New Study Finds Heavy Drinkers Don't Really 'Hold Their Liquor' Better (uchicagomedicine.org) 79
There's an ongoing study (started in 2004) that examines the effects of alcohol (and other common substances) on mood, performance, and behavior. Started by Dr. Andrea King, a professor of behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago, its latest result is a study called "Holding your liquor: Comparison of alcohol-induced psychomotor impairment in drinkers with and without alcohol use disorder."
They found that drinkers with alcohol use disorder (or AUD, traditionally known as alcoholism) displayed less impairment on fine motor and cognitive tasks than light or heavy social drinkers after consuming a standard intoxicating dose — equivalent to four to five drinks that produce breathalyzer readings of 0.08-0.09%, i.e., the threshold for drunk driving." Yet when those drinkers with AUD consumed a higher amount akin to their usual drinking habits — equivalent to seven to eight drinks and breathalyzer readings of 0.13% — they showed significant impairment on those same tasks, more than double their impairment at the standard intoxicating dose that did not return to baseline performance three hours after drinking.
"There's a lot of thinking that when experienced drinkers (those with AUD) consume alcohol, they are tolerant to its impairing effects," said Andrea King, PhD, Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience at UChicago and senior author of the study. "We supported that a bit, but with a lot of nuances. When they drank alcohol in our study at a dose similar to their usual drinking pattern, we saw significant impairments on both the fine motor and cognitive tests that was even more impairment than a light drinker gets at the intoxicating dose..."
While they did show less overall alcohol impairment on the motor and cognitive tests, at the 30-minute interval they had similar slowing on the fine motor test as the light drinkers. They also recovered quicker to their baseline levels, supporting the notion that they had more tolerance and can "hold their liquor" better than people who don't drink as much. However, people with AUD do not often stop drinking at four or five drinks and engage in high intensity drinking. Thus, a subset of the drinkers with AUD in the study participated in a separate session where they drank a beverage more consistent with their regular drinking habits, equivalent to about seven or eight drinks. At this higher dose of alcohol, they showed more than double the amount of mental and motor impairment than after they had the standard intoxicating dose. They also never got back to their baseline level of performance, even after three hours. Their level of impairment even exceeded that of the light drinkers who consumed the standard dose, suggesting that the physical effects of the alcohol add up the more someone drinks, experienced or not.
"I was surprised at how much impairment that group had to that larger dose, because while it's 50% more than the first dose, we're seeing more than double the impairment," King said.
More than 140,000 people die from excessive alcohol use in the U.S. each year, according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — and 30% of traffic fatalities still involve alcohol intoxication. "I'm hoping we can educate people who are experienced high-intensity drinkers who think that they're holding their liquor or that they're tolerant and won't experience accidents or injury from drinking," said Dr. King.
"Their experience with alcohol only goes so far, and excessive drinkers account for most of the burden of alcohol-related accidents and injury in society. This is preventable with education and treatment."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader WankerWeasel for sharing the article.
"There's a lot of thinking that when experienced drinkers (those with AUD) consume alcohol, they are tolerant to its impairing effects," said Andrea King, PhD, Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience at UChicago and senior author of the study. "We supported that a bit, but with a lot of nuances. When they drank alcohol in our study at a dose similar to their usual drinking pattern, we saw significant impairments on both the fine motor and cognitive tests that was even more impairment than a light drinker gets at the intoxicating dose..."
While they did show less overall alcohol impairment on the motor and cognitive tests, at the 30-minute interval they had similar slowing on the fine motor test as the light drinkers. They also recovered quicker to their baseline levels, supporting the notion that they had more tolerance and can "hold their liquor" better than people who don't drink as much. However, people with AUD do not often stop drinking at four or five drinks and engage in high intensity drinking. Thus, a subset of the drinkers with AUD in the study participated in a separate session where they drank a beverage more consistent with their regular drinking habits, equivalent to about seven or eight drinks. At this higher dose of alcohol, they showed more than double the amount of mental and motor impairment than after they had the standard intoxicating dose. They also never got back to their baseline level of performance, even after three hours. Their level of impairment even exceeded that of the light drinkers who consumed the standard dose, suggesting that the physical effects of the alcohol add up the more someone drinks, experienced or not.
"I was surprised at how much impairment that group had to that larger dose, because while it's 50% more than the first dose, we're seeing more than double the impairment," King said.
More than 140,000 people die from excessive alcohol use in the U.S. each year, according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — and 30% of traffic fatalities still involve alcohol intoxication. "I'm hoping we can educate people who are experienced high-intensity drinkers who think that they're holding their liquor or that they're tolerant and won't experience accidents or injury from drinking," said Dr. King.
"Their experience with alcohol only goes so far, and excessive drinkers account for most of the burden of alcohol-related accidents and injury in society. This is preventable with education and treatment."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader WankerWeasel for sharing the article.
HEY!!! (Score:3)
"This is preventable with education and treatment" (Score:2, Insightful)
That's bullshit.
You can't convince an addict to stop using through education and treatment. Just try. I'll be waiting for you to cry "uncle".
Average of trips through rehab for patients before it takes hold - 7-9. And that is only on a short term watch. People fall off the wagon randomly - sometimes after a few weeks, sometimes a few months, sometimes after years. The progressive nature of the disease assures that they are as badly off (or worse) when they pick up the drug again after abstinence.
Long te
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "This is preventable with education and treatm (Score:2)
Easiest and least painful generally donâ(TM)t intersect well. Thatâ(TM)s one of the common reasons for not committing suicide. People want to die painlessly, but also want to guarantee death. Methods like drugs are thought of as relatively easy, but also have a low probability of success, while jumps from heights have a high probability of success, but also a guarantee of psychological pain, and a fair chance of severe physical pain. People have built contraptions to kill themselves painlessl
Re: (Score:2)
Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful.
You might as well live.
-- Dorothy Parker
Re: (Score:2)
Fentanyl. Leaves nothing but pain and misery for those left behind though.
Re: (Score:2)
Yech. I'd be careful there. Your most likely route to death from opioid overdose will be respiratory impairment. Being smothered to death doesn't sound all that painless to me.
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem now is that the drug dealers mix Fentanyl in everything, hence the availability of Narcan in many places.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a major factor in confined space training. If you are in an oxygen poor but otherwise inert atmosphere, you feel fine until you suddenly pass out. If you don't get hauled out and artificially ventilated within a very short span of time, you're dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. We all feel much better after that. So what's a easiest, least painful way to kill ourselves?
A tank of Nitrogen, and a face mask. Apparently the body doesn't have much of a reaction to Nitogen like it does to CO2
Re: "This is preventable with education and treatm (Score:2)
This is correct. Addiction treatment can never be a substitute for preventing people from getting addicted in the first place. Thinking it can, is like thinking ambulances can substitute for traffic rules. Just like emergency medicine, addiction treatment is horribly expensive and often fails - but we don't want to be the kind of society that just lets people die, so we offer it anyway and try to reduce the need for it as much as possible.
I'd also like to remind people that AUD isn't some syndrome, some med
SPEAK FOR YOURSELF (Score:2)
TFS contradicts TFH! Editor do your JOB! (Score:5, Informative)
We know that.
But when the headline they put on a story IS CONTRADICTED IN THE SUMMARY surely we can expect heads to roll ?
"They also recovered quicker to their baseline levels, supporting the notion that they had more tolerance and can "hold their liquor" better than people who don't drink as much."
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I guess you are new here.
Re: (Score:2)
The article, which I didn't read because I don't click links, seems to use an unconventional definition of "hold your liquor". I always understood the phrase to mean chronic drinkers, much like chronic heroin addicts, did not feel the effects of alcohol dose for dose as much as someone who rarely drinks. The article fully supports this hypothesis.
Their definition seems to be that drunks are drunks and act like drunks and have no superpowers (and possibly super negative side effects). I imagine the reasoning
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. If an alcoholic - sorry, person experiencing alcohol dependency - can drink a bottle of vodka and still be standing, they are holding their liquor a lot better than most of us.
If an alcoholic can driver a bit better than me at the same level of intoxication, I would have assumed it is due to practise, not some biological adaptation.
What I'd really like to know is how much impairment they show when blowing 0.08 the next morning.
Re: (Score:2)
Editors don't read the stories they post. We know that. But when the headline they put on a story IS CONTRADICTED IN THE SUMMARY surely we can expect heads to roll ?
Look, it’s doing pretty good for being such a small shell script.
AUD did handle similar levels of alcohol better (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You won't find a hardly intoxicated heavy drinker among light drinkers who've had enough for the evening. The heavy drinker drinks more, and doesn't deal any better with their dose than others deal with theirs. The heavy drinker isn't as impaired after a light drinker's dose, but that's an irrelevant comparison. The implied "weakness" of not being able to "hold one's liquor" makes sure that heavy drinkers flaunt their "strength". Never forget: Alcohol lore is drug abuse lore.
Re:AUD did handle similar levels of alcohol better (Score:4, Interesting)
We do know that people who have Auto-Brewery Syndrome can have very high BAC levels that are even fatal to most people and they can still seemingly function ok.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b... [nih.gov]
Though there may be something innate to some people as well. I rarely ever drink, and prior to my kidney transplant it would take at least four shots of vodka before I started feeling buzzed. I say prior because afterwards, one of the anti-rejection drugs I take is well known to make the effects of alcohol much stronger, and likewise nowadays, particularly on an empty stomach, one shot will usually do.
Re: (Score:2)
No, definitely not. You'd fuck up your liver long before that, and mine is perfectly fine. The exact cause was IgA Nephropathy, and the symptoms of it in fact started prior to when I turned 26, which is how old I was when I first took anything more than a sip of alcohol. I've never particularly cared much for it, other than the fact that it functions as a social crutch for my autistic brain.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not an irrelevant comparison - it's the whole point. Testing who "holds their liquor" better has to be done on equivalent un-adjusted amounts of alcohol. That's baked into the question.
What you're suggesting is silly. It's like pitting a 140 lb pound sprinter against a 280 lb sedentary non-athelete, handing the sprinter a 140 lb weight to carry, and then timing a race.
Re: (Score:2)
Never forget: Alcohol lore is drug abuse lore.
I find that so well put that I just felt compelled to repeat it. Also, I wish people had conferred that idea to me when I was younger than when it finally sank in by itself. In that sense, this whole topic is totally off...
"Hold Their Liquor" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure their definition is the same as mine.
If you have a beer and start acting like a moron, you can't hold your liquor.
If you can have 10 beers and still not act like a moron, you can hold your liquor.
I don't suggest anyone try to operate machinery after libating.
--
My definition of a good hotel is a place I'd stay at. - Robert De Niro
Re:"Hold Their Liquor" (Score:5, Insightful)
Their definition is different. They looked for evidence that heavy drinkers' bodies learn to compensate for the impairment even when they are feeling their usual level of intoxication. This is an often purported myth which is often used to justify drunk driving: "I can hold my liquor, I can still drive." In reality that's just the normal overconfidence talking which is instilled by the alcohol and the primary reason why people drink. The heavy drinker can not function any better with their usual dose than the light drinker can with theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
The heavy drinker can not function any better with their usual dose than the light drinker can with theirs.
I'd say that depends on the task. A drunk Grandmaster chess player, will beat you. Every time. While laughing at your infantile strategy and ordering another round.
Humans do a LOT of things while drunk. Some quite well. It's why we have the term functioning alcoholic. We've seen them often "discovered" only after many years of abuse because they can function a bit too well drunk.
Using driving as the only measured metric of "function" when drunk is rather silly, because any level of drinking can impair
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"The heavy drinker can not function any better with their usual dose than the light drinker can with theirs"
The question is or should be what's their relative capability at the same blood alcohol level
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a competition, although heavy drinkers and drinking culture certainly seem to want to make it one. What matters is how drinkers behave at their usual level of intoxication, not if someone can drive with a blood alcohol level that would make someone else incapable. That's an irrelevant comparison, because heavy drinkers are not content with being just a bit tipsy when everybody else is flat out drunk.
Re: (Score:2)
What matters is how drinkers behave at their usual level of intoxication, not if someone can drive with a blood alcohol level that would make someone else incapable.
Actually that is exactly what matters. And it matters a lot.
If someone is driving recklessly, we already had laws to deal with that. The scientists who performed this study clearly stipulate that some people can function at a BAC which renders other people nonfunctional. Yet our laws apply a standard BAC to everyone without regard to their body, their tolerance, the conditions of the road, the distance driven, or any other factor. Blow a certain number, go to jail, roll credits.
The reason is 100% because of
Re: (Score:2)
Lighter drinkers have less of a "usual dose" though. A light drinker may drink one class of wine with dinner one night and then have a big night where they drink 5. They aren't necessarily drinking consistently because they aren't dependent on alcohol.
For a heavy drinker, they are likely to have a much more regular pattern of behavior because they have a dependency.
Under the article (not the headline), it does appear an alcoholic with 5 beers in them is likely to be in better shape to drive than a light dri
Re: (Score:2)
In reality that's just the normal overconfidence talking which is instilled by the alcohol and the primary reason why people drink.
You sound like someone who either doesnt drink or has low self esteem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't suggest anyone try to operate machinery after libating.
rsilvergun does that all the time. Haven't you read any of his posts?
Re: (Score:1)
Oh for woman's sake, you're gonna make me ask the definition of "moron" now.
You talk to Average much? The hell you need beer for...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure their definition is the same as mine.
If you have a beer and start acting like a moron, you can't hold your liquor.
If you can have 10 beers and still not act like a moron, you can hold your liquor.
I don't suggest anyone try to operate machinery after libating.
This.
I've always believed that drinking doesn't change you, it just reduces your inhibitions until the real you is out of the bag. This means if you're fundamentally a fun, easy going, nice person if not a little shy or awkward then getting on the sauce will just let you be the nice person you are without the shyness or fear of failing. OTOH, if you're really a bigoted, narrow minded, arrogant arse who's only kept in check out of the fear of being shunned or shamed, when you drink you'll stop worrying ab
Not Exactly Right (Score:5, Insightful)
If I'm reading the summary properly heavy drinkers do in fact "Hold Their Liquor" a bit better than regular drinkers.
The problem is that heavy drinkers are in the habit of drinking far more liquor than they can hold.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Having said that, I agree that true alcoholics rarely vomit, at least anecdotally. I vomited way more often when I wasn't an alcoholic than when I was.
Re: (Score:2)
Read more carefully. Specifically:
The DSM criteria you linked to are necessary, but not necessarily sufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the definition of alcoholism is so lowered that you can be considered an alcoholic and hardly get a buzz. Shit! Match 3 and 6 on this list [addictiongroup.org] and you have mild AUD. It's hard to vomit on such low levels.
The WCTU and MADD are alive ant well, and would love to re-enact prohibition again. So would organized crime, who owes a debt of gratitude to the WCTU for kickstarting their ascendency.
The problem of course, is that people will find a way to get their buzz on, no matter what the puritans want.
I seldom drink, but it should be pretty transparent what these folks are attempting to do.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Hardly surprising (Score:3)
Addicts increase the dose to get the effect they expect, in many cases until the effective dose is bigger than the lethal dose. It would be weird if their usual dose didn't produce the intoxication. The lore around drugs is not wisdom. It's mostly coping strategies and excuses turned into drug abuse culture.
One of the worst titles in recent memory (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of the worst titles I've seen in recent memory. It drew my attention because it was obviously wrong, anybody who drinks, requires more alcohol to reach the same level of inebriation compared to a non drinker. I am even surprised myself, I was drinking back in college and I'd start feeling alcohol effects after 3 or so drinks. Nowadays I don't drink, so I get it from pretty much the first drink.
Anyhoo, and then the summary goes on to Indeed say the exact opposite of the title. And the novel point is that "heavy drinkers" drink more than non heavy drinkers. Which is the FUCKING DEFINITION.
Re: One of the worst titles in recent memory (Score:1)
I think a few things are confused here. There is the aspect of how well you metabolize alcohol and how well you function after alcohol. Many studies have shown (because it is easy to prove) that you do not metabolize alcohol any different when you drink often vs when you donâ(TM)t drink often, hence why BAC is a poor measure of eg driving ability, my BAC could be higher than yours and I can still drive straight.
This study shows that at the same BAC people have different responses, itâ(TM)s probabl
Clickbait Industry (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone has a different tolerance (Score:2)
My friends and I like our craft beers and wines, and we all have our different limits.
I usually reach mine because of how tired I am from lack of sleep or work stress, but for many years I could drink heavily on a saturday from afternoon to late at night, and feel as sober at the end as I began, even to my own surprise.
Certainly sober enough for my friends, who are smart enough to know when to trust me to drive them safely home.
Nowadays I only travel by train so it doesn't matter anyway, but by the time I a
Well... (Score:1)
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader WankerWeasel (Score:1)
for not even reading the article he posted seeing as the headline is completely inaccurate to the facts presented within. I get better researched headlines from my Twitter feed these days.
Chicago Social Drinking Project (Score:3)
Seriously, they chose to name their Very Serious study the Chicago Social Drinking Project.
As a Chicagoan, I thought that's just what we called living in Chicago.
Hard hitting "science" (Score:1)
7 or 8 drinks isn't alcoholic behaviour (Score:1)
It's a good way to take the edge off, but what about when they actually start drinking?
I'm not saying it's something to aspire to, but when I was a proper alco, I'd knock over half a dozen pints every evening. Big nights were probably 2-3 times that plus spirits and whatever else happened to be nearby.
I'd say what this study has done is found some people with a mild alcohol tolerance and decided that they're equivalent to full time alcos.
Traffic fatalities (Score:3)
30% of traffic fatalities still involve alcohol intoxication
So 70% of the fatalities don't involve intoxication. Drunks are safer drivers than sober people.
QED.
Re: (Score:2)
30% of traffic fatalities still involve alcohol intoxication
So 70% of the fatalities don't involve intoxication. Drunks are safer drivers than sober people.
QED.
It's like the outrage that women are 3 out of 10 homeless are women, and we have to do something about that so that only men are homeless.
Re: (Score:2)
Giant meteor to strike Earth and wipe out all life. Women and children will be hit hardest.
Re: (Score:2)
Giant meteor to strike Earth and wipe out all life. Women and children will be hit hardest.
Amazing thing is they spout that kind of stuff stuff without a trace of irony. So much that it's become a new punch line.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Good one.
Regarding the 30% of traffic fatalities involve alcohol intoxication: They count alcohol intoxication if a passenger was drunk and died in a car accident. Those numbers are misleading at best, outright lies at worst.
Cancer, liver, pancreas disease rots your brain (Score:2)
Even moderate intake causes fatal disease.
Re: (Score:3)
Even moderate intake causes fatal disease.
We all die of something eventually. Even those who follow the healthy lifestyle du jour.
so, actually... (Score:2)
So, actually, the study showed that alcoholics DO hold their liquor better, just not when they finally get falling down drunk. Typical BS headline. Journalists.
Indeed (Score:2)
Lots of them wet their pants, so not really 'holding'.
"hold your liquor" study doesnt know what it means (Score:2)
Hold your liquor means tolerance against things like falling over drunk or falling asleep or throwing up. Mostly it's the "getting sick" aspect. Things like going to bed feeling dizzy which would be a better test.
This is absolutely a thing.