14 Units.

So the new weekly guideline is 14 units for both men and women, what are the members views ?

I think it is a number plucked out of the air

When you read articles they say what they thought was good advice may not be as strong as once thought, you look at other countries their experts all say completeley different things, Denmark and Spain have much higher limits.. just sounds like BS to me

If you have any kind of fun, it will kill you.

Here here. I agree with covrich. Now lets get bungalowed

Since this was announced about a week ago all the people I've heard being interviewed to back it up (on radio 4) have been either total alcoholics or recovering alcoholics who are currently dry. There was one woman on `you and yours' who claimed she was currently drinking 160 units per week now that she'd cut down on her drinking!
Today there was a woman who stated that she drinks a bottle of wine per day. But she must be a hell of a slow drinker as she then went on to say she was often up to 3 in the morning drinking until finally one day she woke up in hospital with no idea how she got there or why. What all this has to do with government guidelines I don't know as none of them were obviously taking any notice of the previous ones.

This bloody infuriates me and I could go on a right old rant about it. The amount of alcohol someone can drink depends on so many factors; age, weight, constitution, dilution, rate of consumption, state of health, the list goes on.! The whole 'units' thing has always irritated me and I reckon the only reason for the aggressive stance in this country is to save the NHS money.

I'm going to stop now, because I could waffle on for pages and end up in a bad fettle and that's not a good thing for a Friday.

:-x

Rules are made to be broken is all I have to say! :mrgreen:

As this report is likely to be of interest to most members of this forum, I think it's important to go beyond the Journalistic process and review the original information provided to the Government.

The following documents might be useful and perhaps provide a more balanced level of information than the provocative Headline creators provide :)

Alcohol Guidelines Review (44 page Document but pretty simple to understand)
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/489797/CMO_Alcohol_Report.pdf

Summary of proposals (7 Pages)
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/489795/summary.pdf

Health Risks from Alcohol (13 Pages)
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/489796/CMO_alcohol_guidelines.pdf

News Release
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-alcohol-guidelines-show-increased-risk-of-cancer

Inform and make your own decisions is the basis of the above documents. This approach isn't necessarily adopted by the Media as it's not suitably fear and guilt inducing, so just leave out the middle man :thumb:

I just heard on the radio that 'any alcohol is bad for you and could be a contributing factor to cancer'.
As Covrich says, have any fun and you'll die!
Obviously those vegans who have never been intoxicated will live 10 years longer, but what sort of life is that! Bless them.
You're a long time dead so get on it and enjoy!

Whatever anyone tells you, the death rate is exactly the same whether you're a tea-totaller or a drinker. 100%.

:twisted::twisted::twisted: we are told..

red meat, eggs, milk, cheese, bread, fat, chicken, booze
pot, salt, pork, sugar, tea, coffee ,soft drinks, chocalate and another thousand things are all bad for you... your vegatables are bad for you if its not organic.. dont eat crop sprayed fruit.. then supermarkets sell organic food thats never been organic in its life..

and then the next day were told there good for you if you stand on your head during a full moon while eating/drinking them and reading fifty shades of grey.. ect ect ect

oh yea.. and dont have sex you will catch a disease and die..

and apprarently motorcycles are dangerous.. dont do that either, its nothing to do with the all the cars and lorrys on the road.

i say.. use your brain, and use common sense, nobody gets out alive... so

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxT8m46K1w8&sns=fb[/ame]

The guy who organised the study said on BBC that the risk means that 1 in every 100 people will probably* die of cancer however if that person was to give up drinking they may well then get run over by a car, be stabbed or die in an air crash.The end result is that they will die from one thing or another. Imagine being run over or stabbed on your way to get a few bottles of beer, how ironic would that be.The headline would read "Man avoids 100/1 chance of death by being stabbed"!

I don't know what everyone else thinks but 1 in 100 did not seem too severe to me. I am sure the risk of getting hit by a bike on a pavement or walked into by someone using a mobile phone and pushing a pram is much less than that.

The staggering thing is that the numbers they made up years ago are still being used to try to justify this 14 units per week, where did that come from, it's merely a guess that's where since no alcohol is safe!, Same as the risk of death by coffee,lard, vegetable oil, sugar and BACON for Christ sake, one day it's good next day it's bad. Hopefully Midget gems and Sports mixtures are still ok! Let's all eat leaves and die miserable.

This reminds me of a joke by Dean Martin when his doctor tells him if he gives up drinking,smoking and sex he will live to 100 years old and he says without that lot who wants to live to 100! Well said.

* Remember probability is a likelihood and not a definite, ask Camelot if you want a better explanation of that! There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics!!!

Give up drinking??? Jog on!
Think I'll take up smoking again as a protest!

I'm going to stick my neck out and take the opposite view! I like a drink and I drink more than 14 units every week, and I'm not going to fret about it, it's my decision etc

But, I accept the guidance for what it is. It's advice from the NHS based on an accumulated knowledge base which tells us what effects alcohol has on our bodies. Like early death. So the guidance is aimed at informing us so that we know. It's not a law.

I also think alcohol is a major problem in the UK. I rarely go out in Manchester city centre at the weekend cos it's a bloody nightmare, and depressing IMO. Attitudes desperately need to change. And I think the way that guidelines are attacked by so many people is a shame tbh, rather than people acknowledging that these guidelines are there to point us towards good health. Of course they are generalised, no two humans are exactly the same, but they can't give us each a personal guideline can they? And it won't vary enormously. We can all choose to follow the guidelines, or ignore them, or keep them in mind, but they do have a scientific basis.

I think asking members of a brewing forum whether they agree with a 14 unit limit is like asking turkeys if they agree with Christmas.

We're all adults and know that beer makes us fat and unhealthy in excess. I'm not sure being told an amount by the government is going to change any of our habits...

The report used the 1% chance of dying as a result of alcohol )over a lifetime) as the basis for the studies and the information and stats recorded are based on their findings. The report itself is pretty balanced and recommends some of the things reported in the media today (not demands). It also highlights many other things, such as personal factors which cannot be predicted and made clear that individuals may accept that a 1% risk (or perhaps more) was more than acceptable for their individual requirements.

It also clear that the 'message' should follow the SMART framework for goal settings, which anyone who's been on any kind of training course will recognise. This explains the overly simplistic and generic headlines which don't (as ever) paint a true picture of the report.

The experts I've heard this morning are generally pretty balanced and admit that many other factors need to be taken into consideration on a personal basis.

The problem with guidelines is that people will react in two ways. those who do not drink 14 units will agree, applaud themselves and say what a good idea they are so preaching to the converted. Those who drink more than 14 units will take issue with being told what to do and drink anyway so in both cases the guidelines have very little effect. I agree that it is the Government's role to give people guidance but it has to be meaningful.

The number of units was set at 14 for women and 21 for men however these "Limits" were based on an amount of absolute alcohol that may be toxic for men and women and translated into actual drinks. The limits were originally plucked out of thin air by WHO and even then have been changed without supporting data just less will be better. Once you start making things up and changing without sufficient explanation you lose the argument and the whole point of guidelines to advise is lost because no one is listening.

The confusion goes on as the Government are now advising that no amount of alcohol is safe but still recommends you to drink up to 14 units from which they take their share of duty. If they are deadly serious about it being a health risk they should advise people NOT to drink at all, stop taking their cut of the profits and in extremity Ban it altogether as lethal. This is not going to happen and I will carry on ignoring the warnings on the basis that they are complicit in the selling of alcohol to willing victims but don't necessarily want to pick up the bill for the damage!
Agree with the comments about social problems but part of getting old is looking back and comparing with now, we all had our fun then and our parents were probably horrified. I wouldn't want to be around in 50 years time but being a drinker and liking the odd bacon buttie I probably wont be!

I'd like to see the stats. There will probably be a graph showing consumption v. life expectancy which is probably a straight line. In other words the guidance will be of major importance to the ones who are least likely to take any notice as they are probably dependent on alcohol and the people who will take it seriously will be at the lower end of the scale.

Reminds me of a story about a nurse asking a patient what their weekly consumption was in units. When the patient paused the nurse said "It's OK, you don't need to be a doctor to be able to multiply by two" :-)

The government is potentially reducing its revenue by slashing the guideline alcohol intake, so I'm not sure the argument holds. And I think the reason they don't ban alcohol is to allow freedom of the individual to choose. Which is about democracy. I'm a cynical old bugger but I'm not that cynical.

Twostage said:

I'd like to see the stats. There will probably be a graph showing consumption v. life expectancy which is probably a straight line. In other words the guidance will be of major importance to the ones who are least likely to take any notice as they are probably dependent on alcohol and the people who will take it seriously will be at the lower end of the scale.

Reminds me of a story about a nurse asking a patient what their weekly consumption was in units. When the patient paused the nurse said "It's OK, you don't need to be a doctor to be able to multiply by two" :-)

Click to expand...

I've linked to the actual report, plus other documents on the first page of this thread. It's an interesting read and certainly not as provocative as it's being interpreted.

A small extract from the report that seems eminently sensible, but is lost in the SMART message...(I've made some changes to the formatting to make it easier to read. The full report can be found here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/489797/CMO_Alcohol_Report.pdf

Drink-free days
69. The expert group noted there are several studies that have found evidence that among heavy drinkers having alcohol-free days lowers the risk of alcoholic cirrhosis mortality in both men and women.

Whilst the group concluded that it may be useful to advise heavy drinkers on the value of drink-free days, it did not find evidence sufficient to justify recommending this routinely to all drinkers.

However, the group did recommend for those who have made a decision to cut down the amount they are drinking, that a good way to help achieve this is to have several drink-free days each week. The group made clear that this is intended to mean that any reduction in alcohol consumption on days that are drink-free should not simply be compensated for by higher consumption on other days.

I think the above is completely sensible, free of scare mongering, and indicative of the tone of the report, but it's not reported..