Methods: Veterans with comorbid alcohol dependence and PTSD (n = 96) were randomized to prazosin (16 mg) or placebo in a 12-week outpatient, double-blind clinical trial. In this secondary data analysis, we examined main effects of alcohol abstainer status (abstainer vs. nonabstainer), treatment, and their interaction on changes in PTSD symptoms over time using linear mixed models.
Results: There was a main effect of alcohol abstainer status on symptoms of PTSD (p = 0.03), such that nonabstainers had lower total Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) scores than abstainers. There was a significant treatment by alcohol abstainer status interaction (p = 0.01); specifically, among placebo-treated individuals, those who did not abstain from alcohol had lower total CAPS scores compared to alcohol abstainers. Within the prazosin-treated group, abstainers and nonabstainers did not differ on total CAPS scores. Results were similar for the avoidance (p = 0.02), reexperiencing (p = 0.01), and hyperarousal (p = 0.04) subscales, such that placebo-treated nonabstainers had lower CAPS scores overall.
Conclusions: Overall, prazosin treatment was not significantly related to changes in PTSD symptoms over the course of the 12-week clinical trial in a comorbid population. Interestingly, placebo-treated alcohol nonabstainers had a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms. Whether placebo-treated individuals continued to use alcohol because of ongoing symptoms of PTSD is not known.
Objective: Previous research has focused mostly on abstainer and/or general drinker prototypes. The present studies examined an abstainer, moderate drinker and heavy drinker prototype in relation to drinking behaviour.
Design: Two studies among young adults aged 18-25 (paper-and-pencil, cross-sectional, N = 140; online, prospective, N = 451) assessed prototype favourability and participants' perceived similarity to the prototypes. Participants were also categorised into abstainers, moderate, and heavy drinkers.
Results: Similarity and favourability had similar sequences in both studies: the moderate drinker and abstainer prototypes were evaluated most favourable and felt similar to; the heavy drinker prototype was rated the least favourable and felt similar to. Importantly, heavy drinking participants felt most similar to the moderate drinker prototype and rated the heavy drinker least desirable. The results suggest a need for research to include other prototypes, such as the moderate drinker, besides the abstainer and heavy drinker.
Multivariate logistic regression results indicated that low-risk drinkers were more likely to be older, married, Australian-born, and reside in a less disadvantaged neighbourhood compared with abstainers. There was no significant difference by sex between low-risk drinkers and abstainers.
The socio-demographic profile of low-risk drinkers differed from that of abstainers. Combining low-risk drinkers and abstainers into a single group, which is often the practice in survey research, may mask important differences. The study may support improved targeting of health promotion initiatives that encourage low-risk drinkers not to increase consumption or, in view of increasing evidence that low-risk drinking is not risk free, to move towards abstinence.
Australian studies that differentiate between abstainers, low-risk drinkers and risky drinkers, and report socio-demographic correlates associated with alcohol use, tend to pool teenagers and adults together  or focus on a subset of adults based on sex [15, 16], age [17,18,19,20] or other characteristics (e.g., ethnicity) . Consequently, socio-demographic information about Australian adults who drink alcohol, but do so at low levels, is limited.
Similarly, non-Australian studies have examined the socio-demographic correlates of abstainers, light or moderate drinkers and heavier drinkers, though they typically focus on discrete groups such as men  or an age cohort [23, 24]. Furthermore, direct comparisons between abstainers and low-risk drinkers is the exception rather than the rule . Overall, these studies do provide some insights into social demographic differences between abstainers and low-risk drinkers. For example, a Finnish twin study found that former drinkers had a lower annual income, and they also spent less time per year in gainful employment over a 20-year period compared with moderate drinkers . In this study, the measure of moderate drinking was comparable to the 2009 NHMRC long-term low-risk threshold. These studies examine attributes associated with one or more types of low-risk drinking but, as is the case with Australian-based studies, low-risk refers to either average total volume or episodic drinking and not to those who meet both criteria.
This paper compares socio-demographic characteristics of Australian adults who drink at low-risk levels with abstainers. Multivariate findings indicate that drinking in accordance with the Australian drinking guidelines, as opposed to abstaining from alcohol, was associated with individual and community level characteristics. Specifically, being older, not widowed, Australian-born, having a higher income and higher-level education, residing in a less disadvantaged area and living in an inner regional area.
The response rate of 48.1%, although comparable to previous waves of the NDSHS , presents the potential of non-response bias. For example, a comparison of the 4179 respondents who returned a blank or unusable 2013 NDSH survey with those who returned a completed survey (23,855) revealed higher proportions of men and younger adults among the former . Given the two attributes (male; younger) are commonly associated with heavy drinking patterns (e.g., ), it is possible that demographic differences between respondents and non-respondents may have biased alcohol estimates. There is also evidence to suggest abstainers may be over-represented amongst non-respondents .
Despite these limitations, gaining a better understanding of the social location of low-risk drinkers, as distinct from abstainers can be seen as a first step towards learning more about the social norms and stability of low-risk alcohol use. This is important in view of the increasing weight of evidence that low levels of alcohol consumption are not risk free. Furthermore, increasing our understanding of low-risk drinkers may provide additional ways to frame discussions around less harmful drinking patterns and promote this as an achievable and acceptable practice, especially if abstinence is not perceived as a viable outcome.
They found what they call an "abstainer bias" in most of the studies, meaning that when researchers compared moderate drinkers with non-drinkers, the non-drinking group often included people who don't consume alcohol due to other health issues, such as former drinkers who stopped due to poor health. That bias may have made the moderate drinkers -- those who downed anywhere from one drink per week to one or two drinks a day -- seem healthier by comparison, Stockwell explained.
"We saw a change from this famous J-shape curve suggesting moderate drinking is good for health to the J-shape curve vanishing. So abstainers and low-volume, occasional drinkers were all pretty similar in terms of risk from dying of any causes," Stockwell told CBS News.
I have had a lot of success changing my abstainer clients into moderators simply by giving them permission to have the foods they love, but with one catch: they have to actually pay attention and enjoy the experience. (See also: A Guide to Mindful Eating.)
The abstainer/moderator character traits often manifest themselves around technology. Some people can play games like Candy Crush, check their phone before bed or watch one 30-minute episode of a TV show and turn things off and walk away without any kind of internal struggle. Abstainers, on the other hand, may have a much harder time turning off their phones at night, stepping away from Candy Crush or watching only one episode of a TV show.
Ryan is also an abstainer and since ice cream is both of our favorite food in the world, we try not to keep it in the house at all because we know we will never just sit down and have a half-cup serving or two. (Who decided half a cup is a serving of ice cream anyway?) We know this about ourselves and now if we want ice cream, we go out and buy it, knowing full well ice cream will not last 24 hours in our house.
So if you are (like the rest of us) trying to figure out the right formula or sets of formulas to master your finances, first determine if you are an abstainer, moderator, or indulger in terms of your relationship to money and spending.
If you are trying to make any changes this new year, understanding your tendency can be extremely useful in actually reaching your goal. In particular, it can be useful if you are making the leap to a new AIP lifestyle. Here are some ideas on how to use your moderator, abstainer, or both tendency to your advantage with AIP:
New Delhi [India], Jan 15 (ANI): India's way is not "disruptive" and is more of a decider than an abstainer, said External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar on Tuesday."India's way would be the brand India. Brand India in terms of what is unique to us as a power like our heritage, our tradition, yoga and Indian medicinal system. India's way would be in shaping the international relation discourse, the concept, ideas and debates," he said at the Raisina Dialogue 2020 here.Jaishankar made the comments at a time when the international community have been batting for greater role of India in the Indo-Pacific region."It is not the India way to be disruptive. It is not the India way to be mercantilist. It is the India way to be more of a decider and not an abstainer. I would pick on climate change. India owes it to itself and to the world to be a just power," Jaishankar said.The External Affairs Minister outlined that India boasts of an "extraordinary diaspora" which "connects us in a way it does to very few powers in the world"."I think it is not India's way to be a disruptionist power internationally, I think we should be a stabilising power. There are already enough forces of disruption in the world. Somebody needs to make up a bit," he said."India's way will be tested against global issues like connectivity, maritime security, climate change, counter-terrorism, democratic values and technology values," he further said.The Raisina Dialogue is a result of India's contribution to global efforts to discover solutions, identify opportunities and provide stability to a century that has witnessed an eventful two decades.The three-day conclave brings together 700 international participants, of which 40 per cent of the speakers will be women, emphasising India's commitment to gender equality. (ANI) 041b061a72