Debunks the common notion that hangovers are about dehydration. The reason it caught my eye is that I believed the dehydration theory, even though I should have known that extreme sensitivity to sound isn’t a normal symptom of dehydration. (I’ve never had a hangover, but at popular accounts include sensitivity to sound and light.)
One reason for the myth about dehydration would be due to “drinking plenty of water” still being one of the most effective things to do: If it’s about the liver breaking down alcohol into toxic Acetaldehyde, drinking lots of water to flush it out.
Understandable mistake to go from “more water fixes the problem” to “problem must’ve been not enough water (dehydration.)”
This was how it was discussed in my university chemistry class. Also mentioned: a similar breakdown (same enzymes or whatnot) happens with methanol, and the breakdown products (formaldehyde and then methanoic acid) are stronger / more toxic than those of ethanol (acetaldehyde / acetic acid.)
If it’s about the liver breaking down alcohol into toxic Acetaldehyde, drinking lots of water to flush it out.
How? I’m pretty sure that contrary to popular belief, water can’t simply be used to flush stuff out, the metabolite also has to be in a form that can be excreted by the kidneys, and even then extra water might have no effect whatsoever. This is basic physiology found in any textbook on the subject.
I tried to google if kidneys might excrete some of the acetaldehyde, but found no answer.
I had reservations about including that sentence, because I only have a vague idea which completely lacks details about mechanisms. And flushing seems like a folk-explanation rather than a science-explanation.
The other vague idea was that drinking more water means the toxins are more dilute, but I have even less confidence in that.
If you check out the linked study, it doesn’t do such debunking. It found no association between hangover severity and vasopressin and it wasn’t clear what other markers of dehydration it measured. Note that measuring dehydration accurately could be difficult and different people might experience different levels of dehydration differently.
It should be the default assumption that there are many mechanisms involved in hangover, because the effects of ethanol are very complex.
Interesting—I’ve had a plenty of nights of drink, including some where I felt unwell the next day, but never had either of those symptoms. I have, however, woken up recognizably dehydrated a couple of times.
I wonder whether some of the “myth” comes from the experiences of people like me, accurately reported but for some reason not defined as hangovers by the researchers behind the study cited.
I’ve mistaken caffeine withdrawal for a hangover before, partly because of similarity in symptoms (headache; nausea; photosensitivity) and partly because it tends to show up around the same time (Sunday morning). This may account for the popularity of coffee as an alleged hangover cure.
Which raises the question, if the things people say about “hangovers” are true about the things they apply the term “hangover” to, what’s left to be debunked?
That article rubs me the wrong way. I think it may be more a failure of science, rather than the author’s personal failure though. Whenever people are curious about how to reduce hangovers, all the articles you find will talk about how abstinence is the only cure (gee, this doesn’t echo any other memes), but the fact is that there is an effective treatment, even if there haven’t been sufficient scientific studies done on it. A large social group that I am involved in, which has been known to drink heavily, has started taking N-acetyl-cysteine (500-1000mg) and Source Naturals Hangover Formula (which is primarily a C & B complex), and the effect it has on hangovers is not in any way subtle. Despite the existence of this, the article only says that the best prevention is to consume alcohol with food and lots of water. There is some scientific support for this combination (see the studies and explanation referenced here or here), but even though it is a question of significant practical importance to many people, no scientists have actually gone out and done a controlled study on humans on these nutrients.
What’s scientifically known about hangovers
Debunks the common notion that hangovers are about dehydration. The reason it caught my eye is that I believed the dehydration theory, even though I should have known that extreme sensitivity to sound isn’t a normal symptom of dehydration. (I’ve never had a hangover, but at popular accounts include sensitivity to sound and light.)
I’m wondering how I can become skeptical enough.
One reason for the myth about dehydration would be due to “drinking plenty of water” still being one of the most effective things to do: If it’s about the liver breaking down alcohol into toxic Acetaldehyde, drinking lots of water to flush it out.
Understandable mistake to go from “more water fixes the problem” to “problem must’ve been not enough water (dehydration.)”
This was how it was discussed in my university chemistry class. Also mentioned: a similar breakdown (same enzymes or whatnot) happens with methanol, and the breakdown products (formaldehyde and then methanoic acid) are stronger / more toxic than those of ethanol (acetaldehyde / acetic acid.)
How? I’m pretty sure that contrary to popular belief, water can’t simply be used to flush stuff out, the metabolite also has to be in a form that can be excreted by the kidneys, and even then extra water might have no effect whatsoever. This is basic physiology found in any textbook on the subject.
I tried to google if kidneys might excrete some of the acetaldehyde, but found no answer.
I had reservations about including that sentence, because I only have a vague idea which completely lacks details about mechanisms. And flushing seems like a folk-explanation rather than a science-explanation.
The other vague idea was that drinking more water means the toxins are more dilute, but I have even less confidence in that.
More dilute compared to the (cellular) mass of a person? That’s a rather lot of water.
If you check out the linked study, it doesn’t do such debunking. It found no association between hangover severity and vasopressin and it wasn’t clear what other markers of dehydration it measured. Note that measuring dehydration accurately could be difficult and different people might experience different levels of dehydration differently.
It should be the default assumption that there are many mechanisms involved in hangover, because the effects of ethanol are very complex.
Interesting—I’ve had a plenty of nights of drink, including some where I felt unwell the next day, but never had either of those symptoms. I have, however, woken up recognizably dehydrated a couple of times.
I wonder whether some of the “myth” comes from the experiences of people like me, accurately reported but for some reason not defined as hangovers by the researchers behind the study cited.
I’ve mistaken caffeine withdrawal for a hangover before, partly because of similarity in symptoms (headache; nausea; photosensitivity) and partly because it tends to show up around the same time (Sunday morning). This may account for the popularity of coffee as an alleged hangover cure.
Which raises the question, if the things people say about “hangovers” are true about the things they apply the term “hangover” to, what’s left to be debunked?
The belief that the things they’re talking about are caused narrowly by overuse of alcohol?
But isn’t the claim being “debunked” that hangovers are mainly dehydration, not the direct effects of alcohol?
That article rubs me the wrong way. I think it may be more a failure of science, rather than the author’s personal failure though. Whenever people are curious about how to reduce hangovers, all the articles you find will talk about how abstinence is the only cure (gee, this doesn’t echo any other memes), but the fact is that there is an effective treatment, even if there haven’t been sufficient scientific studies done on it. A large social group that I am involved in, which has been known to drink heavily, has started taking N-acetyl-cysteine (500-1000mg) and Source Naturals Hangover Formula (which is primarily a C & B complex), and the effect it has on hangovers is not in any way subtle. Despite the existence of this, the article only says that the best prevention is to consume alcohol with food and lots of water. There is some scientific support for this combination (see the studies and explanation referenced here or here), but even though it is a question of significant practical importance to many people, no scientists have actually gone out and done a controlled study on humans on these nutrients.
I think “only known cure” and related phrases like “no known cure” should be added to the list of semantic stopsigns and lullaby words.