Mumsnet Talk

in his autobiography apparently.

Carol whatshername from the Times completely ridiculed him yesterday for that, but Dr Mark Porter in the same paper said there is something in it, especially if your measures are a bit too generous.

It's kind of what I have a day, so I'm wondering...

dammit missed out "of wine" in the thread title

Would like to add that I think that it's safer for me to have these amounts, after all I'm not running the country

V reasonable, if a bit on the moderate side.

It's a problem if you need to have them to cope, which is apparently how TB felt.

I would drink this amount, as would most people I know.

I think it's probably not great though, I must just know a lot of alcoholics

I think its not about the amount but about why you're having it.
if you drink that much because you enjoy it but could easily go without all well and good. If you drink that much because you feel you can't cope without it then thats a problem, imo one glass is too much if you feel you couldn't cope without it.
Blair says he used drink as a crutch, thats the problem - the quantity is pretty irrellevant.

I think that's a lot to have every day.

I think that most people I know wouldn't drink this amount.

Yes, I think all doctors would say that if you drink this amount every day you have a drink problem

There's about 1 unit of alcohol in a standard G&T and about 1.5 units in a small glass of wine.

So Blair was having 4 units a day, which is somewhat uncannily the maximum recommended daily intake for a man.

If he was doing that every day then that's 28 units a week, which is more than the recommended guide of 21 units in a week.

Now consider that that's a "small" 125ml glass of wine with 12% ABV. So if he was having bigger glasses, which is really rather probable, or stronger wine then he was taking more units.

So his weekly intake was certainly above the guidelines if he was doing that every single day and would be even higher if those glasses were "normal" sized rather than "small".

So if you're a man emkana then you're doing over the weekly recommended limit, if you're a woman then you're weekly intake is double the guidelines (14 units for a woman), and that's presuming that you're having those "small" glasses.

That's not me judging either you or Blair, just comparing you both to the guidelines.

I certainly think that if you feel you need a drink at the end of the day, pretty much every day, there's a problem. Doesn't make you an alcoholic, or mean you couldn't quit if you wanted to, but you need to look at your drinking and your life and consider what the problem is. Like you're having to run the country, for example...

If the alcohol is drunk as a coping mechanism, in a sort of compulsion and without enjoyment then it is a drink problem.

Alcoholics will have started out just having a couple of galsses a day...then it gets to be a couple of bottles a day.

And don't pay attention to a journalist ridiculing alcohol abuse, after 20 years working in and around news I can safely say that most journalists consider 12 pints a light lunch and many are over the limit pretty much of the time.

FFS. Can't believe he's trying to invent a drink problem for himself now as well, the attention seeking, egotistical little shit.

Clearly got the same publicist as Andre Agassi.

"Alcoholics will have started out just having a couple of galsses a day...then it gets to be a couple of bottles a day."

This isn't necessarily about being an alcoholic but rather about the health implications of drinking above and beyond the recommended weekly limit.

If Blair did drink that every day the he's over the limit by a third.

If a woman drunk that every day she would be double the limit.

I quite like John Reid's comment on this; something along the lines of if Tony thinks that's a drink problem he should spend some time in my house or similar.
I supposeif you drank this habitually you would shorten your life but who wnat to live to 80 anyway. Not me. Though I suspect Tony thinks he's going to live forever.his behaviour in office can be explained on no other basis.

Sorry but if TB saying he thought he had a problem when he drunk this much (having not drunk much before) gets someone to think again about their drinking, then he has done a good thing. I've always thought that drinking everyday is a problem. Needing to drink everyday is a bigger problems. And someone else driving you to drink is a bigger problem.

The recommended daily units were made up. Notice how they are conveniently divisible by 7? Apparently the panel which came up with them couldnt come to any conclusions about what were safe limits so effectively chatted amongst themselves - 'well I drink about 3 small whiskeys per day and I'm all right, the wife only has a couple of small sherries and she's all right' hence the numbers of units!

I read the above somewhere once but I cant cite my source as I cant remember!

The only drink problems are needing to drink or regularly waking up face down in a hedge.

"The only drink problems are needing to drink or regularly waking up face down in a hedge."

I hope that you're either joking or an employee of the drinks industry.

There's a bit more evidence and thought gone into alcohol limits than just some doctors discussing what the wife had the night before. To suggest that's all there is to it is quite ridiculous, and also quite dangerous.

Patient UK (http://www.patient.co.uk/health/Alcohol-and-Sensible-Drinking.htm) says:

"Myth - The recommended safe limits are too low
They are based on good research which has identified the level above which problems start to arise. For example, if a man drinks five units each day (not greatly over the recommended limit) then, on average, he doubles his risk of developing liver disease, raised blood pressure, some cancers, and of having a violent death."

There are references listed on the page.

BUPA (http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/alcohol/Pages/Effectsofalcohol.aspx) classify "increased risk drinking" as "drinking more than 3-4 units a day on a regular basis if you're a man" and "drinking more than 2-3 units a day on a regular basis if you're a woman".

If you fall into that category then they list the effects as being:

"Men are 1.8 to 2.5 times as likely to get cancer of the mouth, neck and throat; women are 1.2 to 1.7 times as likely."

"Women are 1.2 times as likely to get breast cancer.

"Men are twice as likely to develop liver cirrhosis, and women 1.7 times as likely."

"Men are 1.8 times as likely to develop high blood pressure, and women are 1.3 times as likely."

I'm not going to say that the limits are absolute and perfect but to say that there's no basis for them is just plain wrong.

Oh of course it's a drink problem if you need it every day and you can't face the evening without it.

Not joking (though being mildly facetious) and I dont work in the drinks industry.

The problem with the statistics is that it isnt possible to do full trials.

Regarding the various alleged cancer risks:
1. how likely are the cancers if the alcohol consumption is removed? Twice as much as extremely unlikely is still extremely unlikely.
2. have the impacts of smoking/living or socialising in a smokey atmosphere been removed?
3. have the different forms of alcohol and different types of drinking been taken into account?

Problem drinking is when you need it to cope or when it gets you into situations which you cant control.

Drinking a few glasses of wine in the comfort of a smoke-free home I believe is not a problem.

I suspect that Tony Blair is seeking sympathy for what was a non-problem.

Sorry, didn't read it was that much a day, every day. That does sound a fair bit then.

Still not exactly giving Charles Kennedy as run for his money though.

I believe drinking a few glasses of wine and a G&T every day even if in the comfort of a smoke-free home is a problem and not beneficial to one's health.

if one drinks excessively (no matter whether they are addicted or no) statisticaly they are more likely to suffer from all those cancers

can't pretend that those numbers are non existant

there's no other way of establishin that link other than by analysing statistics

just because we know someone who drank, smoked and lived till they are 100 doesn't make it a rule

Just because someone who drank died of cancer doesnt mean that the drinking was exclusively or even partially to blame.

The problem with analysing statistics is that there is too much extrapolation involved. The development of cancer is highly complex involving lifestyle, environmental and familial predisposition risks. Where the incidence of a cancer is fairly low any analysis of statistics is likely to result in spurious conclusions.

What would be more useful would be to say that if you have this lifestyle, live in this environment and have these family indicators then you are already at increased risk of developing these diseases. Adding alcohol may be just the thing to tip the risk into an actuality. However you already have an increased risk.

As I recall TB had some earlier heart problems. In my non-medical opinion he had a problem with managing stress not a drinking problem.

So few people understand stats.

If the research is carried out properly and the drinkers have a statistically significant increase in the occurences of a certain problem, then there is a link.

Yes, some individuals may have had the problem caused by something else. But there would not have been a statistically significant effect if the alcohol was irrelevant in general.