Slashdot Mirror
UK Cuts Men's Recommended Weekly Alcohol To 14 Units (theguardian.com)
jones_supa writes: Men have been advised to drink no more than seven pints of beer a week – the same as the maximum limit for women – in the first new drinking guidelines to be released by the UK's chief medical officers for 20 years. They also advise there is no safe level of drinking for either sex, and issued a stark warning that any amount of alcohol consumption increases the risk of developing a range of cancers, particularly breast cancer. David Spiegelhalter from University of Cambridge said: 'These guidelines define 'low-risk' drinking as giving you less than a 1% chance of dying from an alcohol-related condition.'
Your tax monies at work!!
There is nothing scientific about it, and the medical profession say the change has nothing to do with new scientific data. The sole motivation driving this was to make men equal to female.
As if this bullshit is going to reduce anyone with a penis to change their drinking habits. /s
Quote: "They also advise there is no safe level of drinking"
Quote: "seven pints of beer a week – the same as the maximum limit for women"
Quote: "less than a 1% chance of dying from an alcohol-related condition"
No one, really, NO ONE taught 'em Logic? The conclusion of these sentences is obvious: they came up with a random number and said it was science. Cheers!
As Cameron bows out of the leadership and Theresa May positions herself as the next leader, we're getting a lot of this SUPER-NANNY STATE crap!
14 units of alcohol now, she says the evidence has changed, but can't point to the new research! It just changed, OK, so now its 14 units! Shuddup I'm the health minister!
The big nanny state law, is and I do mean BIG, is all our internet is to be recorded, and our web surfing history is to be available to EVERY official without a warrant (including this Heath Ministry woman).
More detailed data like Twitter, Google searches, Facebook, email, SMSs, medical info, financial, banking, travel etc. will be available WITH A WARRANT, unless they're in a hurry in which case it will be available WITHOUT a warrant.
This covers EVERYONE IN THE WORLD, its not limited to UK residents. I notice Europeans and Americans don't realize the law covers their data too. So UK can demand Vodafone hand over all Germany internet surveillance data (Vodafone is a spook friendly company, and bought Deusch Kable). All US banking data, everything, in secret.
And the spooks at GCHQ, they get live feeds to everything available decrypted, no limits, full-take, and it must be handed over in secret under "obligations" that can be laid down to any Corp with a UK subsididary.
Nanny May knows best.
I need a beer. 14 units won't do it.
Do they recommend that men and women consume the same number of calories, too?
Everything causes cancer. Fuck em. I'd rather lose 10 years and enjoy life than gain 10 years and hate it.
recommend that you drink less, you should think about why you want or need to drink more.
Slashdot died a long time ago. What is this now?
Blimey! If I'm only allowed one pint a day I might as well make it a Duvel or a Tennents Super.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
As someone who never got the point of drinking alcohol, i just love seeing all the addicts of this harddrug (come on, lets be honest :p) defend their habits XD.
And yes, if you feel better by drinking alcohol, go for it, but don't start bitching when society points out it's not the healthiest habit (and can be quite addictive too).
More in general, i love seeing the eternal conflict of how we try to make alcohol appear innocent ^^. it's normal social thing to do, and it's normal to do dumb stuff when drunk, until you cross some extemely vague border and suddenly you're someone with a problem and an addiction and should get help XD. and doing dumb stuff is all awesome and great stories, until someone gets hurt or it gets sexual, and then it's all your fault XD (not society for saying that losing control by getting drunk is perfectly awesome XD).
But it appears a big part of society prefers it like that :). I choose not to drink (and can't say i feel like i'm missing out in any way ^^), but if other people feel better that way :). I guess it's not much different to weed becoming more accepted, some people just like mind altering substances :).
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/j...
A British pint is 568ml. An American pint is 473ml.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
Moderate Alcohol Consumption Is Not Associated with Reduced All-cause Mortality.
"During 206,966 person-years of follow up, 7902 individuals died. No level of regular alcohol consumption was associated with reduced all-cause mortality. The hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval in fully adjusted analyses was 1.02 (0.94-1.11) for 7 drinks/week, 1.14 (1.02-1.28) for 7 to 14 drinks/week, 1.13 (0.96-1.35) for 14 to 21 drinks/week, and 1.45 (1.16-1.81) for 21 drinks/week.
CONCLUSIONS:
Moderate alcohol consumption is not associated with reduced all-cause mortality in older adults. The previously observed association may have been due to residual confounding."
I know we don't do this on /. but it'd be interesting to know the source of this.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
RESULTS:
Male sex, being physically active, and good health status were independently associated with light to moderate drinking (P .001). An apparent protective effect of light to moderate drinking on mortality was evident in the unadjusted analysis and after adjusting for age, sex, risk factors, and cardiovascular events (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.68-0.88, P .001), but after also adjusting for PASE and VAS, the relationship was no longer significant (aHR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.80-1.05, P = .19). Follow-up physical activity was associated with baseline alcohol consumption; baseline physical activity did not predict alcohol consumption during follow-up.
CONCLUSION:
After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
the same as the maximum limit for women
I guess we're doing these on any day of the week now.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Just some new made up bollocks in the shape of "advice" to get a few scare headlines and justify their existence and continued funding of bullshit, predetermined studies. Far too much money in smoking to bother actually trying to stop that, just pretend to do something about it by making some noise about changing the packaging and increase the tax (which happens every year anyway). Now that it looks like they've done something different they'll be straight back onto the obesity/sugar/salt/some other public health bogeyman merry-go-round.
The exact quantity of a pint isn't exactly the most important detail, the alcoholic volume of the drink makes more of a difference. That's why it's done in units (1 unit = 10ml of alcohol e.g. a 25ml single measure of a 40% spirit is 1 unit).
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
It isn't our fault if you Yanks are pussies and can't handle 568ml of beer in your glass.
If you can call pisswater like Budweiser beer.
Is a fucking tool.
Everything Kauses Kancer.
I wasn't aware that alcohol is recommended. Is it to late to start drinking?
I think the summary could do a better job at reporting news and use SI units -- avoiding such odd ones like a "pint", which are different in the various English-speaking countries to start with.
1 Unit = 10 ml pure alcohol. The smallest spirit measure used in the UK is a 25 ml single shot, equivalent to 1 Unit of a 40% v/v spirit. A 175ml medium glass of a 12% wine will give you just over 2 Units, and a 568 ml UK pint of a 3.5% beer nearly as much. A lot of beer is stronger than this, though - a 5.5% brew will give you over 3 Units per pint.
The biggest annoyance here is that we feel we should follow the guidelines - the assumption is that medical guidance should be followed, without taking into account that you are definitely going to die someday so your life shouldn't be about avoiding it at all costs.
If people were immortal except for the effects that might kill us, then yes it makes sense to do your best to mitigate those risks. But we're all going to die after 80 or 90 years of life, so how do you want to spend those years? Starving yourself (mild hunger is best for longevity), eating healthy but borderline boring food, avoiding all mind-altering substances. It doesn't feel like a life, it's hardly exploring the bounds of existence is it? Yes I'm sure some ultra-smug teetotallers will be able to get some sad satisfaction from this news, (yay other people's misery), but given that the human race has *always* sought out chemical mood alteration, perhaps it should be something we accept as a basic need. If not alcohol, then what? There are a bunch of essentially harmless synthetic drugs that we criminalise for no good reason, that at the very least would be better than alcohol.
Discourage alcohol, but then accept that people will take drugs of some sort, so what should you encourage?
Nee probs, I can do that in a day.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
and there are things inside me I need to kill.
Thanks for the quite didactic explanation; very kind of yours. It's actually hard to imagine a "unit" would refer to alcoholic content.
Of course, that is a very important distinction in light of the present issue (no sarcasm or irony in this note, just pointing out the special relevance here).
I am no where near the 14 units.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
And us americans weep, but enjoy our COLD and slightly smaller pints.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Thanks for the study, didn't know about it.
I don't like in the UK!! Talisker for breakfast it is, then.
> A British pint is 568ml. An American pint is 473ml.
Thanks for the info, though my point is exactly that: a pint is not a reliable unit of volume.
Compare that to 500ml being the same everywhere on Earth, and on the Moon, and on Mars... etc. etc.
Now, as someone kindly explained, what the UK government aims is to recommend a lower alcohol intake. One could drink lots and lots of a 1% grade beer.
Whether that is pleasurable or not, I think it depends on the individual: I have a (totally unproved) theory that some people can digest alcohol just like an energy source and some can appreciate the stress relieving effects of it more than others (like me). A similar effect occurs (according to my wacky theory) with Asians about rice: they simply absorb it better than me.
Thus rice is a big deal for Asians (but not for me) and something superb for regular drinkers (but not for me).
FOOKIN TELLIN US HOW MUCH FOOKIN PEEVE TAE HUV!? AH'VE HUD 14 UNITS BY LOONCHTIME ON A FOOKIN MONDAY, YA BUFTIE COONTS.
You are welcome on my lawn.
After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
Maybe alcohol causes physical activity and better health status? If only walking home from the bar.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
How about cannabis or MDMA?
Just use larger glasses and you'll be fine.
Drinking it cold ensures you don't notice the absence of taste.
After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
That is where one can be mislead by the article, as they are talking about an increase in health problems, not an increase in mortality. Specifically they talk about cancers, which in most cases are seen very late in life. So, basically, you have a small increase in added health issues right before you die.
Ignore most of the comments above - the US NIH cites are pretty good - because there are folks promoting their lifestyles.
The UK government guidelines are for moderate drinking. What is being touted is moderation; not abstinence. None of these studies say to become a teetotaler. A lot of folks have no idea how much is too much and getting piss drunk and passing out is the goal.
What the UK government is trying to do is stop the crazy binge drinking that is all the rage over there. It's leading to horrible health consequences as well as accidents and violence.
Considering consuming healthy stuff as boring and unhealthy stuff as fun, and defending this viewpoint, is a symptom of dependency (addiction).
You are not born with such dependencies, they are created by your upbringing, by what you are taught, not only by parents but society as a whole.
It leads to a deep feeling of some things about life/reality/yourself/the world being not right, so you try to avoid those. For that you cultivate those dependencies as an avoidance mechanism.
The solution lies in looking underneath those dependencies towards those "wrong" things, and learning what is real (by meditation for example). You might discover those negative feelings are not based on reality but on a learnt image, and can adjust your perception accordingly. Then you don't need unhealthy dependencies anymore to avoid (what you perceive as) reality.
There are many books written about this problem, I'm no expert but you can look at John Bradshaw or Brenee Brown or something as an intro.
I'm sure many slashdotters will oppose this "spiritual bullshit", that's fine, you are free to enjoy your dependencies if you like them.
And yes, you are right in that they basically say to people: "you shouldn't depend on this", without even hinting at how to be not dependent. Of course, people are dependent for a reason, and _if_ they did follow that advice, the root cause is unaddressed so they create a different escape mechanism.
Both safer options.
I don't get this thing about cold/warm pints. I've never had a pint in my life that wasn't cold, and I'm British. I wouldn't even know HOW to get a warm pint, unless I put it in the microwave!
"Thanks for the info, though my point is exactly that: a pint is not a reliable unit of volume."
It is, when you are in a UK pub, which is what the announce is focused at.
"One could drink lots and lots of a 1% grade beer."
The kind of beer you won't find at a UK pub.
So here they offer a SI-based volume of pure alcohol and then they convert to a usual unit for their targeted audience so it's just like someone in USA converting to "congress libraries" or "football fields" only it makes much more sense in this case.
True, All we get is the Guinness Crap here, Or that horrific pisswater called Carling from GB.
now Beamish, that is a proper good pint with real flavor.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
So it will be largely ignored as we do like a good drink.
*Insert ridiculous, apparently intelligent but ultimately meaningless phrase here*
"Boozing is unsafe at 'any level', thunders chief UK.gov quack: Show us your science. What? You mean you don't have any?" By Andrew Orlowski in The Register on 8 Jan 2016 at 16:02
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Male sex, being physically active, and good health status were independently associated with light to moderate drinking (P .001).
CONCLUSION:
After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
The problem with these studies is that there's a huge elephant in the door called "phase of life" that probably correlates a bunch of variables. Like this sounds like the stereotype young bachelor, working to look attractive and out partying to meet women. I'm guessing that if you divide by alcohol consumption you get very different groups of people that affects mortality in many directions. Like suicide is a pretty big cause of death in young people and it's typically related to depression, not to people out partying. So it might be that those that are out drinking die from alcohol - I mean you have to be pretty blind to see there aren't alcohol related/caused deaths from DUI, violence, accidents - and the non-drinkers die for different reasons. I'm guessing that the same way they made it disappear, they can make it reappear by checking for more factors.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The weather in England is quite nice. When I lived there, I loved how lush and green everything was due to the fact that the weather was varied and that they get a healthy amount of precipitation. Then I get back to the states and everything is dry and brown.
The one colour that sums up the entire USA is brown.
see http://understandinguncertaint...
I'm sorry, but this study is moronic and worthless. How could you possibly adjust for health status and then be surprised that no effects can be seen? "Oh look. Moderate Alcohol drinkers on average are healthier. That surely cant have anything to do with the alcohol, let's skew the numbers!" Especially in light of all those clinical as opposed to observational studies that have shown that moderate alcohol consumption reduces inflammation markers in blood in a quite dramatic way? (Id call up to 30% dramatic)
There's no fucking way this wont reflect in improved health. This soo smells agenda driven.
Guidelines are for those who seek guidance; you may not be interested, but official guidelines are important in many cases, as for example in health care. And since it isn't law, you are free to ignore it as you see fit.
But we're all going to die after 80 or 90 years of life, so how do you want to spend those years?
Well I would prefer to spend as much of my life being as physically healthy and as clear minded as possible. I don't really have a thing against recreational drug use - I have done my bit in my time - but it too becomes a dull routine after a while, and it does take away from my general well-being. It certainly doesn't deserve being called 'exploring the bounds of life'; if you want to do that, try something that will really challenge you, like learning something new - a language, playing an instrument (and doing it well), wood carving or mathematics. Or go and explore a place you've never been to. Step out of yourself; taking drugs is just so much navel-grazing.
becuase you enjoy drinking cold frosty piss
Unfortunately health guidelines gave a tendency to gain legal momentum, especially here, so it is worth keeping aware of what's being said.
Interesting that you should mention learning an instrument as something to do to stretch yourself since so much great music is well known for being created whilst on substances. Some things aren't best sober...
They aren't saying never drink, just that it's not a good idea to do it regularly. That's what does the damage, regular use of alcohol/drugs/tobacco. And alcohol is addictive, so it's easy to get hooked.
Enjoy yourself now and then, but take it from someone who is living it: you don't want to spend decades with some disease that makes life miserable, if you can avoid it. Like a child you want to crank the music up, thinking it won't affect you... But it's all cumulative.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I get so sick of this. Every pub I've ever been too in England had three beers on tap. Guinness (Irish for Budweiser), Fosters (I want to call it Australian for Budweiser, but I don't think it's actually from Australia) and Stella (Belgian for Budweiser). And when I was out there, I saw all three of those being drunk in about the same quantities that I see Budweiser drunk at here. And I would say Budweiser is better than all three of those. Stella being of particular note for just how fucking awful it is. Now, it's been a few years since I've been out to England (I think about 5 to be exact), but last I was out there, the microbrew community in the US was a hell of a lot better than you guys had.
For the TL;DR people, piss off, the UK has just as much bad beer as the US, if not more.
That is a classic justification mechanism for crazy morons in denial. There are tons of studies on this subject, with contradictory results (as is usual for medical studies with a political component). Sure, you can pick just the few percentage of studies that you agree with, but that doesn't mean you aren't a biased moron.
So far, we're pretty confident of the following:
1) Alcohol consumption correlates with lower mortality
1a) But people in at-risk groups drink less, including poor, extremely unhealthy, and teetotalling ex-alcoholics.
2) Alcohol improves on some health markers
2b) But makes others worse.
2c) Which probably makes alcohol's cost/benefits dependent on other things, such as whether you have heart disease.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
I certainly understand your point. And, at an earlier point in my life, I'd probably completely agree with you. But, a funny thing happens to one as they age. The closer to end of life they get (to a point), the more they want to extend it. The problem is that by the time you start to realize it for yourself, the damage has already been done. So, it's better if one can open their ears and hear. I'm not pointing fingers. I'm beginning to see this now.
Look at what you're citing "light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality" - not "no effect" but "no direct _protective_ effect". I.e. it is saying there is no evidence for the hypothesis that drinking _helps_ your health.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
May influence insurers to create "no alcohol" policies and use 3rd party data from your spending profiles to estimate compliance. Pay cash or bitcoin for that next pint...
Or you can get a more fulfilling life so that the "experience" of food and alcohol is put into perspective.
You sound like a classic alcoholic in denial. All medical studies have shown that alcohol is bad for you and has no health benefits. No amount is "OK".
Saying something over and over does not make it true. This is complete bullshit.
How ALL of the posts ranting that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption, that all studies show damaging health effects, etc, are AC. Not one rabid teetotaler will put his name to his posts.
Your argument seems to rest on the assumption that life is only about seeking personal pleasure.
And so you should be weeping. The cheapest, lowest quality Czech beer is better than the most expensive, best American beer.
The same is true for the women too.
That's an ignorant stereotype. The largest American brewer is currently Yuengling, and the rest are mainly craft microbrewries, many of which produce beers with quality among the highest in the world.
The vast majority of true crap beer on the market, such as Budweiser and Miller, is all from European companies.
That is a classic justification mechanism for crazy morons in denial. There are tons of studies on this subject, with contradictory results (as is usual for medical studies with a political component). Sure, you can pick just the few percentage of studies that you agree with, but that doesn't mean you aren't a biased moron.
So far, we're pretty confident of the following: 1) Alcohol consumption correlates with lower mortality 1a) But people in at-risk groups drink less, including poor, extremely unhealthy, and teetotalling ex-alcoholics. 2) Alcohol improves on some health markers 2b) But makes others worse. 2c) Which probably makes alcohol's cost/benefits dependent on other things, such as whether you have heart disease.
I think the clearest conclusion we can make is that the effect of light to moderate alcohol consumption on health is very small. It may be positive, negative or neither, and perhaps we could identify specific populations in which it has larger effects, overall it's is negligible. However, this only applies to light to moderate consumption; heavy consumption is clearly very bad for you.
(And before the AC calls me out for being an alcoholic in denial, I'll mention that I'm a non-drinker. I've never consumed an alcoholic beverage in my life.)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
How about social aspects, hobbies, etc. Living fun doesn't have to be about health-effecting practices. It can be some fun but there are many ways to have fun and it is not boring to be straight edge. Having wasted money and time on sitting and drooling from drugs and alcohol, I envy those who don't even know what they are missing and never tried. It's easy after a hard day too just say I'll smoke a joint but what if that wasn't my go-to, and instead I was as equally relaxed by playing a game of tetris or getting into my hobby programming and making a new toy for my kid with some fun gpio stuff on a raspberry pi?
Much like how you deny your alcoholism over and over I suspect. Until you can admit that to yourself, you won't be able to overcome your addiction.
To compensate they're increasing the units of Victory Chocolate from 3 to 2.
Different definitions of cold.
Many Americans wants their beer frosty, in a frozen glass with rime on it.
While Brits tend to think of 6-8 degrees C chilled beer as cold.
At the freezing temperatures Americans prefer, you can't get a smooth head on a beer. At most you get some foam that instantly collapses, and your beer goes stale.
And you lose out a lot of the flavour when it's too cold. It's that first sip after work that tastes absolutely fabulous, but if it's ice cold, you might as well have a glass of ice water.
They are, because they also sat don't binge. They are saying you can have a couple of pints 3 times a week, there aren't many other configurations that work with all the restrictions in the recommendations.
"Considering consuming healthy stuff as boring and unhealthy stuff as fun, and defending this viewpoint, is a symptom of dependency (addiction).
You are not born with such dependencies, they are created by your upbringing, by what you are taught, not only by parents but society as a whole.
It leads to a deep feeling of some things about life/reality/yourself/the world being not right, so you try to avoid those. For that you cultivate those dependencies as an avoidance mechanism."
Blah blah blah...thank you for that prime example of Horseshit. Lets take it a bit at a time:
"Considering consuming healthy stuff as boring and unhealthy stuff as fun, and defending this viewpoint, is a symptom of dependency"
You immediately assume a false dichotomy - it is not an either/or situation as you present it. Pretty much all comment on here are people defending this choice to do unhealthy stuff as they see fit - nothing in that implies not doing healthy stuff.
Your whole viewpoint is predicated on the assumption that anyone who chooses to consume unhealthy stuff must by necessity have psychological issues. This is patently false.
"You are not born with such dependencies, they are created by your upbringing, by what you are taught"
Completely false. Vast amounts of empirical data in biology and genetics do not support your now-known-to-be-absurd hypothesis.
The whole problem with your perspective is that, in order for it to be true, human beings by necessity need to be something other-than the cells and biological matter that comprise their bodies. But we know now that this is absurd.
Everything about us - our thoughts, culture, feelings, etc - is all the result of biology and biological impetus.
All the GP was saying is just the obvious - life is nothing more nor less than the experience of having lived. Death is the end of sensation, of thought, of feeling, of the actual experience of the physical world. No more grass under the toes, no more pine scented breezes, no more ocean winds, no more anything ever again.
We each one of us have a limited amount of time within which to experience this physical world we live in. To have lived your life and died without ever having experienced the sensation of being drunk, or stoned, or alone in the desert, or on top of a mountain, or on the bottom of a swimming pool is to have completely wasted this small span of time to experience sensation that you now have.
To adopt completely artificial rules that restrict yourself - to idealize those who deliberately withhold from themselves a wide variety of sensations and consider their limited experience as some sort of virtue - is fucking weird in the extreme. To say the least.
Still 25% more by volume vs American servings ... we'll be fine ... f i n e I say...
It's obvious you are in denial about your pedophilia. It's not healthy, it's immoral, and it's illegal. Just admit your problem and your crimes and stop it, NOW, before you hurt any more children, you sick, disgusting, subhuman piece of crap.
" The problem is that by the time you start to realize it for yourself, the damage has already been done. So, it's better if one can open their ears and hear. I'm not pointing fingers. I'm beginning to see this now."
This is by no means true for everyone.
Indeed, cases of people in their 60s, 70s and 80s taking up hard drugs in their old age are unprecedentedly high. The older you get, the more you understand you have a limited window within which to experience things.
Some, as you mention, think they are going to expand that window by denial - others dont care to expand it but accept it and work within it. Its just another one of those many many things that individuals decide for themselves - and in doing so reflect the variety of human behavior that is possible.
"Blah blah blah. https://t.co/bZPnXe2xXy
Cheers."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYM72-RWkAAlEar.jpg
Studies on centennials have found they don't live particularly healthy lifestyles. Many ate unhealthy diets, some drank alcohol and a few were even life-long smokers. The strongest correlation they could find among them was the number of centennials in their own family history. In other words, living a very long life mostly comes down to your genes.
"It's easy after a hard day too just say I'll smoke a joint but what if that wasn't my go-to, and instead I was as equally relaxed by playing a game of tetris or getting into my hobby programming and making a new toy for my kid with some fun gpio stuff on a raspberry pi?"
The thing is, it isnt either/or. Maybe one day a week or month you smoke a joint, another day you play tetris, whatever. This whole all-or-nothing attitude is fucking weird.
The biggest annoyance here is that we feel we should follow the guidelines - the assumption is that medical guidance should be followed, without taking into account that you are definitely going to die someday so your life shouldn't be about avoiding it at all costs.
Yep, and following the guidelines is also not a guarantee for success, either. I had a close friend that was a health nut all her life; exercised daily, ran marathons, ate organic food before it was "hip", etc. She got multiple myeloma and Hodgkin's lymphoma simultaneously and was dead within three years. She was 55.
Bottom line: Live your life and do what you want before it's too late, because you never know when you're going to die.
Is there some factual basis for this, or is this another example of reality denial by socialists to convince people there's no differences between men and women?
Welcome to the age of doxxing, SWATing, and bandwagoning. Say the wrong thing publicly and your family will be threatened and your employer hounded until you are fired or your house raided.
Loophole!
Monday - No drinks. Work tomorrow.
Tuesday - No drinks. Work tomorrow.
Wednesday - No drinks. Work tomorrow.
Thursday - No drinks. Work tomorrow.
Friday - Partay!
Saturday - Recover from Friday. No drinks.
Sunday - The Lord's Day. No drinks. Ask Father for forgiveness for your sins the previous Friday.
Yeah that makes sense, thanks
And us americans weep, but enjoy our COLD and slightly smaller pints.
Beer is not beer. Some needs to be cold, some needs to be warm. A British ale tastes like an ashtray when cold, and a American beer tastes like arse when warm. Some particularly dry largers really benefit from being very damn close to their freezing point, whereas you wouldn't drink a whitbeer like that.
Budwiser is the exception. There's no acceptable temperature at which to enjoy one. One can only tolerate it.
After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
Maybe alcohol causes physical activity and better health status? If only walking home from the bar.
More likely a lot of the light-to-moderate drinking crowd is going out for casual social drinking, and some of the people with less consumption are doing so because they don't get out much.
Staying home all the time is bad for your health.
I stole this Sig
Sure, why not. I mean I don't think that follows at all, but even if it did that's not a bad way of organising your one shot at existence.
Meanwhile in a country full of criminals one of our prime ministers held the world record for sculling a yard of ale.
Even our more recent prime ministers has put some effort in.
That's just a slippery slope fallacy. Hundreds of health guidelines and advisories are issued all around the world every year. How many of them become the basis of a law mandating a health minimum? Where do you live and what specific laws have been legislated based upon health guidelines?
Is it her medical opinion that dope is unsafe at any level? Meth? Cocaine? Etc etc?
I thought "a pint's a pound the world around" so can we measure by weight rather than volumetrically?
"A litre is too much and a half-litre don't satisfy" - A old man ordering a beer in the book "1984"
I drink 18 units a day.
1) No it doesn't.
1a) People who drink less, drink less.
2) Alcohol improves on some health markers
2b) But makes others worse.
2c) But overall is bad for you.
A pint of what though? A pint of water, a pint of beer and a pint of prawns don't weigh the same, even at the same temperature and pressure.
It's all relative. It's the difference between cool and chilled. Go into a pub and order a British lager and a British cask conditioned real ale. You'll notice that the glass of lager is much colder. The lager is chilled using refrigerator technology. The real ale is at the temperature of the cellar which is cooler than room temperature but not refrigerated.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
None of those is proper beer, though: Guinness is stout, Carling and Stella are corporate lager.
Interestingly, despite advertising campaigns emphasising the old-time small town Belgian origins of Stella Artois and slogans like "reassuringly expensive", it is still commonly known as "wife-beater" and even requested as such.
"2 pints of wife-beater please guv".
Sorry Fosters not Carling. Indistinguishable apart from the name.
dying of stupidity by alcohol... But I think that's maybe Darwinism...
Yea and even if i would die a bit sooner. At least i am having fun before i die. It is like all those gym bunnies convinced they are going to look great and live forever. They don't even statistically live longer than people like me, and waste half their life eating boring food and spending huge amounts of time at the gym.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
What's more important. Saving a bunch of old folks by cutting out the drinking or creating a bunch of new folks through drunken debauchery?
So long as we can bring them in faster than we take them out, I see no problem with FIFO underrun.
In the US, lager, stout, bock, ale, etc - all are different types of beer - 'beer' is just a generic term that covers them all.
The phrase as I know it is more specifically
A pint (of a water based liquid, such as water or beer) 's (approximately) a pound the world around.
It's not meant to be 100% accurate, but enough so that you can use it in most situations where you're not counting error margins that closely.
After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
That is where one can be mislead by the article, as they are talking about an increase in health problems, not an increase in mortality. Specifically they talk about cancers, which in most cases are seen very late in life. So, basically, you have a small increase in added health issues right before you die.
cancers are seen late in life, because they tend to kill you. but yeah, they do typically take decades to develop. but the point is, that the more you irritate tissue, i.e. pouring substantial volumes of alcohol down your throat into your stomach on a constant basis, the sooner cancer will develop.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
That is a classic justification mechanism for crazy morons in denial. There are tons of studies on this subject, with contradictory results (as is usual for medical studies with a political component). Sure, you can pick just the few percentage of studies that you agree with, but that doesn't mean you aren't a biased moron.
So far, we're pretty confident of the following: 1) Alcohol consumption correlates with lower mortality 1a) But people in at-risk groups drink less, including poor, extremely unhealthy, and teetotalling ex-alcoholics. 2) Alcohol improves on some health markers 2b) But makes others worse. 2c) Which probably makes alcohol's cost/benefits dependent on other things, such as whether you have heart disease.
the protective effects of alcohol on circulatory disease has always been small, and arguably an artifact of being unable statistically to separate out all other correlated factors, whether lifestyle of moderate drinkers vs nondrinkers vs heavy drinkers, or the actual delivery of alcohol (wine and beer containing lots of other active compounds than alcohol; tannins, phenols, etc.) but it has up till now been relatively consistently found.
condensing a large volume of studies, these guys find the protective effect is less than the usual estimate. https://www.gov.uk/government/... and thus the british government is ethically required to publicize the warning
and of course there are a lot of other things involved, diet maybe, genetics certainly, etc etc etc
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Yea and even if i would die a bit sooner. At least i am having fun before i die. It is like all those gym bunnies convinced they are going to look great and live forever. They don't even statistically live longer than people like me, and waste half their life eating boring food and spending huge amounts of time at the gym.
a pint a day is fun. drinking until you puke and waking up with a hangover is less fun, unless you do have a problem. the line in between is a bit fuzzy.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
Maybe alcohol causes physical activity and better health status? If only walking home from the bar.
the alcohol protective effect on cardiovascular disease has always been small, but has been so persistent in studies that it was hard to dismiss. plus there is a plausible mechanism in that small alcohol consumption lowers your LDL levels. however the latest studies which assign the positive effect out to correlated factors happen to arrive at a time when we're less convinced of the whole cholesterol involvement in cardiovascular disease. witness the fall of niacin from grace; it does even better than alcohol and improving your cholesterol and lipid profiles but apparently doesn't improve mortality at all. ironically, the same people who would dismiss the alcohol is harmful findings are likely to have also dismissed the cholesterol is harmful findings that justified alcohol being protective in the first place.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Is not this a computer forum? Insofar we are computer geeks?
If so, our recommendation should be dimensions for fourteen RACK UNITS. And that leaves the dilemma of whether or not they are 19 or 23 inch racks.
If not geek, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
Maybe alcohol causes physical activity and better health status? If only walking home from the bar.
More likely a lot of the light-to-moderate drinking crowd is going out for casual social drinking, and some of the people with less consumption are doing so because they don't get out much.
Staying home all the time is bad for your health.
one question is the role of "no drinking ever" folks in the model. whereas light drinking and even very seldom drinking are normal, folks who never drink include people who live a super healthy lifestyle, people who are sick and on various drugs which force them to avoid alcohol, people who are former alcoholics and now clean and sober, people have cognitive problems that cause them to decide to never drink, people who are normal and just don't like to drink, people who, as you say, are socially isolated (not healthy in general), and also people who drink so much that they feel the need to lie about it. as these groups all have different risk profiles, probably, what the bottom end of your dose/response curve looks like is going to depend on the particular percentages of these various types who appear in your study.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
That is a classic justification mechanism for drunks in denial: Trying to find some "beneficial" slant for drinking.
Drinking makes you lazy and lethargic, and not just at the times that you are drinking. If you drink regularly, in general you will be less active, have less drive and have less willpower. If you didn't drink (and provided you didn't have some other unhealthy habit), you would be much more active and in much better shape, both physically and mentally.
take note that historically, public water supplies have not always been healthy, and that beer has been a significant source of B vitamins and other nutrients for some populations while wine has been a significant source of fruit consumption for others
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
True, All we get is the Guinness Crap here, Or that horrific pisswater called Carling from GB.
now Beamish, that is a proper good pint with real flavor.
pretty easy to get lots of good imported beers all over the US these days, not to mention domestic microbrews.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
And so you should be weeping. The cheapest, lowest quality Czech beer is better than the most expensive, best American beer.
The same is true for the women too.
The cheapest, lowest quality Czech beer is better than the most expensive, best American women ???? Yeah, I guess that is true.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
The exact quantity of a pint isn't exactly the most important detail, the alcoholic volume of the drink makes more of a difference. That's why it's done in units (1 unit = 10ml of alcohol e.g. a 25ml single measure of a 40% spirit is 1 unit).
Bartender, give me a unit! In fact, make it a double!
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... Moderate Alcohol Consumption Is Not Associated with Reduced All-cause Mortality. "During 206,966 person-years of follow up, 7902 individuals died. No level of regular alcohol consumption was associated with reduced all-cause mortality. The hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval in fully adjusted analyses was 1.02 (0.94-1.11) for 7 drinks/week, 1.14 (1.02-1.28) for 7 to 14 drinks/week, 1.13 (0.96-1.35) for 14 to 21 drinks/week, and 1.45 (1.16-1.81) for 21 drinks/week. CONCLUSIONS:
Moderate alcohol consumption is not associated with reduced all-cause mortality in older adults. The previously observed association may have been due to residual confounding."
graphing that out, the significance of that 7-14 point is pretty sketchy, given that the 14-21 is not significant bu a greater margin.
if you want to be honest, the results state that you should drink 7 or less, or 14-21, but not 7-14 drinks per week. if you're going to start smoothing the curve, if you make it linear it's more accurate to say the difference is insignificant below 10 units or so; or even more accurate to suggest that the curve looks like it depends on the cube of the alcohol consumption, not linear. which is not unreasonable, given the complexity of the situation.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Well i don't get hangovers. But yea binge drinking at that level is clearly not fun and bad for you. The reason your throwing up is that your body is panicking and trying to get rid of the poison that is almost killing you. Also as someone who has seen alcoholism first hand, people with a problem *don't enjoy it*, but can't stay away anyway.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
>Then the freaking women need to start drinking more if they want to be equal.
Men and women are fundamentally equal except for social, cultural, hormonal and genital differences. The other range of differences are individual.
Women, or anyone, don't need to drink more, because they're already fundamentally equal (except for the 4 things I've wrote). The other differences... are individual.
This is an egalitarian view on equality.
Feminism is about women's rights, not people's rights. Men's rights activists are also social justice warriors, except they advocate for men.
They are both enemies of equality. Equality is a third solution.
We're all fundamentally equal, so no race, gender, or whatever, should be privileged over another, and the best individuals should rise to the top, because the differences are individual. Same wise, the enemies of equality can be of any race or gender; they can't be stereotyped. We are tolerant, but not tolerant of intolerance.
"You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
...We are tolerant, but not tolerant of intolerance, and intolerance can come from anyone.
"You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
we never eat jelly
they make it with wine
and one little bite turns a man to a swine
think -just imagine- how sinful the day:
THE CHIDREN all wasted on PB and J
****
"If I'll be alive tomorrow
-really I don't know
BUT if I'm alive tomorrow
I am sure Ill drink tomorrow
-THIS I promise you"
***
Boozin, Boozin
-Just You and I
Boozin Boo - oozin
-When we are Dry!
Some do it openly
Some on the sly
But We All are bloody well BOOZIN
****
http://www.metrolyrics.com/alcohol-lyrics-brad-paisley.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXxomeId_dw
Brad Paisley - Alcohol Lyrics
I can make anybody pretty
I can make you believe any lie
I can make you pick a fight
With somebody twice
Your size
Well I've been known to cause a few breakups
And I've been known to cause a few births
I can make you new friends
Or get you fired from work.
And since the day I left Milwaukee
Lyncheburg Bordeaux, France
Been making the bars
With lots of big money
And helping white people dance
I am medicine and I am poison
I can help you up or make you fall
You had some of the best times
You'll never remember with me
Alcohol, alcohol
Yes since the day I left Milwaukee
Lynchburg, Bordeaux, France
Been makin' the bars lots of big money
And helpin' white people dance
Yea I got you in trouble in high school
And college now that was a ball
You had some of the best times
You'll never remember with me
Alcohol, alcohol
-
"Either you drink or you don't. If you do, then you are incapable of living without being intoxicated. Ask yourself why you get drunk."
Unless this coment was posted by an omnicient G*d, I find it presumptuous and rude. Some people really need to abstain... totaly. I respect them for recognizing that fact. Other people are able to use psychoactives without losing control. I respect THEIR right to do so (legality of any particular substance is another issue).
-
If alcohol were replaced (partially) with Cannabis, that would indeed be beneficial for the health of the population at large.