Dry January anyone.

[derrick]

So far I've drank beer every day this year.

Just as it should be, everything in moderation.

 

[mjr]

A lot of the people on here drink too much, too often at home. Whatever their definition of 'too much'.
Including me, which is why I'm making an effort and the dry January is a good kickstarter.
I'm not sure why you're so keen to demean those efforts.

Because I disagree that "the dry January is a good kickstarter", as stopping for a month, especially if it's by trying to avoid places where alcohol is common, and then resuming isn't cutting down. It's an unhealthy flip-flop problem attitude to alcohol which is sadly too common in this country. If you need/want to cut down, then cut down and I will cheer you all the way!

 

[mjr]

We know your views about people's attitudes to alcohol,

I feel you've pretty conclusively demonstrated that you don't know - or at least don't understand them.

but we don't know why you think you are such an expert. Perhaps you don't understand what it's like to suspect that you are becoming dependent on something like booze?

PM me if you want to know my experiences but it's not really relevant. People can think for themselves and look things up. Proof by appeal to authority is a type of fallacy.

If someone manages to abstain from alcohol for a month and that makes them realise they can in fact drink less and still have a happy life, then that is a very good thing and being preached at that it's not the right approach is very unhelpful and annoying.

Is it likely, though? Equally, being preached at that abstaining for a month is a good approach is very unhelpful and annoying.

 

[mjr]

We know because you have been disparaging this idea since page 3 of this thread. It only needed saying the once you know.

Clearly not, as someone was still "not sure" by this page.

If you feel you are being 'preached at' by this thread, don't read it.

I'm sure the flip-flop preachers would love to go unchallenged, but it's not good for public health to let them.

 

[vickster]

Can January only have 30.5 days this year please...I'm seriously going to need a drink tonight (I hope of the fizzy variety)...!

 

[nickyboy]

I had a 10 day hiatus in mid Jan due to a business trip, so I'm forced to keep going to Feb 10

 

[subaqua]

Mr R says there is increasing evidence that 'Dry January' can lead to long term changes in people's drinking habits and attitudes to alcohol (just as there is evidence that those who manage to stop smoking for 28 days are more likely to give up) ...

...but - hey ho - what would he know, eh?

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/rules-for-appropriate-debate.213537/

 

[mjr]

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/rules-for-appropriate-debate.213537/

Yeah, a source for that claim would be great.

 

[mjr]

What? The claim that Mr R (a consultant psychiatrist specialising in drugs and alcohol) says there is increasing evidence that 'Dry January' can lead to long term changes in people's drinking habits and attitudes to alcohol (just as there is evidence that those who manage to stop smoking for 28 days are more likely to give up)?

There's research referenced by the Institute of Alcohol Studies for example (and the reviews of subsequent years' show the same sort of things) - or there's evidence from 'FebFast' (which is the Australian version of Dry January). The evidence is still emerging (Dry January being a relatively new phenomena) but the concept is already developing into programmes such as 'Have a little less'.

No disrespect to Mr R but that's the fallacy of appeal to authority, but those links are far more interesting.

The IAS link is strange. It names Richard de Visser as the lead researcher, but the research doesn't appear to be in his linked publication list, so it's difficult to comment on the reliability of the summary. I don't trust the so-called Institute of Alcohol Studies as an unbiased reporter because it's a subsidiary of the Alliance House Foundation "Promoting Temperance and an Alcohol Free lifestyle. Celebrating the proud history of the Temperance and Total Abstinence Movement".

The febfast one has obvious weaknesses resulting from being a self-selected response group and to be fair, the authors mention it in a few places (such as how the demographics of the respondents doesn't match the demographics of participants) and summarise the flaws arising from self-reporting in the final paragraph: "The study design was cross-sectional, and as such we are unable to state with absolute confidence that participants’ alcohol consumption reduced as a result of febfast. This is because estimates of alcohol consumption patterns were self-reported and relied on recall and therefore may be prone to bias." It wouldn't be a surprise if people who remember it favourably enough to dwell on the experience doing a voluntary survey were more likely the ones who felt it helped them.

The development into "have a little less" is heartening and very much in line with my point of view.

 

[vickster]

Can January only have 30.5 days this year please...I'm seriously going to need a drink tonight (I hope of the fizzy variety)...!

Or not... (well I still need a drink but it might be less fizzy)

 

[vickster]

Well, if you were Jewish you could go have a drink after nightfall tonight....

Not been for a generation unfortunately

 

[vickster]

Ah.... some Jews would argue you still are. Win, win!

They might not be so keen on my confirmation into C of E about 30 years hence

 

[mjr]

Lets see your evidence to the opposite then?

It's very difficult to prove the null hypothesis - that there is no significant effect from the intervention - which is why it's normal that experiments to try to disprove the null. That febfast one seems better than most I've read, but still basically doesn't show much because of the limitations they mention.

I don't have the resources now to conduct a more robust independent assessment - would you fund it?

I have a feeling that any evidence produced that doesn't match your preconceptions will be dismissed out of hand...

Is that why you've switched to personal attacks instead of even trying to find credible evidence? I now wonder whether including a summary from part of the temperance movement was deliberate rather than an innocent mistake!

If my belief is so far wrong, how do they justify the move to "have a little less"? Don't they suspect it will achieve better results than flip-flopping?

Also, I'm a statistician, so I accept that my prior belief may be incorrect.

They might not be so keen on my confirmation into C of E about 30 years hence

Hey, nobody's perfect!

 

[mjr]

This....



... is not a null hypothesis.

Nor is it the opposite of the claim that dry January is healthy, which is what you actually asked for!

 

[subaqua]

What? The claim that Mr R (a consultant psychiatrist specialising in drugs and alcohol) says there is increasing evidence that 'Dry January' can lead to long term changes in people's drinking habits and attitudes to alcohol (just as there is evidence that those who manage to stop smoking for 28 days are more likely to give up)?

There's research referenced by the Institute of Alcohol Studies for example (and the reviews of subsequent years' show the same sort of things) - or there's evidence from 'FebFast' (which is the Australian version of Dry January). The evidence is still emerging (Dry January being a relatively new phenomena) but the concept is already developing into programmes such as 'Have a little less'.

See how hard was that ... thank you for some real evidence for those that want it .

Me I tend to agree with you in that it does change habits . Much the same as changing eating habits is helped by avoiding pies for a few weeks (ok avoiding pies not so much but changing how and when and quantity )