Your Beer, Your Kids And Your Attitude

[Newbiebrewer]

I grew up on the same method of little sips (mind you it was xxxx). When my teenage years came around, I had no real "need" to get blitzed. I think the real problem is Australian drinking culture. In my experience, getting drunk is seen as something to do to have a good time and I think cheap megaswill doesn't help.

 

[gone_fishing_]

Do you have any information to back any of these claims up?

eg. causes of diabetes (do Italians have a higher than average rate of diabetes 2?)

Children these days generally are fed pasta and/or rice. A big rise in childhood type 2 diabetes is a driving force behind the research articles. Soft drinks (including those with artificial sweeteners) are probably also to blame. Yes, there is quite a high incidence of type 2 diabetes in elderly italian individuals.

Numbers of high profile muslim researchers in alcohol and health research?

If you dont know of one in medical/health research then I can't help you there.

Percentage of peer reviewed papers that are factual (as in where does 10% come from)?

It is accepted that only ~10% of publications go on to realise benefit (actually its about 0.00001% but lets call it 10.

Pork probably is bad for you - most piggeries certainly aren't trying to produce the healthiest most natural product around. Any info on the health benefits of pork? Wild pig possibly has numerous health benefits like most game meats but the stuff we get sold in general?

Not affiliated with the pork industry but I do confess to eating crackling.

I'll eat bacon, drink myself stupid and quite happily walk through the CBD without thinking it's any worse than it was 10-15 years ago but I'm curious as to these fairly generalised statements you are making and whether there's substance to them that you haven't yet disclosed.

You didn't mention mainstream media?

Afterall, nowadays the children are exposed to automatic pesticide releasers (Im sure youve seen them on TV, every 30 mins, less than a 5 sec squirt, surface sprays that last 3 months??)

If your kids are having a "chug" if they are offered beer (or wine) then that is a problem.
An occassional sip is fine.

GF

 

[yardy]

The common theme is the lack of empathy. Most people are happy for things they don't care about to be banned, as long as they can still do the things they do care about.

quote of the day B)

my parents, old man especially, were pretty easy going with how they raised us, beer and boozing wre a big part of daily life, it was nothing for us boys to be sharing a tallie in the beergarden of a bush pub at 12 whilst the old boy was having a few, can remember driving him home down the highway at about 14 or 15.
although not responsible behaviour it wasn't rare or out of the ordinary at all, I'm sure some here will agree, Schooey knows the area

anyway, this upbringing was always going to get me into the ****, and that it did, lesson learned..

my kids, 12 and 14 are remimded of my mistakes with alcohol but also told of how responsible use of it is a good thing, they enjoy a glass of bucks fizz at xmas and always sample a small glass of my latest brew and are encouraged to give me feedback, always bad btw :lol:


i'm of the same opinion as someone else who posted here about encouraging the kids to be honest if they want to try something at give it a go at home in safe surroundings.

Dave

 

[Lecterfan]

I suspect that type 2 diabetes is being driven by consumption of PASTA and softdrinks.

Haha! Nice one ... a well founded suspicion, especially in children....WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN? Is eating at LaPorchetta going to be classified a type of abuse in years to come?

Unfortunately the disease (which is "technically" speaking not far away from being an epidemic based on current projections) is pretty highly linked to everyone's favourite form of kilojoules!

Plus it is easy to tar research with the brush of suspicion (hows that for a confused metaphor???) as arguably (very arguably) almost all research is based on some Gov funding, OR funded by an interest group/stakeholder. The %10 figure is an interesting one...I hope it didn't come from a credible peer reviewed source haha! Hmmm...I see a paradox on the horizon...


Anyway, it's all fun and games. I have technically just crossed the line into binge drinking for the day so I can now safely be stamped as temporarily non-autonomous.

edit: and case anyone is quick tempered or unable to decipher the nuance this post is intended to be lighthearted! RDWHAHB

 

[manticle]

. Yes, there is quite a high incidence of type 2 diabetes in elderly italian individuals.

Interesting. I'm not questioning whether or not that is true but where is your information coming from? If health research is as questionable as you claim, what is believable?

I have no doubt that highly loaded sugary drinks and refined and fast foods are contributing to higher incidence of diabetes 2- I think you'd find health research will agree with that too.

If you dont know of one in medical/health research then I can't help you there.

Not saying they don't exist - just questioning the assertion that the muslim community is driving the studies that result in showing alcohol has negative impacts on health. me knowing or not knowing one has no bearing on what you're suggesting.

It is accepted that only ~10% of publications go on to realise benefit (actually its about 0.00001% but lets call it 10.

Your original statement:

We also know that only about 10% of PRP are actually true

.

'Realise benefit' is a piece of jargon I'm not familiar with but I'm fairly certain it doesn't equate to 'is true'. Again, where does the 10% or 0.00001% or whatever) come from?

I'm not suggesting all peer reviewed studies are spot on or that funding etc won't have an influence on some outcomes but tha's a far cry from the corrolorary of what you claim - that 90% of ALL peer reviewed papers are false. Big claim. Needs back up.

Not affiliated with the pork industry but I do confess to eating crackling.

And so do I. Still not convinced the muslims are trying to make me stop.

You didn't mention mainstream media?

Afterall, nowadays the children are exposed to automatic pesticide releasers (Im sure youve seen them on TV, every 30 mins, less than a 5 sec squirt, surface sprays that last 3 months??)

If your kids are having a "chug" if they are offered beer (or wine) then that is a problem.
An occassional sip is fine.

GF

Well I don't have kids as specified earlier. I'm not sure what you mean by the mainstream media reference. If you are saying that your info comes from there and yet you are questioning the validity of 90% or peer reviewed papers then I'm a little confused.

If you mean mainstream media is reporting higher incidences of violence and you reckon it's bollocks well we are in agreement.

You've just made some very specific claims and it's not clear what reason you have for making them.

 

[gone_fishing_]

Haha! Nice one ... a well founded suspicion, especially in children....WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN? Is eating at LaPorchetta going to be classified a type of abuse in years to come?

Probably, either whether you gave it to them or not .

Unfortunately the disease (which is "technically" speaking not far away from being an epidemic based on current projections) is pretty highly linked to everyone's favourite form of kilojoules!

I assume you are talking about non-insulin dependant or acquired or Type 2 diabetes?

Plus it is easy to tar research with the brush of suspicion (hows that for a confused metaphor???) as arguably (very arguably) almost all research is based on some Gov funding, OR funded by an interest group/stakeholder.

Not easy to tar research, just some of it is crap. It is all definately funded entirely by Govt. funding and/or interest groups.

The %10 figure is an interesting one...I hope it didn't come from a credible peer reviewed source haha!


GF

 

[warra48]

I have no doubt that highly loaded sugary drinks and refined and fast foods are contributing to higher incidence of diabetes 2- I think you'd find health research will agree with that too.

And there's the rub with a lot with modern diets.

General consumption of sugar has sky rocketed over the last 20 to 30 years. It's not just in drinks, it's also in many processed foods and convenience meals, consumption of which has also sky rocketed. The bad part of sugar is the fructose component of sugar.

I've dropped 10 kg from my weight in the last 8 months by doing nothing more than limiting my sugar intake as much as I could where I recognise it as sugar. I drink the same volume of beer ( average 1 longneck a day) as before, eat the same food (a lot of it from my vege patch), but cut out crap such as biscuits, chocolate, sweets. My exercise is the same as before, working around the house and yard, and golf twice a week.

By the way, beer is not fattening, as the sugar in beer is primarily maltose, not fructose. We can metabolise and burn maltose, whereas fructose goes straight to fat.

If you want to know more, read the book "Sweet Poison". Google it if you need to.

Mrs warra did the same thing a couple of years ago when she got frightened by her probable genetic pre-disposition to diabetes II (her mother has it), and a not good blood sugar level. She's back to her weight she was when we were married in 1975, a slender 50 kg.

 

[MarkBastard]

If we all followed the guidelines of the expert scientists and medical professionals we'd all be living to 100 hooked up to machines and dropping 20 pharmaceutical pills every day of our lives over the age of 80.

There is a fundamental error in the calculations these people use, and that error is the assumption that the ultimate goal of every human being is to live for as long as possible at ANY cost. It's the same old quantity/quality debate I suppose.

They talk about the 'cost' of alcohol, diabetes or whatever on society, and they're probably right but I bet they're not looking at the bigger picture. If everyone followed their guidelines and lived so much longer, I reckon the 'cost' of this aging population, in money terms and standard of living terms, would be massive.

It's like roads, if everyone followed road rules to a tee in terms of going the speed limit, but more importantly the gap they leave between themselves and the car in front of them when moving and when stopped at lights, I reckon it'd take a hell of a lot longer to get to your destination. The result would be more cars on the road at any given time, and this could have a compounding affect. I'm not convinced this would make roads safer.

Back to the topic, if I couldn't do the things I like doing that are apparently "bad" the last thing I'd want to do is live longer.

 

[pbrosnan]

It's interesting to note that the liquor industry is something of a protected species in this country when it comes to health warnings a encouragement of so called responsible drinking. Contrasted with the tobacco industry it has suffered only a very light touch with regard to being forced to highlight the dangers of drinking to individuals and the community. It's possible to make the argument that tobacco has not safe minimum dosage and is thus nastier whereas a small amount of alcohol is relatively harmless. I think this argument ignores the fact that alcohol has an effect well beyond the individual. More should be made of the toll that excessive booze consumption has a families and strangers. Keeping alcohol under control and dealing with the consequences of the states of mind induced by overconsumption must be enormous. The current efforts by the industry don't seem to be having much impact. I don think that something needs to be done to counter the industry's promotion of irresponsible drinking.

 

[gone_fishing_]

Interesting. I'm not questioning whether or not that is true but where is your information coming from? If health research is as questionable as you claim, what is believable?

I have no doubt that highly loaded sugary drinks and refined and fast foods are contributing to higher incidence of diabetes 2- I think you'd find health research will agree with that too.



Not saying they don't exist - just questioning the assertion that the muslim community is driving the studies that result in showing alcohol has negative impacts on health. me knowing or not knowing one has no bearing on what you're suggesting.



Your original statement: .

'Realise benefit' is a piece of jargon I'm not familiar with but I'm fairly certain it doesn't equate to 'is true'. Again, where does the 10% or 0.00001% or whatever) come from?

I'm not suggesting all peer reviewed studies are spot on or that funding etc won't have an influence on some outcomes but tha's a far cry from the corrolorary of what you claim - that 90% of ALL peer reviewed papers are false. Big claim. Needs back up.



And so do I. Still not convinced the muslims are trying to make me stop.



Well I don't have kids as specified earlier. I'm not sure what you mean by the mainstream media reference. If you are saying that your info comes from there and yet you are questioning the validity of 90% or peer reviewed papers then I'm a little confused.

If you mean mainstream media is reporting higher incidences of violence and you reckon it's bollocks well we are in agreement.

You've just made some very specific claims and it's not clear what reason you have for making them.

Not sure of your input on this topic. Do you have peer reviewed evidence to the contrary?

GF

 

[leiothrix]

It's interesting to note that the liquor industry is something of a protected species in this country when it comes to health warnings a encouragement of so called responsible drinking. Contrasted with the tobacco industry it has suffered only a very light touch with regard to being forced to highlight the dangers of drinking to individuals and the community. It's possible to make the argument that tobacco has not safe minimum dosage and is thus nastier whereas a small amount of alcohol is relatively harmless. I think this argument ignores the fact that alcohol has an effect well beyond the individual. More should be made of the toll that excessive booze consumption has a families and strangers. Keeping alcohol under control and dealing with the consequences of the states of mind induced by overconsumption must be enormous. The current efforts by the industry don't seem to be having much impact. I don think that something needs to be done to counter the industry's promotion of irresponsible drinking.

I think that the big difference between smoking and drinking is that drinking actually has a point.

Smoking just makes you stink, and that's about it. It doesn't make you feel good, it makes you feel normal. The problem is people get confused. They get withdrawal symptoms & feel like ****, so have a smoke and feel good. The brain makes that as smoking == feeling good, when it is really just feeling as you should.

Drinking on the other hand does give a buzz (and not one born of hypoxia ). How much of a buzz obviously depends on how much you have, but for most people having a drink today doesn't mean you must have a drink tomorrow or you'll feel like crap.

 

[gone_fishing_]

I don think that something needs to be done to counter the industry's promotion of irresponsible drinking.

Did you mean something needs to be done about "over the counter prescription" medicines?

How many freaks driving on "legal" and "healthy" (of course) over the counter drugs?

Im sure that on a homebrewing forum that I couldn't offend either the drug making industry or those who support Islam. But hey, thats just me
GF

 

[MarkBastard]

It's interesting to note that the liquor industry is something of a protected species in this country when it comes to health warnings a encouragement of so called responsible drinking. Contrasted with the tobacco industry it has suffered only a very light touch with regard to being forced to highlight the dangers of drinking to individuals and the community. It's possible to make the argument that tobacco has not safe minimum dosage and is thus nastier whereas a small amount of alcohol is relatively harmless. I think this argument ignores the fact that alcohol has an effect well beyond the individual. More should be made of the toll that excessive booze consumption has a families and strangers. Keeping alcohol under control and dealing with the consequences of the states of mind induced by overconsumption must be enormous. The current efforts by the industry don't seem to be having much impact. I don think that something needs to be done to counter the industry's promotion of irresponsible drinking.

Wowser

 

[waggastew]

It's interesting to note that the liquor industry is something of a protected species in this country when it comes to health warnings a encouragement of so called responsible drinking. Contrasted with the tobacco industry it has suffered only a very light touch with regard to being forced to highlight the dangers of drinking to individuals and the community. It's possible to make the argument that tobacco has not safe minimum dosage and is thus nastier whereas a small amount of alcohol is relatively harmless. I think this argument ignores the fact that alcohol has an effect well beyond the individual. More should be made of the toll that excessive booze consumption has a families and strangers. Keeping alcohol under control and dealing with the consequences of the states of mind induced by overconsumption must be enormous. The current efforts by the industry don't seem to be having much impact. I don think that something needs to be done to counter the industry's promotion of irresponsible drinking.

I agree. There has to be a balance but currently in my opinion the balance is to far to the excess side. Australian's as a population do not drink responsibly in terms of their health, relationships, social interactions etc. This is particularly true for our young adults. Unfortunately the trend in the last twenty years has been for people to begin serious drinking at a much younger age (i.e. 13-15). I have no doubt we will look back at this as a real sea change in Aussie drink culture, unfortunately for the worse.

Interestingly enough the fastest growing age group for alcohol related harm is the over 50's. We are seeing a whole bunch of empty nesters who have the funds and the time to drink whenever they want. If they are retired every day is the 'weekend'. At my local hospital over 60% of alcohol related admissions are in the over 50 age group (not the violent 19yo's!). Apparently a bottle of chardonnay, aging balance, and a small set of steps don't mix.

I also believe that Australian's have to loosen the bonds between drinking and many of our everyday activities. It is inconceivable for many people to go to a party and not have a few drinks. It is also impossible for many to think about celebrating an occasion (birthday/xmas/anniversary/end of the week) without a drink. As an example at my workplace if you do something above and beyond you get a bottle of wine. If its the end of the week you have a beer. If you have an after-hours meeting you have a beer. Much of the Friday conversations revolve around 'gee I could murder a beer' etc etc.

Everyone on here who has expressed their opinions has done more than many Australians in that they have reflected on their own drinking habits. I think that needs to be encouraged along with healthy discussions such as this. Its not about judging or imposing my standards on anyone else but people being informed and comfortable with their own patterns of drinking.

On a personal note I am back to work tomorrow after some holidays. Will be back to drinking on Fri and Sat night only, and keeping it to four beers a night. I am comfortable with this level, it works for me. It also keeps the temptation of a keg setup under control!

Cheers guys!

 

[waggz]

Hi People, first post long time lurker. My daughter, almost 4 has always liked beer, thinks its delicious, even my bitter stuff. I'd only ever give her the smallest sip, pretty much wet her lips with the head and maybe some liquid gold and i never really thought too much about it, cant be enougth alcohol to hurt anyone.

Last week end we ate at the local with my parents and she was calling her squash her beer, ' i want more beer" in front of friends and waitresses all night. I felt pretty uncomfortable.

Ive recently split with the missus, and started smoking again ( after 9 years ) and she has even started mimicking my smoking, so its got me worried about how i act around the kids, they're just so impressionable.

Just my 2c.

 

[jyo]

I allow my kids a sip every now and then.
I drink about 4-6 beers a night.
I have binged.
I suspect that alot of this "research" into the ill effects of alcohol is being driven by the muslim communities

GF

How a thread on allowing/not allowing children to drink alcohol has been redirected towards a discussion on research conducted and driven by Muslim communities is confusing. I'm off to watch Today Tonight.

 

[Oatlands Brewer]

First off...a bloody good thread discussion guys..

I grew up in a Italian household and also spent the years between the ages of 8 to 19 in the pub trade, mum and dad had 3 pubs in country WA.

Both my brother and I were brought up with no restriction to booze, and wine was had at pretty much all meals, We grew up with a resect for it and an education of it and no need to sneak behind mum and dads back even though we had a pretty much inexhaustable supply.

Ive never seen either my mum or dad drunk even at big events like weddings or funerals even though alc is consumed and most times at fair qty's, nor many of my uncles and aunts i think its a cultural thing more than anything.

Growing up in pubs (living on premises) you also get to see the ugly side of booze and the effects it has, i think this was also a re-enforcment of the correct use of alcohol.

Now with my own family, to this day we still have wine with 99% of meals and i would go through on average 6-8 beers a week of all varietys.

I have a nearly 3 year old boy and he is being bought up just the same way I was, the thing i freak out about....and i mean really freak out about is other drugs like heroin and anphetamines.
My best mate has a 17 year old son who has just gone down this terrible path and its heart breaking to watching him and wife tear themselves apart trying to save him.

I dont know but it just seems to be a much more serious and dangerous world for kids growing up these days, and everything seems to be done too more extremes these days

 

[Lecterfan]

By the way, beer is not fattening, as the sugar in beer is primarily maltose, not fructose. We can metabolise and burn maltose, whereas fructose goes straight to fat.

If you want to know more, read the book "Sweet Poison". Google it if you need to.

That is a fascinating point, and one that I think people don't take into account. We don't metabolise alcohol kilojoules in the same way (i.e. we burn them, they don't turn to fat), but kilojoules that we ingest after the alcohol DOES turn to fat while we are still metabolising the alcohol. It is unfortunately easy to use this fact to develop a false economoy of KJ and alcohol consumption.

For those of us who are fructose malabsorpent we DON'T metabolise the fructose at all...it shoots out of us much the same way it went in hee hee (I laugh but it's not fun...losing 10 kgs from excessively sh*tting your insides out for 6 months isn't fun for anyone).

If I ingest 5000kj from grog (pretty easy to do), my body will continue to burn off those kj without metabolising them into fat cells...but everything I ingest after that initial 5000kj (and while I am utilising that 5000kj) will turn to fat.

Hey...I love the "beer/alcohol is good for you" news reports as much as the next guy, but lets not kid ourselves...


Again, just my 2c...what would I know? I am only as good as the empirical sources that my research and subsequent opinions are based on (which I admit are as flawed as anything else...and if we bring Nietzsche into we can even question the phenomena vs noumena debate!).


edit: to gone fishing - see the quote at the start of post #44 I am replying to...yes, it is type 2 I am discussing.

 

[Hatchy]

How a thread on allowing/not allowing children to drink alcohol has been redirected towards a discussion on research conducted and driven by Muslim communities is confusing. I'm off to watch Today Tonight.

I'll watch a current affair & we can report back on what we "learn".

 

[DUANNE]

If we all followed the guidelines of the expert scientists and medical professionals we'd all be living to 100 hooked up to machines and dropping 20 pharmaceutical pills every day of our lives over the age of 80.

There is a fundamental error in the calculations these people use, and that error is the assumption that the ultimate goal of every human being is to live for as long as possible at ANY cost. It's the same old quantity/quality debate I suppose.

They talk about the 'cost' of alcohol, diabetes or whatever on society, and they're probably right but I bet they're not looking at the bigger picture. If everyone followed their guidelines and lived so much longer, I reckon the 'cost' of this aging population, in money terms and standard of living terms, would be massive.

It's like roads, if everyone followed road rules to a tee in terms of going the speed limit, but more importantly the gap they leave between themselves and the car in front of them when moving and when stopped at lights, I reckon it'd take a hell of a lot longer to get to your destination. The result would be more cars on the road at any given time, and this could have a compounding affect. I'm not convinced this would make roads safer.

Back to the topic, if I couldn't do the things I like doing that are apparently "bad" the last thing I'd want to do is live longer.

t
ive got two points neither overly serious but, they want us to live to 100 so we can keep working and paying tax to fund the politicions ridiculouse pay rises all the time, and i dont know about qld but in melbourne without the revenue cameras the state would be broke within a week. governments on both sides at the moment are in it for themselves and not for us the poor basterds that pay there wage.