Thanks very much for an answer to the original question, which seemed to
have generated some tangential discussion!
(Not that that's a bad thing!)
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Flanagan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 04 January 2005 17:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question
Some evidence to save you all looking it up:
http://ebmh.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/3/2/61
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/318/7200/1725
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Ab
stract&list_uids=15139873
Also:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/325/7357/191
"Non-drinkers and heavy drinkers have higher all cause mortality rates than
light drinkers: the U shaped curve
The level of alcohol consumption that carries the lowest mortality ranges
from 0 in men and women aged under 35 to 3 units a week in women aged over
65 and 8 units a week in men aged over 65
The level of alcohol consumption that carries a 5% increase in mortality
increases with age from 8 to 20 units a week in women and from 5 to 34 units
a week in men.
Calculations for England and Wales 1997: nadirs are likely to be lower in
the future and in countries with less ischaemic heart disease"
Martin Plant (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7445/905)
refers to the origin of 'units of alcohol':
Dight S. Scottish drinking habits, London: HMSO, 1976.
A 'unit' can be 8-10 g ethanol by the way. I guess the nature of these
studies makes up to an extent for doubts about self-reported alcohol intake
in the clinical consultation.
Hope this helpful.
Bob
>>>>>>>>>
Yes, I understand that the recommended weekly limits are still 14 and
21, but a maximum of 3 units a day (for women at least) has been
included. This has led to the assumption that the weekly limit is now
21 for women, but some alcohol-free days are now also recommended.
I'm not aware of any scientific evidence for these limits; with the
often quoted claim that doctors routinely double the alcohol intakes
patients admit to (is this true?), whatever evidence there is can't be
of very high quality.
--
*********************************************************************
Please note that the new telephone number for both Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS
Foundation Trust is 020 7188 7188.
*********************************************************************
Disclaimer
*********************************************************************
This e-mail may contain confidential and / or privileged information. Unless
otherwise specified, the opinions expressed herein do not necessarily
represent those of Guy's and St Thomas Hospital NHS Foundation Trust or any
of its subsidiaries. If you are not the intended recipient (Or have received
this e-mail in error) please notify the sender and destroy this e-mail
immediately. Any unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of the
material in this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
*********************************************************************
------ACB discussion List Information--------
This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
community working in clinical biochemistry.
Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed
via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and
they are responsible for all message content.
ACB Web Site
http://www.acb.org.uk
List Archives
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
------ACB discussion List Information--------
This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
community working in clinical biochemistry.
Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed
via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and
they are responsible for all message content.
ACB Web Site
http://www.acb.org.uk
List Archives
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
|