I question whether this study wouldn't have been proved moot if they would've hydrated them better. Yes, they consumed these in mixed-drink form, but all that says is that when improperly hydrated, the body doesn't cope with the cogeners. If they would have made them drink an extra glass or two of water en route to the BAC they were aiming for, they might have found that no one got a hangover because no one was dehydrated.
In short, if you're going to drink too much liquor like some fool-headed hobo, go for clear and don't waste the good stuff. If, however, you enjoy your alcohol in moderation or keep properly hydrated, drink whatever the heck you want.
The only way that hydration would throw off the study is if the vodka group and the bourbon group were hydrated differently. If you drink enough alcohol you will get a hangover regardless of how well hydrated you are. Dehydration is only one of the factors that contributes to hangover.
They drank the same amount of fluid, according to the study, but what I'm saying is that the threshold for hangover becomes lower with the cogeners - However, given sufficient hydration, that can be cancelled out. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.
Your hypothesis is wrong. Also, your hypothesis is not a theory as a theory is a hypothesis that is widely accepted by the scientific community and is backed up by large amounts of fact. While proper hydration can reduce the severity of a hangover the next day, it cannot eliminate it entirely because a hangover is caused by multiple factors, not just dehydration. You, sir, are just plain incorrect.
...your hypothesis is not a theory as a theory is a hypothesis that is widely accepted by the scientific community and is backed up by large amounts of <s>fact</s> experimentation.
...your hypothesis is not a theory as a theory is a hypothesis that is widely accepted by the scientific community and is backed up by large amounts of <s>fact</s> <strike>experimentation</strike> empirical data.
I mean, if we're being technical.
I mean, if we're being technical and accurate (some theories can't be backed up by experimentation, but are still supported by empirical data, RE: evolution)
Your hypothesis is wrong. Also, your hypothesis is not a theory as a theory is a hypothesis that is widely accepted by the scientific community and is backed up by large amounts of fact. While proper hydration can reduce the severity of a hangover the next day, it cannot eliminate it entirely because a hangover is caused by multiple factors, not just dehydration. You, sir, are just plain incorrect.
Way to be a pedant. Since I'm a layman, and not an actual scientist, and since I won't be conducting this experiment and it's purely a thought that's going through my head, I'm using the layman definition of theory, which you must not be familiar with since you went all science-tard on my ass:
The term theory has two broad sets of meanings, one used in the empirical sciences (both natural and social) and the other used in philosophy, mathematics, logic, and across other fields in the humanities.
Also, yes, there are multiple causes, but the most important factor is in fact hydration. The level of alcohol consumption by the study participants was not that great, and I believe the same level of consumption paired with as little as an 8 ounces of water would mitigate the hangovers for the bourbon group.
If the same thing (hydration), subtracted from two similar test cases, results in one group having a hangover and one group not having a hangover, the fact that neither would have had one given that thing (hydration) doesn't disprove the fact that one is a more... damaging? substance than the other.
In other words, if all else is equal and you remove all outside variables that would mitigate or induce hangovers (including hydration), one of these still generates hangovers worse than the other.
In other words, if all else is equal and you remove all outside variables that would mitigate or induce hangovers (including hydration), one of these still generates hangovers worse than the other.
QFT
Meray - you're just plain incorrect. Additionally, this discussion is about a scientific study, using the so-called laymans definition of theory in the terms of a scientific discussion causes undue confusion. Furthermore, just because the masses want to remain ignorant of what a theory actually is doesn't mean that it magically becomes that.
In other words, if all else is equal and you remove all outside variables that would mitigate or induce hangovers (including hydration), one of these still generates hangovers worse than the other.
Yes, this is correct - But all that ends up meaning is that hey, bourbon drinkers, stay hydrated! My point is that while it's useful to know that hey, dark liquor can have the potential to cause hangover, it would be more useful if the studies were also able to validate ways to mitigate that effect.
Ardichoke - You're seriously raising pedantry to a high art here, and this was a friendly discussion about a fairly uncontroversial topic until you decided to become a dick.
You can argue about the meaning of theory all day long; the way in which I used it was not in the scientific sense, which is perfectly acceptable. I'm not talking about conducting a study, I'm talking about my interpretation of facts as they coalesce to form a conclusion - which is the essence of a non-scientific theory.
I wouldn't be so bold to as to say "I hypothesize" because I'm not approaching this problem scientifically, I'm not arrogant enough to think my musings warrant that level of elevation.
Except that the word theory is a scientific word. The only "non-scientific" definition is a made up one that you're using to try and give your argument more merit than it actually has. Additionally, your conclusion has no basis in fact. You asserted originally that you felt if they had drank more water no one would have gotten a hangover. That's just patently untrue because dehydration alone doesn't cause a hangover. Thus I pointed out that you are, plain and simple, incorrect. If you want to call me names because of that go ahead. Doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theÅria, from theÅrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2 : abstract thought : speculation
So let me go back and fix that post so you can understand it:
They drank the same amount of fluid, according to the study, but what I'm saying is that the threshold for hangover becomes lower with the cogeners - However, given sufficient hydration, that can be cancelled out. That's my EDUCATED GUESS and I'm sticking to it.
In that case, your EDUCATED GUESS wasn't very educated considering it took me all of 2 minutes to show that you were wrong wrong WRONGITY WROOOOOOONG.
EDIT: Additionally, this is not abstract thought, it's a discussion about a scientific study on a topic with large quantities of empirical data. The abstract though and speculation definition of theory applies to fields like psychology and philosophy.
I particularly like that the wikipedia site cited says that the globe artichoke is an ineffective or unproven remedy for a hangover and I must agree - I think my headache has actually increased having been exposed to ardichoke.
Globe artichoke (Cynara scolymus) extract: "Our results suggest that artichoke extract is not effective in preventing the signs and symptoms of alcohol-induced hangover."<sup id="cite_ref-23" class="reference">[24]</sup>
I'm following poofie's lead... and I may never start another thread again about interesting scientific studies that I find. I think my blood pressure has jumped significantly tonight.
Comments
Poofie, clear out space. I"m coming to spend a weekend at your pad.
In short, if you're going to drink too much liquor like some fool-headed hobo, go for clear and don't waste the good stuff. If, however, you enjoy your alcohol in moderation or keep properly hydrated, drink whatever the heck you want.
I mean, if we're being technical.
Way to be a pedant. Since I'm a layman, and not an actual scientist, and since I won't be conducting this experiment and it's purely a thought that's going through my head, I'm using the layman definition of theory, which you must not be familiar with since you went all science-tard on my ass:
Also, yes, there are multiple causes, but the most important factor is in fact hydration. The level of alcohol consumption by the study participants was not that great, and I believe the same level of consumption paired with as little as an 8 ounces of water would mitigate the hangovers for the bourbon group.
If the same thing (hydration), subtracted from two similar test cases, results in one group having a hangover and one group not having a hangover, the fact that neither would have had one given that thing (hydration) doesn't disprove the fact that one is a more... damaging? substance than the other.
In other words, if all else is equal and you remove all outside variables that would mitigate or induce hangovers (including hydration), one of these still generates hangovers worse than the other.
Meray - you're just plain incorrect. Additionally, this discussion is about a scientific study, using the so-called laymans definition of theory in the terms of a scientific discussion causes undue confusion. Furthermore, just because the masses want to remain ignorant of what a theory actually is doesn't mean that it magically becomes that.
Yes, this is correct - But all that ends up meaning is that hey, bourbon drinkers, stay hydrated! My point is that while it's useful to know that hey, dark liquor can have the potential to cause hangover, it would be more useful if the studies were also able to validate ways to mitigate that effect.
Ardichoke - You're seriously raising pedantry to a high art here, and this was a friendly discussion about a fairly uncontroversial topic until you decided to become a dick.
You can argue about the meaning of theory all day long; the way in which I used it was not in the scientific sense, which is perfectly acceptable. I'm not talking about conducting a study, I'm talking about my interpretation of facts as they coalesce to form a conclusion - which is the essence of a non-scientific theory.
I wouldn't be so bold to as to say "I hypothesize" because I'm not approaching this problem scientifically, I'm not arrogant enough to think my musings warrant that level of elevation.
So let me go back and fix that post so you can understand it:
EDIT: Additionally, this is not abstract thought, it's a discussion about a scientific study on a topic with large quantities of empirical data. The abstract though and speculation definition of theory applies to fields like psychology and philosophy.
Did you even read what you linked? While it mentioned other causes of hangovers, the TOP CAUSE was dehydration - The other causes were ancillary.
But hey, believe what you want to believe, I really don't give two shits. I'll be over here not getting hangovers EVER because I'm awesome.
So I suppose you'll next be suggesting that if you can avoid heart disease you'll live forever.
otherwise, get back on topic