blonde poker forum

New booze limits issued, 7 pints a week or equivalent maximum...

Well I'm fucked, that doesn't even touch the sides on a single night out with friends.

I guess you're either a drinker or not really, but will this change anyone's behaviour who drinks too much? I know it should but I love a good drink....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35255384

http://newsthump.com/2016/01/08/men-to-tell-doctors-they-now-drink-just-14-units-a-week/

Just heard a 71 year old guy on the radio say it's nonsense. He has drank the equivalent of a half bottle of whisky all his adult life and still cycles and goes for walks daily.

I save mine up all year, and whack them all home while I'm in Vegas  ;D

The 14-unit limit has been chosen because at that point, your drinking leads to a 1% risk of dying from alcohol-related causes.
This has been deemed to be an acceptable level of risk as it is approximately the same risk that someone has when they do an every day task such as driving a car.

I think this is the key statement hidden under the headline numbers and where the new limits actually come from.  I would like to know the equivalent numbers for a 1% chance of smoking killing you.  I would also like to know the weekly alcohol limits that give a 5% or 10% chance of an alcohol related death to add some balance.  I would happily drink at 10% chance levels (knowing 90% of the time i don't die from a drinking related death).  Just because doing 14 units a week makes it as likely as you die from drinking and crashing your car means fuck all to me.  If the car death was 5% i would still drive my car because i have to and will take the chance.  I would like to know the same alcohol levels for this.  Also how over weight do you have to be in order to have a 1% chance of dying from an obesity related death?  Probably a stone or two i would imagine (ie the vast majority of the nation)

I really don't want to not drink all my life, or to levels that are incredibly low, just so i can live to 95 and live an equally shit life in my 90s where i might be alive but i can't do anything remotely enjoyable with those years which i have gained because i have spent my whole life drinking to levels similar to me dying from a car crash.  I can't have it the average person is 1% likely to die in a car crash.  Seems totally insane to me.  I would happily lay anyone 500/1 i die or they die in a car crash.  I literally know no one who has ever been seriously injured in a car crash never mind died in one.

Bit of further info....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35266826

There have been close to 350k people killed on the roads since 1950, which is getting close to a 1% chance in your life. It has been reducing gradually though. We killed about 3,000 a year for quite a while until quite recently, and it used to be a lot higher than that previously, but it has come down a lot in the last few years to 17-1800 now, so that 1% statistic is out of date. Still a bloodbath out there though.

Depends how much you drive though.  I am hardly ever on the roads so i must be much less likely than even 0.5% to die in a road accident.

Luckily for me these days it only takes about 3 pints before I fall asleep, and my hangovers last about three days, so I'd struggle to get seven pints in in a week anyway.

Arbboy

You need to check out David Spigelhalter on Twitter. 

Some stats for you.

14 units a week the same risk as driving 2000 miles a week. 

Each drink knocks 15 minutes off your life.  I dare say if you drink more than 50 a week, you are going to cause more damage. 

Do you mean if you drink 14 units a week or just if you have one? It was a while ago but I read a medical journal that said a glass of red wine reduces the risk of heart disease and there have been various studies that say not drinking at all can present higher risks of stress-related illnesses, given its relaxant qualities.

The only thing medics seem to agree on is, if you drink a lot regularly, it's not good.

I am just stating what the man said on Twitter.   I think the booze benefit studies have been contradicted. 

But to paraphrase the man on Twitter, he is saying per additional drink once you are a drinker.  Teetotallers are a separate cohort.  I suspect the teatotaller effect you talk of may be misleading too.  Lots of very sick people aren't allowed to drink etc.   

Right. I must admit I find it all rather confusing. Like a lot of people, it doesn't change my approach at all but it'd be nice if it were all clear, beyond the obvious concept that if you pickle your liver, you'll be a burden on the state.

I think most things are unclear because the press/twitter/facebook do not care much for scientific proof.  So anybody can pass any old bullshit off as a study and somebody will print it somewhere.

Just assume alcohol is a mild poision and isn't going to do too much damage if you go out a couple of times a week and have a few drinks.  I assume everyone knows that bacon sandwiches aren't that great for you, but I am not going to be giving them up any time soon.

I'm aiming for 2 weeks allowance today alone.

Cheers :)

Normal Saturday then? :D

fyp

As soon as they make these statistics generic they lose any credibility as far as I'm concerned.

How the f**k can 14 units of alcohol have the same effect on a 15st bloke as they do on a 7.5st woman? It's pathetic to even suggest it.

Also by reducing the limit are they basically admitting that they've been killing us for the last 30 years by letting us drink too much? It's just a bunch of idiots justifying their roles by saying they've actually 'discovered' something new.

Surely it is liver size that matters more than body weight?  I think they are talking in General terms any way, and there probaly isn't a very significant difference between men and women of the same weight or liver size.

I don't think "they" have been force feeding you alcohol, we live in a free country, so you do all kinds of stuff that is bad for you, and it has been clear for a long time that excessive alcohol is bad for you.  Also, the "idiots" speaking today aren't the same "idiots" who spoke 30 years ago and today's "idiots" probably have better data, so are more likely to be right.