HM Gov says no level of Alcohol is safe.
Nigel Farage has reportedly said, "its a load of bolleux - lets all go down the pub in protest"
For once in his life, I agree with him.
|
...if you go with him, just don't let him drive you there.
:-(
|
I've no doubt the facts quoted by the Chief Medical Officers are correct. Whether they mean we're in immediate mortal danger drinking more that 7 pints of session ale a week is another question.
Personally I'm happy to take my chances at 30+ units a week.
|
>I've no doubt the facts quoted by the Chief Medical Officers are correct.
I agree.
Also, that something being dangerous is not sufficient reason not to do it per se.
Most sports, most physical activities, quite a lot of sedentary activities, and generally doing stuff are all dangerous.
The primary purpose of our existence cannot to be to do nothing.
So its good to know and be aware of the dangers. And then to make your own decisions about how you will deal with that information.
I am very grateful to the Establishment for making me aware of this data. I do not wish the Establishment to follow that up by making any decisions for me.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 9 Jan 16 at 13:18
|
>> I am very grateful to the Establishment for making me aware of this data. I
>> do not wish the Establishment to follow that up by making any decisions for me.
I'd like to agree with that except that I haven't noticed many data being provided. I put that down to the likelihood that most journalists and politicians don't understand probability.
If somebody says that my chance of getting cancer increases by 10% if I drink double the recommended limit, what does that mean? 22% instead of 20%? That might be a reasonable trade off for a couple of sociable nights a week involving three or four pints, in addition to my dozen or or so units of wine at the weekend. But when might I get it? What does it mean in terms of probability of healthy years, and total life expectancy?
Just telling me there is no safe level is even less helpful.
Apparently "Drinking above the new recommended 14 units a week is the point at which a person's risk of an early death increases by 1% - the equivalent amount of risk as driving a car."
Well 1% doesn't seem bad to me. And would I stop driving a car to achieve the same risk reduction (granted, driving is of more practical use to me so might be a better trade off). And it is probably a lot lower impact than being very overweight, or not taking any exercise. Or is it? Where is the context for all this?
"It is ... important to emphasise why this advice is being issued. This is not about telling people what to do. Instead, people have a right to accurate information about alcohol and its health risks so that they can make informed decisions about their drinking behaviour."
So let's have it in a form that enables us to make informed decisions. And let's have more up-front information about how data were gathered. The conclusions are all about correlations between what people say in surveys, and the frequency with which they get disease of die at different ages. Anybody who does marketing knows how reliable this sort of thing is. Of course more is spent on health data gathering than on research for marketing campaigns, but people lie; allowing for other factors is hideously complex. (Example - according to one source, the adverse impact of higher alcohol consumption for people of "lower socioeconomic status" or SES is double that for higher SES groups. That could be due to factors such as choice of beverage, binge behaviour, frequency of drinking etc. - but those data are not generally available).
It's accepted that people in surveys under-report their drinking. Do the conclusions allow for this? How? If not, then presumably the low-risk levels are actually higher than 14 units per week?
Going teetotal will not guarantee that I live forever, or even any longer. It will guarantee that I will forgo the occasional two lunchtime pints at the Red Lion, from which I get immense pleasure and the opportunity to eat a similarly risky sausage sandwich with them.
|
The full report is here:
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/489797/CMO_Alcohol_Report.pdf
I've not read it in detail but it seems to attempt to quantify the risks re some cancers (eg bowel). The preamble also explains why the group producing it included non medics such as Professor Hastings; it's remit included behavioural factors as well as medical.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 9 Jan 16 at 15:23
|
>> The full report is here:
Yes. And I will look at it when I have time - I have four tax returns to do that I am currently not making enough progress with!
Meanwhile it would be nice, and far more useful as a public information tool to get more sensible and complete statements from nanny.
|
I thought they had discovered a while back that moderate drinkers lived longer than total abstainers?
I don't drink every day - rarely during the week. But a couple of pints of decent beer cheers me up no end. Some benefit in that.
|
Listening to Dame Sally whatsit, the Chief Medical Officer (or similar) on Today programme this morning was enough to drive anyone to drink.
In fact, I had a drink tonight just because of her.
|
We don't know exactly when or how we are going to die.
We're only here once and I've no intention of lying on my death bed and thinking that I wish I'd done this and and I wish I'd done that.
Far too late then...:-)
So live life to the full and, above all, enjoy it to the maximum.
|
Talking in the pub this afternoon about the 7 pint limit.
We all went home at 4:30
Made us seiously think about cutting down,
Until tomorrow at least
|
I'm sure she is right on the facts. But if you want to change people's behaviour for the better and improve their health, then you need to set simple and realistic goals - otherwise people try, then fail and give up, or never even try.
A good example is the 5 a day fruit and veg, most get the idea at least roughly, and if you try it's not difficult to achieve most of the time - so lots of people do just that.
I'll keep to my current goal of trying to have a few dry days a week and not drink too much on a 'home' night.
When out and about I'll drink whatever feels good & worry (or not) about the consequences the next day.
|
This does play into a discussion earlier in the week (maybe not on here) where I was talking about a programme called "It was allright in the 70s", where people from today were sniggering at 70s TV shows, and what was then acceptable which isn't now (including Benny Hill, Alf Garnett, Miss World and smoking on TV).
I said that in 20 years people will laugh at us for tolerating alcohol, not just for the personal health downsides but also the social cost of the spin-offs of alcohol like law and order, health care, and it's effect on behaviour and relationships.
|
>> I said that in 20 years people will laugh at us for tolerating alcohol, not
>> just for the personal health downsides but also the social cost of the spin-offs of
>> alcohol like law and order, health care, and it's effect on behaviour and relationships.
>>
We've tolerated social drinking of alcohol since Roman times, and even at times promoted it. I really cannot see it disappearing in the next 20 years just because the health faddists say it must. If on the other hand Sharia law is imposed in the UK.....
|
|
Smoking has undergone a steep decline for exactly that reason... I don't remember anyone being bothered about govt health scares back in the 70s but it's very different now (OK 40 years... :-) )
|
I think that 9 quid a packet, PLUS the smoking ban just about everywhere, put paid to a lot of smokers.
A lot of the cricket fans I spoke to last week said they'd had a few cigarettes whilst here... but wouldn't in the UK because of the social stigma/cost/finding somewhere to do it!
|
>> Talking in the pub this afternoon about the 7 pint limit.
..you do know that's per week, not per session......?
|
Yes! A group of us were doing some voluntary work for the community, finished at 2:30 so had a quick 4 in our two locals. One of our favourite beers, Hawkshead Windermere Pale, had just come on so we returned at 6 for another four pints. It's only 3.5% but has bags of flavour, and we might not see it again in the pub for several months so took full advantage.
No more alcohol now until next week, or maybe the week after. And healthy eating....kale, broccoli, spinach, fresh ginger, some cumin & a stock cube in the mixer. A lovely warming soup. No bread.
Have a nice (wet) weekend everyone...I'm popping up to the Lakes to stretch my legs.
|
>>No more alcohol now until next week, or maybe the week after. And healthy eating....kale, broccoli, spinach, fresh ginger, some cumin & a stock cube in the mixer
Do yoos use any protein powder in your health drinks LL?
www.amazon.co.uk/Sevenhills-Wholefoods-Organic-Association-certified/dp/B0098M3THM/ref=sr_1_2/279-1181732-8686618?ie=UTF8&qid=1452332757&sr=8-2&keywords=hemp+protein+powder
|
>> Do yoos use any protein powder in your health drinks LL?
>>
Trust Me I'm a Doctor on BBC debunked protein powder, IIRC.
Link to BBC iplayer thing:-
tinyurl.com/goejts3
|
>>Trust Me I'm a Doctor on BBC debunked protein powder, IIRC.
>>Link to BBC iplayer thing:-
tinyurl.com/goejts3
He looks well for 58. The program focussed on whey protein in particular which many body builders use I believe? My link was for hemp protein which contains useful amounts of calcium/magnesium/potassium, as well as protein. My suggestion was for it to be added to home-made smoothies if that's your thing.
Good program. I'll have to start watching it again - I'd confused it with Embarrassing Bodies which I don't watch.
I'll have to dust off my weight-lifting bench which hasn't had any use over the last 7 months due to rearing 2 pups.
So that's my new-years resolution sorted.
|
>> >> ..you do know that's per week, not per session......?
>>
Challenge accepted...
|
I'm not anti alcohol although it's not a major hobby for me. I can and do go months between occasions of drinking it.
It does occur to me that if it was a new trend or invention that there would be no way it would be legal to sell a mind altering substance in liquid form or be sociially acceptable to use it.
|
"One member of the guidelines group is Professor Gerard Hastings. He is not a scientist or a doctor. He is director of the Institute of Social Marketing at the University of Stirling and is keen on investigating food and pharmaceutical marketing and helping litigation against the tobacco industry. He is also, says the Public Health Research Consortium of which he is a member, “very interested in real world and multi-faceted interventions that attempt to build brands with stakeholders and the public at largeâ€. To the extent that I understand, through the jargon, what this interest is, I don’t share it. I don’t see why Prof Hastings should be telling me how much wine is bad for me. Why can he be allowed to do so just because he disapproves of people selling drink, tobacco and sweets and makes his living that way? If he can be on the panel, why can’t someone who makes or sells drink? A pub landlord will, after all, be just as well acquainted (better, actually) with which human beings drink too much and why."
tinyurl.com/zwzmxhq
To be effective, new advisory limits must be credible and be seen to be credible.
|
>> "One member of the guidelines group is Professor Gerard Hastings. He is not a scientist
>> or a doctor.
The text is an extract from an article in the Telegraph. The author is Charles Moore; former editor of that paper, a man educated at Eton College and Cambridge.
Do you think he actually read the report to the Chief Medical Officers and tried to understand the rationale and methodology behind it?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 9 Jan 16 at 14:46
|
>>Nigel Farage has reportedly said, "its a load of bolleux - lets all go down the pub in protest"
Farage is a dick!
If someone said smoking weed is dangerous would he advocate everyone taking it up!
Facts are facts, booze can be dangerous and alcohol is in fact a poison. Clearly extreme drinking should be frowned upon, which I think we already do.
In moderation, I do believe that a reasonable amount of alcohol can be a good thing. I had a few pints this week and much needed time with friends and I am sure the same feeling of well being and comradery which is also vital to good health, would be missed without time down the pub and a beer or four.
|
>> It does occur to me that if it was a new trend or invention that
>> there would be no way it would be legal to sell a mind altering substance
>> in liquid form or be sociially acceptable to use it.
>>
Oh I dunno. Costa coffee seem to manage it rather well. Their stuff must do something to the mind or folk wouldn't be so stupid as to pay so much for it, or drink it out of cups that look to have been designed by someone who's been told what a cup and saucer is but has never actually seen one.
|
>> ..you do know that's per week, not per session......?
>>
Had my week's ration yesterday.
(8o)
|
>> Listening to Dame Sally whatsit, the Chief Medical Officer (or similar) on Today programme this
>> morning was enough to drive anyone to drink.
>> In fact, I had a drink tonight just because of her.
>>
I thought she was unconvincing - indeed I suspect she knew she was.
|
I'm no expert of course but I kind of think it's a bit down to how many of the following boxes you can tick or otherwise at any given time.
If you are, overweight, unfit, don't excercise, are stressed, smoke, drink, or are otherwise prone to ill health, then you probably ought to work towards "unticking" as many of those as you can as soon as possible.
If you are fortunate enough to not have to tick many or any of those then occasionally indulging in unhealthy practices doesn't to me anyway, feel too risky.
But what do I know?
;-)
|
Very good point actually Humph.
The quacks I believe have a bit of software that amalgamates all these risk factors, mine showed it to me once. I think there's a 'consumer' version of it on the web somewhere.
Smoking I expect puts moderate drinking in the shade for risk, and I imagine being fat and doing no exercise isn't far behind.
Now there must be a distance you can walk to the pub for every reasonable level of drinking that offsets the risk. That would be more like useful information.
|
I think the software the quacks use isn't very clever. Recently I went through the box ticking with my GP. Asked about exercise, she looked at me and said "none" before I said anything. I queried that and she said she had a patient who ran around the village (a couple of miles I suppose) every night, and when they did the sums together, the software decided that was "none", so my feeble efforts, such as the 100 miles we walked in a week over the summer, weren't even worth asking about.
Don't really trust risk calculators as anything other than a very broad brush approach. Anything that says this kind of stuff can be measured down to 1% is a load of old oh look the tea is ready.
|
Seems to me any adult experienced driver will know precisely when he/she has been rendered dangerous by ingesting mind-altering substances or alcohol, or has become a bit doddery with age, and will know the appropriate response: extra caution and reduced speed, or even park the thing and get a lift home.
It just isn't a problem for me. Those most at risk are the young and excitable (and anyone else on the road they might crash into).
Be careful out there. Use your brains.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 9 Jan 16 at 15:50
|
|
And of course you have a perfect right to damage your health by smoking, drinking and consuming the (quite often less harmful) illegal drugs. It's none of the government's damn business.
|
|
FFS do they think that we can all live forever ? I suppose if you only eat healthy food and drink nothing but water you may well live to be 120 but I bet it will seem like 150 !
Last edited by: Skip on Sat 9 Jan 16 at 17:15
|
New Recommended Drinks Limits. - tyrednemotional
