So a 750 ml bottle of Port isdjewesbury wrote:the formula for calculating units of alcohol in a particular measure of drink: millilitres x ABV / 1000.
Ah. Your decimal point in front of the ABV is a little optimistic!Glenn E. wrote:So a 750 ml bottle of Port isdjewesbury wrote:the formula for calculating units of alcohol in a particular measure of drink: millilitres x ABV / 1000.
750 x .20 / 1000
150 / 1000
.15 units? So 6 2/3 bottles of Port is one unit?
This seems entirely reasonable, even for Derek. I don't understand what you chaps are on about.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Are you suggesting that the formula is inaccurate? Perhaps that it should have been stated as %ABV instead of ABV? Surely not. The government would never make such an egregious error.djewesbury wrote:Ah. Your decimal point in front of the ABV is a little optimistic!Glenn E. wrote:So a 750 ml bottle of Port isdjewesbury wrote:the formula for calculating units of alcohol in a particular measure of drink: millilitres x ABV / 1000.
750 x .20 / 1000
150 / 1000
.15 units? So 6 2/3 bottles of Port is one unit?
This seems entirely reasonable, even for Derek. I don't understand what you chaps are on about.
The BBC, in an article entitled [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24603008]Tesco says almost 30,000 tonnes of food 'wasted'[/url], wrote:Supermarket giant Tesco has revealed it threw away almost 30,000 tonnes of food in the first six months of the year.
Using its own data and industry-wide figures, it has also estimated that, across the UK food industry, 68% of salad to be sold in bags was wasted - 35% of it thrown out by customers.
It has been many years since I have had this problem, but at one time a registered nurse tested my blood pressure (and then re-tested it, and then checked her equipment and re-tested it again) at 90/41. She then looked at me, and apparently seriously asked, "are you sure you're alive?"djewesbury wrote:I just tested my blood pressure. Amazingly, I am 'ideal'.
The BBC, in an article entitled [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24625808]Saturated fat heart disease 'myth'[/url], wrote:The risk from saturated fat in foods such as butter, cakes and fatty meat is being overstated and demonised, according to a cardiologist.
Dr Aseem Malhotra said there was too much focus on the fat with other factors such as sugar often overlooked.
It is time to "bust the myth of the role of saturated fat in heart disease", he writes in an opinion piece in the British Medical Journal.
But the British Heart Foundation said there was conflicting evidence.
The British Medical Journal, in a comment article entitled [url=http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6340]Saturated fat is not the major issue[/url], wrote:Scientists universally accept that trans fats found in many fast foods, bakery products, and margarines increase the risk of cardiovascular disease through inflammatory processes. But ‟saturated fat” is another story. The mantra that saturated fat must be removed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease has dominated dietary advice and guidelines for almost four decades.
Yet scientific evidence shows that this advice has, paradoxically, increased our cardiovascular risks. Furthermore, the government’s obsession with levels of total cholesterol, which has led to the overmedication of millions of people with statins, has diverted our attention from the more egregious risk factor of atherogenic dyslipidaemia.
Saturated fat has been demonised ever since Ancel Keys’s landmark ‟seven countries” study in 1970. This concluded that a correlation existed between the incidence of coronary heart disease and total cholesterol concentrations, which then correlated with the proportion of energy provided by saturated fat. But correlation is not causation. Nevertheless, we were advised to cut fat intake to 30% of total energy and saturated fat to 10%.” The aspect of dietary saturated fat that is believed to have the greatest influence on cardiovascular risk is elevated concentrations of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Yet the reduction in LDL cholesterol from reducing saturated fat intake seems to be specific to large, buoyant (type A) LDL particles, when in fact it is the small, dense (type B) particles (responsive to carbohydrate intake) that are implicated in cardiovascular disease.
Indeed, recent prospective cohort studies have not supported any significant association between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular risk. Instead, saturated fat has been found to be protective. The source of the saturated fat may be important. Dairy foods are exemplary providers of vitamins A and D. As well as a link between vitamin D deficiency and a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular mortality, calcium and phosphorus found commonly in dairy foods may have antihypertensive effects that may contribute to inverse associations with cardiovascular risk. One study showed that higher concentrations of plasma trans-palmitoleic acid, a fatty acid mainly found in dairy foods, was associated with higher concentrations of high density lipoprotein, lower concentrations of triglycerides and C reactive protein, reduced insulin resistance, and a lower incidence of diabetes in adults. Red meat is another major source of saturated fat. Consumption of processed meats, but not red meat, has been associated with coronary heart disease and diabetes mellitus, which may be explained by nitrates and sodium as preservatives.
!
The ‟calorie is not a calorie” theory has been further substantiated by a recent JAMA study showing that a ‟low fat” diet resulted in the greatest decrease in energy expenditure, an unhealthy lipid pattern, and increased insulin resistance in comparison with a low carbohydrate and low glycaemic index diet. In the past 30 years in the United States the proportion of energy from consumed fat has fallen from 40% to 30% (although absolute fat consumption has remained the same), yet obesity has rocketed.
One reason: when you take the fat out, the food tastes worse. The food industry compensated by replacing saturated fat with added sugar. The scientific evidence is mounting that sugar is a possible independent risk factor for the metabolic syndrome (the cluster of hypertension, dysglycaemia, raised triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol, and increased waist circumference).
Sarah Boseley, in a piece entitled [url=http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/26/saturated-fat-cut-pledge]Saturated fat to be cut in chocolate products, makers pledge[/url], in The Guardian, wrote: Products ranging from Kit Kats to breadsticks to belVita will contain less fat, but sugar levels will stay the same.
Kit Kats and Oreos will become healthier, the government will say on Saturday, announcing that the companies which make them have signed up to a "responsibility pledge" to cut the saturated fat the products contain. But the sugar levels in them will stay the same.
Days after the British Medical Journal ran an opinion piece from a cardiologist asserting that sugar and not saturated fat was the leading cause in the rise in heart disease and diabetes, the government announced the latest in its series of public health pledges with food manufacturers and supermarkets. This will, ministers said, remove the equivalent of one and a half Olympic-sized swimming pools full of saturated fat from the national diet.
"One in six male deaths and one in nine female deaths are from coronary heart disease ”“ this is why it's critical that we challenge the way we eat and that we all make changes where we can," said the public health minister, Jane Ellison.
"It's hugely encouraging that companies providing almost half of the food available on the UK market have committed to this new responsibility deal pledge and they are leading the way to give their customers healthier products and lower fat alternatives."
Tesco said it will take 32 tonnes of fat out of its breadsticks and other products ”“ while Morrisons promised to reformulate its own-brand range of spreads to take out some of the saturated fats, amounting to another 50 tonnes. Sainsbury's says it will continue work it has begun in cutting down the saturated fat in its products.
Mondelez ”“ the snack arm of Kraft, the US multinational the owns Cadbury's ”“ will reformulate products including belVita, Oreo and Barny biscuits.
Nestle is the biggest loser ”“ with a pledge to take 3,800 tonnes of saturated fats out of its Kit Kats. Nestle says this is just a further step on the road to making its product more healthy. The firm stops short of suggesting Kit Kats might be classified one day as health foods, but adds that it had already lowered the salt content of the product.
"This is the next step on the journey where we are improving the nutritional profile of our products," said Ciaran Sullivan, managing director of Nestle Confectionery. "Kit Kat is our biggest confectionery brand and therefore the obvious choice to identify a sat fat reduction.
"Improving the nutritional profile of Kit Kat does not come at the expense of quality and taste and consumers will continue to enjoy the same Kit Kat as they have for over 75 years."
Saturated fat was blamed for growing rates of heart disease and diabetes in the 1970s, following the landmark "seven countries" study by the American scientist Ancel Keys. However, the British physiologist John Yudkin disagreed with what became the conventional public health wisdom, arguing that the problem was sugar. Yudkin's cause has been taken up again in recent years, notably by the US paediatrician Robert Lustig, in his book Fat Chance: The Bitter Truth about Sugar.
Lustig and others argue that the low fat craze may have actually done harm to people's health, because food manufacturers add sugar into low fat products to compensate for the loss of taste and texture after the fats are removed.
Aseem Malhotra, the interventional cardiology specialist registrar who wrote the BMJ article and said he had advised his patients to eat butter instead of low fat spreads, was unimpressed by the food manufacturers' pledges. Saturated fat, at least in non-processed foods, is not harmful, he said, but sugar is.
"This is the food industry paying lip service to the government," he said. "The root cause of the obesity epidemic is the food environment and if the department of health is serious about tackling the problem, they should listen to the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges."
The academy's report, published this year, recommended a ban on fast food outlets near schools and on TV ads for food high in salt, sugar and fat before 9pm, as well as a tax on sugary drinks.
Nestle says that in reducing the saturated fat in a two-finger KitKat bar from 3.3g to 2.9g it will not raise the sugar content. "The saturated fat reduction in Kit Kat has been made by changing the oil that is used to make the wafer filling," said a spokesperson.
The sugar content of the popular chocolate remains the same. There are 10.4g of sugar in a two-finger bar, which is the equivalent of 49.5g per 100g of Kit Kat. In other words, a Kit Kat is half sugar.
Oreo biscuits contain a slightly smaller proportion of sugar, at 35g per 100g and 8.3g of saturated fat. Barny, a sponge biscuit containing chocolate, is also one third sugar ”“ 9.6g in a 30g biscuit and 1.4g of saturated fat. A 12.5g belVita breakfast biscuit contains 0.5g of saturated fat and 2.5g of sugar.
Subway, another signatory to the pledge, is trying to tackle the sugar issue by substituting the biscuits and crisps in its Kids Pak meal deal with fruit and vegetables, which also has the desired effect of cutting the saturated fat by 70%.
Compass, the biggest provider of school meals, says it will promote healthier menus as well as reducing saturated fat.
The Faculty of Public Health (FPH) said the supermarket and manufacture pledges would not make enough of a difference.
Prof John Ashton, the FPH president, said: "At a time when public spending is under scrutiny, it costs the NHS £5bn a year to treat obesity. So it is a good thing that some companies are making food that has less saturated fat than before.
"They need to ensure that at the same time they lower the sugar and salt that they have used to make foods more tasty as a result of lowering the fat content".
Fructose is not damned good for us. Think of all those food products that are stuffed with fructose.. Oh I don't know. Can't you go and solve the puzzle now?LGTrotter wrote:I thought that the main thing they were banging on about was refined sugar. A the risk of sounding foolish wouldn't most of the sugars in port be fructose and therefore darned good for us?
The ever-expanding American waistline begs to differ.jdaw1 wrote:There is no evidence, neither epidemiological nor experimental, suggesting that any harm is done by alcohol or sugars over twenty-one years old.
But how many of those expanding Americans have been fed sugars or alcohols where the sugar / alcohol is over 21 years old?Glenn E. wrote:The ever-expanding American waistline begs to differ.jdaw1 wrote:There is no evidence, neither epidemiological nor experimental, suggesting that any harm is done by alcohol or sugars over twenty-one years old.
An excellent point. I mis-read Julian's post and thought he was talking about the age of the imbiber. Silly me.AHB wrote:But how many of those expanding Americans have been fed sugars or alcohols where the sugar / alcohol is over 21 years old?Glenn E. wrote:The ever-expanding American waistline begs to differ.jdaw1 wrote:There is no evidence, neither epidemiological nor experimental, suggesting that any harm is done by alcohol or sugars over twenty-one years old.
And how many have been fed sugar / alcohol which has not been bottle or cask matured?
Surely the facts speak for themselves? Sugar / alcohol should be matured for at least 21 years before being consumed.
Glenn E. wrote:An excellent point. I mis-read Julian's post and thought he was talking about the age of the imbiber. Silly me.AHB wrote:But how many of those expanding Americans have been fed sugars or alcohols where the sugar / alcohol is over 21 years old?Glenn E. wrote:The ever-expanding American waistline begs to differ.jdaw1 wrote:There is no evidence, neither epidemiological nor experimental, suggesting that any harm is done by alcohol or sugars over twenty-one years old.
And how many have been fed sugar / alcohol which has not been bottle or cask matured?
Surely the facts speak for themselves? Sugar / alcohol should be matured for at least 21 years before being consumed.
Please revise this guidance. I have a LOT of Croft LBV 04 downstairs and a bucketload of G94, V94, SVau 00 and FUR on the way!AHB wrote:Surely the facts speak for themselves? Sugar / alcohol should be matured for at least 21 years before being consumed.
Presumably the G94 and V94 are typos in that list? Please tell me you are not using those as daily drinkersdjewesbury wrote:Please revise this guidance. I have a LOT of Croft LBV 04 downstairs and a bucketload of G94, V94, SVau 00 and FUR on the way!AHB wrote:Surely the facts speak for themselves? Sugar / alcohol should be matured for at least 21 years before being consumed.
Special Forces have been dispatched to Ireland with buckets...djewesbury wrote:a bucketload of G94, V94
Hands off.. We'll repel you at the border!Glenn E. wrote:Special Forces have been dispatched to Ireland with buckets...djewesbury wrote:a bucketload of G94, V94
You say that as if it is a bad thing......DRT wrote:Presumably the G94 and V94 are typos in that list? Please tell me you are not using those as daily drinkersdjewesbury wrote:Please revise this guidance. I have a LOT of Croft LBV 04 downstairs and a bucketload of G94, V94, SVau 00 and FUR on the way!AHB wrote:Surely the facts speak for themselves? Sugar / alcohol should be matured for at least 21 years before being consumed.
It would be a bad thing. Particularly because he hasn't invited me to live in his house!TLW wrote:You say that as if it is a bad thing......DRT wrote:Presumably the G94 and V94 are typos in that list? Please tell me you are not using those as daily drinkersdjewesbury wrote:Please revise this guidance. I have a LOT of Croft LBV 04 downstairs and a bucketload of G94, V94, SVau 00 and FUR on the way!AHB wrote:Surely the facts speak for themselves? Sugar / alcohol should be matured for at least 21 years before being consumed.
Now, now. The Aussies have contributed much to the world of science and literature I am told, and one day - possibly this decade - one of us will think of one example (as I sit surrounded by Aussies).djewesbury wrote:Lion Nathan? I feel dubious about advice from a man whose name is an Australian spin bowler back to front.
Peter Carey. Probably someone else as well.TLW wrote:The Aussies have contributed much to the world of science and literature I am told, and one day - possibly this decade - one of us will think of one example (as I sit surrounded by Aussies).
I think one's enough.LGTrotter wrote:Peter Carey. Probably someone else as well.TLW wrote:The Aussies have contributed much to the world of science and literature I am told, and one day - possibly this decade - one of us will think of one example (as I sit surrounded by Aussies).
Alice Robb, an an article syndicated from the New Republic, wrote:Do smart people drink more? Here's some science to ease your hangover
Alcohol consumption has been found to correlate positively with verbal ability, evolutionary adaptability and going to university.
By Alice Robb
Published 04 December 2013 10:54
Alcohol consumption has been found to correlate positively with verbal ability, evolutionary adaptability and going to university.
[!]
It’s the booziest time of the year, and also the most hung over: According to one study, 96 per cent of Americans have been hung over at work after a holiday party, or know someone who has. Creative hangover cures like dried sour plums and poached duck embryos may ease (or exacerbate) physical symptoms, but here’s something that might help the self-reproach: You can blame your hangover on your high IQ, because studies show there might be a positive correlation between intelligence and alcohol consumption.
The sooner you talk, the sooner you drink
Finnish researchers gathered data on 3,000 fraternal and identical twins and found that the sibling who was the first to develop verbal ability speaking words, reading and using expressive language also tended to be the first to try alcohol and to drink more heavily throughout adolescence. Verbal development may be correlated with social intelligence; the verbally precocious twin also had, on average, more friends, and could be more likely to end up in social situations where alcohol is present: ‟Good language skills reduce the likelihood of peer rejection .... higher social activity predicts more frequent drinking in adolescence,” write the authors.
Earlier speaking age is also associated with better academic performance throughout middle and high school and a higher chance of graduating from college and achieving higher levels of education is also correlated with higher alcohol consumption. The authors hypothesize that intelligence is correlated with curiosity and a desire for new experiences: ‟Cognitive performance and reading abilities in childhood are related to higher stimulation-seeking tendencies.”
Drinkers are evolutionarily adaptive
According to the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis posited by evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa, the human brain has trouble dealing with situations that did not exist in the Pleistocene environment we evolved in, but some brains (less intelligent ones) have more trouble than others. Writes Kanazawa, ‟the human brain has difficulty comprehending and dealing with entities and situations that did not exist in the ancestral environment ... general intelligence evolved as a domain-specific psychological adaptation to solve evolutionarily novel problems.” Alcohol consumption is ‟evolutionarily novel” humans began cultivating and consuming alcohol only about 10,000 years ago (though we may have ingested trace amounts of ethanol in fermented fruits before that) so this model would predict a link between intelligence and drinking.
When Kanazawa analyzed data on UK children, he found that link. Drawing on the results of the National Child Development Study, which tracked for 50 years all British babies born during one week in March 1958, Kanazawa found that kids who scored higher on IQ tests grew up to drink larger quantities of alcohol on a more regular basis than their less intelligent peers. He evaluated other factors, including religion, frequency of church attendance, social class, parents’ education and self-reported satisfaction with life, and found that intelligence before age 16 was second only to gender in predicting alcohol consumption at age 23. In Kanazawa’s model, illicit drugs constitute another evolutionarily novel experience and he (and others) have also found a link between high IQ and experimentation with drugs. In Kanazawa’s study, the higher a respondent’s IQ before age 16, the more psychoactive substances he or she had tried by age 42. Another study found that 30-year-old women who had earned high scores on an IQ test at age five were more than twice as likely to have smoked weed or used cocaine in the previous year; men who had scored highly on IQ tests as children were 50 percent more likely to have recently consumed amphetamines or ecstasy.
Smart people prefer wine
A study that compared 1,800 Danish men’s IQ scores to their drinking habits from the 1950s through 1990s found a strong correlation between high IQ in young adulthood and preference for wine over beer later in life, regardless of socioeconomic status. (Very few respondents less than 1 per cent preferred spirits; this preference was unrelated to IQ.) Twenty-two per cent of men who were grouped into the highest of five IQ categories at age 18 preferred wine in their 30s, compared to 9 per cent of the men grouped in the lowest IQ category. By their 40s, the differences were even more pronounced: 39 per cent of the men with the highest IQs, but only 13 per cent of those with the lowest, preferred wine. According to the paper, ‟in the predominantly beer-drinking Danish population ... wine drinking has traditionally been a sign of high social standing.” The correlation among income, education, social status and intelligence could explain their findings.
College graduates drink more
Researchers at the London School of Economics examined data on thousands of British adults in their 30s and found a positive correlation between educational attainment and daily drinking. The relationship was stronger for women: Women who had graduated from college were 86 per cent more likely than women who hadn’t graduated high school to admit to drinking on most days. Possible explanations include: ‟a more intensive social life that encourages alcohol intake; a greater engagement into traditionally male spheres of life; a greater social acceptability of alcohol use and abuse; more exposure to alcohol use during formative years; and greater postponement of childbearing and its responsibilities among the better educated.” The link between education and drinking holds for American adults: According to the U.S. Department of Health, rates of alcohol consumption rise with education level, with 68.4 per cent of college graduates describing themselves as drinkers, compared with 35.2 per cent for adults without high school diplomas perhaps reflecting people bringing the binge-drinking habits they learn on campus into adulthood.
The BBC, in an article entitled [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25232818]Middle-aged 'have worst drink and drug problems'[/url], wrote:People in their 40s have the highest rates of hospital admissions for drug and alcohol abuse, a review says.
The analysis by Dr Foster found that out of more than 500,000 people admitted in the past three years in England, 120,000 were in their 40s.
The research group said it suggested a heavy drinking and drug-taking culture was catching up with the age group.
Guidelines say that anybody drinking that much can’t defuse a nuclear bomb. But I’ve seen 007 do it. Does this mean that it is the guidelines that are erroneous?The BBC, in an article entitled [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25349738]James Bond is an 'impotent drunk'[/url], wrote:Vodka martini, "shaken not stirred" - often said as part of a bad Sean Connery impersonation - is one of the most quotable lines from Bond.
Yet Her Majesty's top secret agent's love of the bottle would leave him impotent and at death's door.
Doctors analysing the Ian Fleming novels show James Bond polishes off the equivalent of one and a half bottles of wine every day.
They say he is not the man to trust to deactivate a nuclear bomb.
Doctors in Derby and Nottingham sat down to read the 14 Bond novels in their spare time.
With a notebook at hand they charted every day and every drink.
Excluding the 36 days Bond was in prison, hospital or rehab, the spy downed 1,150 units of alcohol in 88 days.
It works out at 92 units a week - about five vodka martinis a day and four times the recommended maximum intake for men in the UK.
The doctors' report in the festive edition of the British Medical Journal concluded: "Although we appreciate the societal pressures to consume alcohol when working with international terrorists and high stakes gamblers, we would advise Bond to be referred for further assessment of his alcohol intake."
Patrick Davies, a consultant in paediatric intensive care at Nottingham University Hospitals, told the BBC: "You wouldn't want this person defusing a nuclear bomb.
"He's a very glamorous person, he gets all the girls and that's totally incompatible with the lifestyle of an alcoholic, which he is."
He said Bond would be classified in the "top whack" of problem drinkers and would be at high risk of liver damage, an early death and impotence.
"So he might be practising safe sex after all," said Dr Davies.
It wouldn't be the first time.jdaw1 wrote:Guidelines say that anybody drinking that much can’t defuse a nuclear bomb. But I’ve seen 007 do it. Does this mean that it is the guidelines that are erroneous?
Glenn E. wrote:Are you suggesting that the formula is inaccurate? Perhaps that it should have been stated as %ABV instead of ABV? Surely not. The government would never make such an egregious error.djewesbury wrote:Ah. Your decimal point in front of the ABV is a little optimistic!Glenn E. wrote:So a 750 ml bottle of Port isdjewesbury wrote:the formula for calculating units of alcohol in a particular measure of drink: millilitres x ABV / 1000.
750 x .20 / 1000
150 / 1000
.15 units? So 6 2/3 bottles of Port is one unit?
This seems entirely reasonable, even for Derek. I don't understand what you chaps are on about.
What an excellent plan, with multiple good consequences.The BBC, in an article entitled [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25548061]Amsterdam alcoholics paid in beer for collecting litter[/url], wrote:Alcoholics are being paid in beer to clean the streets of Amsterdam as part of a project partly funded by the Dutch government - the organisers think other countries should abandon "old-fashioned political correctness" and adopt the same approach.
Rene scours the streets, grasping at discarded wrappers.
His movements are fuelled by a tangible pride. It is an unfamiliar emotion for a man whose alcohol addiction has cost him so much.
If you get beer for picking up litter, what sort of public service would be required to get a bottle of vintage port?jdaw1 wrote:What an excellent plan, with multiple good consequences.The BBC, in an article entitled [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25548061]Amsterdam alcoholics paid in beer for collecting litter[/url], wrote:Alcoholics are being paid in beer to clean the streets of Amsterdam as part of a project partly funded by the Dutch government - the organisers think other countries should abandon "old-fashioned political correctness" and adopt the same approach.
Rene scours the streets, grasping at discarded wrappers.
His movements are fuelled by a tangible pride. It is an unfamiliar emotion for a man whose alcohol addiction has cost him so much.
The BBC, in an article entitled [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25639406]Should there be a word for an 'almost alcoholic'?[/url], wrote:Everybody thinks they know what an "alcoholic" is, but what about those who drink too much but fall short of the common definitions of alcoholism? Should there be a word that bridges the gap between alcoholic and non-alcoholic?
The term alcoholic - on its own to denote someone addicted to alcohol - was first used in 1852 in the Scottish Temperance Review.
Since then, millions of heavy drinkers have been confronted by friends and families with the stark question: "Are you an alcoholic?"
And millions have denied it. Rejected the label. Confessed only to maybe, possibly drinking too much. But utterly denied the A-word.
Alcoholics are people who fall asleep in skips. Alcoholics get into fights. Alcoholics start the day with a shot of whisky. Alcoholics are drunk all the time. Alcoholics can't hold down jobs.
None of the above is necessarily true, but the intensely negative nature of the word alcoholic leaves some people scrabbling for an alternative.
"There is so much stigma," says Kate, author of the blog The Sober Journalist. People are so frightened of it - their head fills with images of men drinking under bridges. "There is this huge number of people out there who don't fit that stereotype but perhaps their drinking isn't quite normal."
Drinking that much water every day can be dangerous.jdaw1 wrote:I can believe that might be injurious to health.
Not if you had enough bacon for breakfast.Glenn E. wrote:Drinking that much water every day can be dangerous.
Amen.jdaw1 wrote:Not if you had enough bacon for breakfast.Glenn E. wrote:Drinking that much water every day can be dangerous.
Which suggests agreement about the definitive health diet: bacon for breakfast; water in the afternoon; and Port in the evening.Glenn E. wrote:Amen.
But not too much water; that could be dangerous.jdaw1 wrote:Which suggests agreement about the definitive health diet: bacon for breakfast; water in the afternoon; and Port in the evening.Glenn E. wrote:Amen.
