Relationship between Alcohol Hangover and Physical Endurance Performance: Walking the Samaria Gorge

Loo

Benson

et al. 2020

JCM

Self Cite

The aim of this study was to critically evaluate and compare the different methods to assess overall hangover severity. Currently, there are three multi-item hangover scales that are commonly used for this purpose. All of them comprise a number of hangover symptoms for which an average score is calculated. These scales were compared to a single, 1-item scale assessing overall hangover severity. The results showed that the hangover symptom scales significantly underestimate (subjective) hangover severity, as assessed with a 1-item overall hangover severity scale. A possible reason for this could be that overall hangover severity varies, depending on the frequency of occurrence of individual symptoms included in the respective scale. In contrast, it can be assumed that, when completing a 1-item overall hangover scale, the rating includes all possible hangover symptoms and their impact on cognitive and physical functioning and mood, thus better reflecting the actually experienced hangover severity. On the other hand, solely relying on hangover symptom scales may yield false positives in subjects who report not having a hangover. When the average symptom score is greater than zero, this may lead to non-hungover subjects being categorized as having a hangover, as many of the somatic and psychological hangover symptoms may also be experienced without consuming alcohol (e.g., having a headache). Taken together, the current analyses suggest that a 1-item overall hangover score is superior to hangover symptom scales in accurately assessing overall hangover severity. We therefore recommend using a 1-item overall hangover rating as primary endpoint in future hangover studies that aim to assess overall hangover severity. and naturalistic studies, in intervention studies examining treatment efficacy, and in survey research. Generally, they may be filled in by any drinker of all (adult) ages and in any drinking-related (research) context. There is, however, ongoing debate about which measure of hangover severity is most suitable. In this paper, we compare the three most widely used hangover symptom scales with a 1-item overall hangover severity rating, and discusses why the latter is a more reliable and useful measure to be included in future hangover research.

Section: Symptoms May Also Be Present Without a Hangover Or Alcohol Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Note: In contrast to the original AHS, scores range from 0 (absent) to 10 (extreme). Data from reference[19].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Assessment of Overall Hangover Severity

Loo

Benson

et al. 2020

JCM

Self Cite

“…3 : subject consumed white wine (Chardonnay), red wine (Pinot Noir), and tequila on a usual drinking occasion. 4 : subject consumed Scotch whiskey, beer, and red wine on a usual drinking occasion. 5 : this amount of alcohol units was also consumed on each test day.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The alcohol hangover is defined as "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" [1,2]. Recent research suggests that there is no BAC threshold for producing hangover, but that hangovers may occur at all BAC levels, and are most likely elicited following consumption of more alcohol than usual on a drinking occasion [3,4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of SJP-001 on Alcohol Hangover Severity: A Pilot Study

Dahl²,

Scholey

et al. 2020

JCM

Self Cite

Background. Despite a clear market need and many hangover products available, currently there is no hangover treatment that is supported by substantial scientific evidence demonstrating its efficacy and safety. A pilot study was conducted to investigate the effects of a potential new hangover treatment, SJP-001, and its constituents (220 mg naproxen and 60 mg fexofenadine) on hangover severity. Methods. N = 13 healthy social drinkers (36.3 ± 8.9 years old) participated in a double-blind, factorial design, cross-over study. On each test day, they consumed their own choice of alcohol up to a self-reported level sufficient to elicit a next-day hangover. Treatments were administered prior to onset of drinking. Next morning, hangover severity was assessed with the Acute Hangover Scale (AHS). Subjects were included in the efficacy analysis only if they reported a hangover after placebo. Results. N = 5 subjects (60% male, 35.2 ± 9.0 years old) were included in the analysis. They consumed a mean (SD) of 4.6 ± 1.1 units of alcohol and had an average peak breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) of 0.065% across conditions. Compared to placebo, SJP-001 significantly improved the AHS overall hangover severity score (0.8 ± 0.3 versus 1.5 ± 0.9, p = 0.042). Compared to placebo, SJP-001 also reduced scores on the individual item ‘hangover’, although the observed improvement (−1.6) did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.102). The differences from placebo after naproxen alone and fexofenadine alone were not statistically significant. SJP-001 also improved scores for the individual hangover symptoms tired, thirsty, headache, dizziness, nausea, and loss of appetite, but these effects did not reach statistical significance. Discussion. Compared to placebo, SJP-001 significantly reduced overall hangover severity. The effects of SJP-001 should be further examined in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with a larger sample size and controlled administration of sufficient amounts of alcohol to provoke a more substantial alcohol hangover.

“…For example, Verster et al [4] found that non-student subjects (N = 176) who consumed a mean (SD) of 3.0 (1.8) alcoholic drinks (10 g ethanol each) reported considerable next-morning hangover severity, i.e., a mean (SD) overall hangover severity score of 4.6 (2.4) on a 0-10 scale. Despite this, their peak estimated BAC was 0.03%.…”

Section: Heavy Drinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Updating the Definition of the Alcohol Hangover

Scholey

Loo

et al. 2020

JCM

Self Cite

In 2016, the Alcohol Hangover Research Group defined the alcohol hangover as "the combination of mental and physical symptoms experienced the day after a single episode of heavy drinking, starting when blood alcohol concentration (BAC) approaches zero". In the light of new findings and evidence, we carefully reviewed the different components of that definition. Several studies demonstrated that alcohol hangovers are not limited to heavy drinking occasions. Instead, data from both student and non-student samples revealed that at a group level, alcohol hangover may occur at much lower BAC levels than previously thought. Regression analysis further revealed that for individual drinkers, the occurrence of hangovers is more likely when subjects consume more alcohol than they usually do. However, hangovers may also occur at a drinker's usual BAC, and in some cases even at lower BAC (e.g. in case of illness). We also carefully reviewed and modified other parts of the definition. Finally, hangovers are not necessarily limited to the 'next day'. They can start at any time of day or night, whenever BAC approaches zero after a single dinking occasion. This may also be on the same day as the drinking occasion (e.g. when drinking in, or until the morning and subsequently having a hangover in the afternoon or evening). To better reflect the new insights and sharpen the description of the concept, we hereby propose to update the definition of the alcohol hangover as follows: "The alcohol hangover refers to 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", and recommend to use this new definition in future hangover research.