When you have time, could you elaborate on this statement -

That is based on the assumption that one reaches "0" BAC faster than the other and therefore shifts the time to first drink rather than point of elimination of ethanol (0 BAC). When you start the process at 0 BAC then there is another question mark. If they each had the same amount of EtG in their system would one eliminate at a faster rate than the other?

I understand that the regular drinker would get to 0 BAC faster, but how does the analysis differ from the point of the last drink to some point later of 0 BAC with respect to the 80 hour band. Is this band based on when the last drink is finished or when the individual gets to 0 BAC?

Thanks again - you have quite a wealth of knowledge.

Just FYI.

Requesting off board contacts is prohibited by this site, the discussions need to be for all the public to see, how else can the site continue to share information?

See site rules for a reference to this post.

Good point there, KBC!

I would like to add, that once a thread has been started, that yes, all information needs to stay on the thread so that others with similar questions can benefit by the information that's exchanged.

A person can generally word things in such a way on a thread as to make the information appropriate for all to see.

Thanks!

On your last point, concerning an invidual with a .25% and up giving a positive reading at 80+... how would the different specificities play into that? i.e. 100, 250, 500 and 1000... I know you said it is highly unregulated and not standardized, but do you have any idea what level most other monitoring agencies set this level at? From the info given you have given, Ohio is at 250 and AZ potentially at 2000... Do you know where other states fall in at?

The majority of testing labs use 100 as a cut off. It's a big money business and the overall sales pitch is "we will find more drugs than the lab you're using now." As to the cut offs by state I don't know. Most states do not regulate testing labs.

Of course the exception to the above non-regulated is any federally mandated test. They are strictly regulated and each cutoff specified.
See: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/altern...st-477501.html

There does not appear to be a federal cut off point for alcohol, only drugs... did I miss it?

I don't know if you saw this question so I thought I would repost it...

When you have time, could you elaborate on this statement -

That is based on the assumption that one reaches "0" BAC faster than the other and therefore shifts the time to first drink rather than point of elimination of ethanol (0 BAC). When you start the process at 0 BAC then there is another question mark. If they each had the same amount of EtG in their system would one eliminate at a faster rate than the other?

I understand that the regular drinker would get to 0 BAC faster, but how does the analysis differ from the point of the last drink to some point later of 0 BAC with respect to the 80 hour band. Is this band based on when the last drink is finished or when the individual gets to 0 BAC?

In doing some more research on the metabolism of ethanol, I found literature stating that there may be a fructose effect that would speed up the rate of ethanol can be metabolized... have you run across this?

Thanks again - you have quite a wealth of knowledge.

Fructose accelerates the metabolism of alcohol

Fructose is the only known substance that has been scientifically proven to speed up metabolism of alcohol. Literature on this phenomenon dates at least to 1937 (Carpenter & Lee). Subsequent research has confirmed the fact but seem to disagree on the percentage of acceleration (Brown et al, 1972 = 50%; Rogers et al, 1987 = 80%; Rawat, 1974 = 100%). Mascord et al, 1991 observed a greater range of individual variations from a 13% decrease to a 300% increase in the ten subjects studied. There is a 2004 study from Nigeria that is easy to read, informative and covers all the bases. See Onyesom and Anosike, 2004

I haven't overlooked your other question. I'll get to it. Trying to phrase everything so it will be understandable to subsequent readers. EtG testing is an important subject that is effecting a lot of lives at the moment. So bear with me.

Alcohol, EtG and federally regulated testing programs.

As relates to alcohol the federally regulated drug testing program(s) test only for impairment and therefore do not use bio-markers. In September 2006 Health and Human Services (HHS) issued an Advisory in relation to bio-markers including EtG:


Complete publication at: HHS 2006

Federal departments such as Dept of Transportation, FAA, etc. may promulgate rules in relation to the level of impairment for their particular branch. Airline pilots are considered impaired at .02 for instance. But all departments must comply with basic HHS Guidelines. Federal employees can also be tested for Reasonable suspicion, post accident and return to duty. Any such test is by alcohol content (degree of impairment) not past use. These regulations also extend to services regulated by an agency. Therefore commercial truck drivers, regulated by DOT are subject to the same rules and rights as a federal employee.

So the standards are much different under federal testing mandates than those accorded to private sector employees.

The difference are all the state licensed employees whether healthcare or legal...

Dr. Bill, you are awesome!!

If I have an 80-hr. test coming up, and I'm on the cusp, is there anything I can do to help my cause? How about exercising a lot (sweating) in the next couple days, or doing the sauna? How about drinking a lot of water/soda the day of my test?

Also, if I was heavily intoxicated (.20 BAC), but back to 0 BAC by 82 hours, am I probably OK? Thanks!!

Your question is confusing. It wouldn't require 80+ hrs for alcohol elimination (0 BAC)". Please provide the interval between the time of last drink to time of test.

There are no studies that address increasing elimination of EtG.

Dr. Bill, sorry to have been vague:

Basically what I meant was: if I am tested 82 hours from the time at which my BAC returned to 0, should I be OK?

In other words, at 95 hours before my test, I was heavily intoxicated. But by 80 hrs. my BAC was down to 0.

There should be no EtG remaining from that experience.

Thanks Bill... the reason I asked was, I'd been drinking fairly heavily for two nights (stupid, I know)... But I was smart enough to stop drinking in time for the 80-hours to begin.

By my estimates, 95 hrs. before my test, my BAC was probably around .20. So by 80 hrs. before the test, the BAC should've dropped down to 0. My fear was that, due to the back-to-back binging, I could still produce measurable EtG's...

I've read about (and the counselors scare us with stories of) people still testing positive even 90+ hrs. out. But I'm going to assume they either a) have a bad liver or b) they were so severely intoxicated that their bodies were still metabolizing the alcohol well within the 80-hr. window.

Looks like you've done your research. There are examples of EtG detection at 130 hrs, 110 hrs. These tests, like most of the early research, drew from detoxing chronic alcoholics and in the most extreme examples, as above, were attributed to both liver and kidney damage beginning with a BAC >.30.

However, EtG tests regularly produce erratic results that are left unexplained by the research. Measured alcohol consumption regularly produces results varying by factors >7X.

But even that variability pales in the presence of the fact that most positives fall in the range of 100 - 250 ng range (a fact proudly promoted by testing labs) even though it is well established that incidental exposure to ethanol containing products (particularly personal hygiene) can and frequently does create levels in the range of 300-800 ng.

The danger in this test resides in interpretation of results. It is completely unregulated, there are no uniform standards, no certification or training required to administer the test. Ergo, a prescription for personal disaster.

I'm sure you must feel more secure now.

As an afterthought, sequential extreme intoxication (to the point of .20) is a bad sign. This degree of use can create acute reactions, gastrointestinal inflammation, if a frequent practice, also leads to fatty liver, all of which impede metabolism through the depletion of enzymes. Women are more vulnerable to these conditions than men and the development is more rapid.

Bill, once again - you are AWESOME. I can't even tell you!

If anyone feels they're on the border of passing or failing, is there anything they can do to "tip the scales" in their favor? I know dilutes are bad news (our court considers them a positive). But how about moderate/heavy amounts of coffee or tea shortly before the test? Or sweating a lot (sauna) in the 2 days before the test? Is there evidence to suggest you can give yourself a slight edge?


Also by chance, do you know what cutoff most court testing uses?

The most widely promoted cutoff is 100 ng. There is no standard within the industry.

EtG, like the parent ethanol, is hydrophilic (is attracted to and rapidly incorporates into water) and in order to avoid false positives from environmental exposure I often recommend simply drinking water but not on the day of the test. I offer this as advice for self protection against a pattern of documented problematic misinterpretation not as a means to beat a test. My concern is for the individual that loses his job, children or freedom because (s)he ate some of grandma's cookies, polished the furniture, gargled, used deodorant or regularly washed their hands.

I have no knowledge of commercial products that claim to detoxify. Although I'm skeptical of the claims I can't tell you from experience or study whether they work or not.

Ok, thanks. I need to curtail my drinking episodes, but when my friends come calling, sometimes I just can't resist. I'm fully aware that I need to address my weekend binges. Funny thing is, I can go all week without drinking fine. But if I go out on Fri./Sat. nights - look out. I won't have just one or two; I'm going to binge.

My court-mandated sessions are on Wed. (when I might get tested), so I know how to time my drinking on Sat. nights to coincide with the 80-hr. window. But the other day a counselor tried to scare us by saying they sometimes catch people at 90 or 100 hrs. so that freaked me out a little...

The thing is, I couldn't imagine sitting around on a Fri./Sat. night and not drinking. Maybe when I get older and have kids, but not now. I'd feel like the walls were closing in on me. I just couldn't see myself sitting through a sober weekend - that'd be like sitting in jail.

Truthfully, the alcohol counselors are a joke... they are so obsessive about it, that it gets to be a joke among the clients there. It's like these people have no life and never had one, so they want to take all the fun out of everyone else's. Several are losers; my counselor is a 40-year old virgin type. The thing is, they are so creepily obsessive on the topic of drugs/alcohol - they want us to abstain completely, forever - that we actually don't really take them seriously.

I get it; having a DUI with a high BAC (.18) was a serious offense on my part. But they way a lot of people treat us like scum just makes us even more bitter and resentful. The counselors, the court people, the cops, etc. all treat us like animals, and we have to endure that for months on end. It pisses me off - almost to the point that, when this program is finished, I want to go drink more just to say "f- you" to all of them...

Whether you drink and how much you drink is a personal decision that you must make. Restrictions on where you drink and under what conditions are asserted by law, although compliance is still your choice. It's my personal belief that lecturing and coercion is ineffective in most cases. So you'll get none from me.

I will however point out a flaw in your operational reasoning. The course you have chosen and your rejection of the temporary constraints placed on you is the very action that will keep you under the control of those that you resent. You run a high probability of detection or re-offense which will perpetuate the very treatment you so vehemently protest. That seems self-defeating. Almost as though you're cooperating with them in their mistreatment of you and looking for ways to make sure it doesn't end. On the upside it keeps the legal system churning.

I wish you the best of luck.