Anonymous wrote:I haven’t measured my wine glass I use but it is SMALL as far as wine glasses go. I will measure the oz it holds when I get home from work tonight. The hard seltzers are the standard can - White Claw - and I think they say 5% alcohol.

FWIW, I have not had any alcohol this month and I don’t feel much different (as far as quality of sleep, daytime clarity, physical aspects). I feel like that bodes well for me that I’m truly staying in the “1 drink per day” category. I’m not trying to defend my habit and I’m clearly trying to cut back bc of DH’s concerns. I’m just conveying that not too much is different for me in terms of pros/cons how I feel, operate, sleep, etc.

Going to keep alcohol-free at least until February!

-OP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If OP in fact is alcohol-dependent and/or has an alcohol use disorder, she needs more than just cessation for 30 days to prove to her husband (who might be a rational concerned spouse or might be a controlling whack job or anywhere in between--we haven't heard from her again) that she can. She needs treatment.

Oh--she has been back! And she says she loves and respects him, and she is prepared to accept his concerns regarding the 7% increased risk of breast cancer. So: it's all good. Cool your jets, DCUM.

Was the 7% increase equal to one drink a day?

That small of an increase wouldn't stop me from drinking exactly one drink a day. Neither does my 28 BMI.

Each daily drink is a 7% increase. So two drinks a day would be a 14% increase.

Can you provide the citation for this, please? I’m not finding it.

See links I've provided above (DP). Within the links are other links to the research studies. There is no question that poster's assertion is in line with the science. Sorry! Time to reconsider those daily pours of wine.

You’re not sorry at all, you enjoy being a sanctimonious tw7t.

Science is not sanctimonious, poster.

Being anti-science is more than a little bit sad, especially when it comes to railing against science that points to you drinking your way into an early grave. You are entirely within your rights to make whatever life choices you want to make, but to be angry and bitter and feel the need to call out the science and the messenger who is merely seeking to educate?

I guarantee you that there are at least a dozen posters who read this thread or contributed to it and who didn't have the actual current science on the detrimental effects of even low and moderate alcohol consumption - that science is new within the last few years, after years of messaging low to moderate use is healthy.

I'm sure just as many had their eyes opened regarding alcohol units as measured by health officials in all that research with statistics on frequency of consumption and cancer risk, versus alcohol units as perceived by the average casual drinker. Most low to moderate alcohol drinkers are actually drinking 2-3 times more alcohol units than they realize in terms of how it impacts health.

And of course the newest science based advice, which is to avoid alcohol entirely and cultivate healthier habits for stress or mood management.

Okay, now you've doubled down on being sanctimonious by writing "blah, blah, blah, POSTER." You just love hearing yourself talk (type).

Also, if you think that people only drink because of stress relief, you're nuts. Why do people toast at weddings? Stress relief?

Dp. You are very defensive, pp. Alcohol affects ones mood beyond the time of drinking. Dry out for a month and report back.

Okay, if you'll have a few drinks so you can unclench and remove the stick from your ass.

I'd sooner smoke crack than drink.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If OP in fact is alcohol-dependent and/or has an alcohol use disorder, she needs more than just cessation for 30 days to prove to her husband (who might be a rational concerned spouse or might be a controlling whack job or anywhere in between--we haven't heard from her again) that she can. She needs treatment.

Oh--she has been back! And she says she loves and respects him, and she is prepared to accept his concerns regarding the 7% increased risk of breast cancer. So: it's all good. Cool your jets, DCUM.

Was the 7% increase equal to one drink a day?

That small of an increase wouldn't stop me from drinking exactly one drink a day. Neither does my 28 BMI.

Each daily drink is a 7% increase. So two drinks a day would be a 14% increase.

Can you provide the citation for this, please? I’m not finding it.

See links I've provided above (DP). Within the links are other links to the research studies. There is no question that poster's assertion is in line with the science. Sorry! Time to reconsider those daily pours of wine.

You’re not sorry at all, you enjoy being a sanctimonious tw7t.

Science is not sanctimonious, poster.

Being anti-science is more than a little bit sad, especially when it comes to railing against science that points to you drinking your way into an early grave. You are entirely within your rights to make whatever life choices you want to make, but to be angry and bitter and feel the need to call out the science and the messenger who is merely seeking to educate?

I guarantee you that there are at least a dozen posters who read this thread or contributed to it and who didn't have the actual current science on the detrimental effects of even low and moderate alcohol consumption - that science is new within the last few years, after years of messaging low to moderate use is healthy.

I'm sure just as many had their eyes opened regarding alcohol units as measured by health officials in all that research with statistics on frequency of consumption and cancer risk, versus alcohol units as perceived by the average casual drinker. Most low to moderate alcohol drinkers are actually drinking 2-3 times more alcohol units than they realize in terms of how it impacts health.

And of course the newest science based advice, which is to avoid alcohol entirely and cultivate healthier habits for stress or mood management.

Okay, now you've doubled down on being sanctimonious by writing "blah, blah, blah, POSTER." You just love hearing yourself talk (type).

Also, if you think that people only drink because of stress relief, you're nuts. Why do people toast at weddings? Stress relief?

Dp. You are very defensive, pp. Alcohol affects ones mood beyond the time of drinking. Dry out for a month and report back.

Okay, if you'll have a few drinks so you can unclench and remove the stick from your ass.

I'd sooner smoke crack than drink.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If OP in fact is alcohol-dependent and/or has an alcohol use disorder, she needs more than just cessation for 30 days to prove to her husband (who might be a rational concerned spouse or might be a controlling whack job or anywhere in between--we haven't heard from her again) that she can. She needs treatment.

Oh--she has been back! And she says she loves and respects him, and she is prepared to accept his concerns regarding the 7% increased risk of breast cancer. So: it's all good. Cool your jets, DCUM.

Was the 7% increase equal to one drink a day?

That small of an increase wouldn't stop me from drinking exactly one drink a day. Neither does my 28 BMI.

Each daily drink is a 7% increase. So two drinks a day would be a 14% increase.

Can you provide the citation for this, please? I’m not finding it.

See links I've provided above (DP). Within the links are other links to the research studies. There is no question that poster's assertion is in line with the science. Sorry! Time to reconsider those daily pours of wine.

You’re not sorry at all, you enjoy being a sanctimonious tw7t.

Science is not sanctimonious, poster.

Being anti-science is more than a little bit sad, especially when it comes to railing against science that points to you drinking your way into an early grave. You are entirely within your rights to make whatever life choices you want to make, but to be angry and bitter and feel the need to call out the science and the messenger who is merely seeking to educate?

I guarantee you that there are at least a dozen posters who read this thread or contributed to it and who didn't have the actual current science on the detrimental effects of even low and moderate alcohol consumption - that science is new within the last few years, after years of messaging low to moderate use is healthy.

I'm sure just as many had their eyes opened regarding alcohol units as measured by health officials in all that research with statistics on frequency of consumption and cancer risk, versus alcohol units as perceived by the average casual drinker. Most low to moderate alcohol drinkers are actually drinking 2-3 times more alcohol units than they realize in terms of how it impacts health.

And of course the newest science based advice, which is to avoid alcohol entirely and cultivate healthier habits for stress or mood management.

Okay, now you've doubled down on being sanctimonious by writing "blah, blah, blah, POSTER." You just love hearing yourself talk (type).

Also, if you think that people only drink because of stress relief, you're nuts. Why do people toast at weddings? Stress relief?

Dp. You are very defensive, pp. Alcohol affects ones mood beyond the time of drinking. Dry out for a month and report back.

Okay, if you'll have a few drinks so you can unclench and remove the stick from your ass.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If OP in fact is alcohol-dependent and/or has an alcohol use disorder, she needs more than just cessation for 30 days to prove to her husband (who might be a rational concerned spouse or might be a controlling whack job or anywhere in between--we haven't heard from her again) that she can. She needs treatment.

Oh--she has been back! And she says she loves and respects him, and she is prepared to accept his concerns regarding the 7% increased risk of breast cancer. So: it's all good. Cool your jets, DCUM.

Was the 7% increase equal to one drink a day?

That small of an increase wouldn't stop me from drinking exactly one drink a day. Neither does my 28 BMI.

Each daily drink is a 7% increase. So two drinks a day would be a 14% increase.

Can you provide the citation for this, please? I’m not finding it.

See links I've provided above (DP). Within the links are other links to the research studies. There is no question that poster's assertion is in line with the science. Sorry! Time to reconsider those daily pours of wine.

You’re not sorry at all, you enjoy being a sanctimonious tw7t.

Science is not sanctimonious, poster.

Being anti-science is more than a little bit sad, especially when it comes to railing against science that points to you drinking your way into an early grave. You are entirely within your rights to make whatever life choices you want to make, but to be angry and bitter and feel the need to call out the science and the messenger who is merely seeking to educate?

I guarantee you that there are at least a dozen posters who read this thread or contributed to it and who didn't have the actual current science on the detrimental effects of even low and moderate alcohol consumption - that science is new within the last few years, after years of messaging low to moderate use is healthy.

I'm sure just as many had their eyes opened regarding alcohol units as measured by health officials in all that research with statistics on frequency of consumption and cancer risk, versus alcohol units as perceived by the average casual drinker. Most low to moderate alcohol drinkers are actually drinking 2-3 times more alcohol units than they realize in terms of how it impacts health.

And of course the newest science based advice, which is to avoid alcohol entirely and cultivate healthier habits for stress or mood management.

Okay, now you've doubled down on being sanctimonious by writing "blah, blah, blah, POSTER." You just love hearing yourself talk (type).

Also, if you think that people only drink because of stress relief, you're nuts. Why do people toast at weddings? Stress relief?

Dp. You are very defensive, pp. Alcohol affects ones mood beyond the time of drinking. Dry out for a month and report back.

Anonymous wrote:I dont think there is an oceanic divide between "alcoholic" and "normal drinker" but rather a continuum. I know because I am on this continuum. I have a drink a day, generally, and while it has no significant perceived negative impact on my life, it probably is not good for my health. It is a bad habit, with some health consequences, and it is hard to break. There are lots of reasons for this (dopamine) and alcohol is everywhere, so unlike smoking its not stigmatized (until you become an alcoholic).

anyway, OP, I am trying to cut down myself. I find that if I make it past the time where I normall have a glass of wine--between 5:30 and 7:30, I dont really want it after that. However I have a harder time breaking this habit than my husband, and I wonder if its genetic--my grandmother was an alcoholic and my father has always enjoyed alcohol though he is disciplined in amount if not frequency.


If you are curious about learning more, the Huberman podcast episode on alcohol is super interesting (also, after, you are like "I'm never drinking again' and then you drink again and its like "he's right about the habit forming effects").

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If OP in fact is alcohol-dependent and/or has an alcohol use disorder, she needs more than just cessation for 30 days to prove to her husband (who might be a rational concerned spouse or might be a controlling whack job or anywhere in between--we haven't heard from her again) that she can. She needs treatment.

Oh--she has been back! And she says she loves and respects him, and she is prepared to accept his concerns regarding the 7% increased risk of breast cancer. So: it's all good. Cool your jets, DCUM.

Was the 7% increase equal to one drink a day?

That small of an increase wouldn't stop me from drinking exactly one drink a day. Neither does my 28 BMI.

Each daily drink is a 7% increase. So two drinks a day would be a 14% increase.

Can you provide the citation for this, please? I’m not finding it.

See links I've provided above (DP). Within the links are other links to the research studies. There is no question that poster's assertion is in line with the science. Sorry! Time to reconsider those daily pours of wine.

You’re not sorry at all, you enjoy being a sanctimonious tw7t.

Science is not sanctimonious, poster.

Being anti-science is more than a little bit sad, especially when it comes to railing against science that points to you drinking your way into an early grave. You are entirely within your rights to make whatever life choices you want to make, but to be angry and bitter and feel the need to call out the science and the messenger who is merely seeking to educate?

I guarantee you that there are at least a dozen posters who read this thread or contributed to it and who didn't have the actual current science on the detrimental effects of even low and moderate alcohol consumption - that science is new within the last few years, after years of messaging low to moderate use is healthy.

I'm sure just as many had their eyes opened regarding alcohol units as measured by health officials in all that research with statistics on frequency of consumption and cancer risk, versus alcohol units as perceived by the average casual drinker. Most low to moderate alcohol drinkers are actually drinking 2-3 times more alcohol units than they realize in terms of how it impacts health.

And of course the newest science based advice, which is to avoid alcohol entirely and cultivate healthier habits for stress or mood management.

Okay, now you've doubled down on being sanctimonious by writing "blah, blah, blah, POSTER." You just love hearing yourself talk (type).

Also, if you think that people only drink because of stress relief, you're nuts. Why do people toast at weddings? Stress relief?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If OP in fact is alcohol-dependent and/or has an alcohol use disorder, she needs more than just cessation for 30 days to prove to her husband (who might be a rational concerned spouse or might be a controlling whack job or anywhere in between--we haven't heard from her again) that she can. She needs treatment.

Oh--she has been back! And she says she loves and respects him, and she is prepared to accept his concerns regarding the 7% increased risk of breast cancer. So: it's all good. Cool your jets, DCUM.

Was the 7% increase equal to one drink a day?

That small of an increase wouldn't stop me from drinking exactly one drink a day. Neither does my 28 BMI.

Each daily drink is a 7% increase. So two drinks a day would be a 14% increase.

Can you provide the citation for this, please? I’m not finding it.

See links I've provided above (DP). Within the links are other links to the research studies. There is no question that poster's assertion is in line with the science. Sorry! Time to reconsider those daily pours of wine.

You’re not sorry at all, you enjoy being a sanctimonious tw7t.

Science is not sanctimonious, poster.

Being anti-science is more than a little bit sad, especially when it comes to railing against science that points to you drinking your way into an early grave. You are entirely within your rights to make whatever life choices you want to make, but to be angry and bitter and feel the need to call out the science and the messenger who is merely seeking to educate?

I guarantee you that there are at least a dozen posters who read this thread or contributed to it and who didn't have the actual current science on the detrimental effects of even low and moderate alcohol consumption - that science is new within the last few years, after years of messaging low to moderate use is healthy.

I'm sure just as many had their eyes opened regarding alcohol units as measured by health officials in all that research with statistics on frequency of consumption and cancer risk, versus alcohol units as perceived by the average casual drinker. Most low to moderate alcohol drinkers are actually drinking 2-3 times more alcohol units than they realize in terms of how it impacts health.

And of course the newest science based advice, which is to avoid alcohol entirely and cultivate healthier habits for stress or mood management.