"older drinkers"

[hondo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13863196

[aleandhearty]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13863196

Apologies 'hondo' I've posted this in the random news of the day thread. I'd saved it on a tab whilst doing something else and must have just missed you submitting it.

[RogerB]

Apologies 'hondo' I've posted this in the random news of the day thread. I'd saved it on a tab whilst doing something else and must have just missed you submitting it.

Senior Moment? :D

[Paris_Hilton]

Older than what?

[aleandhearty]

Senior Moment? :D

:D Indeed!

[Alesonly]

Another load of useless research too waste of tax payers money. Most regular drinkers know the more you drink regularly the less effect it has over time. Moderation in all things thats all thats required.

[Spinko]

If starting a thread wouldn't it be a good idea to quote a few lines? I knew what this was referring to having read the article but usually when the original post is just a link I'll skip it by.

Copyright isn't that strict.

So oldies can only have 1.5 units? Is this according to "doctors orders" or strict scientific research? I'd be surprised if it was the latter, considering that the 21/28 unit for women/men was just created out of thin air and not based on any peer reviewed study.

[Wittenden]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13863196
Damn it: there I was planning to sell up and move to a new place with a pub within staggering distance. I'm sure the walk would counteract any "harm" caused by ale.

[gillhalfpint]

[QUOTE=Spinko;34125]If starting a thread wouldn't it be a good idea to quote a few lines? I knew what this was referring to having read the article but usually when the original post is just a link I'll skip it by.

Must admit I skip the links and often wish a few lines gave the gist of what it is about. Takes me too long to open the links and I lack the patience. Sorry.

[arwkrite]

Everyday something like this comes up in the media and every other day something contradicts it. Put two Scientists or more in a room and you are guaranteed an argument, mind you some manage to do this very well on their own.
I suppose it keeps some poor devils in a job, pays the mortgage and feeds the kids. I ignore them just as I do researchers who hang around on street corners. Come to think of it I do the same with politicos of any shade. There are a lot of people out there who keep telling me what to do for my own good. In fact they are driving me to drink......Bar Person please refill that glass, I do not feel like being moderate today so lets go for it.

[Conrad]

Psychologists only wish they were scientists! (http://xkcd.com/435/)

I do wonder if I should track down the original study on this one as the reporting is very confused.


A group of experts from the Royal College of Psychiatrists says there is a growing problem with substance abuse among older people, who they describe as society's "invisible addicts".

It makes for great rhetoric, but if someone is an addict there is NO safe limit, kind of makes the whole article a little washy for me, as it makes no sense to discuss addicts in the same breath as health limits.

[arwkrite]

Experts are worse than Scientists and Physcomollollogists Er type Thingys because they cannot keep their opinions to themselves. Always bashing on about how things are bad for you. That is unless they are going on about things that are good for you like vegetables , roughage and regular exercise. Enough of that sort of talk.
More beer please. I need the distraction:cheers:

[Spinko]

Experts are worse than Scientists and Physcomollollogists Er type Thingys because they cannot keep their opinions to themselves. Always bashing on about how things are bad for you. That is unless they are going on about things that are good for you like vegetables , roughage and regular exercise. Enough of that sort of talk.
More beer please. I need the distraction:cheers:

Totally agree. We hear one thing from one "expert", and then a week later, another thing from another "expert".

The impression I get from the BBC is that they do not want us to think for ourselvers any more. Just rely on threse self-proclaimed experts. That's fine.

So long as the experts are truly so. But usually what happens, as we have seen with scientists in the medicines and climate sciences, is that scientists end up becoming Vested Interests and supporting their own ideologies rather than the scientific method.

Both climate science and medicine science have been corrupted horrendously by the billions pouring in, with a pre-determined conclusion needed.

Science is as good as democracy. It relies on the knowledge of those guarding it. Recently however the guardians have become very complacent.

[Farway]

[QUOTE=Spinko;34125]If starting a thread wouldn't it be a good idea to quote a few lines? I knew what this was referring to having read the article but usually when the original post is just a link I'll skip it by.

Must admit I skip the links and often wish a few lines gave the gist of what it is about. Takes me too long to open the links and I lack the patience. Sorry.

Well that makes three of us, I just skip links that have no clue as to content

A few lines copied & pasted in quotes or italics would help me decide if I want to follow the link

[Blackthorn]

[QUOTE=gillhalfpint;34152]

Well that makes three of us

Four of us!

[Conrad]

If starting a thread wouldn't it be a good idea to quote a few lines? I knew what this was referring to having read the article but usually when the original post is just a link I'll skip it by.

Copyright isn't that strict.


Must admit I skip the links and often wish a few lines gave the gist of what it is about. Takes me too long to open the links and I lack the patience. Sorry.

Well that makes three of us, I just skip links that have no clue as to content

A few lines copied & pasted in quotes or italics would help me decide if I want to follow the link

Four of us!
There is a certain irony in complaining about lack of description in links by posting "Four of us!", I think the point was made fine by Spinko (and it is a valid one to be made), but this is degenerating into a forum lynching.

I am grateful that (the elusive) hondo takes the time to post on the forum, it is not like we are so deluged on here that someone taking the time to post information they think we might be interested in harms us, it is more than fine to ignore it if it is not your cup of tea, but judging by the amount of replies his posts earn then it is not completely lost on the forum.

[ETA]

...and supporting their paymasters' ideologies rather than the scientific method...

.

Suggested amendment for you, Spinko. And you're absolutely right about both the weakness of trust in "The Scientific Method" and the appalling way the BBC uses tax payers' money to put across a poorly argued case.

[Blackthorn]

Apologies, it was not meant to be a lynching. I was just agreeing with several other posters that I find a link on it's own less than useful - whilst you're right that Spinko did make this point, if nobody else had agreed with him then we might assume that was just Spinko's point of view and nobody else shared it.

Personally I think it's ok for several other people to voice their agreement. That way, perhaps anyone who is tempted to just post a link, may be encouraged to add a few extra words to go along with it.

[Conrad]

Personally I think it's ok for several other people to voice their agreement. That way, perhaps anyone who is tempted to just post a link, may be encouraged to add a few extra words to go along with it.
Or discouraged from posting at all. If you want to encourage people try being encouraging, it is a revolutionary concept I know. If I tell you all your area corrections on the main site are shit does it encourage you to do more?

I know how appreciated I would feel looking down a sequence of posts saying 'I can't be bothered to read your efforts because you can't be bothered to write an explanation.' Gill was the only one who was polite in the observation. Continous 'me too' posts are just insulting as far as I am concerned.

[aleandhearty]

I am grateful that (the elusive) hondo takes the time to post on the forum.... but judging by the amount of replies his posts earn then it is not completely lost on the forum.

Couldn't agree more. I tend to open any link posted by our very own Scarlet Pimpernel of the boards, because I know it's almost certainly worth reading. I don't think an introduction would make a big difference to me.

[gillhalfpint]

I opened Hondo's Cask Pub and Kitchen and Greene King link because I have been to the pub and was interested in reading the article, and enjoyed reading what it said too.

I use my ability to choose what I want to read, and do appreciate a little clue as to what the link contains, as I like to spend a some of my time away from the PC and do pub reviewing and photo taking. Oooh the bus in 15 minutes --- must fly.

[NickDavies]

For those who are interested, here's the relevant bit of the original paper:

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/files/pdfversion/CR165.pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol misuse and older people: should guidelines
for ‘sensible limits’ be modified?

Sensible limits for alcohol consumption by older people need to be reexamined.
Effects of the ageing process and metabolic changes probably
mean that they are lower than the limits recommended by the World Health
Organization for men and women of working age.
The concept of ‘sensible limits’ in assessing harm from alcohol is
now more than 15 years old. Over the past 5 years, new evidence has
emerged that suggests that guidelines for people aged 65 and over should
be changed. The original concept of drinking over ‘sensible limits’ arose
from a consensus statement from a working group of the Royal Colleges
of Physicians, Psychiatrists and General Practitioners in 1995, defining
recommended weekly limits of 21 units of alcohol for men and 14 units
for women (Royal College of Physicians, 1995). To improve the accuracy
of these recommendations in relation to drinkers who concentrate their
alcohol consumption over a shorter time and remain under the threshold for
recommended weekly limits, the Department of Health (1995) defined these
limits in terms of units of alcohol per day: a maximum of 4 units per day for
men and 3 units for women.
Older people tend to show higher blood alcohol levels than younger
people on drinking the same amount of alcohol. This difference is attributable
to a lower body mass : water ratio and less efficient alcohol metabolism in
older people. In older drinkers, there is also ample evidence for alcoholrelated
harm at lower levels of alcohol intake compared with younger
people. For example, increased body sway in older people is associated with
normal blood alcohol levels (Beresford & Lucey, 1995). Drinking more than
13 units of alcohol per week for either men or women over 65 is associated
with impairment in activities of daily living (Moore et al, 2003). More recent
evidence from the USA, based on alcohol-related harm/alcohol misuse, has
defined ‘at-risk’ drinking in older people as being more than 1.5 units of
alcohol on any one day or more than 11 units per week for both men and
women (National Institutes of Health, 2005). The most recent evidence
suggests that more than 3 units per day and 11 units per week for older
men and women are associated with alcohol-related problems. Whereas
in younger people, acute heavy (‘binge’) drinking is defined as 8 or more
units in a single session for men and 6 units for women, the corresponding
limits for older men and women are 4.5 and 3 units respectively (Moos
et al, 2009). Recommended limits for safe drinking by older people in the
UK require further consideration to address the problem of a growing older
population, in whom the cohort effects of changing drinking habits are likely
to be associated with an increasing public health burden from alcohol-related
morbidity and mortality.

[ETA]

For those who are interested, here's the relevant bit of the original paper:

... Recommended limits for safe drinking by older people in the
UK require further consideration to address the problem of a growing older
population, in whom the cohort effects of changing drinking habits are likely
to be associated with an increasing public health burden from alcohol-related
morbidity and mortality.

Yes, requires "further consideration", but that needs to include an assessment of the positive health effects of low-level alcohol consumption, many of which tend to be overlooked by these polemic studies in order either to reinforce the point the antis want to make or (somewhat patronisingly) to allow people to draw simple conclusions from an over-simplified issue. Or maybe they're just too lazy to produce a balanced paper.