Forum menu
Whilst I have no doubt that all the studies funded by the portman group meet all the standards they require to, I still see a very obvious potential conflict of interest there should findings show that alcohol is harmful.
BBC at its worst.
"Tough new", the first words and already it's some kind of hardship and bad news. The whole attitude through the article is wrong, as though wanting to be pissed all the time is normal and not doing so is a hardship.
"The new guidance moves to weekly limits to get away from the idea that drinking every day is fine."
One glass of wine every day is the one way to drink that can't be proved to do you any harm and may do you some good. Drinking everyday is within the guidelines - seven glasses a week equals one a day.
Which studies are funded by the Portman group?
That's not new
I suppose I have always thought of Binge drinking ,as being at the'absolutely hammered'end of the scale.
I might consider drinking less but I'm not sure if I could afford it 🙂
[quote=Edukator ]One glass of wine every day is the one way to drink that can't be proved to do you any harm and may do you some good. Drinking everyday is within the guidelines - seven glasses a week equals one a day.
Though 7 glasses (even a 175ml measure) of wine a week is over the new guidelines 😯
One glass of wine every day is the one way to drink that can't be proved to do you any harm and may do you some good. Drinking everyday is within the guidelines - seven glasses a week equals one a day.
On the BBC news this morning they were saying that having 2 dry days was now part of the guidelines.
I liked the old advice. Fits this Marge Simpson quote 😀
"I've been so bored since we moved here, I found myself drinking a glass of wine every day. I know doctors say you should drink a glass and a half but I just can't drink that much"
Miketually - driving is not discretionary for a lot of people, myself included. Getting to Durham from south cumbria this morning, for example
http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/timesandfares/KEN/DHM/080116/0915/dep
I drink too much, and it is all very well me saying, it's my choice, but is it then fair for me to expect the NHS to rescue me from all the health conditions my drinking has incurred?
Yes. As a heavy drinker you will have paid loads more tax over the years than a teetotaler. In any case we are all going to die of something and it's a lottery as to whether we die suddenly (and cheaply for the NHS) or after long and expensive medical treatment.
Drinkers and smokers may die younger but they won't necessarily cost the NHS more than healthy lifestyle adherents who need NHS treatment in their 80s and 90s. In fact given that drinkers and smokers won't draw an old age pension as long then they might cost the taxpayer less in the long run.
I'll drink to that irc 😀
[quote=thisisnotaspoon ]On the BBC news this morning they were saying that having 2 dry days was now part of the guidelines.
Is there any scientific basis for that?
I should point out in case anybody thinks I'm a hardcore drinker that I rarely if ever don't have at least 2 dry days a week (usually at least 3 or 4) and probably am under the new guidelines most weeks - the difference being that it was very rare for me to be over the previous ones.
Why not ask them yourself?
http://www.portmangroup.org.uk/research/request-information
Or since it is actually done by the drinkaware trust which the portman group established you could try their website.
Heavy drinking sessions increase the risk of accidents and injury, it says.
Tonight I'm going to enjoy a ten pack of L&B's and enough alcohol so that I can no longer see.
Anything that increases the chances of something exciting happening on a Friday night in South Cumbria, I'm all for.
Drinkers and smokers may die younger but they won't necessarily cost the NHS more than healthy lifestyle adherents who need NHS treatment in their 80s and 90s. In fact given that drinkers and smokers won't draw an old age pension as long then they might cost the taxpayer less in the long run.
I think you're underestimating the cost of medical treatment vs care home costs.
Though 7 glasses (even a 175ml measure) of wine a week is over the new guidelines
Seven medium (175ml) glasses of wine is 14 units which is exactly what the new guidelines suggest.
This one in atherosclerosis patients is definitely not funded by them!
http://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-12-147
A daily glass of red wine associated with lifestyle changes independently improves blood lipids in patients with carotid arteriosclerosis: results from a randomized controlled trial
Interesting results for LDL/HDL ratios.
I thought I'd keep a log of this years alcohol consumption. It won't make interesting reading. I've drunk one half pint of beer so far!
[quote=gordimhor ]Why not ask them yourself?
http://www.portmangroup.org.uk/research/request-information
Or since it is actually done by the drinkaware trust which the portman group established you could try their website.
<shrug> you're the one suggesting the research has been funded by them - maybe it's up to you to do that?
[quote=Edukator ]Seven medium (175ml) glasses of wine is 14 units which is exactly what the new guidelines suggest.
How weak is your wine? At 12% a 175ml glass is 2.1 units. A quick check of bottles in my rack only one is less than 12% (but still just over 2 units a glass), most are 13% or more.
Those beneficial drinking reports, they all seem to mention red wine, does tequila, wkd, isopropyl alcohol, etc provide the same positive effect? It's just I think some people see "red wine is good for you" and misapply it (intentionally or ignorantly) to get wrecked on thier tipple of choice at the weekend.
are you including the extra tax paid by the hedonists?I think you're underestimating the cost of medical treatment vs care home costs.
Not that I'm saying you're wrong, this does seem to be an argument rolled out by people who want to justify their beer n fags intake
I believe I am correct in saying that the original alcohol limits were never based on any scientific data, rather than a 'rough feeling' from the members of the advisory panel.
Similarly, the limits recommending zero alcohol in pregnancy were based on sending 'a simple message' rather than any actual evidence that moderate (rather than excessive) drinking during pregnancy was harmful.
I know for sure there are studies that suggest a clear Hometic effect from alcohol consumption, particuarly those at risk from certain conditions (eg cateracts and artheroscloresis) so I remain suspicious that these limits are about 'sending the right message' rather than science.
[quote=D0NK ]Those beneficial drinking reports, they all seem to mention red wine, does tequila, wkd, isopropyl alcohol, etc provide the same positive effect? It's just I think some people see "red wine is good for you" and misapply it (intentionally or ignorantly) to get wrecked on thier tipple of choice at the weekend.
Not all of them - for some things the benefit seems to come mainly from red wine consumption, for some it's any alcoholic drink (in moderation).
No study has ever suggested that getting wrecked at the weekend is a good thing - but then we knew that didn't we?
I think you're underestimating the cost of medical treatment vs care home costs.
are you including the extra tax paid by the hedonists?
This article - https://fullfact.org/factchecks/does_smoking_cost_as_much_as_it_makes_for_the_treasury-29288 - seems to put the total cost of smoking at around £14bn while taxes are £12bn, but there are a huge number of estimates in there.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/1536/ag22.htm
Point 10 Interesting!
Most drinking/disease studies are epidemiological, and although you can control for confounds statistically, this is never perfect. So, people that drink one glass of red wine a night are different from people who drink nothing in other ways too (e.g. higher SES on average etc.) which in turn are associated with improved health (better diet etc.; more likely to access healthcare etc.) - this can give the impression statistically of a protective effect of alcohol.
You can't do experimental studies on chronic alcohol use in humans, so all the data is observational - meaning that it is hard to draw causal conclusions. Although epidemiological stats are improving all the time.
Edit: I linked the units page from Wikipedia but it didn't work and there no point really.
Aracer, I think you're worrying to much. A 1% stronger wine, say 8% more alcohol isn't really significant. These are guidelines, one size fits all guidelines. They haven't even retained the male and female limits in terms of units. When you consider that the people contributing to this forum go from Fifty something to a hundred and twenty something kilos worrying about a few percent is losing sight of the overall message and falling into the trap the BBC has laid with its sensationalist "tough new" message.
But you know that, as this sensible quote shows:
No study has ever suggested that getting wrecked at the weekend is a good thing - but then we knew that didn't we?
[quote> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/1536/ag22.htm
Point 10 Interesting!
Points 34 and 35 seem to show that there is a health advantage from moderate drinking for the individual but the decision was made not to incorporate this into the guidance aimed at the general population.
[quote=ianpv ]Most drinking/disease studies are epidemiological, and although you can control for confounds statistically, this is never perfect. So, people that drink one glass of red wine a night are different from people who drink nothing in other ways too (e.g. higher SES on average etc.) which in turn are associated with improved health (better diet etc.; more likely to access healthcare etc.) - this can give the impression statistically of a protective effect of alcohol.
Only if you don't control for the differences in your populations - but as you say they do control, if they didn't then the results of such studies would be rejected by the peer review process. Of course such control is not perfect, but if it's not biased it should be just as likely to overestimate the improved health due to other lifestyle factors as underestimate it, meaning the conclusions are just as likely to underestimate the health effects of what you're studying as overestimate them. Of course with a single study* then it's hard to trust the results, but then we're talking about multiple studies and indeed meta-analysis.
*which appears to be what we're relying on as evidence of the lack of health benefit
[quote=Edukator ]Aracer, I think you're worrying to much. A 1% stronger wine, say 8% more alcohol isn't really significant. These are guidelines, one size fits all guidelines.
I'm not worrying at all - I'm criticising the guidelines rather than your suggestion, I think we're pretty much in agreement on sensible alcohol consumption. It's not just the BBC either, similar reports elsewhere and I don't think it is media bias at all here, the impression I get is that they're reporting it exactly as they were intended to.
Only if you don't control for the differences in your populations - but as you say they do control, if they didn't then the results of such studies would be rejected by the peer review process.
Of course "they" control, but the controls are never perfect - this won't stop a paper being published as scientists tend to be aware of both the value and the limitations of single imperfect studies. It's also why the Medical Research Council are chucking money at causal methods in epidemiology (e.g. [url= http://www.bristol.ac.uk/integrative-epidemiology/about/ ]this lot[/url]. Disclosure: although I'm not a member I do some work with them). It's not black and white, our understanding of health and disease is changing all the time. Sensationalist press coverage really doesn't help, and seldom reflects the actual research well.
here's an interesting abstract on drinking, for example (not my area, btw, I'm a psychologist not an epidemiologist, although have done a few courses on medical stats)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19594799
In fact given that drinkers and smokers won't draw an old age pension as long then they might cost the taxpayer less in the long run.
This is an odd one, it always seems to be based on an "unhealthy" drinker/smoker costing very little in terms of healthcare. As if they're perfectly healthy until a switch is flicked and then they're suddenly dead (possible with a stroke or heart attack, but both of those could also leave you massively disabled instead). I would imagine that chemo/operations/follow up scans for lung cancer or decades of dialysis, oxygen therapy for respiratory problems, or stroke related neuro-rehab and thrice daily visits from district nurses wouldn't be cheap.
If you're physically healthy but 'just' old, I'm not sure you'd cost more terms of healthcare than the heavy smoker who essentially reached old age earlier than you.
If you want to smoke/drink excessively then fine, but don't pretend that you're doing everyone else a favour by doing it. If you really want to save the taxpayer money then live a healthy life and blow your brains out the day before retirement!
First it was my sausages
Now its my beer, just waiting to find out peanuts are bad too, I'm at my wits end. The Germans are all ****ed if this is true, the country lives on beer and sausages.
Smokers do pay a hefty whack of tax for the habbit. What the govermant chooses to do with the cash is unknown to me.
Smokers do pay a hefty whack of tax for the habbit. What the govermant chooses to do with the cash is unknown to me.
The tax goes into the Treasury and is spent on school, roads, bombs, nurses, chemo drugs, the Queen, and all the other stuff that the government spends money on.
£12bn in tobacco tax per year is a drop in the ocean in terms of total government spending of around £759.5 billion.
Read the Full Fact link I posted above for relative tax/spend for smoking.
I very rarely exceed the new limits, but I do hate all these guidelines, as has been said we all know alcohol is bad for you, what they should be doing is suggesting good drinks to have in social situations. Assuming we all like to go out now and again to the pub, and don't want to drink tap water, I can't help thinking a pint of sub 4% ale is better for you than the standard alternative of a pint of Coke/lemonade
I've drunk way too much too often for years. Has either been a social thing or a 'relaxing' thing. Rarely done it only to block out life's BS.
Have gone on the wagon loads of times before. Months ago I knocked it on the head Mon-Fri, which is a) easy for 90% of the time, and b) makes me feel far more 'clean'/focused etc. Eat/drink what I like on a Sat and then in moderation on a Sun. Works for me.
My diet is also 80% sound, plus I run/bike etc.