Does drinking alcohol shrink your brain?

[AlphaCentauri]

What's good for the heart may hurt the brain, according to a new study of the effects of alcohol.
People who drink alcohol -- even the moderate amounts that help prevent heart disease -- have a smaller brain volume than those who do not, according to a study in the Archives of Neurology.

While a certain amount of brain shrinkage is normal with age, greater amounts in some parts of the brain have been linked to dementia.

"Decline in brain volume -- estimated at 2 percent per decade -- is a natural part of aging," says Carol Ann Paul, who conducted the study when she was at the Boston University School of Public Health. She had hoped to find that alcohol might protect against such brain shrinkage.

"However, we did not find the protective effect," says Paul, who is now an instructor in the neuroscience program at Wellesley College. "In fact, any level of alcohol consumption resulted in a decline in brain volume."

In the study, Paul and colleagues looked at 1,839 healthy people with an average age of about 61. The patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain and reported how much they tippled.

Overall, the more alcohol consumed, the smaller the brain volume, with abstainers having a higher brain volume than former drinkers, light drinkers (one to seven drinks per week), moderate drinkers (eight to 14 drinks per week), and heavy drinkers (14 or more drinks per week).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/10/14/healthmag.alcohol.brain.shrinkage/

[bdamomma]

1. ask Bush

[AlphaCentauri]

2. ROFL

:rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

3. Yes, but use monosyllabic words, speak slowly

and use crayons if necessary.

[tridim]

4. Marijuana may make your brain grow

Cannabinoid injections sprout new neurons in mice.
Geoff Brumfiel

Most addictive drugs inhibit the growth of new brain cells. But injections of a cannabis-like chemical seem to have the opposite effect in mice, according to new research. Experts say that the results, if borne out by further studies, could have far-reaching implications for addiction research and the application of marijuana in medicine.

For several years now, researchers have been interested in how drugs affect a part of the brain known as the hippocampus. This region is unusual in that it can grow new neurons throughout a person's lifetime. Researchers have theorized that these new cells help to improve memory while combating depression and mood disorders.

Many drugs, such as heroin, cocaine and alcohol, inhibit the growth of new cells in the hippocampus, which scientists believe could emotionally destabilize addicts. Understanding how drugs affect the hippocampus may have a critical role in treating addiction.

http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0510/57.htm

Awesome work Feds. :eyes:

[Sequoia]

5. If you do both it must be a tug of war.

Hey, we only use 10% of our brain anyway...right?

[tridim]

8. Actually that 10% figure isn't true either.

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html

[Sequoia]

11. Okay, thanks.

I sort of thought so. I know I use more than 10%.

[DJ13]

6. May bee

Not shure.

:toast:

[dmallind]

7. Those classifications are astounding.

A "heavy drinker" is a person who stops in for one tall beer (two units) after a daily stroll into town?

But even with such silliness aside one thing is missing from this analysis. What does the brain shrinkage DO? I'm not concerned about my brain's size I'm concerned about its function. Given that I still seem to be functioning on a relatively decent level after being far in excess of a heavy drinker by these standards for over twenty years, does brain size matter or was I unwittingly a Paul Dirac level genius back then? Now I AM functioning at a decent enough level to understand that anecdotal examples do not refute data and trust me I see plenty of gibbering dumbasses at the bar, but I would need the data that demonstrate the effects of any brain size reduction and how that is correlated to alcohol intake (did they segregate for body mass and gender? Even MADD does that!) before I modified any behavior based on my admittedly subjective (but to me centrally important) own experience.

[dweller]

9. yeah, but how is your diet?

i'll wager alot of this is diet related, w/ heavier drinkers/alcoholics substituting alcohol (calories all the same to the body) for food, whether purposely or economically induced. Thiamine deficiency is contributing factor for 2 of the more devastating conditions known to alcoholism (Wernicke's Encephalopathy and Korsakoff's Psychosis). Blaming alcohol while overlooking other factors involved (diet, or lack of nutrients necessary for cellular development) brought on by over-consumption, is imo, a faulty reasoning.

Brain size/development is also determined by adequate dietary intake.
dp

[dmallind]

10. Sufficient in intake but of horrible nutritional composition.

I eat more fat and sugar than I should, and less fruit and vegetables. While I'm not a big eater for such a large person as myself I certainly get enough calories from solid food to be fine there. I once stopped drinking for six months partially as a bet and partially to save some money for a car (not the whole car - even I don't drink that much! ;) ). My weight did not change. No doubt I substituted solid calories for liquid ones (of equally bad composition).

But wouldn't your point only apply to REAL alcoholics not this one big beer a day group? Sure I've known drinkers whose food intake was limited to cornflakes with vodka on them every hungover morning and maybe if they are lucky some bar snacks at night, but we're talking then about people for whom 14 units is a day that risks the DT's and withdrawal, not a normal week.

I'm not a river in Egypt - I know alcohol has detrimental effects, but I think these kind of (when not completely understood) alarmist studies and this puritanical characterization of anyone who exceeds one glass of wine a day as the equivalent of Mickey Mantle are not helpful ways to support that message. The irrational neo-prohibitionist types who seek to demonize even perfectly inconsequential alcohol intake as raging dependency are simply Chicken Littles who become less credible every time a drinker who they have lumped into that group lives a perfectly happy, fulfilling and healthy life.

I'm 40 and very overweight with a bad diet and not enough exercise. There is little doubt I will not live an incredibly long life while being completely healthy and even robust right now. However I really AM a heavy drinker (moderate by the standards of my UK upbringing, heavy by US standards) and while not dependent I take that risk knowing that alcohol is a contributing factor because I CHOOSE to. But my units run around three times this "heavy drinker" level and they should not be lumped in with me any more than I should be lumped in with the true lushes who exceed my weekly intake by happy hour on Monday. Measuring the detrimental effects of drinking like I do, or drinking like a lush does, is great and no doubt sobering stuff (pun very much intended) but it's hardly relevant to people who are drinking just a couple units a day or even less.

[dweller]

12. well, that's something you can alter, so do it... ie. your diet.

I too believe the study is probably flawed, overlooking other circumstances and factors and focusing on demon alcohol. In my background in psychology (undergrad) I was lucky in that i had a professor with an open mind concerning the brain and drugs of any composition, and never ever pinpointed or layed the blame on a single factor, but the combination of the individual and a chemical, with the combo never being the same for any two individuals. Diversity, circumstances, heredity, environment, all come together in unique possibilities. Nothing written in stone.

Alcohol has been in the human environment since the dawn of time: even if a fluke that some grain or wheat or grape found it's way in a hollow of stone and water and fermented through natural processes, but whatever, it has been used for religous rituals, medicinal purposes, enlightening processes, and just plain nutrition in times of want for longer than we realize. Who am i to judge?

But again, you can alter your diet. Less is more in bulk, and more is your focus on raw, fresh vegetables, essential oils and protein, along w/ healthy fats. Play with it until you find your happy space. Your body will guide you and make you happy. It's not that tough. And tipple along in moderation, knowing that you have to supply enought nutrients to offset any deletrious effects and you should be fine. I've read that any good physician would agree that cutting your dietary intake by half (US standards) or at least a third is a key to longevity. Take that as good advice for what it's worth. So, you might have to buy new clothes.

It's your life. Live it to the fullness. Focus on a long run, and surprise the small minds. That's my philosophy, and i'm sticking to it.
dp

[salvorhardin]

13. caloric restriction

You said...

I've read that any good physician would agree that cutting your dietary intake by half (US standards) or at least a third is a key to longevity. Take that as good advice for what it's worth.

It works in mice, but there's never been good evidence that it works in humans, and now there's some evidence that it doesn't. And the evidence comes from people who deliberately place themselves on a calorie restricted diet. Maybe a lower protein diet does help though.

Calorie restriction, a diet that is low in calories and high in nutrition, may not be as effective at extending life in people as it is in rodents, according to scientists at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

Previous research had shown that laboratory animals given 30 percent to 50 percent less food can live up to 50 percent longer. Because of those findings, some people have adopted calorie restriction in the hope that they can lengthen their lives. But the new research suggests the diet may not have the desired effect unless people on calorie restriction also pay attention to their protein intake.

In an article published online this month in the journal Aging Cell, investigators point to a discrepancy between humans and animals on calorie restriction. In the majority of the animal models of longevity, extended lifespan involves pathways related to a growth factor called IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor-1), which is produced primarily in the liver. Production is stimulated by growth hormone and can be reduced by fasting or by insensitivity to growth hormone. In calorie-restricted animals, levels of circulating IGF-1 decline between 30 percent and 40 percent.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080924151018.htm

[trotsky]

14. Interesting.

Thanks for that link. I had been wondering if there had been more work done in non-rodents on this effect.

[dmallind]

15. Why? S erious question.

I don't mean to be petulant with you personally. I'm sure you're a sensible person who has thought this through and is offering advice genuinely. I acknowledge that entirely.

But there are untold amounts of things that will kill you, and none of us - not a vegan locavore who exercises three hours a day, does yoga and flosses three times daily - avoids all the risks there. Even if we did there are many conditions and illnesses that are not dependent on behavior. Life is, frankly, a crapshoot. I know statistics pretty well so I'm not frightened by people with my kind of weight or diet having a "300% greater risk of X" until I know what the absolute risk is. If I buy 3 Powerball tickets I have a 300% greater chance of winning too after all, but it's an irrelevant change in probability the vast majority of the time. All too often I have worked until I found this (NEVER well or prominently reported) datum to find that by changing from a diet and lifestyle I enjoy to one that I would find tedious and unpleasant I could change a 0.3% risk into a 0.1% risk. So instead of being 99.7% likely to be just fine I could spend an hour a day running, stop my beer and trivia sessions completely, and exchange juicy tasty burgers and rich curries for tofu and raw broccoli for the next several decades I have left, and be 99.9% likely to be just fine instead.

Of course there are multiple risks, and of course some (although far fewer than people think usually) are greater than a fraction of a percent. No doubt I could indeed live longer as a vegan teetotaling runner, but there are two things, not intended as humor or putdowns but as serious objections for me personally. The extra years I get will be at the end of my life, and all the years between then and now will be far less enjoyable for me.

You see I've been there. In my late teens/very early 20s I was a competitive bodybuilder and weightlifter. I'm naturally endomorphic and bulky. I could put on muscle by looking at a dumbbell. But I could put on fat by looking at a glass of water too. I spent five years or so with a caloric intake of about 1800 with zero fat calories and 6 days a week lifting for 3+ hours, with some cardio and stretching too. Only by that kind of dedicating my entire life and time and energy to it could I get rid of my flab. Now sure you can say that's not the goal now and I could be less extreme and just modify my diet and exercise and sure, but unless I put in far more hours and far more strict food restrictions than most people would have to, I'm going to be a fat bugger anyway. I even tried this a time or two. It really did take hours a day to get me to lose more than a few pounds.

So in short it would take massive commitment, a complete withdrawal from foods and beers I enjoy (I'm a beer snob - I don't pound Coors Light to get shitfaced, I drink a range of mostly craft brewed mostly ales and stouts- the occasional special Pilsner - because I LIKE them), and for that I would get a somewhat reduced (again almost always less than people think - check out the longevity tables and see how little impact weight really has in most cases) risk of SOME of the things that can kill me, and I'd still die, after being old for longer, and after living my life in a way that to me would be very stark and joyless.

I'm not suicidal or even all that fatalistic and I'm no James Dean live fast die young wannabe either (too late for that! ;) but on sober reflection and much thought, I would rather die of a heart attack at 65 (ooh I forget to mention - nobody in my family for seven generations has lived past 70 - all but one of the ones I have heard personal tales of lean and wiry and moderate drinkers at worst) after 25 more years of enjoying my life a nd spending my time how I choose, than die at 85 of Alzheimer's after 35 years of strict diet and exercise regimen followed by 10 years of pain-wracked infirmity and loss of faculties. Yes of course I know not all healthy living people suffer that kind of old age (although the older you get the more likely it is obviously) but then again not all fat beer fans keel over in their 60s either. Like I said life is a crapshoot.

[salvorhardin]

16. I think you're mostly right

There's a middle ground to be found. Obviously, there are things which will either significantly reduce your lifespan or quality of life. While everyone focuses on the increased risk of lung cancer with regular tobacco use, the fact is that there's a myriad of other debilitating effects from COPD to severe vascular problems. Similarly, regular heroin use has serious health consequences, as does regular heavy alcohol use.

But I do think overall that we've bought into the myth that our behavior is the primary determinant of our health.

[salvorhardin]

17. Brain shrinkage and cognitive decline

It used to be thought that the reason for the reduction in volume of aging brains was due to a loss of neurons. However this hasn't proven out. Now it's thought that the reduction in volume stems from the connections between neurons becoming smaller and thus becoming less effective messengers. Also, the change in aging brains is not uniform. The greatest change in volume is seen in the frontal lobe which might explain some of the mild cognitive impairment normally seen with aging. But at least one study didn't find any change in cognitive functions such as memory, processing speed or attention:

Brain shrinkage, a common symptom of ageing when people hit their 60's, appears to have no impact on an individual's capacity to think or learn, according to ANU research.

The research is part of a 20-year study by the ANU Centre for Mental Health Research called PATH Through Life and suggests a revision of long-standing views on the impact of age-related brain shrinkage.

Professor Helen Christensen, the Director of the Centre for Mental Health Research (CMHR), said the findings challenged traditional beliefs about the impact of ageing on the brain.

"The common belief is that the brain shrinks with age and that this shrinkage is linked to poorer memory and thinking. There is also a belief that greater education, or continued, sustained intellectual activity might allow people to better accommodate the effects of brain ageing," Professor Christensen said. "Our findings do not support these beliefs. It is known that the brain shrinks over the course of a person's life, although the exact trajectory is not well understood, and there are huge individual differences.

"In this study, we found that, on average, men aged 64 years have smaller brains than men aged 60. However, despite this shrinkage, cognitive functions - like memory, attention and speed of processing - are unaffected.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-06/ra-sbb060905.php

I don't know the research literature so I can't say whether this study's conclusions are atypical or what work has gone on since this study.

[dmallind]

18. Interesting stuff thanks.

My knowledge of neuroscience is strictly based on long ago undergrad biology and House reruns so I'm not exactly qualified to have an opinion here, but it seems a fascinating question to me. It's one thing that would indeed make me change my habits should a solid link be found. I'm not worried about dying before I see 80, but I am not too keen on living with decreased cognitive function. While it may seem I am a barfly for the beer, and indeed I enjoy it, I could drink more cheaply and probably less heavily at home. What really drives me to the bar is I'm a fairly serious trivia maven so I frequent the bars which offer NTN trivia (the satellite trivia, not the crackbox coin op stuff). My other main hobbies are equally focused on recall and cognitive ability like Scrabble and cryptic crosswords. If I lose the brain function to any noticeable extent I lose the source of most of my enjoyment of life. Not that that's unusual of course as most people would be pissed off losing brain function, but in this context I mean the specific brain functions that support such tests of linear logic and memory.