Differences in Next-Day Adverse Effects and Impact on Mood of an Evening of Heavy Alcohol Consumption between Hangover-Sensitive Drinkers and Hangover-Resistant Drinkers

The combination of negative mental and physical symptoms which can be experienced after a single episode of alcohol consumption, starting when blood alcohol concentration (BAC) approaches zero, are collectively referred to as the alcohol hangover. Previous research revealed that 10 to 20% of drinkers claim not to experience next-day hangovers. Past studies were usually limited to single timepoint assessments. The aim of the current semi-naturalistic study was to compare the next-day effects of an evening of alcohol consumption of self-reported hangover-resistant drinkers (n = 14) with those of a group of self-reported hangover-sensitive drinkers (n = 15) at hourly timepoint throughout the day (09:30 until 15:30). Assessments of 23 hangover symptoms, mood (Profiles of Mood States-Short Form), and daytime sleepiness (Karolinska Sleepiness Scale) were made hourly after both an alcohol day and an alcohol-free control day. Additional morning assessments were made for mood (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Y, Beck’s Depression Inventory-II), risk-taking behavior (RT-18), past night sleep (Groningen Sleep Quality Scale), alcohol consumption, and activities during the test days. No significant differences were found regarding the amount of alcohol consumed and the total sleep time of the two groups. The hangover-sensitive group reported having a hangover as well as the presence of a variety of hangover-related symptoms, which were most severe in the morning and then gradually decreased during the day. The most frequently reported and most severe symptoms were sleepiness and fatigue, concentration problems, and headache. In contrast, the hangover-resistant group reported the absence of a hangover and the presence and severity of next-day symptoms did not significantly differ from the control day, except for increased fatigue and reduced vigor. The next-day effects on sleepiness-related complaints and vigor were significantly more pronounced among hangover-sensitive drinkers compared to hangover-resistant drinkers. In conclusion, contrary to hangover-resistant drinkers, hangover-sensitive drinkers report a variety of hangover symptoms that gradually ease during the day, but are still present in the afternoon

Sensitivity to Experiencing Alcohol Hangovers: Reconsideration of the 0.11% Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Threshold for Having a Hangover

The 2010 Alcohol Hangover Research Group consensus paper defined a cutoff blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.11% as a toxicological threshold indicating that sufficient alcohol had been consumed to develop a hangover. The cutoff was based on previous research and applied mostly in studies comprising student samples. Previously, we showed that sensitivity to hangovers depends on (estimated) BAC during acute intoxication, with a greater percentage of drinkers reporting hangovers at higher BAC levels. However, a substantial number of participants also reported hangovers at comparatively lower BAC levels. This calls the suitability of the 0.11% threshold into question. Recent research has shown that subjective intoxication, i.e., the level of severity of reported drunkenness, and not BAC, is the most important determinant of hangover severity. Non-student samples often have a much lower alcohol intake compared to student samples, and overall BACs often remain below 0.11%. Despite these lower BACs, many non-student participants report having a hangover, especially when their subjective intoxication levels are high. This may be the case when alcohol consumption on the drinking occasion that results in a hangover significantly exceeds their “normal” drinking level, irrespective of whether they meet the 0.11% threshold in any of these conditions. Whereas consumers may have relative tolerance to the adverse effects at their “regular” drinking level, considerably higher alcohol intake—irrespective of the absolute amount—may consequentially result in a next-day hangover. Taken together, these findings suggest that the 0.11% threshold value as a criterion for having a hangover should be abandoned

Differences in Next-Day Adverse Effects and Impact on Mood of an Evening of Heavy Alcohol Consumption between Hangover-Sensitive Drinkers and Hangover-Resistant Drinkers

The combination of negative mental and physical symptoms which can be experienced after a single episode of alcohol consumption, starting when blood alcohol concentration (BAC) approaches zero, are collectively referred to as the alcohol hangover. Previous research revealed that 10 to 20% of drinkers claim not to experience next-day hangovers. Past studies were usually limited to single timepoint assessments. The aim of the current semi-naturalistic study was to compare the next-day effects of an evening of alcohol consumption of self-reported hangover-resistant drinkers (n = 14) with those of a group of self-reported hangover-sensitive drinkers (n = 15) at hourly timepoint throughout the day (09:30 until 15:30). Assessments of 23 hangover symptoms, mood (Profiles of Mood States-Short Form), and daytime sleepiness (Karolinska Sleepiness Scale) were made hourly after both an alcohol day and an alcohol-free control day. Additional morning assessments were made for mood (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Y, Beck’s Depression Inventory-II), risk-taking behavior (RT-18), past night sleep (Groningen Sleep Quality Scale), alcohol consumption, and activities during the test days. No significant differences were found regarding the amount of alcohol consumed and the total sleep time of the two groups. The hangover-sensitive group reported having a hangover as well as the presence of a variety of hangover-related symptoms, which were most severe in the morning and then gradually decreased during the day. The most frequently reported and most severe symptoms were sleepiness and fatigue, concentration problems, and headache. In contrast, the hangover-resistant group reported the absence of a hangover and the presence and severity of next-day symptoms did not significantly differ from the control day, except for increased fatigue and reduced vigor. The next-day effects on sleepiness-related complaints and vigor were significantly more pronounced among hangover-sensitive drinkers compared to hangover-resistant drinkers. In conclusion, contrary to hangover-resistant drinkers, hangover-sensitive drinkers report a variety of hangover symptoms that gradually ease during the day, but are still present in the afternoon.</p

Dietary nutrient intake, alcohol metabolism, and hangover severity

Several dietary components have been shown to influence alcohol metabolism and thereby potentially affect the development of a hangover. From the literature, it is evident that dietary nicotinic acid and zinc play a pivotal role in the oxidation of ethanol into acetaldehyde. The aim of the current study was to associate dietary intake of nicotinic acid and zinc with hangover severity. To this end, data from n = 23 healthy social drinkers who participated in a naturalistic hangover study were analyzed. n = 10 of them reported to be hangover-resistant (the control group), whereas n = 13 reported to have regular hangovers (the hangover-sensitive group). Two 24 h dietary recall records were completed, one for the day of alcohol consumption and another one for an alcohol-free control day. Dietary nutrient intake was averaged and did not significantly differ between hangover-sensitive and hangover-resistant drinkers. For the hangover-sensitive drinkers, partial correlations with overall hangover severity were computed, controlling for estimated blood alcohol concentration. A bootstrapping technique was applied to account for the relatively small sample size. The results showed that dietary intake of nicotinic acid (rPB = −0.521) and zinc (rPB = −0.341) were significantly and negatively associated (p <0.002) with overall hangover severity. Dietary zinc intake was also significantly and negatively associated with severity of vomiting (rPB = −0.577, p <0.002). No significant associations with hangover severity were found for other nutrients, such as fat and fibers. In conclusion, this study suggests that social drinkers who have a higher dietary intake of nicotinic acid and zinc report significantly less severe hangovers. As hangover-resistant and hangover-sensitive drinkers had a similar dietary nutrient intake, the claim of being hangover-resistant must be based on other unknown biopsychosocial factors. These findings should be replicated in a larger sample and include more elaborate food frequency questionnaires or nutrient-specific dietary intake records for zinc and nicotinic acid, and preferably accompanied by nutrient assessments in urine and/or blood

Differences in Next-Day Adverse Effects and Impact on Mood of an Evening of Heavy Alcohol Consumption between Hangover-Sensitive Drinkers and Hangover-Resistant Drinkers

The combination of negative mental and physical symptoms which can be experienced after a single episode of alcohol consumption, starting when blood alcohol concentration (BAC) approaches zero, are collectively referred to as the alcohol hangover. Previous research revealed that 10 to 20% of drinkers claim not to experience next-day hangovers. Past studies were usually limited to single timepoint assessments. The aim of the current semi-naturalistic study was to compare the next-day effects of an evening of alcohol consumption of self-reported hangover-resistant drinkers (n = 14) with those of a group of self-reported hangover-sensitive drinkers (n = 15) at hourly timepoint throughout the day (09:30 until 15:30). Assessments of 23 hangover symptoms, mood (Profiles of Mood States-Short Form), and daytime sleepiness (Karolinska Sleepiness Scale) were made hourly after both an alcohol day and an alcohol-free control day. Additional morning assessments were made for mood (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Y, Beck’s Depression Inventory-II), risk-taking behavior (RT-18), past night sleep (Groningen Sleep Quality Scale), alcohol consumption, and activities during the test days. No significant differences were found regarding the amount of alcohol consumed and the total sleep time of the two groups. The hangover-sensitive group reported having a hangover as well as the presence of a variety of hangover-related symptoms, which were most severe in the morning and then gradually decreased during the day. The most frequently reported and most severe symptoms were sleepiness and fatigue, concentration problems, and headache. In contrast, the hangover-resistant group reported the absence of a hangover and the presence and severity of next-day symptoms did not significantly differ from the control day, except for increased fatigue and reduced vigor. The next-day effects on sleepiness-related complaints and vigor were significantly more pronounced among hangover-sensitive drinkers compared to hangover-resistant drinkers. In conclusion, contrary to hangover-resistant drinkers, hangover-sensitive drinkers report a variety of hangover symptoms that gradually ease during the day, but are still present in the afternoon

Dietary nutrient intake, alcohol metabolism, and hangover severity

Several dietary components have been shown to influence alcohol metabolism and thereby potentially affect the development of a hangover. From the literature, it is evident that dietary nicotinic acid and zinc play a pivotal role in the oxidation of ethanol into acetaldehyde. The aim of the current study was to associate dietary intake of nicotinic acid and zinc with hangover severity. To this end, data from n = 23 healthy social drinkers who participated in a naturalistic hangover study were analyzed. n = 10 of them reported to be hangover-resistant (the control group), whereas n = 13 reported to have regular hangovers (the hangover-sensitive group). Two 24 h dietary recall records were completed, one for the day of alcohol consumption and another one for an alcohol-free control day. Dietary nutrient intake was averaged and did not significantly differ between hangover-sensitive and hangover-resistant drinkers. For the hangover-sensitive drinkers, partial correlations with overall hangover severity were computed, controlling for estimated blood alcohol concentration. A bootstrapping technique was applied to account for the relatively small sample size. The results showed that dietary intake of nicotinic acid (rPB = −0.521) and zinc (rPB = −0.341) were significantly and negatively associated (p <0.002) with overall hangover severity. Dietary zinc intake was also significantly and negatively associated with severity of vomiting (rPB = −0.577, p <0.002). No significant associations with hangover severity were found for other nutrients, such as fat and fibers. In conclusion, this study suggests that social drinkers who have a higher dietary intake of nicotinic acid and zinc report significantly less severe hangovers. As hangover-resistant and hangover-sensitive drinkers had a similar dietary nutrient intake, the claim of being hangover-resistant must be based on other unknown biopsychosocial factors. These findings should be replicated in a larger sample and include more elaborate food frequency questionnaires or nutrient-specific dietary intake records for zinc and nicotinic acid, and preferably accompanied by nutrient assessments in urine and/or blood

An evening of alcohol consumption negatively impacts next-day immune fitness in both hangover-sensitive drinkers and hangover-resistant drinkers

Background: Survey research found poorer baseline immune fitness for self-reported hangover-sensitive drinkers compared to hangover-resistant drinkers. However, up to now a limited number of clinical studies revealed mixed results regarding the relationship between the concentrations of biomarkers of systemic inflammation in blood or saliva with hangover severity, and could not differentiate between hangover-sensitive drinkers and hangover-resistant drinkers. The aim of this study was to assess immune fitness and saliva biomarkers of systemic inflammation at multiple timepoints following an alcohol day and alcohol-free control day. Methods: The study had a semi-naturalistic design. In the evening before the test days, participants were not supervised. They could drink ad libitum drinking on the alcohol test day and refrained from drinking alcohol on the control day. Activities and behaviors on the alcohol and control day were reported the follow morning. On both test days, from 09:30 to 15:30, hourly assessments of immune fitness (single-item scale) and overall hangover severity (single-item scale) were made and saliva samples were collected for biomarker assessments. Results: N = 14 hangover-resistant drinkers and n = 15 hangover-sensitive drinkers participated in the study. The amount of alcohol consumed on the alcohol day did not significantly differ between the hangover-resistant group (mean (SD) of 13.5 (7.9) alcoholic drinks) and the hangover-sensitive group (mean (SD) of 12.4 (4.4) alcoholic drinks). All hangover-sensitive drinkers reported having a hangover following the alcohol day (overall hangover severity score 6.1 (on a 0–10 scale) at 09:30, gradually decreasing to 3.3 at 15:30), whereas the hangover-resistant drinkers reported no hangover. On the control day, immune fitness of the hangover-sensitive group was significantly poorer than the hangover-resistant group. On the alcohol day, both groups showed a significant reduction in immune fitness. The effect was evident throughout the day, but significantly more pronounced in the hangover-sensitive group than the hangover-resistant group. No significant differences between the groups were found at any time point on the two test days for saliva concentrations of Interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, IL-8, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α. Conclusions: Whereas hangover-sensitive drinkers reported a hangover following an alcohol day and hangover-resistant drinkers did not, both groups reported significantly reduced immune fitness throughout the day. However, the reduction in immune fitness among hangover-sensitive drinkers was significantly more pronounced in comparison to the hangover-resistant group.</p

Development and validation of the immune status questionnaire (ISQ)

The self-assessment of perceived immune status is important, as this subjective observation leads individuals to decide whether or not to seek medical help or adapt their lifestyle. In addition, it can be used in clinical settings and research. The aim of this series of studies was to develop and validate a short questionnaire to assess perceived immune functioning. Five surveys were conducted among Dutch and International young healthy adults (18–30 years old), and two others among older age groups with various health complaints. For the first study, an existing immune functioning scale was modified and elaborated resulting in 23 immune-health-related items, of which the occurrence was rated on a 5-point Likert scale. A student sample was surveyed, and the results were used to shorten the 23-item listing into a 7-item scale with a predictive validity of 85%. Items include “sudden high fever”, “diarrhea”, “headache”, “skin problems (e.g., acne and eczema)”, “muscle and joint pain”, “common cold” and “coughing”. The scale is named Immune Status Questionnaire (ISQ), and it aims to assess perceived immune status over the preceding year. The second study revealed that the ISQ score correlated significantly with a 1-item perceived immune functioning (r = 0.383, p < 0.0001). In the third study, the final Likert scale descriptors were determined (“never”, “sometimes”, “regularly”, “often” and “(almost) always)”. The fourth study showed that the test–retest reliability of the ISQ is acceptable (r = 0.80). The fifth study demonstrated the association of ISQ scores with various neuropsychological and health correlates in an international sample, including perceived health and immune fitness, as well as levels of stress, fatigue, depression and anxiety. Study 6 demonstrated significant associations between ISQ scores and experiencing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptoms in a sample of insomnia patients. Study 7 compared the effect of a dietary intervention in participants reporting “poor health” versus “normal health”. It is shown that ISQ scores can differentiate between those with poor and normal health, and that an effective intervention is associated with a significant improvement in ISQ scores. Data from Study 7 were further used to determine an ISQ cut-off value for reduced immune functioning, and a direct comparison with 1-item perceived immune functioning scores enabled constructing the final scoring format of the ISQ. In conclusion, the ISQ has appropriate face, content, and construct validity and is a reliable, stable and valid method to assess the past 12 month’s perceived immune status

Sensitivity to Experiencing Alcohol Hangovers: Reconsideration of the 0.11% Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Threshold for Having a Hangover

The 2010 Alcohol Hangover Research Group consensus paper defined a cutoff blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.11% as a toxicological threshold indicating that sufficient alcohol had been consumed to develop a hangover. The cutoff was based on previous research and applied mostly in studies comprising student samples. Previously, we showed that sensitivity to hangovers depends on (estimated) BAC during acute intoxication, with a greater percentage of drinkers reporting hangovers at higher BAC levels. However, a substantial number of participants also reported hangovers at comparatively lower BAC levels. This calls the suitability of the 0.11% threshold into question. Recent research has shown that subjective intoxication, i.e., the level of severity of reported drunkenness, and not BAC, is the most important determinant of hangover severity. Non-student samples often have a much lower alcohol intake compared to student samples, and overall BACs often remain below 0.11%. Despite these lower BACs, many non-student participants report having a hangover, especially when their subjective intoxication levels are high. This may be the case when alcohol consumption on the drinking occasion that results in a hangover significantly exceeds their "normal" drinking level, irrespective of whether they meet the 0.11% threshold in any of these conditions. Whereas consumers may have relative tolerance to the adverse effects at their "regular" drinking level, considerably higher alcohol intake-irrespective of the absolute amount-may consequentially result in a next-day hangover. Taken together, these findings suggest that the 0.11% threshold value as a criterion for having a hangover should be abandoned