Alcohol and damage to the body--the Qadgop vs. KarlGauss smackdown

Factual Questions
1

Over here, KarlGauss states that “more than 50 units per week* can lead to cirrhosis and other nasty complications” (less for women).

*A unit defined as 10gm alcohol

In a different thread, that I can’t find right now, Qadgop says two drinks a day average (fewer for women) is about the maximum before the beneficial effects are overwhelmed by risks.

There’s a considerable difference between 14 and 50, at least in the mathematical systems I’m familiar with. Is there any way to really know what is “safe” and what is not–short of not drinking at all?

To add a bit of further fuel to the flames, I never drank (alcohol) at all until I was 40. For the last 10+ years I’ve been working my way up to now, where I’m somewhere between the 14 and 50 per week level. Am I safe with a higher level of consumption now because I didn’t party in college?

2

Oops, forgot the link. Here it is. The KarlGauss post is about 1/2 way down.

3

In the UK the last figure I can remember quoted by Her Maj. Gov. was:
28 units for a male and 21 for a female (per week). A unit was equivalent to 1/2 pint of normal beer (about 3%)

4

How many gm’s are in a 6oz glass of wine / 12 oz beer?

5

This is kind of silly as both men are making general advisory statements about the widely varying effects of something that is affected by the variables of sex, health, size, general individual alcohol tolerance, and who knows what else. You are now casting this as some sort of disagreement smackdwon when it’s nothing of the kind.

You should ask a mod to close this thread as it’s really kind of borderline offensive to both KG nd QtM and recast your question.

6

I don’t see any contradiction at all in the two statements in the OP. It can be entirely possible that small detrimental effects exceed beneficial effects at a low level of consumption (14 per week), while extremely severe detrimental effects like cirrhosis only come into play at high levels of consumption (50 per week). At intermediate levels there are detrimental effects less severe than cirrhosis.

First you have to define “safe.”

7

There’s a range of dangerousness here–KarlGauss is talking about the first level at which it’s possible to have bad side effects, and QtM’s talking about the level where the odds of bad side effects are overwhelming.

It’s like crack–you can die the first time you smoke it, but the odds of that are really low. Smoke it for a lot longer, and the odds for bad things happening go way up.

8

It also depends on the person. I knew a young guy who drank himself to death at the age of 23 or so. I knew a 79 year old guy who drank like it was his job for 60 years. Obviously, the more you drink the bigger the risk. The crossover point will vary with each person.

9

I once knew a guy who put his unit in a glass of normal beer. He said it made the beer taste abnormal. I didn’t ask if his unit tasted different; I didn’t really want to know.

10

Like others, I have the feeling that they’re just going to come in here and agree with each other.

I think what Qadgop said was probably in response to the idea of drinking one or two glasses of red wine a day for health reasons - if you’re just doing it for the health benefits, don’t bother with more than two a day, because at that point the chance that it might hurt you outweighs the small health benefits. Whereas KarlGauss seems to be talking about the point where alcohol hurting you becomes likely, period.

11

Hmm…OK. First, I probably should have used liberal smilies in the OP. Offense and/or confrontation was not my intent. I used “smackdown” to pique the interest of parties that might otherwise have ignored this thread.

Alcohol and damage to the body–the Qadgop vs. KarlGauss smackdown :slight_smile:

…at least in the mathematical systems I’m familiar with:)…

Second, to answer the “how much is that?” question, here’s some of what KG said in that other thread:

I’m still hoping that there is some objective way to decide how much drinking will likely to have a negative effect on your long-term health. The answer may be “no”–but I’m hoping.

Finally, elfbabe, how did you end up in Canada?!?

12

Yawn. Some thread. No controversy and no smacking.

People who drink 14 units per week are often classified as “problem drinkers”. Many, but by no means all, of these drinkers run into lomg-term health problems or social difficulties at home or work. The more you drink, the more serious the problems – cirrhosis is pretty serious liver damage. There is no “safe level” applying to all people. This, and cultural differences, tend to mean that pregnant women are given somewhat different advice on how much alcohol they can drink in the litiginous States versus beer-loving England (for example).

13

Meh. (you can thank the influence of elfbabe for me adopting that expression.)

No controversy here.

The real but not real large health benefits of alcohol disappear under the weight of the liabilities of alcohol once two units a day is reached for the average drinker. YMMV.

The risk of cirrhosis (one of many risks of alcohol consumption, and one of the worst possible consequences) goes waaaay up once you hit 7 units a day for the average drinker. YMMV.

And I don’t think you could provoke my esteemed colleague KarlGauss and I to fight even if you stuck us in a jar and shook the jar.

14

Well, shit. I was all set to make my fortune betting on the obvious winner. I mean, how can a mere mortal hope to take down a hull-slithering Mercotan, ferchrissakes!

15

What I’m hearing is that an objective measure would be an individual thing. A person would have to run an experiment on themselves. Start by having all of your vital functions that are known to be adversely affected by alcohol tested. I would suggest repeating these tests a couple of times over some time span for best results. The test results are your baseline. Drink a certain amount for a month. Re run the tests looking for adverse changes. Up the amount by some increment for another month. Re run the tests. And so on. The one month period was just a WAG. Maybe it should be six months, or two weeks, but you get the idea. In any event, at some point your are bound to run into dangerous adverse effects.

Having found your break point, drink some quantity less than the danger point. Of course that break point would probably change over time as you age or as some effects that are negligible after 1 year might become cumulatively serious over 5 years.

Is drinking alcohol important enough to go to such trouble?

16

It’s important enough that I’ll just decide and not go to all the trouble, thanks. :slight_smile: I have my liver function tested during my yearly physical, and everything is A-OK so far. :slight_smile: Since the CDC report came out that questions the positive effects of alcohol in any dosage, I’ve just decided to drink what I want. :slight_smile:

QtM–What if there were live ferrets in both your pants when we shook the jar? What then, huh? :eek:

:slight_smile:

17

Sounds like a plan.

18

This is the hard part. I haven’t had any alcohol since 1999. That was a glass of wine and some brandy and that was the first I had had in 2 years. 2 years ago, a specialist asked me how much I typically drank in a day, since it looked like I had cirrhosis of the liver. Turns out I have NonAlcoholic Steatic Hepatitis, which pretty much looks like cirrhosis. If I had been a drinker, I would probably be in really bad shape by this point.

19

Dr_Paprika-14 units a week is a problem drinker in the USA?

In this country it’s not.

Someone here is a “problem drinker” if their drinking causes them social, legal, medical or financial problems, without an element of alcohol dependence. This can be the guy who drinks 10 pints every Saturday night and starts fights or the person with a one-off DUI after the office xmas party.

“Problem drinkers” are NOT those with alcohol dependence, who are our “dependent drinkers”.

We have “heavy drinkers” who aren’t dependent and where the drinking has not led to health, social or legal problems, we have “problem drinkers” where even minor alcohol use has led to problems and we have "dependent drinkers who probably have some problems related to their heavy use and abuse of alcohol, but who are in a separate category because of the element of addiction.

In Ireland, where our level of alcohol intake is high at the best of times, you’d be surprised how many very heavy drinkers are neither dependent on alcohol nor fit the criteria for “problem drinkers”.

There is a significant proportion of people here who drink more than is probably wise, but not enough to cause them physical damage, and who do their drinking in a socially responsible way, so that it has never caused them social or legal problems.

The guy who drinks 4 pints of beer every night while watching TV, but takes the weekend and every Lent off drink, who has good family relationships, holds down a job, has never been in trouble with the police and who has normal liver funtion tests and blood pressure is the kind of guy I’m talking about.
Heavy drinker, yes, dependent or problem drinker, no.

Still, it’s never good to push your limits and see what you can get away with…better stick to recommended guidelines and play it safe.

20

The ads at the bottom of the page:

Where are the beer ads???