M has absolutely no evidence to back up the 12 week timescale. For scientifically researched timescales of all biomarkers please refer to the NIAAA AND ITS GLOBAL TEAM OF SCIENTISTS. They are the worlds largest funders of alcohol research in the world and will provide proven info regarding CDT levels. Scientists from the U.S and Sweden (where CDT testing was originally developed) have given proven timescales based on actual scientific research. Be very wary of timescales posted in forums that have no scientific foundation.
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/AssessingAlcohol/biomarkers.htm
Also check out THE U.S NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE NATIONAL INSTUTUTES OF HEALTH to see if you think your smoking may affect your CDT results.
Sorry Mclanelly for this, but I am going to cut and paste despite what you say, because Chatjacker is incorrect when he says there is no evidence to back up the 12 week timescale, but he is correct that the National Institutes of Health confirm that smoking could affect CDT results. See here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074194/
Many other factors may influence CDT testing accuracy. Rare genetic mutations in amino acid sequences affect the ability to separate isoforms, reducing the test accuracy.3 Age has been shown to reduce accuracy in some studies, and yet have no effect in others. Elevated body mass index (BMI) might blunt ethanol-dose CDT-response curves. Diastolic blood pressure (BP) greater than 90 might amplify the dose-response curve. Smoking may potentiate elevated CDT levels due to increased liver damage. Drinking patterns also affect CDT. For all of these markers listed, more research is necessary to determine significance.3 However, recent research has not indicated a need to adjust CDT values for any of the listed factors.6
so they say that the changes to the readings from these factors, including smoking, are not viewed as being at all significant.
Below is a quote on a project working with alcoholics where their CDT levels were monitored over a 12 week period, you will see that their levels reduced by 30%. This is good, but it does not say what their base level was. If it was 4.2%, then a 30% reduction would have taken their reading down to 2.95% - still enough to be a fail, even after 12 weeks. This reflects the extreme end of alcohol consumption, which will not apply to most people coming here, but it does show that to say that 2-4 weeks abstenance WILL reduce your CDT to acceptable limits is flawed.
The link to the quote is below and you will see that it was funded by an organisation that has been widely recommended by someone on this site...... The NIAAA !!
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-0277.1996.tb05261.x/abstract
quote:
Biological markers of alcohol consumption have been used in both clinical and research settings to aid in the identification of relapse drinking. Although carbohydrate-deficient transferrin (CDT) has been shown to be a sensitive and specific marker for the identification of heavy drinkers, little data are available as to its utility as a marker for relapse drinking during treatment, particularly in comparison with the more widely used serum γ-glutamyltransferase (GGT). CDT and GGT were measured in 35 male alcoholics before entering, and every 4 weeks during, a 12-week outpatient treatment trial combining pharmacotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy. CDT and GGT were again measured 14 weeks after completion of treatment. During the 12-week treatment period, CDT showed a significant difference in those individuals who abstained from drinking (30% decrease), compared with those who relapsed (10% increase).
People drinking in the order of 14-21 units per week probably don't need to abstain at all before their medical. People drinking more than that may well be OK after a few weeks abstenance but for someone who is a chronic drinker then even 12 weeks abstenance may not be enough.
I have previously advised people that 5 or 6 weeks sensible drinking should be sufficient to pass the test, but that has been based on the relatively low amounts of alcohol they say they have been drinking. I have to recognise that people are notoriously bad at adding up when it comes to alcohol......