Biphasic Alcohol Response Differs in Heavy Versus Light Drinkers

Abstract

Background: Most studies of risk factors for alcohol-related problems have focused on biological family history as a primary risk factor. However, other factors, such as early-age heavy drinking, are also risk factors for sustained or progressive heavy consumption. Little is currently known about the mechanisms underlying binge or heavy drinking.Methods: This study examined the acute subjective and objective effects of ethanol in heavy drinkers versus light drinkers. Thirty-four subjects participated in this within-subjects study consisting of three early-evening testing sessions in which subjects consumed a beverage containing either 0.8 or 0.4 g/kg ethanol or placebo.Results: Compared with lighter drinkers, heavy drinkers were more sensitive to the positive stimulantlike effects of ethanol (p Ͻ 0.05), especially during the increasing limb of the blood alcohol curve. Heavy drinkers also showed less sedation and cortisol response after alcohol than the light drinkers (p Ͻ 0.05). Conclusions:The results indicate that young adult binge drinkers show a biphasic alcohol response, with heightened sensitivity to stimulant-like alcohol effects and greater tolerance to sedative alcohol effects compared with their light-drinking counterparts.Key Words: Alcohol Response, Heavy Drinker, Risk for Alcoholism, Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale, Cortisol. H EAVY ETHANOL DRINKING among young adultsis a serious problem in this country (Chou and Pickering, 1992), and the consequences of this excessive use, both financial and personal, are widespread. The cost of ethanol-related health care, loss of productivity, crime, and accidents totals more than $148 million annually in the United States alone (Harwood et al., 1999). Approximately 30% of all accidents are connected to ethanol use, and excessive ethanol use contributes to many chronic and life-threatening illnesses, including gastrointestinal, liver, and cardiovascular disease ("Tenth Special Report to Congress on Alcohol and Health," 2000). Data indicate that those who start drinking before the age of 14 years are 12 times more likely to be injured in accidents while under the influence of ethanol than those who start drinking after age 21 (Hingson et al., 2000). Early-onset alcohol drinking is also strongly associated with lifetime alcohol problems (Chou and Pickering, 1992). Understanding the factors that contribute to the escalation and maintenance of excessive ethanol drinking is crucial to improve prevention, public education, and early intervention strategies. At this time, it is still unclear why some individuals abuse ethanol and others do not.One potential source of vulnerability to developing alcohol use problems is the quality and magnitude of acute subjective responses to alcohol (Fischman and Foltin, 1991). For instance, individuals who experience greater stimulant-like effects from an acute dose of ethanol also report greater drug liking and euphoria and have greater behavioral preference for ethanol (over placebo) compared with those individuals who experience mos...

Behavioral genetic contributions to the study of addiction-related amphetamine effects

“…Thus, heightened sensitivity to the acute stimulant effects of methamphetamine appears to confer protection against high levels of methamphetamine, cocaine and ethanol self-administration. This result is opposite to that predicted from the human literature on alcohol that has suggested that greater sensitivity to the behavioral stimulant effects of alcohol is associated with a positive family history of alcoholism (Newlin and Thomson, 1999) and with heightened levels of alcohol consumption (Holdstock et al, 2000;King et al, 2002). However, it is possible that with methamphetamine, there is a biphasic relationship such that modest levels of stimulation are pleasant and extreme levels aversive.…”

“…The focus on acute stimulant effects may be better supported by the idea that initial drug sensitivity influences continued drug use and thus, susceptibility to the development of drug abuse and addiction. This relationship has been strongly supported for alcohol (Heath et al, 2001;Holdstock et al, 2000;Newlin and Thomson, 1999;Poikolainen, 2000;Schuckit and Smith 2000;King et al, 2002), and there are some intriguing results for psychostimulants as well. For example, the initial stimulant response to amphetamine predicted the likelihood of further drug use (de Wit et al, 1986;Gabbay, 2003), and for cocaine, there was a significant positive relationship between subjects' ratings of positive cocaine effects, including euphoria, and lifetime cocaine use (Davidson et al, 1993).…”

Reduced Subjective Response to Acute Ethanol Administration Among Young Men with a Broad Bipolar Phenotype

“…Individuals at-risk for AUDs typically report diminished subjective experiences or 'low-level responses' (LLRs) to alcohol administration (Trim et al, 2009;Schuckit and Smith, 2011) although this has not been found across all studies (eg, King et al, 2002). LLRs at ages 19 and 20 predict AUDs at 10-and 8-year follow-up, respectively (Volavka et al, 1996;Schuckit and Smith, 1996).…”

“…The 'differentiator' model proposes that individuals at-risk for AUDs experience enhanced stimulant effects during the ascending limb of the blood alcohol curve and diminished sedative effects during the descending limb (reviewed in Ray et al, 2010;Newlin and Thompson, 1990;Newlin and Renton, 2010). Although there remains some uncertainty about which precise dimension of individuals' subjective reactions to alcohol is most predictive of subsequent AUDs (King et al, 2002(King et al, , 2011, there is consensus that some aspect of individual subjective response mediates the risk forFand development ofFAUDs, making such response profiles potentially interesting endophenotypes (Morean and Corbin, 2010;Ray et al, 2010).…”

Amphetamine Primes Motivation to Gamble and Gambling-Related Semantic Networks in Problem Gamblers

“…To date, no research appears to have examined such potential priming effects of AMPH in this population. In healthy volunteers, alcohol itself can induce both stimulant and sedative effects (Boerngen-Lacerda and Souza-Formigoni, 2000;King et al, 2002;Martin et al, 1993;Schechter and Lovano, 1982). Correlational evidence also indicates some correspondence in the subjective effects of alcohol and AMPH in healthy volunteers (Holdstock and de Wit, 2001).…”