The official NIAAA summary of its current views and a very
comprehensive overview of the state of knowledge on the
health effects of moderate alcohol drinking has been published
recently (Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research,
28(6):829-847, June 2004).

It'a very well written paper. The very bottom line of it is
that, all things considered, all the truly awful things
about alcohol consumption in the society still seem to be
offset by its positive effects on public health. That is,
drinking in moderation is healthy. Clearly healthier than
total abstinence.

Given that, I think it's reasonable to start questioning
the conventional wisdom of teaching total abstinence to
people suffering from alcohol dependence and abuse. It could
be that teaching them moderation is potentially a much
healthier alternative! Of course, for such an approach to
succeed, it would first have to demolish the "one drink
and you are in hell" dogma perpetuated by cultists.
Does not seem to be an impossible task, given the fact that
there is _absolutely no_ scientific evidence that total
abstinence goal has higher success rate.

Although it is the body of the paper that makes it a great
read, it's a big one and trying to summarize it by sections
will end up be a lot of work. So, here are the conclusions
that are tabulated in the end (not all verbatim to save
space):

- Lowest all-cause mortality occurs at 1-2 drrinks/day.
- Moderate drinking seems to protect against heart failure
and ischemic stroke.
- Moderate drinking causes about 10% increase of the relative
risk of breast cancer.
- The relationship between MD and obesity is inconclusive
but there is some evidence for reduced risk of diabetes
and metabolic syndrome.
- Low to Moderate drinking during pregnancy "does not seem
to be associated with an increased" risk of fetal physical
malformations but may have behavioral and neurocognitive
consequences".
- Moderate drinking does not increase the amount of milk
nursing mothers have. "Effects on the infants seem to be
short and reversible".
- "There is no evidence that cognitive functioning is
negatively affected by moderate alcohol consumption as one
ages, and there may be a protective effect against
vascular dementia".

HP-G

Hey Gawd, since you are the HP and also Gawd ,anything should be possible. I
think you could moderate your'e drinking. I wonder what everybody else
thinks. Hey folks, do you think Gawd could do it? If anyone can it's got to
be the almighty HP Gawd. Gawd Gawd he's our man, if he can't do it no one
can.
God Bless
"H.P. Gawd" <hpgawd@non-anonymous.org> wrote in message
news3h5j017eq45krt2tgr0f6smkushrgj8cc@4ax.com...
>
> The official NIAAA summary of its current views and a very
> comprehensive overview of the state of knowledge on the
> health effects of moderate alcohol drinking has been published
> recently (Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research,
> 28(6):829-847, June 2004).
>
> It'a very well written paper. The very bottom line of it is
> that, all things considered, all the truly awful things
> about alcohol consumption in the society still seem to be
> offset by its positive effects on public health. That is,
> drinking in moderation is healthy. Clearly healthier than
> total abstinence.
>
> Given that, I think it's reasonable to start questioning
> the conventional wisdom of teaching total abstinence to
> people suffering from alcohol dependence and abuse. It could
> be that teaching them moderation is potentially a much
> healthier alternative! Of course, for such an approach to
> succeed, it would first have to demolish the "one drink
> and you are in hell" dogma perpetuated by cultists.
> Does not seem to be an impossible task, given the fact that
> there is _absolutely no_ scientific evidence that total
> abstinence goal has higher success rate.
>
> Although it is the body of the paper that makes it a great
> read, it's a big one and trying to summarize it by sections
> will end up be a lot of work. So, here are the conclusions
> that are tabulated in the end (not all verbatim to save
> space):
>
> - Lowest all-cause mortality occurs at 1-2 drrinks/day.
> - Moderate drinking seems to protect against heart failure
> and ischemic stroke.
> - Moderate drinking causes about 10% increase of the relative
> risk of breast cancer.
> - The relationship between MD and obesity is inconclusive
> but there is some evidence for reduced risk of diabetes
> and metabolic syndrome.
> - Low to Moderate drinking during pregnancy "does not seem
> to be associated with an increased" risk of fetal physical
> malformations but may have behavioral and neurocognitive
> consequences".
> - Moderate drinking does not increase the amount of milk
> nursing mothers have. "Effects on the infants seem to be
> short and reversible".
> - "There is no evidence that cognitive functioning is
> negatively affected by moderate alcohol consumption as one
> ages, and there may be a protective effect against
> vascular dementia".
>
> HP-G
>

I've tried moderating my drinking...oh, lets see...about a thousand times.
Doesn't work for me and probably won't work for anybody who is a real
alcoholic.

Some people can moderate. I'm just not one of them.


"H.P. Gawd" <hpgawd@non-anonymous.org> wrote in message
news3h5j017eq45krt2tgr0f6smkushrgj8cc@4ax.com...
>
> The official NIAAA summary of its current views and a very
> comprehensive overview of the state of knowledge on the
> health effects of moderate alcohol drinking has been published
> recently (Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research,
> 28(6):829-847, June 2004).
>
> It'a very well written paper. The very bottom line of it is
> that, all things considered, all the truly awful things
> about alcohol consumption in the society still seem to be
> offset by its positive effects on public health. That is,
> drinking in moderation is healthy. Clearly healthier than
> total abstinence.
>
> Given that, I think it's reasonable to start questioning
> the conventional wisdom of teaching total abstinence to
> people suffering from alcohol dependence and abuse. It could
> be that teaching them moderation is potentially a much
> healthier alternative! Of course, for such an approach to
> succeed, it would first have to demolish the "one drink
> and you are in hell" dogma perpetuated by cultists.
> Does not seem to be an impossible task, given the fact that
> there is _absolutely no_ scientific evidence that total
> abstinence goal has higher success rate.
>
> Although it is the body of the paper that makes it a great
> read, it's a big one and trying to summarize it by sections
> will end up be a lot of work. So, here are the conclusions
> that are tabulated in the end (not all verbatim to save
> space):
>
> - Lowest all-cause mortality occurs at 1-2 drrinks/day.
> - Moderate drinking seems to protect against heart failure
> and ischemic stroke.
> - Moderate drinking causes about 10% increase of the relative
> risk of breast cancer.
> - The relationship between MD and obesity is inconclusive
> but there is some evidence for reduced risk of diabetes
> and metabolic syndrome.
> - Low to Moderate drinking during pregnancy "does not seem
> to be associated with an increased" risk of fetal physical
> malformations but may have behavioral and neurocognitive
> consequences".
> - Moderate drinking does not increase the amount of milk
> nursing mothers have. "Effects on the infants seem to be
> short and reversible".
> - "There is no evidence that cognitive functioning is
> negatively affected by moderate alcohol consumption as one
> ages, and there may be a protective effect against
> vascular dementia".
>
> HP-G
>

Craig S. wrote:

> "Kai R" <soberon@nospam.luukku.com> wrote in message
> news:ch502u$ou8$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
>
>
>>My problem with booze is my inability to moderate.
>
>
> It's all in your head.
>

Of course it is. But do you know a way to get it out of there? Or a
reason, other than the health of my poor heart with resting heart rate
of 37 bpm.

Kai

"Kai R" <soberon@nospam.luukku.com> wrote in message
news:ch51b4$sob$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...

> resting heart rate of 37 bpm.

Impressive.

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:35:13 -0400, "Craig S."
<cspurlocktakethisout@takethisoutmtneer.net> wrote:

>"Avid MD" <avidmd@anonymousse.org> wrote in message
>news:ukbaj0p8vgk5t5tcc6i4hqnrqrnd2pv715@4ax.com.. .
>
>> There _are_ tons
>> of examples of alcoholics that overcame their addiction and are
>> perfectly capable of drinking socially.
>
>There are? "Tons?" Please direct me to that registry.

Read a biography of every other 70s and 80s rock star
maybe. Simple enough. (Oh, I see the universal defence
coming: "those are not "real" alcoholics. LOL).

Avid MD

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:37:49 -0400, "Craig S."
<cspurlocktakethisout@takethisoutmtneer.net> wrote:

>
>"Avid MD" <avidmd@anonymousse.org> wrote in message
>news:55caj05fc4la9vpnuchc9kjugv0k8nsgtp@4ax.com.. .
>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:08:03 -0400, "Craig S."
>> <cspurlocktakethisout@takethisoutmtneer.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Avid MD" <avidmd@anonymousse.org> wrote in message
>> >news:ebr7j0h9jlnlpvmuvn1plghf7kc6edskd9@4ax.com.. .
>> >
>> >> Take
>> >> Hollywood actors - they gain 10-20-30 (!) pounds when
>> >> the role (job!) requires and then LOSE them with the
>> >> same relative ease. NO, they are not super special
>> >> race. They just have enough motivation and resources
>> >> to get knowledge and help.
>> >
>> >Har, har. Sure, but how many of us have private chefs and personal
>> >trainers?
>>
>> Very few but that's irrelevant.
>>
>> >This analogy blows, dude.
>>
>> No, it does not! What this shows is that it is possible
>> in principle. So, when people say "dieting does not work
>> for me" they are dead wrong! (Compare to "some people can
>> moderate. I'm just not one of them"). What they must be
>> saying is "there is probably something very wrong with the
>> way _I_ diet" - and then the public, the medical
>> professionals, and the obese people themselves should
>> strive to find a _right_ way that will help them fight
>> obesity and SAVE LIVES (there is little doubt that a lot
>> more deaths in this country are consequence of overeating
>> than "overdrinking"). There is NO WAY mega $$ have to be
>> a prerequisite for getting rid of clinically dangerous
>> amount of fat.
>
>Then probably we don't really know enough about the psychology of motivation
>or the nature of alcoholism/addiction. So, what motivates the actor to be
>able to lose or gain weight "at will" for a particular role? The love of
>his craft? Pleasing adoring fans? That million$ paycheck?
>
>What would be sufficient motivation for most people to do something that is
>seemingly against the grain? What would sufficiently motivate an alcoholic
>to stop drinking, or as you suggest, to moderate or slow down to a
>societally acceptable level? For some there seems to be no sufficient
>motivation - not loss of loved ones, jobs, physical possessions or even life
>itself anyway. Same way with smoking or overeating. Why do some people,
>when told by their doctors that if they don't lose weight they will surely
>suffer some health catastrophe, still sneak the Twinkies and only put on a
>surface show of "getting healthy?"
>
>Hey, if the imminent loss of life itself isn't sufficient motivation for
>some people, then isn't this entire discussion pretty moot?

No it's for precisely the same reason why it makes no sense
to stop trying to cure _every_ cancer because some of cancers
are incurable for now.

Avid MD

"Craig S." <cspurlocktakethisout@takethisoutmtneer.net> wrote in message news:<10jc5aj8g2k1e4b@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Kai R" <soberon@nospam.luukku.com> wrote in message
> news:ch51b4$sob$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
>
> > resting heart rate of 37 bpm.
>
> Impressive.

That is the heart rate of a reptile,it may explain his personna.
"Sepp"

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:15:41 +0300, Kai R <soberon@nospam.luukku.com> wrote:

>Avid MD wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 09:17:45 +0300, Kai R <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Avid MD wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:49:37 +0200, "Mias" <emiasno@spamnetactive.co.za> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Are you an alcoholic or just a natural?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Before I decided this Spring that I must stop my self-destruction,
>>>>I fit nearly all commonly cited criteria for alcoholism (except
>>>>for blackouts which I only had couple times in my entire life).
>>>>
>>>
>>>And then you decided that the idea of total abstinence is so horrid
>>>you just cannot stomach it.
>>
>>
>> No. I started with total abstinence and AA and then started to
>> read about alcohol abuse, drug addictions, etc (including these
>> groups). Very soon it was rather obvious to me that 1) AA is not an
>> answer to anything but very sick minds,
>
>So the people here, including myself, who have found the help they
>need in AA, are very sick, but since AA is the answer to very sick
>minds, we're just where we're supposed to be. Right?

Yep. Hey, even catholic pedophiles are plenty good for some
of the sick souls.

>> 2) the total abstinence
>> approach does not work nearly well enough.
>
>Work well enough for what? Moderation?

For keeping a person from deleterious effects of alcohol abuse.

>> On the other hand,
>> moderation seemed to be at least as efficient and - based on my
>> own conclusions - most like much better.
>
>So let me get this straight. Based on your own conclusions, moderation
>works better in whatever what you're trying to achieve. So what's your
>problem, then, go ahead and moderate. The trouble with many people
>here is that we've tried to moderate very hard for prolonged periods
>of time and utterly failed at those attempts. Not everyone, but many.

And many, it seems, have hard time even entertaining a _possibility_
that they never tried it "correctly". The intolerance to any hints
about it is pretty extreme around here.

>> As I stated many
>> times before, the key here is to _learn_ the control on a very
>> deep level. Just saying "I will moderate" won't work.
>>
>
>As I stated earlier, the key here is what the hell motivates you to
>moderate so desperately?

AS I STATED EARLIER, it is the fact that total abstinence does
not really work for alcohol abuse and the relapse rate is
inexcusably high.

>Statistical benefits to the heart? Phleease.

Nope but it's a nice extra.

>And what the hell *is* "moderation", anyway?

Moderation is drinking to the extent that avoids health
dangers.

>If I could've "moderated"
>I wouldn't have had any problems with alcohol in the first place. My
>problem with booze is my inability to moderate.

Oh, here we have the same circular argument again. "If I could
have dieted, I wouldn't be obese already". Very childish, IMO.

Avid MD

"Avid MD" <avidmd@anonymousse.org> wrote in message
news:62ncj0tbmm5sm4bj1oj0ej8e5lk48kjnhv@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:37:49 -0400, "Craig S."
> <cspurlocktakethisout@takethisoutmtneer.net> wrote:

> >Hey, if the imminent loss of life itself isn't sufficient
motivation for
> >some people, then isn't this entire discussion pretty moot?
>
> No it's for precisely the same reason why it makes no sense
> to stop trying to cure _every_ cancer because some of cancers
> are incurable for now.
>

Is obsessional discourse incurable for now, after the humiliation of
being caught, drunk driving?

Bob