Blood Alcohol vs. Body Weight and Tolerance

We did an interesting test in the garden yesterday,

We sat my wife and my secretary down, both being about the same body weight, and had them drink identical volumes of wine, wait 20 minutes to eliminate false readings from residual alcohol in the mouth as well as to allow some of it to get into the bloodstream, and then tested them with a decent fuel cell breathalyzer.

Then we gave them another glass, another wait and repeated. The results were instructive.

The first test (4 oz. of white wine) showed subject A with a blood alcohol reading of .02, and B with .03 after identical comsumption periods.

The entire subject panel opined that they weren't being allowed to drink at a normal pace and demanded more wine. To keep the troops in order I risked the scientific purity of the expereiment by pouring a second aliquot of about 5.5 oz (both glasses had been marked with a piece of masking tape to be 4 oz. capacity to the bottom of the tape, and I poured to the top of the tape for this does only).

Results - A = 0.053 and B = 0.061 In BC the level at which they can have yout car towed and give you a 24 hour suspension is .05, with a 0.01 leeway for error, so both ladies were theoretically still (just) legally capable of driving after an intake of about 9.5 oz. over approx. a 1 hour period.

Next dose was back to the measured 4 oz. ( the previous one having apparently quieted the rebellion about dose size) and the results were:

A = 0.073 B = 0.079 Both were clearly too far gone with a total intake of 13.5 oz. to even consider driving, and would have been risking a charge had they tried.

They agreed to take one more dose (one reluctantly and one more eagerly) and the result of the total intake of 17.5 oz. over more than 2 hours was:

A = 0.073 (0.075) B = 0.099 (0.91) (Repeated back to back readings to test accuracy.)

Conclusions - obvious differences in speed of metabolizing alcohol, with A apparently burning it up a bit more quickly, and/or perhaps absorbing it more slowly into the blood stream (comments by any experts welcomed on the conclusions to be drawn from the results).

I always carry a meter to my wine events when I have to drive myself and subjectively feel that my ability to drive may be impaired before I reach the legal (0.05) level, which is probably a good way to be. I normally take in one bottle of wine at the lunches (as everyone comes with one bottle) and we usually take around 3 hours for lunch. I guess I've learned to gauge howmuch to take in as I've never been over 0.04 after a lunch while I've been just over 0.05 when I am not driving and therefore not limiting my intake to the same degree.

Ladies, if you are average weight (130-140) and drink 10.5 oz of wine (c. 13%) over 1 - 1.5 hours, you probably shouldn't be driving. Just in case you were wondering.

Finally, pay attention to scientific reviews of alcohol testers when making buying decisions and don't even bother with anything that doesn't use fuel cell technology (same as police units)

The unit in the test was a BacTrack S80 - chosen about 3 years ago from reviews like this one:

http://www.wired.com/reviews/2010/04/pr ... thalyzers/

Did your subjects eat anything during the testing?

I'm not terribly surprised by this outcome, Bill (and I suspect that you weren't either). One question: does the measuring device give a standard error for its measurements? I'd assume that the final readings (0.073 and 0.091) are significantly different, but I'm not so sure about the earlier ones. There's no question about differing rates of alcohol metabolism in different people. As Thomas alludes to, food consumption slows alcohol absorption into the bloodstream, just as carbon dioxide accelerates it. Beyond that, I know that my mother's family (including me) metabolize alcohol far faster than the norm. I've breathalyzed myself after consuming a half bottle at dinner and found typical readings of 0.03-0.04, and at 5' 11" and 180 lb I'm not the biggest person around. (I am still loath to get into a car under those circumstances, though)

Mark Lipton

Bill,
As Thomas wondered, was any food consumed during or a few hours prior to testing? Same thing with amount of water one consumed over a period of time around the testing. Also, racial/ethnic differences might play a role. Maybe with more participants, I mean subjects, you could get a bigger "n" and see what the standard error of mean might be. Have you done something like this with this unit before? Quite interesting.
-Shaji

I normally take in one bottle of wine at the lunches (as everyone comes with one bottle) and we usually take around 3 hours for lunch. I guess I've learned to gauge howmuch to take in as I've never been over 0.04 after a lunch while I've been just over 0.05 when I am not driving and therefore not limiting my intake to the same degree.

Impressive. If I drink around one bottle even over three hours with lots of food, there is no way I would want to drive. But I'm from Nyc (where taxis and public transportation are ubiquitous) and am extremely skittish about these things. (Only recently have I started driving after 2 beers instead of just 1).

MY ARTICLE THIS MONTH ON THE HOME PAGE GOES INTO DEPTH WITH THIS. YOU MIGHT FIND IT INTERESTING. IT SHOULD BE POSTED SOON.

Did your subjects eat anything during the testing?

Yes, both ate an equal amount of bruschetta and had a glass of water.