Gamblers vs. non-gamblers, 11-16s, UK, past seven days
Two-fifths of child gamblers between the ages of 11 and 16 drank an alcoholic drink in the previous seven days, four times the rate among non-gamblers, according to a survey published today by the UK government gambling regulator. ■
A rational explanation of why alcohol consumption and high-achievement so often seem to go hand-in-hand may help us find better alternatives.
Open a newspaper and we will often read of actors, sports stars, writers, artists and politicians who got ahead as heavy alcohol drinkers, albeit often with unhappy results in the long term.
Just last week Casey Legler, a French American freestyle swimmer, told of how she broke an Olympic record at the age of 19 while she was drinking a lot and suffering abuse.
On a more everyday level too we will all probably know someone—or, perhaps, be someone—who is wildly successful while also clocking up eye-watering bar bills.
The belief heavy drinking and success go together is encapsulated in the, “Work hard. Play hard,” ethos of many groups, where “playing hard” is a euphemism for sinking more than a few drinks.
It needs a rethink. There’s no problem with working hard, if you want to achieve something, but, “Work hard. Play well,” is more likely to prove a more fruitful long-term strategy.
Explaining the illogical The combo of success and binging defies elementary explanation. Alcohol impairs brain function, lowers mood and resilience, causes accidents, and upsets sleep and erodes physical health.
Why, then, is heavy drinking so common in those who do above averagely? Their privileged environment is often key to this, helping buffer them from the downsides.
But the unlikely pairing may also be aided by this: Drinking alcohol to soothe the side-effects of hard work, then working extra hard to soothe the side-effects of alcohol drinking.
This cycle would make sense because exceptional achievements are typically born of extra hard work, whether it is physical training or mental gymnastics.
Athletes endure endless hours of gruelling training and competition, and uncomfortable recovery. So too, in another way, do artists, entrepreneurs, scholars and ace employees.
And it works, superficially. Inebriation can feel every bit like a wholesome recovery and reward. But, alas, in reality, it is a feeling which doesn’t last long and with repercussions later.
After the feeling of inebriation is over alcohol typically increases our anxiety, lowers mood and disrupts the most reliable recovery mechanism we have, sleep.
Not realising these downsides, however, we might push ourselves harder still, feeling invulnerable to the consequences. We feel sure we will be just fine right after we hit the bar.
Ingenious creatures that we are, we might also use alcohol’s uncomfortable side-effects to our advantage too. Feeling crummy can mean we seek relief in our vocation.
Exercise and concentrated work can provide relief from hangovers and withdrawal symptoms. So alcohol may ease the side-effects of work, then work the side-effects of alcohol.
The amazing achievements of heavy drinking heroes show this process can deliver. But later suffering and misfortune also shows it is rarely sustainable.
Going sustainable This outline explanation alone does not offer a specific alternative route to achieving success without alcohol. It does, however, hint at the advantages of finding them.
Alcohol only softens the discomfort from our exertion. There are others ways to do this without side-effects, ones less likely to inspire us into unrealistic overtraining and overworking.
And we need not always see anxiety and low mood negatively. They can inspire action when kept at bearable levels. Low risk drinking and not drinking can help achieve this.
If we are drinking heavily, maybe having some degree of dependence, it may take between three months and a year of barely drinking to be free of low mood and anxiety.
We will not lose the motor we use to achieve our ambitions by making this investment. We can still harness the energy of our angst, most likely for far longer. ■
An apparent forward step on alcohol safety labelling last week may, in fact, signal that it is about to get worse.
The alcohol industry Portman Group (PG) says it agreed with the health department “for the removal of out-of-date information” by September 1st. But it does not mention adding current low-risk guideline amounts.
Adding the weekly guidelines is not among the minimum “best practice options”. Instead, PG offers advice on how to “reflect” weekly consumption guidelines it refers to as “revised” though current since January 2016.
PG emphasises it offers advice while ignoring the fact that none of its members are committed to follow it. So years of foot-dragging on safety labelling may yet morph into a full-blown reverse.
The health department agreed a September 1st deadline for the alcohol industry action in March 2017. The existence of the “grace period” was unknown until a speech by then junior minister Steven Brine in January.
Few may yet realise it, but the grace period may have just been quietly extended and also expanded to green-light alcohol suppliers to offer no weekly consumption guidelines at all. ■
News the biggest players in the UK’s alcohol industry have agreed to put weekly drinking guidelines on their labels, a month before a government deadline to do so, has prompted little jubilation among health advocates.
The Portman Group, an alcohol industry mouthpiece, dribbled out the news in a piece in the Daily Mail, couching its promise with a caveat about it being subject to “feasibility”. Jubilation was muted, with the UK’s trust-based system taking some 1,300 days to get this far.
The government agreed to let the alcohol industry have a “grace period” until September 1st to comply in March 2017, only making the agreement widely known in January this year. The terms of any new arrangement underlying today’s statement are unknown.
“This half-hearted pledge, by some parts of the alcohol industry, is a strong indicator that the UK deserves a fair system that sets a level playing field for all food and drinks producers,” the Alcohol Health Alliance told Alcohol Companion.”
“All alcohol products must advise drinkers about both the contents and consequences of consumption to empower consumers to make fully- informed choices about their health.”
“While this marks a half-step forward, it shows that the current system of alcohol industry self-regulation is failing consumers,” said Katherine Severi, head of the Institute of Alcohol Studies, which provides a health slant on alcohol policy
It remains to be seen what effect the Portman Group agreement will have, if any. It could prove to be mostly about refreshing the label for a period of inaction from “grace period” to “feasibility period”. ■
The UK government committed in January to require alcohol suppliers to add the low-risk guidelines of 14 UK units (140ml) a week to labels from September 1st (see video). The guideline was introduces in 2016, but only 14% of labels include it and only a similar percentage of consumers know it. You can find out more about the promises the government has made here.
Rocketman, a biopic of Elton John starring Taron Egerton, offers a compelling account of the veteran piano prima-donna’s life story, successfully interweaving his journey into and out of alcohol and other drug issues.
His alcohol and cocaine use quietly tiptoes up behind him, the viewer’s mind screaming louder and louder, “He’s behind you,” in the powerless agony of a child who spies a baddie at a Christmas pantomime.
While this silent threat looms ever larger, scene by scene, the story tirelessly flips between the flamboyant and introspective, the comical and tragic, the loud and the quiet, and the serious and the absurd.
The emotional load of this makes the musical interludes a much-needed emotional release. These numbers grow organically out of the story-line and are beautifully choreographed and energetically performed.
Perhaps the most touching of these numbers is the chillingly alienated underwater rendition of the song Rocketman of the title. It conveys poignantly the loneliness and disconnection of alcohol and drug problems.
Whether or not you are an Elton John fan there is much to be learned and enjoyed in this telling of his life story, in which alcohol, drugs and then 25 years without them are critical elements.
Egerton goes through more costumes in two hours than many of us in a lifetime. But, more impressively, he manages to admirably capture a combination of defiance and acceptance that allows many to start again. ■
Alcohol-free beer offers a harmless way to transform our mistaken beliefs about alcoholic drinks into something positive, so we should welcome its increasing availability.
Alcohol is the opposite of the joyful, relaxing “social lubricant” we are led to think it is. Drinking more than a small amount—the UK guideline maximum being around 14 units (140ml) a week—is liable to making us grumpier, tenser, more socially clumsy and sleep less soundly.
Alcohol-free beer, by contrast, helps us fulfil many of the hopes we have of alcohol without suffering any downsides. Experiments show placebos like it make us more prosocial and at ease with each other, while leaving our brain function intact giving us no nasty side-effects.
This is partly because alcohol-free beer does a convincing impression of alcoholic beer, making us imagine some of the effects we want from its alcoholic brethren. Having a beer in hand also gives others the unmistakable signal we are up for some fun and laughter.
This amazing psychological freebie is growing ever more popular. Sales are spiking. Sainsbury’s said recently it is opening an alcohol-free pop-up pub to showcase its range of faux tipples. Heineken 0.0 launched in the US this year and alcohol-free Guinness is on Diageo’s drawing board.
Too good to be true? The involvement of such corporate giants in the alcohol-free area raises understandable concerns. Surely they are using alcohol-free drinks as a trojan horse to turn consumers towards their alcoholic offerings? Surely they hope to gain the brand loyalty of our children?
Some liken selling alcohol free beer to minors to selling children candy cigarettes. We might be encouraged to get interested in Heineken 0.0 in our childhood to prime us for the real thing at 18. So it is that age restrictions for alcohol-free beer get the thumbs-up from many health advocates.
The concern is not any harmful substance within, but that the crossover branding may smooth a psychological pathway to heavy alcohol drinking. The concern is understandable, but it is unclear whether it is justified or if alcohol-free beer sales-restrictions help?
Habits picked up in our teenage years are likely to be sustained later in life. Earlier alcohol drinking, as we know, significantly increases the chances of problem drinking later. This is one reason it seems wrong to bar teenagers from buying alcohol-free beer, by far the better choice.
As teenagers we experiment with being grown up, finding problems and solutions in the process, depending on which experiments we select. How can we sensibly deny a low risk product many adults find helpful? I was boggled by this anomaly as a teenager already drinking alcohol.
And the branding-blur that causes worries can is also part of the value of alcohol-free products. The confusion it causes allows us to drink socially sans alcohol without being singled out as oddballs, as we almost certainly would if we were, say, sipping a cup of tea.
It pays to be wary, of course, but stymying alcohol companies’ for the sake of it may not always be the best strategy. Co-branding does expose non-drinkers to an alcohol brand, but the reverse is also true: a popular alcohol brand is broadened to embrace a non-alcoholic alternative.
There might also be resistance from retailers concerned that some might think they are wrongly thought to be selling alcohol to minors. Some kind of solution could surely be found to minimise the risk of this happening. Perhaps they could use a “not alcohol” bag or sticker?
And others arguing for maintaining age restrictions may have less charitable motives. Keeping age restrictions hinders access to a harm-free alternative to their addictive product. I, for one, would have been better off for being allowed to discover alcohol-free beer’s potential earlier.
Staying open to solutions This debate clearly needs to be informed by more research. We need to know how alcohol-free beer is used and seen by different age-groups. We also need to discover the real effects of alcohol-free/alcoholic co-branding rather than simply speculating.
There are some untoward effects we should investigate. People trying to curb their drinking sometimes complain that alcohol-free beer can trigger craving. This is not surprising when images of alcoholic drinks are enough to do this. And relying too much on alcohol-free beer could mean we enter social drinking situations where relapse is more likely.
But, while accepting these potential downsides, it seems alcohol-free beer does also help many adults in their bid to reduce their alcohol consumption. And it may well also help teenagers practice the key skills needed to establish a low-risk drinking habit from the off. It may prove to be a help overall, rather than a first step on a slippery slope to problem drinking.
Alcohol-free beer has some profound lessons for us. It opens our eyes to the fact that having positive expectations and beliefs, coupled with an accepting social environment, can have uplifting effects. This part of our nature we would do well to recognise and harness early.
Anyone involved in the discussion around alcohol can be forgiven for developing a cynical streak, but we must also be ready to make the most of solutions whenever they appear. ■