Decisions, decisions

**SueEllen** · 8 January 2016, 05:39

This Chief Medical Officer is asking for all her advice to be ignored

She seems to have forgotten about the social-economic and mental health aspect of why people do things as if you keep saying not to do things people will eventually ignore you.

**mudskipper** · 8 January 2016, 06:55

Indeedy. A few years ago I did the 2 days a week without booze thing. Lasted all the way till June

That seems much more achievable for most.

**meridian** · 8 January 2016, 08:27

Within 10 or so articles of each other in The Independent online yesterday were two articles:
- Why researchers are now going to say that red wine (even small amounts) is now bad for you
- Why there's a new revolutionary diet consisting of chocolate and red wine...

I give up, I don't think even the journos read their own paper to grasp the irony.

**SimonMac** · 8 January 2016, 08:57

Was listing to Radio 4 this morning, and as well as internally arguing over the fewer/less debate (less alcohol, fewer units, I think) they said the risk of not drinking and the risk of drinking within the new limits are the same.

Don't drink and you increase your risk of heart disease, drink and increase your risk of cancer!

Last comment was "are we allowed to drink on days the doctors are on strike" which got a few laughs

**barrydidit** · 8 January 2016, 08:59

Load of horsetulip as SE quite rightly pointed out.

It got me thinking on the drive in this morning though. If I have always reported my alcohol intake to be ~21 units when asked by medical persons and life insurers etc, can I now expect my risk profile to be adjusted since i've consistently been consuming 50% more than is good for me?

**SimonMac** · 8 January 2016, 09:00

Originally posted by mudskipper View Post

Indeedy. A few years ago I did the 2 days a week without booze thing. Lasted all the way till June

That seems much more achievable for most.

I've not drunk yet this year, would say I will keep it going for Dry January but leaving do tonight and (Irish) funeral in a week or so, so plenty of drinking there

**BrilloPad** · 8 January 2016, 09:03

Lemmy was continually drunk but still made it to 70.

Maybe when people has consumed a certain amount of alcohol, say 10 cases of spirits, they should be shot as a warning to others it is bad for you.....

**VectraMan** · 8 January 2016, 09:10

An hour of TV watching a day, or a bacon sandwich a couple of times a week, is more dangerous to your long-term health.

What about 8 hours in front of a computer?

How come they've reduced the limit for men but not for women? Does this mean the average woman now weighs the same as the average man? Or are women just better at handling their alcohol.

**SueEllen** · 8 January 2016, 09:15

Originally posted by barrydidit View Post

It got me thinking on the drive in this morning though. If I have always reported my alcohol intake to be ~21 units when asked by medical persons and life insurers etc, can I now expect my risk profile to be adjusted since i've consistently been consuming 50% more than is good for me?

Nope as it depends on your genes and their interaction with the environment.

There are people who end up with lung cancer who have never smoked in their lives simply due to either working in a smokey environment and/or living in a particular area.

So until they map everyone's DNA and can say with 99% accuracy that you will end up with these diseases due to where you live and work, they can't do anything.

Decisions, decisions