New drinking guidelines

[BigGully]

Agree with you entirely. There has been a huge amount of academic research into the impact of alcohol consumption into health though, and this is then summarised when academics attend meetings with government officials. That evidence is then

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/236476.php

If you take a look at Google Scholar https://scholar.google.co.uk/ there are many studies into the impact of alcohol on liver and coronary issues.

Sally Davies, who is associated with the comments you refer to, is a doctor rather than a politician. I think having a chief medical officer who is independent of the pettiness of party politics is a positive rather than a negative.

This is already out there and leaving two days for the liver to recover seems reasonable but not particularly scientific, for me it still seems quite extreme drinking 5 days out of 7, but hey ho presumably not.

I am guessing drinking a glass or two of wine each day is unlikely to impact too dangerously on someone's health ahead of someone like me that rarely drinks during the week but might have the odd blow out (middle aged laughter rather than teenaged West Street kind of blow out) at the weekend, irrespective of any current science I will bet (in a gamble responsibly kinda way) that me or my example will not have any serious health issues due to our alcohol habits but each would be outside of the these current guidelines.

It seems logical that if my Italian one glass of good wine per day man or me the midweek teetotaller falls outside of these boundaries the government would want to modify my current lifestyle choice of how me and my mate treat alcohol, thats the point really I do not wish them to.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The nanny state can do one. Have a drink, don't have a drink, it's up to the individual.

Why is it the nanny state? Surely the passing on of medical guidelines is what the state is for?

If they passed a law preventing you drinking when you wanted, then yep nanny state - but just passing on medical advice

 

[Mr Putdown]

It matters not whether you weigh 20 stone or 8 stone: your liver can only work the alcohol out of your system at the same rate, roughly one unit per hour. That remains the same even if you eat a full meal with it or drink a pint of water when you get home from a night out (hence you might feel better in the morning but still be way over the drink-drive limit)

Assuming each individual is neither obese nor unnaturally underweight then the volume of blood in a 20 stone individual will usually be more than double that of someone weighing eight stone and that does have a measurable impact on the way and speed the body metabolises alcohol. For a start the % blood alcohol levels will be significantly different even if exactly the same amount of alcohol is consumed.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

After seriously 'abusing' my liver for many years I was very happy to have it confirmed that my liver function/enzyme tests were good.

Scary wake up call, and now I really stick to the low intake, with just 1 or 2 binges per month ( usually AMEX days ).

 

[Pavilionaire]

Why is it the nanny state? Surely the passing on of medical guidelines is what the state is for?

If they passed a law preventing you drinking when you wanted, then yep nanny state - but just passing on medical advice

› a ​government that ​tries to give too much ​advice or make too many ​laws about how ​people should ​live ​their ​lives, ​especially about ​eating, ​smoking, or ​drinking ​alcohol: The ​government was ​accused of ​trying to ​create a ​nanny ​state when it ​announced new ​guidelines on ​healthy ​eating.

(Definition of nanny state from the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus)

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Assuming each individual is neither obese nor unnaturally underweight then the volume of blood in a 20 stone individual will usually be more than double that of someone weighing eight stone and that does have a measurable impact on the way and speed the body metabolises alcohol. For a start the % blood alcohol levels will be significantly different even if exactly the same amount of alcohol is consumed.

I'm not talking about the blood alcohol levels though, only the time it takes for the body to get rid of it, which presumably is the part which works the body hardest. That is broadly the same whatever you weigh. About half an ounce of pure alcohol per hour.

This is quite interesting, in terms of explaining your physiological drinking symptoms:



-Flowing down the hatch from mouth to stomach: The unmetabolized alcohol flows through your stomach walls into your bloodstream and on to your small intestine.

-Stopping for a short visit at the energy factory: Most of the alcohol you drink is absorbed through the duodenum (small intestine). From there it flows through a large blood vessel into your liver.

In the liver, an enzyme similar to gastric ADH metabolizes the alcohol, which is converted to energy by a coenzyme called nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD). NAD is also used to convert the glucose you get from other carbohydrates to energy; while NAD is being used for alcohol, glucose conversion grinds to a halt.

The normal, healthy liver can process about 1/2 ounce of pure alcohol (that’s 6 to 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1 ounce of spirits) in an hour. The rest flows on to your heart.

-Taking time out for air: Entering your heart, alcohol reduces the force with which your heart muscle contracts. You pump out slightly less blood, blood vessels all over your body relax, and your blood pressure goes down temporarily. The contractions soon return to normal, but the blood vessels may remain relaxed and your blood pressure lower for as long as half an hour.

Meanwhile, alcohol flows in blood from your heart through your pulmonary vein to your lungs. Now you breathe out a tiny bit of alcohol every time you exhale, and your breath smells of liquor. Then the newly oxygenated, still alcohol-laden blood flows back through the pulmonary artery to your heart, and up and out through the aorta.

-Rising to the surface: In your blood, alcohol raises your level of high-density lipoproteins (HDLs), although not necessarily the good ones that carry cholesterol out of your body. Alcohol also makes blood less likely to clot, temporarily reducing your risk of heart attack and stroke.

Alcohol makes blood vessels expand, so more warm blood flows up from the center of your body to the surface of the skin. You feel warmer and, if your skin is fair, you may flush and turn pink. (Asians, who tend to make less alcohol dehydrogenase than do Caucasians, often experience a characteristic flushing when they drink even small amounts of alcohol.) At the same time, tiny amounts of alcohol ooze out through your pores, and your perspiration smells of alcohol.

Encountering curves in the road: Alcohol is a sedative. When it reaches your brain, it slows the transmission of impulses between nerve cells that control your ability to think and move. That’s why your thinking may be fuzzy, your judgment impaired, your tongue twisted, your vision blurred, and your muscles rubbery.

Alcohol reduces your brain’s production of antidiuretic hormones, which keep you from making too much urine. You may lose lots of liquid, vitamins, and minerals. You also grow very thirsty, and your urine may smell faintly of alcohol. This cycle continues as long as you have alcohol circulating in your blood, or in other words, until your liver can manage to produce enough ADH to metabolize all the alcohol you’ve consumed.

Most people need an hour to metabolize the amount of alcohol (1/2 ounce) in one drink. But some people have alcohol circulating in their blood for up to three hours after taking a drink.

 

[Bold Seagull]

› a ​government that ​tries to give too much ​advice or make too many ​laws about how ​people should ​live ​their ​lives, ​especially about ​eating, ​smoking, or ​drinking ​alcohol: The ​government was ​accused of ​trying to ​create a ​nanny ​state when it ​announced new ​guidelines on ​healthy ​eating.

(Definition of nanny state from the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus)

now that did make me laugh.

 

[Monkey Man]

It's fairly well known in the industry and within government that the drinking guidelines are pretty much made up, and certainly differ from those issued in other countries. Of course it varies according to the size and weight and age of the person involved and it's very hard to be precise with advice.

That said, there is no denying that substances like alcohol, tobacco and sugar are having a huge impact on public health, and putting a strain on the NHS.

So it seems sensible to come up with some sort of an attempt at guidelines for intake, even if people think they're wrong or it's the nanny state trying to spoil their fun.

Even if it makes a small percentage of people stop to consider their drinking (eating, or smoking), and make an attempt to moderate their habit, the public health outcome is positive.

For those who complain that it isn't the state's business to share this kind of information, think about how many people started smoking in the 1950s or 60s ... and when they were diagnosed with COPD or cancer a few decades later, complained that nobody had told them tobacco was bad for them.

 

[Pavilionaire]

It seems to me as though these guidelines are as much about saving money as they are about health.

 

[Mr Putdown]

I'm not talking about the blood alcohol levels though, only the time it takes for the body to get rid of it.

Apologies, I must have misunderstood it when you said "you might feel better in the morning but still be way over the drink-drive limit" which was what I focused on.

 

[El Presidente]

It seems to me as though these guidelines are as much about saving money as they are about health.

True.

Drink less, save money.

 

[Nibble]

A couple of times a year I work with Doctors. Every now and again the work involves studying people with alcohol issues. It's interesting to note the different attitudes Dr's have to the subject. Some doctors believe 2 bottles of wine a day is absolutely fine (surprising) some swear by 1 bottle a day, some think a glass a day is too much, some think a bottle a week is too much. There seems to be no fixed medical opinion on daily intake. However they were universally in agreement that one of the worst things you can do to your body is abstain for long periods then go binge drinking.
They also pretty much all agreed that people in the medical professions, especially Doctors, drink far more than the national average.

 

[Guinness Boy]

she's put Take me out on .

They don't tell you how to cope with stuff like this in these guidelines do they?

Let the Television see the Remote

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Sally Davies, who is associated with the comments you refer to, is a doctor rather than a politician. I think having a chief medical officer who is independent of the pettiness of party politics is a positive rather than a negative.

But a previous chief medical guy who famously got the boot when the provided drug classification based on science and not politics.

 

[El Presidente]

But a previous chief medical guy who famously got the boot when the provided drug classification based on science and not politics.

Agree totally.

It showed that our elected leaders (of all parties) are more concerned about fellating the opinion columns of the press than dealing with public health issues.

In the sea with the lot of them.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Alcohol may outwardly affect different people in different ways, so for example a 5'3" female might react differently to Uncle Spielberg's aforementioned 6'0", 16 stone bloke. She might appear to be more pissed at any given time (or might not), because that's the effect of alcohol on the brain.

But your size and gender has little or no effect on the way in which your liver processes the alcohol and gets rid of it, and ultimately, it's the liver that's going to suffer as a result of persistent hard drinking, so perhaps that's behind the theory being put forward at the top of this thread? It matters not whether you weigh 20 stone or 8 stone: your liver can only work the alcohol out of your system at the same rate, roughly one unit per hour. That remains the same even if you eat a full meal with it or drink a pint of water when you get home from a night out (hence you might feel better in the morning but still be way over the drink-drive limit)

Thus I guess if you drink six pints, it's going to have the same impact on your liver if you're Stephen or Stacey (or a bit of both).

I think you're saying that men and women should receive the same blanket guidance. If so, I agree with you.

It is still the case (I think) that alcohol related shinanigans (health, wellbeing and law breaking) is numerically preponderant in males. Therfore, any public health initiative ought to include in it a disproportionate admonition to the testicle carriers.

Still . . . are there really people out there who decide how much to drink on the basis of government guidelines? Hmmm . . . well perhaps there are, I'm not sure. I doubt thet are part of the problem drinker contingent, however.

Drink driving has plummeted since the 60s. The reason is attributed to the breathaliser, social pressure, wider awareness, but the cause can never be known (the nature of experimentation, lack of time matched control groups, blah blah).

Anyway.... I think I agree with you, apart from one thing. Yes, alcohol elimination is very constant at 1 unit per hour (liver willing). But absorption can be slowed by fatty food. The question is how slow? Enough to keep you under a limit over an evening? I doubt it. Unless you do an Edward Elizabeth Hitler, and neck half a bottle of Mazola before partaking.

Right, I have a large pernod and lemonade to navigate right now.

 

[Mr Putdown]

But a previous chief medical guy who famously got the boot when the provided drug classification based on science and not politics.

Yup but he was a Nutter to be fair.

 

[MJsGhost]

As someone who likes a drink, this is somewhat sobering information...

I do wonder if at some stage, we'll look back in the same way as many do with fags - wondering why at first there was so little intervention over the marketing of such a harmful product...

For me, I'm not so worried about the harm to myself, but the knock-on effect of using up resources in the NHS that should be allocated to something/someone more deserving, rather than something self-inflicted.

I lost my granddad to (alcohol-related/exacerbated) stomach & bowel cancer, so I should probably know better. Mind you, he did say on his death bed that he wouldn't change a thing - he was a very social drinker (he ran a wine making club) rather than a classic boozer for the sake of getting drunk.

Food for thought, if nothing else.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/04/staggering-cost-nhs-alcohol-abuse-report


One in 10 people in a hospital bed in the UK are alcohol-dependent and one in five are doing themselves harm by their drinking, according to research that quantifies for the first time the massive burden to the NHS of Britain’s drinking culture.

Hospitals are struggling to cope with the numbers of people whose heavy drinking habits land them in A&E or mental health units, but while the NHS estimates that the cost of treatment runs to £3.5bn a year, the figures for the numbers of patients affected have been largely anecdotal.
A major review pulling together the results of 124 previous studies involving 1.6 million hospital inpatients reveals that 20% use alcohol harmfully, for instance by binge drinking, while 10% are dependent on alcohol. Experts say alcohol services in the NHS and the community have been cut, leaving a health service fighting to cope.
“These numbers are shocking: the number of beds used, the cost to the NHS, the sheer number of people suffering as a result of alcohol,” said Dr Richard Piper, the chief executive of Alcohol Change UK, the campaign group behind Dry January.
“As dedicated alcohol treatment services have faced years of swingeing cuts, hospitals are being left to pick up the pieces – but most simply do not have the expertise or capacity to do so, resulting in alcohol problems going untreated and those suffering returning to hospital time and time again.”

The review, led by Dr Emmert Roberts from the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at King’s College London and published in the journal Addiction, calls for all patients admitted to hospital to be screened for their alcohol use and for medical staff to be trained in how to diagnose and treat those abusing alcohol.
Roberts was “super-concerned” by the findings, if not astounded, because he had expected the worst. But his medical colleagues’ reaction was one of shock. “The fact that they are shocked says to me that we are underdiagnosing these people and not providing them with adequate treatment,” he said.
“The message needs to get out there that this is a very prevalent, very common condition, and unless we start treating these people, obviously we are going to keep on having a rise in alcohol-related hospital admissions.”
But, he said, the NHS was losing its expertise. “Unfortunately, there’s been a reduction in trained addiction psychiatrists in the UK over the last five years and a reduction in real-terms funding to community specialist alcohol treatment services, and because of that there’s been a large reduction in the knowledge base of the healthcare profession around alcohol and other substance abuses.”
The government had funded alcohol care teams in the 25% of hospitals that were worst affected. “We don’t think that’s enough. We think there should be alcohol specialists in 100% of hospitals given the magnitude of the problem. It’s a nationwide problem that needs a nationwide solution and not just cherrypicking,” he said.

Alcohol Change UK said alcohol care teams, working across hospital departments and with the community services, save lives and NHS money. “Public Health England estimates that a seven-day service of this kind in a hospital can save 2,000 bed days per year, creating a saving of £3.85 for every £1 invested,” said Piper.
But there is a need to stop people arriving in hospital, he said. “We must consider whole-population approaches, like minimum unit pricing and restrictions on alcohol marketing, to prevent harm before it happens. We must wake up to the unacceptable levels of suffering that alcohol is causing our society.”

Prof Sir Ian Gilmore, the chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance UK, said the figures were worrying. “More than 80 people die of alcohol-related causes across the UK every day, and there are more than 1m alcohol-related hospital admissions every year in England alone. This puts considerable pressure on the NHS, as well as other public services,” he said.

“We are urging the government to prioritise reducing the harm alcohol causes. The government needs to take action and introduce targeted, evidence-based measures, including minimum unit pricing, to raise the price of the cheapest, strongest alcohol products, which would help to tackle the alcohol-related harms people are experiencing.”

The World Cancer Research Fund pointed out that drinking alcohol increases the risk of six types of cancer, including breast and bowel cancer. “We have a social culture in the UK which can be very focused on alcohol,” said Kate Oldridge-Turner, its head of policy.

“We need the government to empower people to drink less by making our daily environments healthier and tackling this drinking culture, as information alone won’t lead to large scale change in behaviours,” she said, echoing the call for minimum unit pricing as well as “better urban planning that gives people more social spaces that do not revolve around alcohol”.

The NHS England chief executive, Simon Stevens, said: “Alcohol dependence can devastate families with the NHS often left to pick up the pieces, yet the right support can save lives. The NHS long-term plan will expand specialist alcohol care teams in hospitals across the country to tackle problem drinking and prevent 50,000 admissions over the next five years.”

 

[The Clamp]

I know a woman who drinks between 24-30 cans of lager (4% ish) a day. She is swollen like a balloon, red as a berry, spends most of her life in the khazi, and reeks. Yet she stilll just about functions! How can the body tolerate such abuse? It's staggering.

 

[Javeaseagull]

Where I used to work we had the trade magazine The Caterer delivered every month. One article always stuck in my mind. It stated that “Everyone knows that if you are catering for anything associated with medicine, Doctors, Nurses, etc. you always double the ashtrays and treble the bar bill.”