Gut Guide · Alcohol and the digestive tract

Alcohol and the gut: what happens even at small amounts

For the digestive tract, alcohol is not a treat with a side effect. It is a solvent that can leave something behind at every station. And the interesting substance in it is not the ethanol itself, it is the acetaldehyde. Part of it demonstrably arises in your mouth, for the large intestine this route has so far mainly been shown in animal models.

SJ
Shukri Jarmoukli · Physician · Area of focus: integrative medicine · ViveCura Berlin
The stomach as the first customs post Acetaldehyde rather than ethanol The cancer question without moralising 34 sources, 32 of them with a DOI
ViveCura BlogGut Guide › Alcohol and the gut

All articles in the gut cluster

Friday evening, two glasses of wine, nothing special. On Saturday morning the head is more or less in order, but the belly is not. First that pulling feeling, then three trips to the toilet, then half a day with the sense that something inside is rumbling. Not a hangover in the classic meaning. More like a gut that is letting you know.

Many people know this pattern and tell nobody about it. Because it seems small. Because two glasses of wine are not something you raise in a consultation. And because the answer you expect anyway is: well, drink less then.

I find that answer useless. Not because it is wrong, but because it answers no question. The question that is actually being asked is a different one. It goes: what exactly is happening down there? And there are answers to that, measurable ones, with numbers, with time courses and with clear limits on what we know.

My starting point

I do not moralise about alcohol, because moralising has never yet helped anyone who drinks. But I do say clearly what happens measurably, so that someone with IBS, with reflux or with an ongoing gut restoration can decide for themselves whether the glass on Friday is worth the price.

This text is not a call for abstinence and not an all clear. It is a set of directions. We walk alcohol station by station through the digestive tract, from the mouth to the large intestine, and at each station we look at what the data give and where they stop.

A word about the headline, so that no false impression arises: most of what follows was measured cleanly at larger drinking amounts. For small everyday amounts the measurements are thin, and no threshold can be derived from them. Wherever a number applies only to a lot of alcohol, I say so.

One exception that comes before everything else

Pregnancy and breastfeeding

In pregnancy there is no range for alcohol for which safety can be shown. Alcohol passes through the placenta directly to the child, and the damage from it can be permanent. In a weaker form the same applies while breastfeeding, because alcohol passes into breast milk.

Everything this article says about amounts, patterns and personal weighing up expressly does not apply to these two situations. Anyone who is pregnant, wants to become pregnant or is breastfeeding discusses the topic in the practice looking after them and not on the basis of a blog article.

What this article covers

  • Why the stomach is the first site of breakdown and not merely a corridor
  • Why women have more alcohol in the blood at the same amount
  • Acetaldehyde: the substance the whole toxicology turns on
  • ALDH2 and the red face after half a glass
  • What happens to the gut barrier and for how long
  • What changes in the microbiome, and in whom it does not
  • Reflux, gastritis, diarrhoea the day after, IBS, histamine
  • The cancer question with both sides of the evidence
  • What a break without alcohol changes measurably
  • Where to find help when the drinking is no longer voluntary
Clinical Meta-analyses and controlled studies in humans Human Observation, cross section or follow up in humans Animal Animal experiment, does not transfer automatically Cell Cell culture, explains a mechanism, does not replace human data

The route alcohol takes: mouth, oesophagus, stomach, small intestine, liver

Almost everything you have heard about alcohol breakdown is about the liver. That is understandable, because that is where the largest part of the work happens. It is also the reason why the most interesting part of the story is rarely told. Because before a single molecule reaches the liver, it has passed four other stations. And at each of them something happens.

Station one: the mouth

The mouth is not a corridor, it is an inhabited space. Bacteria and yeasts live there, and some of them can metabolise ethanol. What arises from that is acetaldehyde, and it arises directly on the mucosa. We will come back to this, because it is the point that almost no popular guide mentions.

Station two: the oesophagus

The oesophagus is a transport route, not an organ of absorption. It still takes something, because it has to withstand the contact without owning the protective mucus layer of the stomach. The lower sphincter will come up shortly, when heartburn is the topic. That is also where a popular explanation starts to wobble.

Station three: the stomach, the first customs post

Here is the point I find most exciting. The gastric mucosa has an enzyme of its own, alcohol dehydrogenase. It breaks down part of the ethanol before it even reaches the blood. The technical term is first pass metabolism. Put into a picture: the stomach is a customs post where part of the cargo is cleared before the rest enters the country.

And this customs post is not staffed equally well in everybody.

Human study, controlled, n=43 The sex difference sits in the stomach, not in the liver

A group around Frezza gave 20 men and 23 women the same amount of ethanol per kilogram of body weight, once as an infusion and once to drink. From the difference between the two blood alcohol curves you can calculate how much the body intercepted before it arrived in the blood. In addition, the enzyme was measured directly in gastric biopsies.

In the women without alcohol use disorder, this first pass metabolism amounted to 23 percent of the male value, and the enzyme activity in the gastric mucosa to 59 percent. Both values were related to each other. In men with alcohol use disorder they were about half as high as in men without, and in women with alcohol use disorder first pass metabolism was practically abolished.

For you this means: at the same weight and the same amount, more alcohol arrives in a woman's blood, and a considerable part of the reason sits in the stomach. Anyone who drinks a lot over years loses this pre filter on top of that.

Frezza M et al. N Engl J Med. 1990;322(2):95-9. PMID: 2248624 · DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199001113220205 [Human study, controlled]
Reframe

The widespread explanation goes: women have less body water, so the alcohol is more concentrated. That is correct and it explains part of it. It does not explain why the difference turns out so large.

The second and larger part of the explanation sits one floor higher. A pre filter that on average works less strongly in women. That is not a question of discipline or of getting used to things, it is a question of enzyme equipment.

Station four: the small intestine, where most of it arrives

By far the largest part of the uptake happens in the upper small intestine. The surface there is huge, the mucosa is thin, and it goes fast. From this follows an everyday observation many people know: on an empty stomach alcohol arrives faster. The reason is not that it would act differently, but that the gatekeeper at the stomach outlet lets it through earlier. If there is food in the stomach, the alcohol stays longer at the customs post.

Station five: the liver and the way back

The main breakdown runs in the liver, via alcohol dehydrogenase to acetaldehyde and further via aldehyde dehydrogenase to acetate. I deliberately keep the liver short here, because it is a topic of its own and already has an article of its own on this blog. For alcohol related liver disease there are separate guidelines from the ACG and EASL societies, both are listed in the sources. If the liver part interests you in more detail, you can read on here:
Liver and detoxification, factually framed and Fructose, sugar and liver metabolism.

Only one connection matters for this article: the liver gets a large part of its blood from the gut. Whatever passes the barrier in the gut lands with the liver first. This axis between gut and liver is the thread that holds the next sections together.

The five stations at a glance

What happens at each station

  1. Mouth. Bacteria and yeasts form acetaldehyde from ethanol, directly on the mucosa.
  2. Oesophagus. Pure contact stretch, without the protective layer of the stomach.
  3. Stomach. First site of breakdown, via the alcohol dehydrogenase of the mucosa. On average considerably weaker in women.
  4. Small intestine. Main site of uptake. An empty stomach speeds up the arrival.
  5. Liver and large intestine. Main breakdown in the liver, and in parallel bacterial acetaldehyde formation in the large intestine.

This order explains why the same amount writes two different stories in two people. There are five adjusting screws here, not one.

The important part first

These red flags belong in a medical assessment and are not for self treatment

Before anything in this article serves as an explanation for your symptoms, this list comes first. If one of these signs appears, the right address is a medical practice and not a blog article:

  • Blood in the stool or black, tarry stool
  • Vomiting blood, or vomit that looks like coffee grounds
  • Unintended weight loss
  • Fever without a recognisable cause
  • Abdominal symptoms at night that pull you out of sleep
  • Difficulty swallowing, or the feeling that food gets stuck
  • A new, persistent change in bowel habit from around 45 to 50 years of age
  • Anaemia without an explained cause
  • Bowel cancer or inflammatory bowel disease in the family
  • Severe upper abdominal pain that radiates into the back or wraps around the body like a belt, especially together with nausea and vomiting and especially after a larger drinking amount

One addition that belongs to this topic: vomiting blood after violent vomiting can come from a tear at the junction between oesophagus and stomach, the so called Mallory Weiss tear. That belongs in an immediate assessment and not in waiting and seeing.

And a second addition that belongs with alcohol: alcohol is one of the two most frequent triggers of acute inflammation of the pancreas. It can take a severe course. That is why belt like upper abdominal pain radiating into the back is at the top of the list. It belongs in a medical assessment the same day and not in waiting and seeing, and with severe pain, vomiting and a poor general condition the emergency number applies: 112 in Germany and across the EU.

And one more sentence that matters to me: nothing in this article is a reason to postpone a recommended gastroscopy, colonoscopy or laboratory work up. Taking alcohol as the explanation without having ruled out the other causes is the most expensive mistake in this field.

And now you know why the same bottle of wine takes two completely different courses in two people at the same table. Not because one of them is more robust, but because five stations are staffed differently.

Acetaldehyde: the substance this is actually about

If you take a single term away from this article, take this one. Ethanol itself is chemically rather sluggish. It dissolves fats, it makes you tired, it lowers inhibition. But it does not attack cells particularly aggressively.

Its first breakdown product very much does. Acetaldehyde is reactive. It binds to proteins and to DNA. And it does not only arise where we expect it.

I like to use a picture for this. Imagine alcohol as a guest walking through your house. The guest himself leaves little behind. But behind him walks a workman who briefly sets to work on every wall. The workman is the acetaldehyde. And the interesting question is not how many guests arrive, but where exactly the workman does his work.

A large part does not arise in the liver at all

This is the point where the specialist literature and popular health writing are furthest apart. In guide articles, acetaldehyde barely appears at all. In research, almost everything has turned on it for thirty years, and with a clear finding: a considerable part of the acetaldehyde your mucosa is exposed to is not formed by the liver but by microorganisms directly on site.

Human study, intervention Your oral bacteria join in

A Finnish group around Homann measured the acetaldehyde content in saliva after participants had drunk moderate amounts of ethanol. In parallel they tested in the laboratory how much acetaldehyde the saliva of the same people produces from ethanol on its own.

After moderate drinking the salivary values rose clearly, with large differences between individuals. After three days with an antiseptic mouthwash, production in the body fell significantly. In the laboratory the formation ran linearly over time and could not be saturated at ethanol concentrations close to everyday ones.

For you this means: part of the exposure arises in your own mouth, at the mucosa, without a detour through the bloodstream. That explains why oral hygiene has become a topic in this context at all. A recommendation for a particular mouthwash expressly does not follow from it. Antiseptic rinses are not a harmless daily companion, and one of the studies further down shows that ethanol containing rinses can even bring the same problem with them.

Homann N et al. Carcinogenesis. 1997;18(9):1739-43. PMID: 9328169 · DOI: 10.1093/carcin/18.9.1739 [Human study, intervention]
Human study, cross sectional, n=326 Smoking and heavy drinking change the oral flora measurably

The same working group examined 326 volunteers with very different backgrounds three years later. Dental status, smoking and alcohol consumption were recorded, and the microbial acetaldehyde formation from saliva was measured.

Smoking and heavy alcohol consumption were the strongest factors for an increased production. Gram positive aerobic bacteria and yeasts in particular were associated with high values.

For you this means: smoking and drinking do not simply add up in the oral cavity. They change the colonisation in such a way that the same amount of alcohol turns into more acetaldehyde.

Homann N et al. Carcinogenesis. 2000;21(4):663-8. PMID: 10753201 · DOI: 10.1093/carcin/21.4.663 [Human study, cross sectional]

That this is not about the form of the drink but simply about the contact of ethanol with colonised mucosa is shown by a study that at first glance leads away from the topic.

Human study, cross over, double blind Even without a drink: ethanol contact is enough

A London group had volunteers rinse with various ethanol containing mouthwashes, with a pure ethanol solution and with water, and then measured the acetaldehyde content in saliva.

After 30 seconds acetaldehyde was detectable, after 5 minutes it was low again. The highest median was found under the pure ethanol solution at 82.9 micromoles per litre after two minutes, clearly above the 43.1 micromoles per litre under a rinse with essential oils. Those who reached peak values above 90.8 micromoles per litre had yeasts in their saliva more often in a post hoc split of the participants. Honesty belongs with it: between the plain microbial counts in saliva and the acetaldehyde levels the authors found no correlation. The individual composition therefore seems to count for more than the sheer number.

For you this means: it does not hang on the wine or the beer, it hangs on the ethanol contact itself. And how much arises in the process differs a great deal between individuals, among other things depending on which yeasts live in your mouth.

Moazzez R et al. Eur J Oral Sci. 2011;119(6):441-6. PMID: 22112029 · DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2011.00886.x [Human study, cross over]

And the same principle in the large intestine

The large intestine is the most densely colonised place in your body. If oral bacteria can make acetaldehyde from ethanol, the thought that colonic bacteria do the same is close at hand. That is exactly what is assumed, and in an animal model it has been shown.

Animal study, rat, n=60 The large intestine as a site of formation in its own right

In a rat study, 60 animals received lactulose or no lactulose over 14 days, plus ethanol injected into the abdominal cavity or saline on two days. The alcohol was therefore not drunk, it reached the large intestine through the blood. Stool pH, the speed at which ethanol was cleared and the acetaldehyde concentration directly in the caecum were measured.

Under lactulose the pH fell, the total clearance rate of ethanol dropped by 13.8 percent, and the acetaldehyde concentration in the caecum lay 66.2 percent lower than in the comparison group.

This is a rat study. It shows a principle, namely that the bacteria resident there have a say in the local amount of acetaldehyde. It does not show a measure for humans, and expressly no recommendation to take anything follows from it.

For the framing of the substance lactulose itself: in Germany lactulose is pharmacy only and available without a prescription. It is used as a laxative and in certain liver conditions. Common unwanted effects are flatulence, abdominal cramps and nausea, and with prolonged or high use there can be shifts in fluid and salt balance. It must not be taken with bowel obstruction or with galactose intolerance. I deliberately give no dosage here. Whether something like that makes sense in an individual case belongs, like any other medication, in the hands of the treating medical practice and not into a self experiment.

Zidi SH et al. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2003;27(9):1459-62. PMID: 14506407 · DOI: 10.1097/01.ALC.0000086061.31875.C8 [In vivo, rat]

Why this is of interest at all is shown by a look into the cell.

Cell study, in vitro What acetaldehyde sets off inside the cell

An American group exposed human cells in a culture dish to acetaldehyde and observed which repair pathways start up. In focus was the Fanconi anaemia BRCA network, which is responsible for cross links between DNA strands.

There was a concentration dependent activation of FANCD2, a dose dependent phosphorylation of BRCA1 and a rise in gammaH2AX. The pattern corresponded qualitatively to the response to mitomycin C, a known DNA cross linker.

This is a cell culture study. It explains a mechanism behind epidemiological observations. It is not evidence of a cancer risk in humans, for that we need the numbers from the cancer section further down.

Marietta C et al. Mutat Res. 2009;664(1-2):77-83. PMID: 19428384 · DOI: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2009.03.011 [In vitro]
Reframe

The usual calculation goes: how many grams of alcohol per week, and how well does my liver cope with that. This calculation overlooks a whole level.

Part of the exposure is not settled centrally at all, it is generated locally, at the place the alcohol passes by. Mouth and large intestine are stages of their own with a balance sheet of their own. That explains why two people with an identical drinking amount need not carry the same tissue exposure.

And now you know why the specialist world talks so persistently about a substance you will find nowhere in the supermarket. It arises along the way.

When an enzyme is slow: ALDH2 and the red face

You may know someone who turns red after half a glass of wine. Not pleasantly tipsy, but properly red in the face, with a pounding heart, sometimes with nausea. In many circles of friends this counts as a funny quirk. It is in fact something else.

The breakdown runs in two steps. Ethanol becomes acetaldehyde, acetaldehyde becomes acetate. Aldehyde dehydrogenase 2, ALDH2 for short, is responsible for the second step. There is a widespread genetic variant in which this enzyme works considerably more slowly. Then the intermediate builds up. The vessels widen, the face turns red, the pulse rises.

Put differently: the workman from the picture above stays in the house longer, because nobody shows him out.

Review The flush reaction as a visible marker

A working group at the American institute for alcohol research around Brooks summarised what the alcohol flush reaction means. It rests predominantly on an ALDH2 deficiency.

The authors record that people with this variant who nevertheless drink regularly carry a markedly increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus. They expressly recommend asking about the flush reaction actively in a medical setting, because it is a piece of risk information that costs nothing.

For you this means: if you turn red after small amounts, that is not a character trait, it is information about your metabolism. It belongs in a medical conversation and not in the category of anecdote.

Brooks PJ et al. PLoS Med. 2009;6(3):e50. PMID: 19320537 · DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000050 [Review]
around 8 %of people worldwide carry the ALDH2 variant, according to the paper named below
around 45 %among Han Chinese, the largest East Asian group, from the same paper
clearly raisedthe risk of oesophageal cancer in carriers who drink regularly despite the variant. I deliberately give no single figure here

The first two numbers come from a paper on the worldwide distribution of the variant and not from a single measurement in patients: Chen CH et al. EBioMedicine. 2020;55:102753. PMID: 32403082 · DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102753. They are orders of magnitude and not precision values. On the third point: that the risk of oesophageal cancer can be clearly raised in carriers who drink regularly is described in the paper by Brooks and colleagues cited above. I deliberately leave out a figure for it, because the numbers in the literature diverge widely and I cannot name a single robust source for one.

The ALDH2 variant is not an exotic detail at the margin. It is the most instructive natural experiment we have on acetaldehyde.

Why this section is here

Because here two things separate that otherwise belong inseparably together. In people with this variant the amount of alcohol is the same, but the acetaldehyde exposure is higher. And exactly the risk that should rise with acetaldehyde is raised in the available investigations as well. That is a strong argument that the intermediate could be a driving factor and not merely an accompanying finding.

The genetics behind this, meaning why enzyme variants occur with different frequencies in different populations and what that means for nutrition and metabolism, is set out in detail in an article of its own:
Genetics, metabolism and ancestry.

What is not written here

No genetic test as a consequence

No instruction to have an ALDH2 test done follows from this section. The visible flush reaction already carries the information, and a test result would change little about the practical handling.

What it does change is the framing. Someone who reacts clearly to small amounts starts from a different position than someone in whom nothing happens. This information can be useful in a medical conversation, especially when there is smoking on top of it.

And now you know why a red face at the first glass carries more information than any table of drinking amounts.

The gut barrier: what becomes permeable and for how long

Between your gut contents and your blood lies a single layer of cells. One cell thick. Over an area that, depending on the calculation, covers several dozen square metres. It is held together by protein connections between the cells, the so called tight junctions.

For this picture I do not like the wall, because a wall is meant to be tight. The gut is not meant to be tight, it is meant to select. I find the grout between tiles a better fit. The tiles are the cells, the grout holds everything together and regulates what gets through. If the grout becomes softer, other things come through than intended.

As for the concept behind it, meaning zonulin, measurement methods and the question of how robust the whole term is, there is an article of its own:
Leaky gut, intestinal permeability and zonulin.

Here only one question matters: what does alcohol do to it? And that one is unusually well studied, because it has been approached with three different methods.

Human study, controlled, n=36 The first measurement, 1984 in the Lancet

Bjarnason and colleagues measured intestinal permeability in 36 people with alcohol use disorder without liver cirrhosis and without signs of malnutrition, using a labelled test molecule, chromium 51 EDTA.

Those who had been abstinent for less than four days almost without exception had higher values than the comparison group. In many of them the abnormality was still measurable up to two weeks after the last glass. The site of the disturbance lay in the small intestine, not in the stomach, and a gastritis present at the same time did not explain the finding.

For you this means: the barrier takes considerably longer than the hangover. The head is back by Sunday lunchtime, the grout is not.

Bjarnason I, Peters TJ, Wise RJ. Lancet. 1984;1(8370):179-82. PMID: 6141332 · DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(84)92109-3 [Human study, controlled]
Human study, controlled, n=84 Larger molecules, and endotoxin in the blood

A group in Hohenheim around Parlesak examined 54 people with alcohol related liver disease and 30 healthy comparison subjects. It tested which molecular sizes pass the barrier, using polyethylene glycols with a molecular mass of 400 up to 10,000.

The smallest molecules behaved inconspicuously. The medium sized ones appeared in roughly twice the concentration in the urine. The largest molecule was found in 20 of 54 patients and in 0 of 30 healthy subjects. Endotoxin in the blood plasma was more than fivefold increased.

For you this means: it is not only about tiny particles. In alcohol related liver disease, in this investigation from milder to advanced stages, molecules can pass the barrier that have no business being there, and measurably components of bacterial envelopes as well.

Parlesak A et al. J Hepatol. 2000;32(5):742-7. PMID: 10845660 · DOI: 10.1016/s0168-8278(00)80242-1 [Human study, controlled]

Up to this point you could say: fine, that concerns people with an alcohol use disorder. That is true as well. Which is exactly why the third study is the most interesting one, because it has nothing to do with alcohol use disorder.

Human study, controlled intervention, n=22 A single night, in healthy people

A German working group around Sturm had 22 healthy volunteers drink a precisely measured amount of alcohol every 20 minutes over four hours, with a target of around 1 per mille in the blood. Blood and urine were examined beforehand and after 2, 4, 6, 24 and 48 hours.

A marker of damage to the intestinal cells, I-FABP, first fell and then rose significantly above the baseline value after six hours. A marker of endotoxin activity in the body, sCD14, was raised after 6, after 24 and still after 48 hours. Women showed a less pronounced barrier disturbance than men.

For you this means: it does not take an alcohol use disorder. A single heavy evening can be enough in healthy people to change these markers over two days. And the sex difference here points in the other direction than with blood alcohol, which is a good hint that this topic does not fit into a single sentence.

Sturm R et al. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022;48(3):1569-1577. PMID: 33839799 · DOI: 10.1007/s00068-021-01666-4 [Human study, controlled intervention]

Why the grout becomes softer

The mechanistic thread closes here with the previous section. A symposium report from the American health institutes describes how this hangs together: alcohol can favour the growth of gram negative bacteria in the gut, through which more endotoxin can accumulate. And acetaldehyde, which is formed both by these bacteria and by the intestinal cells themselves, can alter the proteins of the cell connections through an increased tyrosine phosphorylation. In addition, alcohol induced nitric oxide can attack the cell scaffold.

With that, acetaldehyde is not only the candidate for the cancer question. It is at the same time the substance that can let the grout become softer.

Mechanistically plausible, in parts shown in humans

The chain from the glass to the liver

  1. Ethanol reaches the small and the large intestine, part of it stays available for bacteria.
  2. Bacteria and intestinal cells form acetaldehyde from it, directly at the tissue.
  3. Acetaldehyde can alter the proteins of the cell connections, the barrier can become more permeable.
  4. Components of bacterial envelopes reach the portal vein blood in greater amounts.
  5. This blood runs straight to the liver, where the immune cells react to it.

Steps 1, 4 and 5 have been measured in humans. Steps 2 and 3 come predominantly from mechanistic work and animal models. The chain is plausible and documented in parts, it is not proven in humans at every single link. Source for the mechanism: Purohit V et al. Alcohol. 2008;42(5):349-61. PMID: 18504085 · DOI: 10.1016/j.alcohol.2008.03.131 [Mechanism Review]

Where gastroenterology is reserved, for good reasons

A finding is not yet a diagnosis

In gastroenterology, an increased intestinal permeability counts predominantly as an accompanying finding and not as a disease in its own right. There is no validated routine test for practice and no approved therapy aimed exactly at it. This reserve has good reasons, and I share it.

What I consider right at the same time: with alcohol, the barrier belongs to the better investigated chapters of this field. Three independent methods, across almost four decades, pointing in the same direction. For a field in which much rests on isolated findings, that is a comparatively good starting position. Two of the three investigations, however, concern people with an alcohol use disorder, only one concerns healthy people.

And even so, no test and no treatment follows from it for the individual case. What follows is a framing: if you need two days after an evening, you are not imagining it.

And now you know why the belly sometimes still speaks up on Sunday when the head has long been clear again.

The microbiome: what changes, and in whom

If you search online for alcohol and gut flora, you very quickly find the sentence that alcohol damages the gut flora. As a headline that is not wrong. As a statement about you it is too coarse.

Because the two most important papers on this topic both say the same additional thing, and this addition drops out of almost every summary: it is a subgroup. Not everyone.

Human study, controlled, n=66 Not everyone, but a part, and that part clearly

A Chicago group around Mutlu examined the mucosa associated colonic flora in biopsies from 48 people with alcohol use disorder and 18 healthy comparison subjects, with two independent molecular methods.

Part of the group with alcohol use disorder showed an altered microbiome, with fewer Bacteroidetes and more Proteobacteria, and this shift went along with high endotoxin values in the serum. The network structure of the flora was more weakly connected, and this change persisted even after a longer phase of abstinence.

For you this means two things. First: it does not affect everyone who drinks. Second: where it does apply, the structure recovers more slowly than the liver values, possibly not completely.

Mutlu EA et al. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2012;302(9):G966-78. PMID: 22241860 · DOI: 10.1152/ajpgi.00380.2011 [Human study, controlled]
Cohort, prospective And the subgroup feels different

A Belgian group around Leclercq examined alcohol dependent people before and after a three week withdrawal programme, looking at intestinal permeability, microbiome and psychological symptoms at the same time.

A part of them, but not all, had an increased permeability. Exactly this subgroup showed higher values for depression, anxiety and craving for alcohol after three weeks of abstinence. At the same time it had a different composition and activity of the microbiome.

For you this means: with alcohol, the gut does not only talk to the liver. How close this connection to the nervous system can be is set out in detail under Gut brain axis and vagus.

Leclercq S et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(42):E4485-93. PMID: 25288760 · DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1415174111 [Cohort, prospective]

And the small intestine?

The small intestine is meant to be comparatively sparsely colonised. If too many bacteria sit there, this is called a bacterial overgrowth, SIBO for short. What that is, how it is investigated and how it is treated is covered completely in an article of its own:
SIBO: bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine.

Here only the connection with alcohol is of interest, and it is remarkable, but more weakly documented than everything mentioned so far.

Cohort, retrospective, n=196 A signal, not a proof

An American group retrospectively evaluated 196 people who had received a lactulose breath test because of symptoms, and compared them by alcohol history and further factors.

Of those with moderate alcohol consumption, 58 percent had a positive test, of the abstinent people 38.9 percent. The difference was statistically notable. Neither acid blockers nor tobacco showed a connection in this evaluation.

The limitations belong with it: retrospective, a single centre, breath test instead of a direct sample from the small intestine, and everyone examined already had symptoms. The correct sentence is therefore: in a retrospective evaluation, moderate alcohol consumption was associated with more frequently positive breath tests. Not: alcohol causes SIBO.

Gabbard SL et al. Dig Dis Sci. 2014;59(3):638-44. PMID: 24323179 · DOI: 10.1007/s10620-013-2960-y [Cohort, retrospective]
Reframe

The sentence "alcohol destroys the gut flora" sounds unambiguous and is popular for exactly that reason. But it covers up precisely the information that counts in everyday life.

The subgroup structure is itself the finding. It explains why a friend goes jogging the day after three glasses of wine and you need two days. That is not a difference in willpower and not imagination. Those are different starting positions in barrier, flora and enzymes.

What does not follow from this: a stool test to survey your own flora after the weekend. Why these tests say less than their reports promise is covered under Stool testing and dysbiosis diagnostics.

And now you know why the blanket statement about the gut flora is of little use to you and the question about your own reaction is of a great deal of use.

The symptoms many people really do know

Now to the part that searching is mostly about. Not endotoxin and not phyla, but the pulling in the upper abdomen, the burning behind the breastbone and the trip to the toilet on Saturday morning.

Six symptom pictures, each of them short, with what the data give.

First: reflux and heartburn

Here many studies point in the same direction. A meta-analysis pooled 29 studies and worked through the association between alcohol consumption and reflux disease.

Meta-analysis, 29 studies The frequency counts more than the single amount

A Chinese group around Pan searched three large databases and pooled 26 cross sectional and 3 case control studies with a random effects model, including a dose response analysis.

The pooled odds ratio was 1.48 for drinkers compared with non drinkers and occasional drinkers. For reflux oesophagitis, meaning the form with visible mucosal damage, it was 1.78, for the non erosive form 1.15. At fewer than three to five drinking occasions per week it was 1.29, at more frequent drinking 2.12. Per 12.5 grams of alcohol per day, the risk rose by about 16 percent.

For you this means: it is not the single large amount but the regularity that carries the most weight here. And the form with visible damage is affected considerably more strongly than the one without. Important for the framing: the heterogeneity between the studies was high, the numbers are orders of magnitude and not point accurate values.

Pan J et al. Alcohol Alcohol. 2019;54(1):62-69. PMID: 30184159 · DOI: 10.1093/alcalc/agy063 [Meta-analysis, k=29]

The usual explanation for this goes: alcohol lets the lower sphincter of the oesophagus go slack. That sounds convincing. It is simply not consistently documented.

Counter finding

A plausible explanation that is not documented that simply

A group from Sri Lanka fitted 23 people with chronic alcohol use disorder and 12 healthy comparison subjects with long term manometry over 24 hours, meaning a pressure measurement of the oesophagus across a whole day. Median consumption was 95 grams per day over 12 years. Those examined were neither acutely intoxicated nor in withdrawal.

The motility of the oesophagus did not differ substantially from the comparison group. 10 of 23 had damage to the autonomic nervous system, and in exactly those the lower sphincter was not slack but rather too tightly contracted. 4 of 23 had increased acid reflux.

What this paper does not measure belongs with it: it describes the chronic baseline motility of sober people across 24 hours. It does not answer the question of what a glass of wine does to the sphincter in that moment. About the acute effect it says nothing. It can therefore neither confirm nor refute the widespread explanation.

Across many studies the association between alcohol and reflux points in the same direction. The authors of the meta-analysis themselves speak of a potential association, because 26 of the 29 included papers are cross sectional studies and differ considerably from one another. What follows is a clear signal and not proof of causality.

Ferdinandis TG et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;21(7):1157-62. PMID: 16824069 · DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2005.04072.x [Human study, controlled]

What else plays a role in heartburn, from the question about the amount of acid to the handling of acid blockers, is here: Understanding heartburn and acid blockers. One note that matters to me: acid blockers are never stopped, reduced or started on your own. That belongs in the hands of the treating practice.

Second: gastric mucosa and gastritis

That alcohol attacks the gastric mucosa is not merely suspected in humans, it is documented endoscopically.

RCT, double blind, n=16 Visible damage, under direct view

In a randomised, double blind study in 16 healthy volunteers, 50 percent ethanol was applied directly onto the gastric mucosa through an endoscope, with a subsequent assessment and a tissue sample.

Under placebo pretreatment, visible damage arose with a mean score of 2.8. Histologically there was an extensive detachment of the surface epithelium and deeper reaching haemorrhagic necrotic areas. A pretreatment with cholecystokinin or with fat into the duodenum lowered the score to 0.7 and 0.3 respectively.

For the framing: 50 percent ethanol in direct contact corresponds to high proof spirits on an empty mucosa, not to a glass of wine with a meal. The study shows the principle of the damage and not the effect of an everyday amount.

Konturek JW et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93(12):2385-90. PMID: 9860397 · DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1998.00692.x [RCT, double blind]

That the duodenum can take something too is described by the large review from the Hohenheim group: even a single excess episode can cause erosions and small bleeds there, as well as mucosal damage in the upper jejunum.

A note that belongs with the morning after

Painkillers and alcohol hit the same mucosa

Anti inflammatory painkillers such as ibuprofen, diclofenac or acetylsalicylic acid can attack the gastric mucosa by a similar route to alcohol. The two together can raise the risk of a bleed in the upper gastrointestinal tract. And that combination is the most obvious piece of self help on the morning after drinking.

For the framing of these substances: in Germany they are pharmacy only, and at higher strengths prescription only. Known unwanted effects include stomach complaints, ulcers and bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract, along with effects on the kidney, blood pressure and clotting. With a known gastric ulcer, with kidney weakness, with certain heart conditions and in the last third of pregnancy, special restrictions apply. I deliberately give no dosage here. Anyone taking such medicines regularly discusses the combination with the practice looking after them, and a prescribed medication is not changed on your own initiative.

Third: the diarrhoea the day after

This is the most frequent search on this topic, and there is a physiological explanation for it. Among other things, the large intestine has the task of recovering sodium and water from the gut contents. It is exactly this recovery that can be inhibited by alcohol. At the same time the gut can push the contents along faster, so that less time remains for the recovery anyway. In the underlying review this is described above all for larger drinking amounts and for people with an alcohol use disorder.

Two mechanisms, then, that can point in the same direction: less water back, less time for it. On top of that a local irritation of the mucosa and, depending on the amount and the person, an altered handling of bile acids can come. If bile acids arrive in the large intestine instead of being taken up beforehand, they can in turn pull water after them. For small amounts this route has not been investigated in the same way. It does explain well, though, why the symptom can appear with a delay. What lies behind this is covered under Bile, bile acids and TUDCA.

Why the morning after and not the evening itself

Two time windows, two different processes

In the evening
Uptake and distribution

The alcohol is taken up in the small intestine. Motility is speeded up, perception is dampened. The gut contents have not yet arrived at their destination.

In the morning
Recovery and passage

Now the contents reach the large intestine, where water and sodium ought to be recovered. It is exactly this step that can be inhibited by alcohol, and the passage can run faster at the same time. The result arrives with a delay.

This is a physiological explanation and not imagination. The process is described above all for larger drinking amounts. Source: Bode C, Bode JC. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2003;17(4):575-92. PMID: 12828956 · DOI: 10.1016/s1521-6918(03)00034-9 [Review]

Fourth: irritable bowel syndrome

With IBS, the question is rarely whether alcohol plays a role at all. It is usually which amount in which pattern. And there is a study on exactly that with a very clever design: not a questionnaire in hindsight, but a diary on the same day.

Cohort, diary design The pattern says more than the sum

An American group around Reding followed women with irritable bowel syndrome and healthy comparison subjects for about a month with daily records of symptoms, alcohol, caffeine and smoking. Binge drinking was defined as four or more drinks on one day.

The drinking patterns themselves did not differ between the groups. An association with the symptoms showed up only in the IBS group, and there above all for the binge pattern and the symptoms of the following day: diarrhoea, nausea, stomach pain and indigestion were each significantly more frequent. Light and moderate consumption was barely or not at all associated with them. In the diarrhoea type, the associations were stronger than in the constipation type or the mixed type.

For you this means: the practically most useful question is not whether, but how much at once. What else makes up IBS is covered under IBS: finding the causes.

Reding KW et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(2):270-6. PMID: 23295280 · DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2012.414 [Cohort, diary design]

Fifth: histamine, and why red wine of all things

Many people report tolerating red wine and beer less well than clear spirits, even though there is less alcohol in them. That sounds contradictory at first and has an obvious explanation: it is not only about the alcohol.

Alcohol can slow down diamine oxidase, meaning exactly the enzyme that breaks down ingested histamine. And red wine and beer, as fermented drinks, bring histamine with them. Two paths that can add up, while a clear distilled spirit contains no appreciable histamine.

It expressly does not follow from this that clear spirits are the more harmless choice. High proof drinks have the most intense direct contact with the mucosa, and in the saliva measurement further up it was the pure ethanol solution of all things that produced the highest acetaldehyde peaks. Less histamine does not mean less burden.

What DAO is, how a histamine intolerance is framed and where the diagnostic limits lie is covered completely here: Histamine intolerance and DAO deficiency. If mast cells are involved, MCAS and mast cell activation is worth reading in addition.

Honest about the evidence

Plausible, frequently reported clinically, not documented at RCT level

The review by Maintz and Novak, the one most frequently cited in this field, says it itself: double blind, placebo controlled provocation studies are missing. The causal chain via histamine and diamine oxidase is mechanistically comprehensible. It is not documented at the same level as the association between alcohol and reflux.

Clinically I observe this connection often, and I say alongside it that this is an observation and not a study result. Anyone who knows this pattern in themselves has usable information about their own tolerance. Anyone who does not know it does not have to go looking for it.

Maintz L, Novak N. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85(5):1185-96. PMID: 17490952 · DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/85.5.1185 [Review]

Sixth: beer brings something extra

Beer is a special case, because three things come together there. The alcohol, the carbonation and the fermentable carbohydrates from the grain. The last of these are a known factor for people who work with the FODMAP concept. What FODMAPs are and how the concept is used sensibly is covered under Using FODMAP properly.

This means a glass of beer can be a different task for a sensitive gut than a glass of white wine with the same amount of alcohol. Not because of the alcohol, but because of the freight around it.

Reframe

The question "which alcohol is the best tolerated" has no general answer, and precisely that is the useful answer.

Because drinks carry different freight, tolerance is a question of your pattern and not of a list of drinks. With histamine topics, experience points rather towards fermented drinks. With FODMAP sensitivity, rather towards beer. With reflux, rather towards regularity. With IBS, rather towards the amount per evening. Four different questions, four different answers.

Questions that bring more in everyday life than a list of bans

  • Does it come the same evening or the next day? That separates irritation from a problem with reabsorption.
  • Does it hang on the amount per evening or on the frequency per week? IBS reacts rather to the first, reflux rather to the second.
  • Does it hang on the drink or on the alcohol? If red wine and beer are clearly worse than an equally strong clear spirit, that speaks for the freight.
  • With or without food? An empty stomach lets the alcohol move on faster.
  • How was the sleep afterwards? Alcohol can change sleep architecture, and sleep and gut hang together.

This is not diagnostics and does not replace an assessment. It is the kind of observation that makes a medical conversation considerably more productive.

And now you know why the question about the most tolerable drink is almost always the wrong question.

The cancer question, factually

This is the section where most texts slide either into moralising or into playing things down. I try to avoid both by writing the numbers down and naming the points of dispute.

What the classification means, and what it does not

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, an agency of the World Health Organization, has classified alcoholic beverages in Group 1. The same goes for acetaldehyde, insofar as it comes from the consumption of alcoholic beverages. The organs named as affected are: oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, oesophagus, liver, colon and rectum, and the female breast.

Source: IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 100E: Personal Habits and Indoor Combustions. IARC, Lyon 2012 [agency document]. Summary of the working group: Baan R et al. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(4):292-3. PMID: 17431955 · DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(07)70099-2

Reframe

Group 1 is often read like this: as dangerous as tobacco or asbestos. That is not how the classification is meant.

Group 1 is a statement about the certainty of the finding, not about the size of the risk. It says: the association with cancer in humans counts as established. It says nothing about how large the effect is per glass. Anyone who does not make this distinction ends up either at panic or at a shrug. Neither is appropriate.

The size of the effect is written in other work, and that is what we look at now.

Epidemiological modelling, worldwide How large the share is overall

An international group around Rumgay calculated for the year 2020 which share of all new cancer cases worldwide is attributable to alcohol consumption. The basis was consumption data from 2010, relative risks from systematic reviews and the worldwide incidence data.

Result: 741,300 new cases, which is 4.1 percent of all new cancer cases. Of these, 346,400 cases were attributed to heavy consumption above 60 grams per day and a further 291,800 to risky consumption of 20 to 60 grams. Moderate consumption below 20 grams per day accounted for 103,100 cases, and a consumption of up to 10 grams per day for 41,300.

For you this means: by far the largest part of the burden comes from heavy consumption. And the part that falls on small amounts is not zero. Both sentences belong side by side, otherwise the picture is not right.

Rumgay H et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(8):1071-1080. PMID: 34270924 · DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00279-5 [Epidemiological modelling]

Bowel cancer in particular

Meta-analysis, 61 studies The dose curve for bowel cancer

A group around Fedirko evaluated 27 cohort studies and 34 case control studies, each with at least three consumption categories, and modelled the course across the dose.

The relative risk was 1.21 for moderate consumption of two to three drinks per day and 1.52 from four drinks per day onwards. In men the association was stronger in the moderate range than in women. In the dose analysis, 10 grams per day gave a relative risk of 1.07, 50 grams gave 1.38 and 100 grams gave 1.82.

For you this means: at about one small glass of wine per day, the increase lies at around 7 percent in relative terms. For a single person that is little in everyday life. At population level it is a lot, because very many people are involved. Exactly this difference is the reason why professional societies and individual people weight the same number differently.

Fedirko V et al. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(9):1958-1972. PMID: 21307158 · DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq653 [Meta-analysis, k=61]
Meta-analysis, 10 studies It begins as early as the precursor stage

A meta-analysis of ten observational studies examined the association between alcohol consumption and colorectal serrated polyps, meaning a precursor that can be found and removed during a colonoscopy.

Across all drinkers together, the risk lay 24 percent higher than in non drinkers and occasional drinkers. Broken down: light consumption without a detectable increase (RR 1.05), moderate consumption 1.19, heavy consumption 1.60. The effect was larger for the sessile serrated adenomas than for simple hyperplastic polyps.

For you this means two things. The association starts as early as the precursor stage and not only at the carcinoma. And at the light amounts it was not detectable in this evaluation. Both belong to an honest picture.

Wang YM et al. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60(7):1889-902. PMID: 25618311 · DOI: 10.1007/s10620-014-3518-3 [Meta-analysis, k=10]

Because this paragraph is about precursors, a clear sentence belongs here: the screening examination exists precisely in order to find such precursors and remove them before something else grows out of them. What awaits you there, which procedures exist and from what age there is an entitlement in Germany is covered under Bowel cancer screening and colonoscopy. Nothing in this article is an argument for leaving out or postponing a recommended screening.

And now the point of dispute: does that hold for one glass per week as well?

Here the assessments diverge, and I consider it wrong to keep quiet about that. Both sides have arguments.

Two positions, both documented

No safe amount, against not detectable at light consumption

The WHO position
No safe amount can be named

A comment by WHO authors argues: in order to state a safe amount, you would need proof that below this amount there is no increased risk. This proof does not exist. In the European Union in 2017, according to a modelling study, around 23,000 new cancer cases were attributable to a consumption below 20 grams per day, a good third of them to less than one standard drink per day. These numbers do not come from the comment itself but from the modelling study by Rovira and Rehm cited within it.

The counter position
In 60 cohort studies mostly no association

A meta-analysis of 60 cohort studies found no association for very light and light consumption with most types of cancer. With two exceptions: breast cancer in women and bowel cancer in men. At moderate consumption, bowel cancer in men and breast cancer in women rose as well.

The decisive difference lies in the logic: "no proof of a safe range" is not the same as "proof of harm". For this article it also matters that bowel cancer of all things is one of the two exceptions in which the counter position also finds an increased risk. Anderson BO et al. Lancet Public Health. 2023;8(1):e6-e7. PMID: 36603913 · DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00317-6 [Comment by WHO authors] · Source of the EU case numbers: Rovira P, Rehm J. Eur J Public Health. 2021;31(3):591-596. PMID: 33338220 · DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckaa236 [Epidemiological modelling] · Choi YJ, Myung SK, Lee JH. Cancer Res Treat. 2018;50(2):474-487. PMID: 28546524 · DOI: 10.4143/crt.2017.094 [Meta-analysis, k=60]

How I frame this

I consider the WHO formulation logically clean and not a piece of politics. It describes a limit of knowledge and does not claim a proven harm at one glass per week. Anyone who makes fear out of it goes beyond the data. Anyone who reads a free pass into it does so as well. What remains is a decision that each person takes with their own priorities, and that decision is easier to take with better numbers than with an appeal.

And now you know why two serious sources can arrive at different recommendations without either of them being dishonest.

What changes measurably during a break

January without alcohol has a good reputation and a poor data basis, because most of the numbers circulating about it go back to a survey and not to a study. There is, however, one published investigation, and it is more precise than what stands in the newspaper articles.

Cohort, prospective, controlled, n=141 One month, with a comparison group

A London group around Mehta followed 94 healthy people who wanted to drink no alcohol for a month, and 47 people who wanted to keep drinking. At the start everyone drank considerably more than the usual reference values, on average around 258 grams per week in the abstinence group. All results were adjusted for changes in diet, exercise and smoking.

In the abstinence group, the following values fell significantly: the HOMA score as a measure of insulin resistance by 25.9 percent, systolic blood pressure by 6.6 percent, diastolic by 6.3 percent, weight by 1.5 percent, the growth factor VEGF by 41.8 percent and EGF by 73.9 percent. In the comparison group none of this changed significantly.

The limitation belongs with it: the participants had assigned themselves, it was not a random allocation. And their baseline consumption lay considerably above what counts as moderate in Germany. For someone with one glass of wine per week, this study says nothing.

Mehta G et al. BMJ Open. 2018;8(5):e020673. PMID: 29730627 · DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020673 [Cohort, prospective, controlled]

The barrier is slower than the blood pressure

Now comes the part that is missing from the four week articles. The values that react quickly are not the values this article is about. Circulation and sugar metabolism move briskly. Barrier and flora take longer.

Cohort, prospective follow up, n=165 Not yet after three weeks, but after six

A French group around Donnadieu-Rigole examined 65 people in inpatient withdrawal treatment and 100 healthy comparison subjects. Blood samples were taken on admission as well as after three and after six weeks, with markers for microbial translocation and for the barrier.

At the start, LBP, bacterial 16S rDNA, sCD14 and I-FABP lay significantly higher than in the healthy subjects. Six weeks after withdrawal, sCD14 and LBP had fallen significantly. After three weeks this decrease was not yet significant.

For you this means: it does go back measurably, but slowly. That is the more honest time window than any "after four weeks everything is in order again".

Donnadieu-Rigole H et al. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2018;42(1):32-40. PMID: 29030980 · DOI: 10.1111/acer.13527 [Cohort, prospective follow up]

The old Lancet paper shows the same sluggishness from the other side: in some people the permeability was still increased two weeks after the last glass. And the network structure of the microbiome was still altered in the Chicago investigation even after a longer phase of abstinence.

What is not documented

About the microbiome after four weeks we know little

There is no good human study showing that the composition of the microbiome settles again after four alcohol free weeks. The Chicago data speak rather against it. What happens in the microbiome during this time is considerably less well studied than blood pressure.

Anyone who makes you concrete microbiome promises for these four weeks makes them without a data basis. And anyone who sells you a supplement for it, all the more so.

How I talk about this in the consultation

The break as a measuring instrument, not as an exercise in going without

With people who come to me with abdominal symptoms and drink regularly, I rarely ask the question about stopping. I ask the question about a defined period without alcohol, with a simple record of the symptoms before and afterwards.

The reason is not a moral one but a methodological one. As long as alcohol stays in play, it remains a variable in the system that cannot be calculated out. A defined break is the one approach I know of that makes your own share in it visible. Afterwards you can decide again, with better information than before.

An important caveat about this break: anyone who drinks larger amounts daily and over a longer period should not stop abruptly on their own initiative. Physical withdrawal can come with tremor, sweating, restlessness, seizures and delirium, and it can take a life threatening course. In that situation the start belongs under medical supervision. With confusion, a seizure or severe agitation during withdrawal, call the emergency number: 112 in Germany and across the EU.

To be clear, because this section follows the cancer chapter: what is described here is a method for observing abdominal symptoms. It is not a treatment for a cancer and not a treatment for alcohol dependence. Both belong in the structures provided for them, and for alcohol dependence in the services listed further down in this article.

If you are in the middle of a gut restoration, the same applies in a sharpened form. The overall concept for that is under Gut reset: the whole gut treatment. And the first question there is still whether there is enough stomach acid up top before anything else comes into play: Low stomach acid and betaine HCl.

Reframe

A break from alcohol is mostly told as a question of willpower. Get through it, then be proud. That makes it unnecessarily hard and unnecessarily moral.

I find the break more useful as an experiment with a result. You measure something in yourself that you could not measure before. If nothing happens, that is valuable information. If a lot happens, that is too. In both cases you know more afterwards than before, and the decision stays with you.

And now you know why the question is not whether four weeks are enough, but what they are enough for.

When the drinking is no longer voluntary

This article is about the gut and not about addiction. Even so, one paragraph belongs here, because some people need it and because leaving it out would be dishonest.

Factual note

Where there is help

If you notice that the decision about the next glass no longer lies entirely with you, that is not a question of character and no reason for shame. There is structured help for it, regulated in a guideline of its own, and the first step is not a decision for ever.

  • Your own family practice. The conversation there is confidential and often the simplest beginning.
  • Addiction counselling centres. They are free of charge, present in almost every city and open to you even without a diagnosis.
  • The German nationwide addiction and drugs hotline: 01806 313031.
  • Telefonseelsorge, the German crisis line, around the clock and anonymous: 0800 1110111 or 0800 1110222.
  • In an emergency, the emergency number 112 in Germany and across the EU: with a seizure, confusion, impaired consciousness, severe agitation during withdrawal, or if you see yourself or others in danger.

A safety note that belongs here: with daily consumption of larger amounts, stopping abruptly on your own initiative can become dangerous. Physical withdrawal can come with seizures and delirium. The start therefore belongs under medical supervision, whether outpatient or inpatient.

Professional basis: S3 guideline "Screening, Diagnose und Behandlung alkoholbezogener Störungen", AWMF register number 076-001 [Guideline]. This article makes no diagnosis and deliberately contains no questionnaire for self assessment. That belongs in a conversation with people and not on a web page.

Frequently asked questions

Why do I get diarrhoea the day after drinking, but not on the evening itself?

Because the decisive process happens with a delay. The large intestine normally recovers sodium and water from the gut contents. It is exactly this recovery that alcohol can inhibit, and at the same time the contents can be pushed along faster. Two effects in the same direction. In the evening the contents are still on the way, in the morning they arrive where the recovery can be missing. On top of that a local irritation of the mucosa and, depending on the person, an altered handling of bile acids can come. This is described above all for larger drinking amounts. For small amounts the route has not been investigated in the same way, but it does explain well why the symptom can appear with a delay.

Is it true that women tolerate alcohol less well than men, and what is that down to?

At the same weight and the same amount, more alcohol arrives in the blood in women on average. The reason often named, less body water, explains only a part of it. The larger part sits in the stomach: the alcohol dehydrogenase of the gastric mucosa breaks down a part before anything reaches the blood. In the investigation by Frezza, this advance breakdown in women amounted to 23 percent of the male value, and the enzyme activity to 59 percent. What matters, though, is that the difference does not point in one single direction: in the Sturm study, the barrier disturbance after a heavy night was even less pronounced in women than in men.

What is acetaldehyde, and why is it more problematic than the alcohol itself?

Acetaldehyde is the first breakdown product of ethanol. Ethanol itself is chemically rather sluggish, acetaldehyde is reactive and binds to proteins and to DNA. In cell cultures it sets off a response that corresponds to the pattern of a DNA cross linker. The point that is almost entirely missing from popular health writing: a large part of the acetaldehyde the mucosa is exposed to does not arise in the liver but directly on site, through bacteria and yeasts in the mouth and in the large intestine. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies acetaldehyde from alcohol metabolism in Group 1, just as it does the alcoholic beverages themselves, set out in the IARC Monographs, Volume 100E, Lyon 2012.

I turn red in the face when I drink. Is that dangerous?

It is above all a piece of information. The flush reaction rests predominantly on a variant of the enzyme ALDH2, which breaks acetaldehyde down further. If it works more slowly, the intermediate builds up, the vessels widen, the face turns red. The working group around Brooks describes that people with this variant who nevertheless drink regularly carry a markedly increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus, and recommends asking about the reaction actively in a medical setting. A genetic test is not needed for that, the visible reaction already carries the information. What follows from it belongs in a medical conversation, especially when there is smoking on top.

How much alcohol does it take for the gut barrier to become more permeable?

Less than most people assume, but it is not a small amount. In a controlled investigation in 22 healthy volunteers, a single evening with a target value of around 1 per mille was enough to change markers of intestinal cell damage and of endotoxin activity. That target value corresponds to roughly five to seven drinks. An alcohol use disorder was not needed for that. For smaller everyday amounts there are no comparably clean measurements, and no threshold can be derived from this. What is certain: it does not take years of consumption for something to become measurable in these markers.

How long does the gut barrier stay disturbed after one evening?

Longer than the hangover. In the Sturm investigation, the marker sCD14 was raised after 6, after 24 and still after 48 hours. In the older Lancet paper in people with alcohol use disorder without cirrhosis, the increased permeability was detectable in part of those examined up to two weeks after the last glass. After a withdrawal, translocation markers fell significantly only after six weeks, and not yet after three. The order of magnitude is therefore days to weeks, depending on how much and for how long was drunk.

Which alcohol is most likely to be tolerated with IBS?

This question has no general answer, and that is itself the useful answer. In the diary study by Reding, carried out in women between 18 and 48 years of age with irritable bowel syndrome, it was above all the binge pattern with four or more drinks on one day that predicted the symptoms of the following day, while light and moderate consumption was barely associated with them. The practically more important question is therefore not which, but how much at once. For the choice of drink: beer additionally brings carbonation and fermentable carbohydrates with it, red wine additionally histamine. Anyone who knows their own pattern gets further than with any general list.

Why do I tolerate red wine and beer less well than clear spirits?

Because with alcohol it is rarely only the alcohol in the glass. Fermented drinks such as red wine and beer bring histamine with them, and alcohol can at the same time slow down diamine oxidase, meaning the enzyme that breaks down ingested histamine. Two paths that can add up. A clear distilled spirit contains no appreciable histamine. It expressly does not follow from this that clear spirits are the more harmless choice: high proof drinks have the most intense direct contact with the mucosa, and in a saliva measurement it was pure ethanol of all things that produced the highest acetaldehyde peaks. Less histamine does not mean less burden. With beer, carbonation and fermentable carbohydrates from the grain come on top. Honesty belongs with it: for the histamine chain, double blind provocation studies are missing, as the authors of the most important review say themselves.

Does alcohol make a bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine more likely?

There is a signal, but no proof. In a retrospective evaluation of 196 people with symptoms, 58 percent of those with moderate alcohol consumption had a positive lactulose breath test, compared with 38.9 percent of the abstinent people. The limitations are considerable: retrospective, a single centre, breath test instead of a sample from the small intestine, and everyone examined already had symptoms. A prospective confirmation is missing. The correct sentence is therefore that moderate consumption was associated with more frequently positive tests in this evaluation.

Why does alcohol give me heartburn even though I otherwise have no reflux?

Across many studies the association points in the same direction. A meta-analysis of 29 studies found a pooled odds ratio of 1.48 for drinkers and of 1.78 for the erosive form, with an increase of about 16 percent per 12.5 grams of alcohol per day. What is interesting is that the frequency counts more than the single amount. The popular explanation via a slack sphincter is not consistently confirmed: in a long term pressure measurement in people with chronic alcohol use disorder, the motility of the oesophagus was largely unremarkable, and in those with nerve damage the sphincter was rather too tightly contracted. That measurement, however, concerns baseline motility in the sober state and not the acute effect of a drink. The authors of the meta-analysis themselves speak of a potential association, because 26 of the 29 included papers are cross sectional studies. What follows is a clear signal and not proof of causality.

Does no safe amount apply to one glass of wine per week as well?

Here serious sources diverge. The WHO comment argues that no threshold can be shown below which there is demonstrably no increased risk, and derives from this that no safe amount can be named. A meta-analysis of 60 cohort studies, by contrast, found no association for very light and light consumption with most types of cancer, with two exceptions: breast cancer in women and bowel cancer in men. The logical difference matters: no proof of a safe range is not the same as proof of harm. Particularly relevant for this topic is that bowel cancer of all things stays elevated in the counter position too.

By how much does alcohol raise the risk of bowel cancer?

The most precise numbers come from a meta-analysis of 61 studies. There the relative risk was 1.21 for two to three drinks per day and 1.52 from four drinks onwards. In the dose analysis, 10 grams per day gave a relative risk of 1.07, 50 grams gave 1.38 and 100 grams gave 1.82. At population level an increase of 7 percent in relative terms is a lot, because very many people are involved. For a single person with one small glass a day the shift in everyday life is small. Both sentences belong together, and the recommended screening examination is untouched by this. At the precursor stage the same trend showed up: light consumption without a detectable increase, moderate consumption 1.19, heavy consumption 1.60.

What changes measurably if I drink no alcohol for four weeks?

In a prospective investigation with a comparison group, in people with a clearly above average baseline consumption, after one month of abstinence insulin resistance fell by 25.9 percent, systolic blood pressure by 6.6 percent, weight by 1.5 percent and the growth factors VEGF by 41.8 and EGF by 73.9 percent. In the comparison group that kept drinking, none of this changed significantly. Important for the framing: the allocation was not random, and the baseline consumption lay clearly above what counts as moderate in Germany. Barrier and microbiome visibly take longer than circulation and sugar metabolism. Anyone who drinks larger amounts daily does not begin such a break on their own initiative but under medical supervision.

I am in the middle of a gut restoration. Is a glass of wine at the weekend a problem?

There is no generally valid answer to that, and anyone who gives one goes beyond the data. What can be said: as long as alcohol stays in play, it is a variable that cannot be calculated out of the result. If you are putting a lot of effort into your gut right now and want to know what part of it changed something, then a defined alcohol free phase can make this question answerable in the first place. That is a methodological argument and not a moral one. Afterwards you decide again, with better information. One caveat belongs with it: anyone who drinks larger amounts daily and over a longer period does not stop abruptly on their own initiative. Physical withdrawal can come with seizures and delirium and belongs under medical supervision.

When does a symptom after alcohol belong in a medical assessment rather than in waiting and seeing?

Always when one of the red flags is part of it: blood in the stool, black tarry stool, vomiting blood or vomit that looks like coffee grounds, unintended weight loss, fever, symptoms at night that wake you, difficulty swallowing, a new persistent change in bowel habit from around 45 to 50 years of age, anaemia, or a family history of bowel cancer or inflammatory bowel disease. Specifically after violent vomiting: blood in the vomit can come from a tear at the junction between oesophagus and stomach and belongs in an immediate assessment. On top of that comes severe upper abdominal pain radiating into the back or wrapping around the body like a belt, especially with nausea and vomiting after a larger drinking amount: that can be an inflammation of the pancreas and belongs in an assessment the same day, and with a severe course via the emergency number 112. Taking alcohol as the explanation without having ruled out the other causes is the most expensive mistake in this field.

Where this topic connects to the rest of the body

Alcohol is rarely an isolated topic. It hangs on sleep, on the uptake of micronutrients, on the liver, on mood and on the role that eating and drinking play in your own life. You will find these neighbouring topics here.

SJ

Shukri Jarmoukli

Physician · Area of focus: integrative medicine · ViveCura Berlin

I work in my private practice at the interface of conventional medicine, functional medicine and Clinical Psychoneuroimmunology. With abdominal topics I am less interested in what gets cut next than in which question has stayed open before the next restriction.

With alcohol I consider it my task neither to dramatise nor to play things down. The data are astonishingly clear in some places and thin in others, and both of those belong said out loud. This article does not replace medical advice. It is meant to be useful to you in asking the better questions at your next appointment.

For the framing of the label: integrative medicine is a self chosen area of focus and not a specialist or subspecialty title awarded by the German Medical Association. The same goes for Clinical Psychoneuroimmunology.

ViveCura, Privatpraxis Shukri Jarmoukli, Skalitzer Straße 137, 10999 Berlin

Scientific sources

  1. Baan R, Straif K, Grosse Y, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V et al. Carcinogenicity of alcoholic beverages. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(4):292-3. PMID: 17431955 · DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(07)70099-2 [Report of the IARC working group]
  2. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 100E: Personal Habits and Indoor Combustions. IARC, Lyon 2012. Source: IARC Monographs series, no DOI. [Agency document]
  3. Anderson BO, Berdzuli N, Ilbawi A, Kestel D, Kluge HP, Krech R et al. Health and cancer risks associated with low levels of alcohol consumption. Lancet Public Health. 2023;8(1):e6-e7. PMID: 36603913 · DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00317-6 [Comment by WHO authors, not a guideline]
  4. Singal AK, Bataller R, Ahn J, Kamath PS, Shah VH. ACG Clinical Guideline: Alcoholic Liver Disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113(2):175-194. PMID: 29336434 · DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2017.469 [Guideline, consensus]
  5. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of alcohol-related liver disease. J Hepatol. 2018;69(1):154-181. PMID: 29628280 · DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.018 [Guideline, consensus]
  6. DGPPN and DG-SUCHT (lead). S3-Leitlinie Screening, Diagnose und Behandlung alkoholbezogener Störungen. AWMF register number 076-001, version 3.1, validity extended 2025. Source: AWMF guideline register. [Guideline, no DOI, register number as source]
  7. Frezza M, di Padova C, Pozzato G, Terpin M, Baraona E, Lieber CS. High blood alcohol levels in women. The role of decreased gastric alcohol dehydrogenase activity and first-pass metabolism. N Engl J Med. 1990;322(2):95-9. PMID: 2248624 · DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199001113220205 [Human study, controlled, n=43]
  8. Bode C, Bode JC. Effect of alcohol consumption on the gut. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2003;17(4):575-92. PMID: 12828956 · DOI: 10.1016/s1521-6918(03)00034-9 [Review]
  9. Homann N, Jousimies-Somer H, Jokelainen K, Heine R, Salaspuro M. High acetaldehyde levels in saliva after ethanol consumption: methodological aspects and pathogenetic implications. Carcinogenesis. 1997;18(9):1739-43. PMID: 9328169 · DOI: 10.1093/carcin/18.9.1739 [Human study, intervention]
  10. Homann N, Tillonen J, Meurman JH, Rintamäki H, Lindqvist C, Rautio M et al. Increased salivary acetaldehyde levels in heavy drinkers and smokers: a microbiological approach to oral cavity cancer. Carcinogenesis. 2000;21(4):663-8. PMID: 10753201 · DOI: 10.1093/carcin/21.4.663 [Human study, cross sectional, n=326]
  11. Moazzez R, Thompson H, Palmer RM, Wilson RF, Proctor GB, Wade WG. Effect of rinsing with ethanol-containing mouthrinses on the production of salivary acetaldehyde. Eur J Oral Sci. 2011;119(6):441-6. PMID: 22112029 · DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2011.00886.x [Human study, cross over, double blind]
  12. Zidi SH, Linderborg K, Väkeväinen S, Salaspuro M, Jokelainen K. Lactulose reduces intracolonic acetaldehyde concentration and ethanol elimination rate in rats. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2003;27(9):1459-62. PMID: 14506407 · DOI: 10.1097/01.ALC.0000086061.31875.C8 [In vivo, rat]
  13. Marietta C, Thompson LH, Lamerdin JE, Brooks PJ. Acetaldehyde stimulates FANCD2 monoubiquitination, H2AX phosphorylation, and BRCA1 phosphorylation in human cells in vitro. Mutat Res. 2009;664(1-2):77-83. PMID: 19428384 · DOI: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2009.03.011 [In vitro]
  14. Brooks PJ, Enoch MA, Goldman D, Li TK, Yokoyama A. The alcohol flushing response: an unrecognized risk factor for esophageal cancer from alcohol consumption. PLoS Med. 2009;6(3):e50. PMID: 19320537 · DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000050 [Review]
  15. Chen CH, Ferreira JCB, Joshi AU, Stevens MC, Li SJ, Hsu JH et al. Novel and prevalent non-East Asian ALDH2 variants; Implications for global susceptibility to aldehydes toxicity. EBioMedicine. 2020;55:102753. PMID: 32403082 · DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102753 [Basic research, genetics]
  16. Bjarnason I, Peters TJ, Wise RJ. The leaky gut of alcoholism: possible route of entry for toxic compounds. Lancet. 1984;1(8370):179-82. PMID: 6141332 · DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(84)92109-3 [Human study, controlled, n=36]
  17. Parlesak A, Schäfer C, Schütz T, Bode JC, Bode C. Increased intestinal permeability to macromolecules and endotoxemia in patients with chronic alcohol abuse in different stages of alcohol-induced liver disease. J Hepatol. 2000;32(5):742-7. PMID: 10845660 · DOI: 10.1016/s0168-8278(00)80242-1 [Human study, controlled, n=84]
  18. Sturm R, Haag F, Janicova A, Xu B, Vollrath JT, Bundkirchen K et al. Acute alcohol consumption increases systemic endotoxin bioactivity for days in healthy volunteers, with reduced intestinal barrier loss in female. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022;48(3):1569-1577. PMID: 33839799 · DOI: 10.1007/s00068-021-01666-4 [Human study, controlled intervention, n=22]
  19. Purohit V, Bode JC, Bode C, Brenner DA, Choudhry MA, Hamilton F et al. Alcohol, intestinal bacterial growth, intestinal permeability to endotoxin, and medical consequences: summary of a symposium. Alcohol. 2008;42(5):349-61. PMID: 18504085 · DOI: 10.1016/j.alcohol.2008.03.131 [Mechanism Review]
  20. Mutlu EA, Gillevet PM, Rangwala H, Sikaroodi M, Naqvi A, Engen PA et al. Colonic microbiome is altered in alcoholism. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2012;302(9):G966-78. PMID: 22241860 · DOI: 10.1152/ajpgi.00380.2011 [Human study, controlled, n=66]
  21. Leclercq S, Matamoros S, Cani PD, Neyrinck AM, Jamar F, Stärkel P et al. Intestinal permeability, gut-bacterial dysbiosis, and behavioral markers of alcohol-dependence severity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(42):E4485-93. PMID: 25288760 · DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1415174111 [Cohort, prospective]
  22. Donnadieu-Rigole H, Pansu N, Mura T, Pelletier S, Alarcon R, Gamon L et al. Beneficial Effect of Alcohol Withdrawal on Gut Permeability and Microbial Translocation in Patients with Alcohol Use Disorder. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2018;42(1):32-40. PMID: 29030980 · DOI: 10.1111/acer.13527 [Cohort, prospective follow up, n=165]
  23. Gabbard SL, Lacy BE, Levine GM, Crowell MD. The impact of alcohol consumption and cholecystectomy on small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. Dig Dis Sci. 2014;59(3):638-44. PMID: 24323179 · DOI: 10.1007/s10620-013-2960-y [Cohort, retrospective, n=196]
  24. Pan J, Cen L, Chen W, Yu C, Li Y, Shen Z. Alcohol Consumption and the Risk of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Alcohol Alcohol. 2019;54(1):62-69. PMID: 30184159 · DOI: 10.1093/alcalc/agy063 [Meta-analysis, k=29]
  25. Konturek JW, Hengst K, Konturek SJ, Sito E, Stachura J, Domschke W. Physiological role of cholecystokinin in gastroprotection in humans. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93(12):2385-90. PMID: 9860397 · DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1998.00692.x [RCT, double blind, n=16]
  26. Ferdinandis TG, Dissanayake AS, de Silva HJ. Chronic alcoholism and esophageal motor activity: a 24-h ambulatory manometry study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;21(7):1157-62. PMID: 16824069 · DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2005.04072.x [Human study, controlled, n=35]
  27. Reding KW, Cain KC, Jarrett ME, Eugenio MD, Heitkemper MM. Relationship between patterns of alcohol consumption and gastrointestinal symptoms among patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(2):270-6. PMID: 23295280 · DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2012.414 [Cohort, diary design]
  28. Maintz L, Novak N. Histamine and histamine intolerance. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85(5):1185-96. PMID: 17490952 · DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/85.5.1185 [Review]
  29. Rumgay H, Shield K, Charvat H, Ferrari P, Sornpaisarn B, Obot I et al. Global burden of cancer in 2020 attributable to alcohol consumption: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(8):1071-1080. PMID: 34270924 · DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00279-5 [Epidemiological modelling]
  30. Fedirko V, Tramacere I, Bagnardi V, Rota M, Scotti L, Islami F et al. Alcohol drinking and colorectal cancer risk: an overall and dose-response meta-analysis of published studies. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(9):1958-1972. PMID: 21307158 · DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq653 [Meta-analysis, k=61]
  31. Wang YM, Zhou QY, Zhu JZ, Zhu KF, Yu CH, Li YM. Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis: Alcohol Consumption and Risk of Colorectal Serrated Polyp. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60(7):1889-902. PMID: 25618311 · DOI: 10.1007/s10620-014-3518-3 [Meta-analysis, k=10]
  32. Choi YJ, Myung SK, Lee JH. Light Alcohol Drinking and Risk of Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies. Cancer Res Treat. 2018;50(2):474-487. PMID: 28546524 · DOI: 10.4143/crt.2017.094 [Meta-analysis, k=60]
  33. Rovira P, Rehm J. Estimation of cancers caused by light to moderate alcohol consumption in the European Union. Eur J Public Health. 2021;31(3):591-596. PMID: 33338220 · DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckaa236 [Epidemiological modelling]
  34. Mehta G, Macdonald S, Cronberg A, Rosselli M, Khera-Butler T, Sumpter C et al. Short-term abstinence from alcohol and changes in cardiovascular risk factors, liver function tests and cancer-related growth factors: a prospective observational study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(5):e020673. PMID: 29730627 · DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020673 [Cohort, prospective, controlled, n=141]
Transparency about the evidence: where the data are thin
  1. Most of the barrier and microbiome data come from people with an alcohol use disorder. Bjarnason 1984, Parlesak 2000, Mutlu 2012, Leclercq 2014 and Donnadieu-Rigole 2018 were collected in people with alcohol use disorder or alcohol related liver disease. Only the investigation by Sturm 2022 concerns healthy people. Anyone who derives from Parlesak that a glass of wine flushes endotoxin into the blood has read the study wrongly.
  2. The large intestine part of the acetaldehyde story has not been measured directly in humans. Homann and colleagues examined the mouth. For the large intestine, this text rests on a rat study and on a mechanistic review contribution. The principle is plausible, everyday measurements in the human large intestine are missing.
  3. The rat study is a rat study. No recommendation for humans follows from Zidi 2003, neither for lactulose nor for anything else. It stands here exclusively as evidence that colonic bacteria have a say in the local amount of acetaldehyde.
  4. The cell study is a cell study. Marietta 2009 explains a mechanism in the culture dish. It is not evidence of a cancer risk in humans. The epidemiological work in the cancer section stands for that.
  5. The ALDH2 percentages do not come from the Brooks abstract. The figures of around 8 percent worldwide and around 45 percent in Han Chinese are documented with the paper by Chen 2020. A figure for the size of the oesophageal cancer risk in carriers is deliberately no longer given here, because no single robust source could be named for it and the numbers in the literature diverge widely. Brooks 2009 documents the association, not a specific number.
  6. The SIBO numbers are a signal, not a proof. Gabbard 2014 is retrospective, single centre, uses the breath test instead of a sample from the small intestine and examined an already symptomatic group. A prospective confirmation is missing.
  7. The histamine chain is not documented at RCT level. Maintz and Novak themselves record that double blind placebo controlled provocation studies are missing. What I describe about it from my consultation is marked as an observation and is not a study result.
  8. The gastritis study worked with 50 percent ethanol in direct contact. That is a model for the mechanism and not a statement about a glass of wine with a meal. The same holds for the duodenal erosions in Bode 2003, which are described after an excess episode.
  9. The reflux meta-analysis had a high heterogeneity. With an I squared of 88.8 percent, the included studies differed considerably, and 26 of the 29 papers are cross sectional studies. The authors themselves therefore speak of a potential association. The odds ratios named are orders of magnitude and not precise values, and the text deliberately says clear signal rather than documented.
  10. The manometry study does not measure the acute effect. Ferdinandis 2006 describes the baseline motility of sober people with chronic alcohol use disorder across 24 hours, at a median consumption of 95 grams per day over 12 years. It can neither confirm nor refute the widespread explanation via a slack sphincter.
  11. With Moazzez 2011 the counter finding belongs with it. Between the microbial counts in saliva and the acetaldehyde levels the authors found no correlation. The yeast finding comes from a post hoc split at a threshold value and is therefore a pointer, not a proof.
  12. The EU case numbers do not come from the WHO comment itself. Anderson 2023 is a two page comment and not a guideline. The numbers come from the modelling study by Rovira and Rehm 2021 cited within it.
  13. The one month study was not randomised. In Mehta 2018 the participants assigned themselves, and their baseline consumption lay considerably above what counts as moderate in Germany. For people with a very low consumption it says nothing.
  14. The sex difference does not point in one single direction. Frezza 1990 finds higher blood alcohol levels in women, Sturm 2022 finds a weaker barrier disturbance in women under the same drinking conditions. A simple sentence such as "women are more sensitive" does not carry the evidence.
  15. On alcohol free beer and gut health, nothing is written here, deliberately. A great deal is claimed about it online. In this research no usable human study on it could be verified, so the point stays open.
  16. What deliberately is not written here. No amount recommendation as a free pass, no dosage, no supplement, no brand and no advice to change, reduce or stop an existing medication. The gram figures named are consumption categories from the literature. From no section does it follow that a recommended screening examination, endoscopy or laboratory work up should be left out, postponed or replaced.

Have questions or want to book an appointment?

We'd be happy to advise you personally at our practice.

Book appointment