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.'
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
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.
Everything causes cancer. Fuck em. I'd rather lose 10 years and enjoy life than gain 10 years and hate it.
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 :).
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
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.
You must be fun at parties
Don't make fun of the designated driver.
And what is a Unit? Metric values should be used.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
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.
Here in the Netherlands we have muslims for that.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
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.
One unit of alcohol (UK) is defined as 10 millilitres (8 grams) of pure alcohol.
Although not an SI unit it is metric - it's just broken into an easier measure for many people to use (depending on the drink you're having you can approximate it between 1-3 Units and count the number of Units you're having that way).
One unit is 10 ml of pure alcohol The link gives some more useful examples in terms of actual drinks e.g. about half a pint of beer.
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
True story: the one Mormon I've hung around with had to go to rehab for blow.
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.
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.
Both safer options.
"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
see http://understandinguncertaint...
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.
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
So his parties bomb!
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
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.
Alcohol has a biological effect that I enjoy.
Like, say, caffeine. Or adrenaline.
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...
Right next to the bacon.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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.
Still 25% more by volume vs American servings ... we'll be fine ... f i n e I say...
"Blah blah blah. https://t.co/bZPnXe2xXy
Cheers."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYM72-RWkAAlEar.jpg
The problem is that 'unit' requires knowledge that isn't easy to transfer between countries. If internationally recognized units were used it would be understandable for everyone without having to know sizes of beers&drinks specific to a country.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
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.
Not quite. That directly depends on how much is being drunk in the first place, along with other lifestyle and biological attributes of the individual in question. I suspect this 'recommendation' has more to do with politics than anything else.
They started with pint, which everyone gets, as it is an internationally understood unit of fun, then get bogged down in metric stuff.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
Is it her medical opinion that dope is unsafe at any level? Meth? Cocaine? Etc etc?
Here in the Netherlands we have muslims for that.
Are your Muslims there all conservative fundamentalists?
Muslims I know drink, just as the Jews eat ham and Christians have sex before marriage.
It isn't strictly necessary for it to translate internationally. Foreign visitors to the UK don't need to know. If you come to the UK and are worried about drinking and driving, for example, the official blood alcohol test limit doesn't use that 'unit' anyway: it's more sensibly based on e.g. milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood, though you'd have to do extensive research to find out how much of your favourite tipple you could consume to reach that level for your own body weight and metabolic rate.
The problem is that 'unit' requires knowledge that isn't easy to transfer between countries.
Yeah, unfortunately the UK picked a different standard from most places. A UK unit of alcohol is 10mL of ethanol at standard room temperature (i.e. 20C). The most common "standard drink" is 10 grams of ethanol at room temperature. Things would be simpler if we all standardised on that.
(Of course, the US measures a standard drink in millihogsheads or something because that's just how they roll.)
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
[...] the official blood alcohol test limit doesn't use that 'unit' anyway: it's more sensibly based on e.g. milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood [...]
I dispute this use of the term "sensibly".
BAC by volume is typically grams per 100mL. In many jurisdictions (e.g. US, Australia) it's written using the percent or permille symbol. There are other jurisdictions (e.g. Russia, Germany, Ireland) which measures BAC by mass (e.g. grams per 100 grams of blood), where the percent/permille symbol actually makes sense.
Just to confuse things even more, laboratory tests usually measure millimoles per litre and so the result has to be converted.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
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
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?
It makes sense for Europe (at least) to standardise, since you can freely travel and hence freely drink in many countries if you're a UK citizen.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
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
I didn't say that it was more sensible to measure ABW rather than ABV. I said it would be simpler for all countries to use the same measure, and ABW happens to be the most common one in use today.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Don't know, don't care. Never spent any time thinking about it.
Feels good, man.