low, are both accurate and expressed in an understandable way.

Government has a responsibility to ensure this information is provided for the public in a clear and open way, so they can make informed choices.

It is for individuals to make their own judgements as to the risks they are willing to accept when they drink alcohol, also whether to drink alcohol, and how much and how often to drink. These guidelines should help people to make those choices.

So this is not a police/nanny state kind of thing; here is the info and you can do what you like with it. Given Paddy’s fondness for litigation, if our own government said nothing you’d probably have some eejit suing because he was not told the blindingly obvious. On the specific long-term risks at the low end, cancer and liver disease seem to be the major ones:

The newest evidence (available since the previous guidelines were published in 1995) suggests:

• That the net benefits from small amounts of alcohol are less than previously thought (with substantial uncertainties around the level of protection) and are significant in
only a limited part of the population. That is women over the age of 55, for whom the maximum benefit is gained when drinking around 5 units a week, with some beneficial effect up to around 14 units a week.
• That drinking alcohol increases the risk of developing a range of cancers. The Committee on Carcinogenicity recently concluded that ‘drinking alcohol increased the risk of getting cancers of the mouth and throat, voice box, gullet, large bowel, liver, of breast cancer in women and probably also cancer of the pancreas’. These risks start from any level of regular drinking and then rise with the amounts of alcohol being drunk. This was not fully understood when the last guidelines were drawn up in 1995.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consumption-of-alcoholic-beverages-and-risk-of-cancer

16. The latest research also indicates that when drinking within the low risk guidelines, overall levels of risk are broadly similar for men and women; although the risks of immediate harms such as deaths from accidents are greater for men; longer term harms from illness are greater for women.

17. The health harms from regular drinking of alcohol can develop over many years. This occurs either from the repeated risk of acute harms (e.g. alcohol-related accidents) or from long term diseases caused by alcohol, which may take ten to twenty years to develop. These illnesses, including various cancers, strokes, heart disease, liver disease, and damage to the brain and nervous system, can develop despite drinking for years without any apparent harm.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/545937/UK_CMOs__report.pdf

Ardillaun · 04-11-2019 4:34pm

andekwarhola wrote: »

The vast majority of people could be healthier in some way.

Most of us have reasonable vices that fall outside of abuse, whether it's semi-regular junk food, over-drinking or anything else. It's not a problem at all unless it's overly excessive or not balanced by restraint in other areas of life.

These threads just end up being deserted, save for tediously evangelical ex-boozehounds or - serious or ficticious - 'legends of the sesh' ©.

Everybody else has long departed.

It’s a useful debate to have, though. Somebody might start counting their weekly units as a result and realize they could be in trouble.

Ardillaun · 13-11-2019 11:48pm

This nugget surprised me in an article by Adrian Chiles - only 30% of drinkers go over the UK’s modest weekly recommendation of 14 units:

As for the 14-unit weekly safe drinking guidance, for what it’s worth – unlike many in the alcohol business – I choose to believe the conclusions of countless studies by scientists all over the world. If that’s your long-term weekly intake, you have a 1-in-100 chance of dying from an alcohol-related illness. More than that and the odds get shorter. Regular drinkers everywhere scoff disbelievingly at these 14 miserable units. I used to myself, until I found out that more than 70% of all drinkers do indeed drink at that low level, and good on them.

However, this astonishing truth does have an unintended consequence: most of the industry’s profits have to come from the other 30% of us. We need to keep pretty hard at it for them. If we were all to drop our drinking to safe levels, those profits would be hit to the tune of well over £10bn.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/08/adrian-chiles-honest-about-alcohol-drinks-industry-dangers

Units of alcohol per week...

Comments