For those of you who are unsettled, or puzzled as I am, by the new alcohol consumption advisory limits, I suggest you listen to BBC Radio 4's "More or Less" from 29 January.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qshd/episodes/player
In a nutshell, there are main two points of note about the new limits.
The first is that the limit of 14 units is calibrated to a 1% increase in the risk of dying of an alcohol-related disease. This is on a much lower scale than some other everyday risks. To put that in perspective, 50% of smokers will die of a smoking related disease. Over eating, and a sedentary lifestyle, are significantly higher risk.
The other is that the data on how much people drink, which is self reported and then correlated with incidence of disease, is not adjusted for the accepted fact that people on average significantly under-report what they drink. This is clear from comparing the amount of alcohol sold with what people say they have drunk.
Draw your own conclusions. For myself, I won't be worrying about 2 or 3 glasses of wine or a couple of pints when I feel like it.
|
Isn't the point thought that the new recommendations (they aren't limits) is that 1% is a fairly low risk that many people will be happy to accept. They are simply saying that there is no safe level of drinking but that if you keep the recommendations then you will probably be OK. 1% is reckoned to be the equivalent in risk terms to driving a car.
If you drink more than the recommended levels risk level rise rapidly. You may be quite prepared to accept more risk but I guess it is good idea that people are informed of the risk they they are running.
To a degree these risks are cumulative. Over eating, drinking too much and smoking and lack of exercise tend to define a certain lifestyle
|
|
The whole ridiculousness of this limit is the fact its trumpeted in isolation. As the boi says, much more should be said about balanced lifestyle.
|
Hmmm maybe, I never over ate or indeed drank very much, but I did enjoy a cigarette ( usually after excercise ! )
Of course it wasn't good for me, but if it damaged me, then at least it hasn't manifested itself so far.
Probably keel over tomorrow now !
;-)
|
>> Probably keel over tomorrow now !
I'm still all right Humph, and I bet I've been much naughtier than you in the substances-and-not-much-exercise department. But as you say, beyond a certain age you start trying not to notice it coming, sort of thing.
Long may you survive. You are an example to us all in many ways.
You have to have the right constitution to dabble in depravity. Just ask them Rolling Stones.
|
|
I've never avoided alcohol or other substances for "health" reasons. I just prefer to know what's going on around me and to be able to remember it the next day! I can't ever remember anyone drunk or drugged having much useful, amusing or interesting to say. Quite the opposite mainly. Each to their own of course.
|
You must be very sensitive Humph. I too like to know what's going on around me and generally to remember the next day.
But I would take issue with you on one or two points. Although in the end too much drink may make someone boring, boorish or worse, people in general don't want to be like that and so avoid drinking or taking drugs to excess. Of course people are variable in their sensitivity to these things. And alas they don't always learn from repeated experience. Yet there are many convivial souls who continue to make sense and converse in a civilized manner even after several scoops.
There is a faint echo of Scots Protestant in yr discourse comrade. Nothing extreme however. And druggy coteries can be a really annoying PITA, don't think I don't know. It's advisable to have some principles.
|
Don't mistake me for a teetotaller, and I certainly have no moral or religious issues with alcohol or drugs. I just don't enjoy being drunk or the company of those who are. That's ok isn't it? Not a very deep or complex view really. I just prefer to get "high" on other things. Adrenaline mainly. Others prefer drugs or drink. Up to me and up to them from my side. Adrenaline is generally cheaper too, unless it involves skis.
;-)
|
>> Don't mistake me for a teetotaller, and I certainly have no moral or religious issues with alcohol or drugs. I just don't enjoy being drunk or the company of those who are.
>>
I feel that way too. I know someone who is an absolute delight to be with, kind, generous, intelligent and funny. When he's had a drink too many, he becomes loud, stroppy and clumsy. His father was even worse. He'd behave as if he was the world's greatest storyteller, yet was barely able to get out a full sentence.
|
>> His father was even worse. He'd behave as if he was the world's greatest storyteller, yet was barely able to get out a full sentence.
It's very unusual for me to get into that state. When I do, I notice in good time and retire gracefully, sometimes pursued by a shower of tussocks and brickbats.
It's a matter of courtesy. It's rude to be a bore.
|
>> If you drink more than the recommended levels risk level rise rapidly.
Without allowing that the 1% (which has not been publicised very widely AFAIK) has not been adjusted for people's real consumption rather than reported consumption.
>>You may be
>> quite prepared to accept more risk but I guess it is good idea that people
>> are informed of the risk they they are running.
But we aren't informed, really. Risk is generally not well understood and it hasn't been given much context in the advice.
>> To a degree these risks are cumulative. Over eating, drinking too much and smoking and
>> lack of exercise tend to define a certain lifestyle
Hondootedly. And of course the key control group, the abstainers, are also a rather skewed group.
It's pretty clear that what nanny wanted was an uncomplicated message that alcohol is bad for us,probably because most are incapable of understanding detailed guidance and risks.
Whilst there is a significant minority who really need to watch it, and among certain groups a binge culture that is very harmful to them, for the majority this is just more needless worry.
|
"It's pretty clear that what nanny wanted was an uncomplicated message that alcohol is bad for us,probably because most are incapable of understanding detailed guidance and risks.
Whilst there is a significant minority who really need to watch it, and among certain groups a binge culture that is very harmful to them, for the majority this is just more needless worry."
Well alcohol is bad for us. That much is clear. There is plenty of evidence to that effect. What should the government do? Not say nothing? Perhaps they should give us An estimate of how much we can probably drink without in all likelihood doing much damage? Hang on, that's exactly what they have done.
|
|
I worked with a guy who was an alcoholic. Some of his stories has to a greater extent put me off drink. I still drink, I enjoy a few beers now and again but well moderated.
|
|
A well moderated moderator. We are fortunate to have you, R.P.
|
>> Risk is generally not well understood and it hasn't been
>> given much context in the advice.
>>
I think there is a general problem with the concept of risk. I don't understand it, but I do sometimes get a feeling that it means different things to different people, and can be used in different contexts as a way to suit different pressure groups.
If it is true that the quoted 1% risk is the same as for driving, what does that mean? That the risk of going for one drive is the same as the risk of having one drink? Or that the risk of a lifetime's "moderate" driving is the same as the risk of a lifetime's one drink per evening?
Is the risk of driving cumulative? Obviously the risk of an accident doubles if you do the trip twice, but I don't think having done one trip it predisposes you to more risk on the way home?
But the assertion with alcohol is that the damage from the first drink remains, so the second drink builds on that and does more damage.
So if it's a different kind of risk, how should we compare them? No one seems to be warning that there is a "safe" level of driving for example.
|
I think you are over complicating it.
What they are saying is that the risk you are taking of an alcohol related death if you drink throughout your life at the recommended level is 1%
That compares roughly with the risk of a car related death if you drive a car all your life.
Manty indeed most, will find these risks acceptable.
If you drink more than the recommended level the risk goes up. Your choice.
|
No, they are saying there is " a 1% increase in the risk", surely not the same thing as a 1% risk?
That's why these risk percent stories look scary - small percentage increases on risks that are already low are tiny.
|
It is a one percent increase in the risk of dying early as compared with a person who drinks no alcohol.
|
I'm never quite sure when they say there's a 1% increase in the risk whether they mean it has just gone from 10% to 11% or whether they mean it's gone up by 1% of 10%, which is not the same thing at all.
|
If you drink no alcohol you have zero chance of dying form an alcohol related disease
If you drink at the recommended levels you have about a one in a hundred chance of dying from an alcohol related disease
If you drink more than that you have have a considerably greater risk of dying from an alcohol related disease.
|
14 units. 7 pints.
One a day?
Or 7 in one day.
Or 3 pints saturday, 4 sunday
etc etc etc.
I'm sure a 3-a-day regime is healthier than a 10-pint Saturday binge.
|
>> If you drink more than that you have have a considerably greater risk of dying
>> from an alcohol related disease.
What a depressing thread this is.
I'll have to have an extra tumbler of vino tonight, to cheer me up.
|
34 degrees here today.
In shorts.
Another beer, barman!
|
>>34 degrees here today.
In shorts.
Another beer, barman!
11 degrees here today
In shorts.
Another tea, missus!
|
>>
>> If you drink at the recommended levels you have about a one in a hundred
>> chance of dying from an alcohol related disease
>>
Well, that's clarifying it, but it's not what they first said, of a "1% increase in risk".
But it's still not comparable with driving, which surely is a different kind of risk?
If you are lion timer, you will find it difficult to get life insurance. If you give up lion taming and become a pensions adviser, your risk of premature death will fall. But it will fall instantly.
If on the other hand you are an alcoholic, but give up alcohol, you still are at greater risk.
One is a cumulative risk, the other not. One is a one-off risk per occasion, the other a lifestyle risk. So how do you compare them, in percentage terms?
|
>>
>> If you are lion timer, you will find it difficult to get life insurance.
"Ok Leo, You did the 440 yard dash in 43.69 seconds, just beating Lenny."
But I have a 'Lion tamer' hate, which lights up.
|
|
Yes, a hat. A lion taming hat. A hat with 'lion tamer' on it. I got it at Harrods. And it lights up saying 'lion tamer' in great big neon letters, so that you can tame them after dark when they're less stroppy.
|
My understanding, as far as I have been able to infer what is meant, is a 1% probability of dying from an alcohol related disease, ever, at the advisory limit - and a higher than 1% chance beyond that. But I have seen no estimate for say double the 14 units, so that is of limited help even if I am correct.
As for driving risk being similar - It's likely to be materially lower IMO. There are about 500,000 deaths each year in the UK, and fewer than 1000 car occupants killed in accidents. That is <= 0.2%, not 1%. Not everybody drives of course, which would increase the rate, but then the figure also includes passengers. Guesstimated another way, there are 30m drivers, and average lifespan 80 yrs*1000/30m <=0.3%.
A further factor is that there appear to be benefits from drinking. There are certainly disbenefits from being stressed about exceeding 14 units. This is not taken into account either; and as the advisory amounts don't take into account under-reporting (which is a fact - what people report they drink is about 2/3 of what is sold every year) either for harm or benefit, then my best guess is that the advisory amounts are probably about half what they should be, for that 1% risk rate, even assuming that all data are valid and all other factors have been allowed for.
Not a worry to me these days as I drink very little. I went out for a three course meal at the local last night, and drank half a pint of Guinness and a glass of red wine.
The thinking behind the message is laudable, as too many people clearly drink too much. But the implication that people should worry about drinking more than 14 units is not warranted by the information that has been made available.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 31 Jan 16 at 12:36
|
I'm not anti-alcohol ( just to be clear ! ) but let's be honest, it's consumption is only acceptable due to historic custom and practice. If no one had ever thought of it before and it was a new fad along with whatever other street drug trend was current, there would be public outrage at its legalisation and the notion of licensed premises on every street corner selling it legally and shops selling it for home use would be seen as preposterous.
|
it's
>> consumption is only acceptable due to historic custom and practice.
mind you, you could say that about all sorts of things!
|
>> My understanding, as far as I have been able to infer
FWIW
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/489795/summary.pdf
14. This advice on regular drinking is based on the evidence that if people did drink at
or above the low risk level advised, overall any protective effect from alcohol on deaths is
overridden, and the risk of dying from an alcohol-related condition would be expected to be
around, or a little under, 1% over a lifetime. This level of risk is comparable to risks from some
other regular or routine activities, such as driving.
I guess the 'increase' comes from the media?
|
|
Painting today....what better company than the Archers Omnibus followed by Desert Island Discs with Bill Gates. Normally the prospect of a 45 minute interview with someone like that would have me switching off - but DSI made it interesting...
|
As heard on the wireless - CGNorwich
