Units of alcohol per week...

ohnonotgmail

Cyrus wrote: »

did anyone say 3 pints a week was a genuine risk?

3 pints is a binge apparently and is a risk to health according to guidelines.

jh79

Greyfox wrote: »

Anything that would mean genuine risk to my health, 3 pints a week is certainly not a genuine risk. It's important that there are guidelines but if guidelines are out of touch with reality the people writing the guidelines are wasting there time and i'd rather they didnt waste there time.

The guidelines are the amount required to increase risk of illness vs a non drinker. The individual risk increase is not very significant but the impact on society is large due to the large number of people who drink.

Cyrus

Due to our high levels of alcohol consumption in Ireland, most people under-estimate the amount of alcohol consumption that constitutes binge drinking. Binge drinking, or heavy episodic drinking, is where a large amount of alcohol is consumed in a short space of time.

While there is no “safe” level of alcohol consumption, drinking a lot of alcohol in a short space of time or drinking to get drunk can lead to a much greater risk of health problems and also put people, both the individual drinking and those around them, in immediate danger.

Binge drinking is defined by health experts, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), as six or more standard drinks in one session, which is the equivalent of three or more pints of beer or six or more pub measures of spirits.

Ireland has particularly high levels of binge drinking and this can make it difficult for people to recognise it as harmful behaviour, as drinking to excess has been effectively normalised here. If it seems like a lot of people are doing it, it can make it appear more acceptable or even safe, despite the damage it causes.

From here:

https://alcoholireland.ie/alcohol-and-you/binge-drinking/

quite prescient given the attitude of some of the posters.

Anyway more than 3 pints (or 6 standard drinks) is defined by the WHO as binge drinking.

So the upside is that you can happily have more than 3 pints a week

Greyfox

Cyrus wrote: »

did anyone say 3 pints a week was a genuine risk?

Yes, a poster on here said 3 drinks is binge drinking

facehugger99

Reed Obedient Stepladder wrote: »

My second pay rise this year has come up in a meeting this week so I think output isn’t of concern.

Are you getting paid in pints of Guinness?

Cyrus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

3 pints is a binge apparently and is a risk to health according to guidelines.

not what i asked,

3 pints a week is fine.

Cyrus

Greyfox wrote: »

Yes, a poster on here said 3 drinks is binge drinking

more than 3 pints in a single sitting is, read the link,

you said 3 pints a week.

ohnonotgmail

Cyrus wrote: »

not what i asked,

3 pints a week is fine.

not if you have them at the same time.

Cyrus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

not if you have them at the same time.

you can, just dont have more than that.

ohnonotgmail

Cyrus wrote: »

you can, just dont have more than that.

ah right, so the 3 is fine but a sip more after that will do you damage.

El_Duderino 09

Greyfox wrote: »

Anything that would mean genuine risk to my health, 3 pints a week is certainly not a genuine risk. It's important that there are guidelines but if guidelines are out of touch with reality the people writing the guidelines are wasting there time and i'd rather they didnt waste there time.

Well, why don't you just make up a number of units that you like, as many as you typically drink in a week, and publicise that instead?

HBC08

Reed Obedient Stepladder wrote: »

Don’t take them seriously if you don’t want to be I’m being deadly serious. Also don’t assume things are considered unprofessional just because you think so yourself.

My entire team has often has a beer or two with lunch on different occasions like people leaving, big deadlines achieved etc.

I’ve often been given wine/beer in the canteen of offices I was visiting when abroad for meetings.

So is it "often" or "3-4 times in 10 years"?

Spoofer.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

ah right, so the 3 is fine but a sip more after that will do you damage.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002585

Cyrus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

ah right, so the 3 is fine but a sip more after that will do you damage.

you do understand that increasing the amount of a dangerous drug makes it more harmful,

there has to be a guideline that above a certain level is considered damaging for health.

for example one of you heroes may be able to 'put away' 15 pints but the 16th one may cause you to black out collapse etc there has to be a line in the sand.

Greyfox

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Look 3 pints is a binge.

Cyrus wrote: »

more than 3 pints in a single sitting is, read the link,

you said 3 pints a week.

I don't need to read the link. I'm responding to the fact that a poster (Beechwoodspark) said 3 pints is a binge. I'm saying 1 drinking session of 3 pints in an otherwise healthy week is not going to do any significant harm so calling it a binge is overreacting and overreacting is causing advise to be ignored

Jamsiek

chandlerbing2 wrote: »

I'm in my 30's now and generally only go drinking now when I'm home from the states which is two weeks every six months. But by God do i go at it. I driink the absolute bejaysus out of it for the two weeks.

Do you get any other time off except the 4 weeks a year you spend in some country pub in Ireland

I live abroad too and I meet friends for drinks too when I’m back but I like to travel about when I’m back as I’ve lived in different places.

I also like to see new places. Just this year I was in the Maldives and Quebec City too.
Is this all you do with your time off? Just curious

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

The relative risk increases from excessive drinking are not not large for cancer, heart disease and mortality etc. but are proportional to units taken.

The biggest RR for excessive drinking i saw in one paper was 1.3 based on 3 drinks a day

So for example a 20 yr old woman might have an absolute risk of 0.06% of developing breast cancer in 10 years. With excessive drinking that becomes 0.078%.

Not much of a big deal for the individual but if you have a large population with 1-2 million people drinking excessively its gonna lead to a lot of extra illnesses to deal with.

Exactly as I said earlier, a meaningless increase in risk basically.

On average in the last 17 years or so since I started drinking regularly I’d say an average of 30 units a week wouldn’t be far off my consumption. There would have been monumental well over 100 unit weeks, single digit unit weeks and lots in the middle ground all depending on different things. Personally I don't feel averaging around 30 units a week would give any meaningful chance of increased health risks. The stats are presented in ways as to make thins look much worse than they are hence the fact is the chance of health issue from moderate drinking is tiny.

HBC08 wrote: »

So it it "often" or "3-4 times in 10 years"?

Spoofer.

3 or 4 times in 10 years was having 3 or 4 pints on lunch and going back to work. Often wasn’t having a beer/glass of wine at lunch and going back to work particularly when traveling on business.

jh79

Reed Obedient Stepladder wrote: »

Exactly as I said earlier, a meaningless increase in risk basically.

Not meaningless if large numbers of people are doing it.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Not meaningless if large numbers of people are doing it.

Meaningless on the individual level which is what matters.

El_Duderino 09

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

ah right, so the 3 is fine but a sip more after that will do you damage.

That's not how risk usually works.

Its going to be based on stats, isn't it? So there's not difference between the last sip of the 2nd pint and the first sip of the 3rd pint. But you already know that.

Naggdefy

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I think we’ve jumped the shark. I’ve never been in any job where several colleagues or even one colleague heads off at lunch to “cure” a hangover. I mean, the cure is obvious nonsense anyway but to bring it into the workplace is seriously dysfunctional behaviour.



If it’s very serious, you won’t be stuck behind drunks. Triage ensures that. I’ve been rushed past manys the drunk.

Well I had 2 broken collar bones from a cycling accident and wasn't deemed serious enough.

Naggdefy

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Eh, not totally true.

Well I've only come across him on boards and considering he is replying to so many posters he's doing pretty well under cross examination.

What's the obsession with querying my posts?!

wakka12

I dont think Ive ever seen a boards thread populated almost solly by such completely extreme polar opposite views

The people saying you cant hold down a job if you drank more than three pints the night before or cant be a good parent if you go out more than a few times a year are as bad as the many alcoholics in denial in this thread

Feisar

Don't know why people get so butt hurt over this stuff. A lot of us (myself included) are fond of the sauce and drink more than is good for us. The guidelines aren't going to change to suit or fall in line with our drinking habits.

JohnnyFlash

I wouldn’t be a huge fan of the drinking at work thing. I’ve a couple of Lithuanians working for me, and most of them have drinking problems.

They don’t drink at work, but some of them come in fairly rattling with a hangover. I don’t let the ones who drink too much drive the vans. If I caught any of them drinking on the job then I’d fire them on the spot. It’s easy replace an Eastern European, but it’s not so easy get commercial insurance if one of them was drink driving.

Cyrus

Reed Obedient Stepladder wrote: »

Exactly as I said earlier, a meaningless increase in risk basically.

On average in the last 17 years or so since I started drinking regularly I’d say an average of 30 units a week wouldn’t be far off my consumption. There would have been monumental well over 100 unit weeks, single digit unit weeks and lots in the middle ground all depending on different things. Personally I don't feel averaging around 30 units a week would give any meaningful chance of increased health risks. The stats are presented in ways as to make thins look much worse than they are hence the fact is the chance of health issue from moderate drinking is tiny.




3 or 4 times in 10 years was having 3 or 4 pints on lunch and going back to work. Often wasn’t having a beer/glass of wine at lunch and going back to work particularly when traveling on business.

so more than double the recommended amt with some liver bashing 2 and 3 days sessions that would get you into 40-50 units per day mixed in there.

and you are deciding yourself whats damaging and not

again this quote from alcohol aware comes to mind

"Ireland has particularly high levels of binge drinking and this can make it difficult for people to recognise it as harmful behaviour, as drinking to excess has been effectively normalised here. If it seems like a lot of people are doing it, it can make it appear more acceptable or even safe, despite the damage it causes."

Feisar

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I wouldn’t be a huge fan of the drinking at work thing. I’ve a couple of Lithuanians working for me, and most of them have drinking problems.

They don’t drink at work, but some of them come in fairly rattling with a hangover. I don’t let the ones who drink too much drive the vans. If I caught any of them drinking on the job then I’d fire them on the spot. It’s easy replace an Eastern European, but it’s not so easy get commercial insurance if one of them was drink driving.

I'm no philanthropist but man that attitude is so twisted.

Feisar

Cyrus wrote: »

so more than double the recommended amt with some liver bashing 2 and 3 days sessions that would get you into 40-50 units per day mixed in there.

and you are deciding yourself whats damaging and not

again this quote from alcohol aware comes to mind

"Ireland has particularly high levels of binge drinking and this can make it difficult for people to recognise it as harmful behaviour, as drinking to excess has been effectively normalised here. If it seems like a lot of people are doing it, it can make it appear more acceptable or even safe, despite the damage it causes."

From my own experiences I have to concur. I worked in bars a lot through college. What I considered normal in terms of drinking changed during this period.

JohnnyFlash

Feisar wrote: »

I'm no philanthropist but man that attitude is so twisted.

What attitude? Having no tolerance for lads driving vans drunk? Or saying I’d fire them on the spot? Poorly educated Lithuanians who work in relatively unskilled jobs are ten a penny in Ireland. You can get one of them to ring his cousin and he’s in Ireland a week later.

Feisar

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

What attitude? Having no tolerance for lads driving vans drunk? Or saying I’d fire them on the spot? Poorly educated Lithuanians who work in relatively unskilled jobs are ten a penny in Ireland. You can get one of them to ring his cousin and he’s in Ireland a week later.

Sounds like they are little more than dirt on yer shoe.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Naggdefy wrote: »

Well I had 2 broken collar bones from a cycling accident and wasn't deemed serious enough.

Well, of course that’s going to be down the list. A broken bone can sit there for a while. Others are coming in in danger of developing sepsis or have already developed it or displaying suspected heart issues or, yes, may need their stomach pumped or be losing a lot of blood because of a drunken injury. Any drunk who is just drunk won’t be getting special treatment. Any drunk in imminent danger of dying will be near the top of the triage list. That’s how it works - stop people from dying. I know I don’t want to see the 17 year old who downed too much alcohol dying because they won’t prioritise her stomach-pumping because of a moral objection.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Naggdefy wrote: »

Well I've only come across him on boards and considering he is replying to so many posters he's doing pretty well under cross examination.

What's the obsession with querying my posts?!

I’ve replied to, what, two or three of your posts?

jimgoose

Feisar wrote: »

Sounds like they are little more than dirt on yer shoe.

He has a point. Too much of that malarkey and JF would be out of business fairly lively. A lot of the Eastern European types don't give two hoots about drink-driving.

Naggdefy

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, of course that’s going to be down the list. A broken bone can sit there for a while. Others are coming in in danger of developing sepsis or have already developed it or displaying suspected heart issues or, yes, may need their stomach pumped or be losing a lot of blood because of a drunken injury. Any drunk who is just drunk won’t be getting special treatment. Any drunk in imminent danger of dying will be near the top of the triage list. That’s how it works - stop people from dying. I know I don’t want to see the 17 year old who downed too much alcohol dying because they won’t prioritise her stomach-pumping because of a moral objection.

Easy for you to talk, it's serious pain and to have to sit behind drunken gob****es, in no immediate danger, for 6/7 hours.

JohnnyFlash

Feisar wrote: »

Sounds like they are little more than dirt on yer shoe.

Nah. I like the lads. But I’m not going to suggest they are skilled workers or aren’t easily replaceable. Most of them are tough enough sorts from poor parts of Lithuania. I pay them a bit over the minimum wage and they can drink themselves to death if they want as long as they don’t do it during work or if they need to drive as part of the job.

elperello

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Nah. I like the lads. But I’m not going to suggest they are skilled workers or aren’t easily replaceable. Most of them are tough enough sorts from poor parts of Lithuania. I pay them a bit over the minimum wage and they can drink themselves to death if they want as long as they don’t do it during work or if they need to drive as part of the job.

I take your word that you like them but with a few changes you could be an English employer talking about Irish workers in the 60's.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Naggdefy wrote: »

Easy for you to talk, it's serious pain and to have to sit behind drunken gob****es, in no immediate danger, for 6/7 hours.

I pathologically fractured a rib a few years ago. And was walking around with that severe, 10/10 pain for weeks because I didn’t know it had happened. Don’t talk to me about pain. It’s still not serious enough to jump ahead of people who are in imminent danger of dying. The triage system makes so much sense to me. I don’t know why people struggle with it so much.

And I’ve spent a depressing amount of my young life in A&E departments.

El_Duderino 09

Greyfox wrote: »

Anything that would mean genuine risk to my health, 3 pints a week is certainly not a genuine risk. It's important that there are guidelines but if guidelines are out of touch with reality the people writing the guidelines are wasting there time and i'd rather they didnt waste there time.

Ok. Now you’ve Just changed the question to how you define genuine risk. So, how do you define genuine risk? What constitutes a genuine risk to you?

Sunny Disposition

Adrian Chiles documentary about his alcohol intake was really interesting, his article is quite good too, like a lot of people he took no notice of the warnings for a long time.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/08/adrian-chiles-honest-about-alcohol-drinks-industry-dangers

Naggdefy

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I pathologically fractured a rib a few years ago. And was walking around with that severe, 10/10 pain for weeks because I didn’t know it had happened. Don’t talk to me about pain. It’s still not serious enough to jump ahead of people who are in imminent danger of dying. The triage system makes so much sense to me. I don’t know why people struggle with it so much.

And I’ve spent a depressing amount of my young life in A&E departments.

So have I, we can compare pain and illness if you like..

My point is, in my experience, drunken yobs have resulted in people who didn't self inflict injury on themselves suffering unduly.

ohnonotgmail

Naggdefy wrote: »

So have I, we can compare pain and illness if you like..

My point is, in my experience, drunken yobs have resulted in people who didn't self inflict injury on themselves suffering unduly.

Hospitals treat patients according to the severity of the complaint. How the patient arrived at that point has no bearing on their decision and nor should it.

Naggdefy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Hospitals treat patients according to the severity of the complaint. How the patient arrived at that point has no bearing on their decision and nor should it.

Of course. But are you telling me if you're in a queue for 7 hours behind people with largely self inflicted injury you won't feel frustrated? That's my point, not how hospitals deal with who's priority.

ohnonotgmail

Naggdefy wrote: »

Of course. But are you telling me if you're in a queue for 7 hours behind people with largely self inflicted injury you won't feel frustrated? That's my point, not how hospitals deal with who's priority.

If their condition was more severe than mine i wouldn't.

Naggdefy

Naggdefy wrote: »

So have I, we can compare pain and illness if you like..

My point is, in my experience, drunken yobs have resulted in people who didn't self inflict injury on themselves suffering unduly.

That’s debatable, where you cycling for sport or commuting?

Should a person who enters a cycle race knowing it’s dangerous and gets injured have more right to care as someone who chooses to go on the lash and falls and hurts themselves? Same for any sport you choose to participate in.

Naggdefy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If their condition was more severe than mine i wouldn't.

Ah here. Talk is cheap. If you're very unwell it's unlikely you'd be so altruistic. I lay on a trolley with double lobar pneumonia at a weekend too for 7 hours and I don't know where I was on the priority list but wasn't too pleased seeing every little scallywag able to walk in before I saw a doctor.

Naggdefy

Reed Obedient Stepladder wrote: »

That’s debatable, where you cycling for sport or commuting?

Should a person who enters a cycle race knowing it’s dangerous and gets injured have more right to care as someone who chooses to go on the lash and falls and hurts themselves? Same for any sport you choose to participate in.

Commuting and knocked over by someone in a car who cut across me.

elperello

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Adrian Chiles documentary about his alcohol intake was really interesting, his article is quite good too, like a lot of people he took no notice of the warnings for a long time.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/08/adrian-chiles-honest-about-alcohol-drinks-industry-dangers

His contributions to the debate on drinking have been very useful.
The documentary is here, well worth a watch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX2opvj7WE8

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Naggdefy wrote: »

So have I, we can compare pain and illness if you like..

My point is, in my experience, drunken yobs have resulted in people who didn't self inflict injury on themselves suffering unduly.

Unless you know what’s wrong with the drunk - and as merely a fellow patient, you don’t - you can’t make that judgement.

Naggdefy

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Unless you know what’s wrong with the drunk - and as merely a fellow patient, you don’t - you can’t make that judgement.

It doesn't take serious powers of deduction.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Naggdefy wrote: »

It doesn't take serious powers of deduction.

It does actually. You don’t know what’s going on with the drunk person. Not a notion.

And as pointed out by somebody else, an injury being self-inflicted is beside the point. It’s not a consideration in how serious the injury/ailment is. That might annoy you but that doesn’t matter. Feelings - also not a consideration.