Relating to our own personal experiences, we discussed the hangover in great detail, dispelling myths such as dehydration. This reminded me of a BBC Horizon documentary I had watched recently, with two twins drinking the same amount of actual liquid, but one drinking more alcohol content. The following morning, although the hungover twin felt dehydrated, physically he was just as hydrated as his twin. We also discussed the changes in alcohol metabolising with age and between genders, noting that some people (particular of Asian descent) have a gene which means they tend to metabolise alcohol less efficiently, and have worse hangovers as a result.
There were two main criticisms of the article. Firstly, the style of writing was not consistent. In places, the author was trying to convey a casual tone of voice, but this swerved swiftly into biological jargon (which even I had trouble getting my head around at first!). As an academic, there is nothing wrong in presenting information in a down-to-earth way, but consistency in tone is necessary to avoid confusion. Secondly, although I agree with the authors call for further research, this must be approached with caution, due to the potential role that the alcohol industry itself could play in funding. Having attended a Pint of Science talk about corporate control by Marcus Munafo a few weeks ago, I am definitely more sceptical about research in these areas, as I'm sure a paper about reducing the experience of a hangover would be extremely profitable for the alcohol industry as a whole.
