If recommendations were set for the exact "average man" it would imply that (crudely speaking for example sake) half of men would not be be significantly effected, quarter would have significant effects and quarter would have no effects. However body mass (weight) is a factor, similarly genetic predisposition and drinking patterns (binge vs spaced), diet, health etc. So a single recommended figure leans heavily to the safe side. Furthermore with regard to  "average liver tests" (non stressed, no biopsy), these will only show "sufficiency of function" (which in the case of livers may be less than a quarter of "full healthy" fuctionability). Your liver may test perfectly and yet be badly damaged. Your car's brakes will functionally test showing perfect performance, although there may only be 1% life left in them. A "visual" check would detect this. If you drank "much more", at least it would lower your worrying (tongue in cheek) Realistically speaking, governments do not wish the population to be educated to the point where it can assess REAL risk because the art of politics is to keep the people alarmed, so that they look to their governments to save them!

ps. 30 years ago, the British family doctor's definition of an alcoholic was anyone who drank more than he did, which gave one HUGE leeway.

The truth is that health recommendation comes from observing a large group, not an individual. An average person drinking as much as you did and with the same life stile as yours, is in poorer health than an average person that didn’t drink as much. You are an individual, so you can’t say – I have a probability of, let’s say 60% of developing some liver disease, your individual probability is eider 0% or 100%, there is no middle. The statistical values apply for large groups and gives directions for recommendations for the whole population.

People differ in so many ways, including their tolerability of alcohol. But, government can’t say – if you have this and this life stile and this and this genome you can drink more than your brother.  It is not easy to calculate everybody’s risk factor individually in advance, when a person is young and healthy. But they try. Even this specific recommended limit is not for everybody, it doesn’t apply for pregnant women, for diabetics, for men as well for women, for children, for people with some liver disease and so on.

So, the answer really is – you were lucky! So far.

Since my late teens I have drunk the equivalent of a bottle of wine a day. I'm now 64. According to my estimate that's 70 units a week but estimates vary. I recently had a complete health check up: all normal esp liver. I used to get enough exercise, unfortunately have dropped it in recent years due to other pressures but am now starting again.

Like David Hunt I don't want advice from ministers or medics. Look what a shambles their own live are. My own view is that govt recommended limits have been deliberately set too low on the grounds that people will inevitably exceed limits. So if the recommendation is 1/2 bot a day people will drink 1 bot and so on.

Recall the learned Physicians who advised our late Queen Mother to give up her Gin and Dubonnet in the early evening. Sadly, all had passed away for many a lomg year when she died at the age of 102 or so

I will shortly raise a glass and say "Good Health" to David Hunte. He has written one of the most optimistic letters that I have ever read in the NS

I was told, unofficially from other doctors, that the government set up a committee and demanded a number.  There was no actual scientific answer behind the response, just a common-sense answer of about two pints for a man and two glasses of wine for a woman.

  The disputed science that does exist shows a benefit after two glasses of wine , which increases above that.

Back in the 90's, I worked for 3 ghastly years in the NHS as a Health Education Officer.  Along with all my colleagues I regularly consumed far more alcohol than was advocated on the posters that we put up for the public.  I was quite unable to track down any real scientific basis for these limits - even with the resources of a library in a teaching hospital.HEO's from other areas also informed us that the Government limits could be varied.  Apparently, the usual numbers received such public scorn in the North East that they were doubled there!  Really.With the exception of the message that 'all smoking is stupid', we found that the Health Education advice that we were expected to disseminate was more about politics and predjudice than about science...