Guest guest Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 -Heidi Do you know what the approx. carbo count is for your kefir beer? I don't understand how it is lower in carbs when beer is so high in carbs. Jafa Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote: >Cool. > >Although of course, now my still-vaguely-overactive imagination is >imagining, after having a bit of a 'discussion' with Dr. Ron about me >drinking 'too much' fruit juice, having another discussion in which I just >tell him I've solved that 'problem' and now I just spend all day drinking >Hooch. :-D Oh, " Hooch " sounds so STRONG. Really, kefir beer is very mild. I like it because pop is SOOOO sweet (as is fruit juice) and this loses most of the sugar. But you'd have to drink a gallon or so to really get a buzz, and it is VERY filling. However, the amount of alcohol is directly related to the amount of sugar you add to begin with ... so if you want it milder, cut the juice with water or add less sugar (depending how you are making it). -- Heidi (of Hooch fame ... ;--) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 In a message dated 3/19/04 1:16:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, heidis@... writes: > Lactic acid may or may not turn into glucose in the liver, depending > on the kind of lactic acid (there are 2 isomers) but in general it > seems to be a health promoter and a substance that regulates > insulin in the body. Isn't only one of the isomers produced biologically? That is, the one with L optical activity? (I'm not disputing only some of it turns to glucose) > Alcohol REALLY depends on your philosophy ... statistically > folks who get more calories from alcohol are skinnier, whatever > that means. It certainly doesn't seem to act like a starch (quick > digesting starches make me hungrier the next day). I don't get any problems from carbs except gut problems. I noticed that some beers, and always ones I get from the bar, seem to give me gut problems, and some, especially the unfiltered ones I drink at home, don't give me any problems. Heineken, for example, seems to have induced diarrhea for me on more than one occasion. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 >-Heidi > >Do you know what the approx. carbo count is for your kefir beer? I don't understand how it is lower in carbs when beer is so high in carbs. > >Jafa Oh, that's a loaded question. The sugars turn to lactic acid and alcohol ... both of which can count as carbs, depending on your carb philosophy. It's lower in sugars for sure (and I don't like really sweet stuff) and my carb philosophy only counts starches and sometimes sugars. Lactic acid may or may not turn into glucose in the liver, depending on the kind of lactic acid (there are 2 isomers) but in general it seems to be a health promoter and a substance that regulates insulin in the body. Alcohol REALLY depends on your philosophy ... statistically folks who get more calories from alcohol are skinnier, whatever that means. It certainly doesn't seem to act like a starch (quick digesting starches make me hungrier the next day). -- Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 In a message dated 3/19/04 7:10:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, heidis@... writes: > Each type of bacteria produces one isomer or another. Acidophilus > produces the one that is hard to metabolize (I forget if that is the R or L > version). I assume it's the D version. R is opposed to S, not L. R and S deal with the actual shape, whereas D and L deal with optical activity. If an R has D optical activity, the S isomer will have L optical activity at equal magnitude, and vice versa, but there is no connection in the sense that some R's have D activity and some R's have L activity, and of any given magnitude. Biological systems, at least animals and plants anyway, seem to use the L form exclusively (almost exclusively?), which is very, very interesting, considering the lack of correlation to the actual structure. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 In a message dated 3/19/04 6:19:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, darkstar@... writes: > (I should have said some kinds of bacteria make L and some make D. > (For all I know, some make both.) Too much D can apparently cause > acidosis problems for some people, for example people with short > bowel syndrome. But it's been a while since I read about it; I'd > have to look at google or pubmed again. It was complicated and there > were some disagreements.) So would fermenting actually decrease caloric value due to malabsorption? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 > > Isn't only one of the isomers produced biologically? That is, the one with L optical activity? (I'm not disputing only some of it turns to glucose) > > Only the L is made by us. But some bacteria make D. Marty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 --- In , " darkstardog " <\ > Only the L is made by us. But some bacteria make D. > (I should have said some kinds of bacteria make L and some make D. (For all I know, some make both.) Too much D can apparently cause acidosis problems for some people, for example people with short bowel syndrome. But it's been a while since I read about it; I'd have to look at google or pubmed again. It was complicated and there were some disagreements.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 > > >> Lactic acid may or may not turn into glucose in the liver, depending >> on the kind of lactic acid (there are 2 isomers) but in general it >> seems to be a health promoter and a substance that regulates >> insulin in the body. > >Isn't only one of the isomers produced biologically? That is, the one with L >optical activity? (I'm not disputing only some of it turns to glucose) Each type of bacteria produces one isomer or another. Acidophilus produces the one that is hard to metabolize (I forget if that is the R or L version). This came up some time ago because some people get an overgrowth of acidophilus and end up with acidosis from that lactic acid since it builds up in their system. Good argument for NOT using acidophilus supplements! If you take the supplements while taking an antibiotic (to replenish your gut) they can just take over. Bad stuff. The recommendation was to use a mix of bacteria ... which is why I think kefir is better than any probiotic supplement. > I don't get any problems from carbs except gut problems. I noticed that some >beers, and always ones I get from the bar, seem to give me gut problems, and >some, especially the unfiltered ones I drink at home, don't give me any >problems. Heineken, for example, seems to have induced diarrhea for me on more than >one occasion. Funny, that just came up here. It seems beer consumption is associated with several known downsides (one beer per day raises the chance of getting gout by 49%, for example, and raises a woman's chance of breast cancer) but wine is not associated with those downsides. One beer makes me sicker than a piece of bread, and quicker, too ... but wine, even in overdose amounts, seems to have no effect other than to my thinking ability. I suspect the alcohol carries the proteins in the beer (from grains and yeast) straight into the blood. Grapes don't have any weird proteins, and the yeast dies and sinks to the bottom in wine making (plus most of it is filtered). Commercial beers, who knows? There is all kinds of stuff in that! I never drank them though. I'd think they have less carbs than the non-filtered high class ones though. Kefir beer does affect my gut, big time ... it's effect is to normalize things though. If I drink hooch every night I have perfectly normal gut function, otherwise it varies (though it's not near as bad as when I was eating wheat). -- Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 In a message dated 3/19/04 11:02:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, heidis@... writes: > Oh that's so confusing .... here we were referring to them as R and L (for > Right and Left) and no one corrected it ... Maybe we should use + and -. > Anyway, in some articles it mentions that the - form can kill rats (and > people) ... > it's pretty toxic at higher dosages, though the kidneys clear it from the > blood. > So yeah, you are right, the - form is basically " less calories " because it > is > excreted. Some of the + form is excreted too though. (optical activity) D is + L is - (structure) R and S are independent of the former two. R means " right " and S means " left " because S stands for " sinister " and left-handed people are evil. Really-- that's where it comes from (Roman times). D means " dextrorotatory " which means right, and L means " levorotatory " which means left, but this " right and left " refers to optical activity, whereas R and S indicate structure. _________ These are used for chiral centers, which is where you have a carbon (I think it can be non-carbon too, if you have the same criteria satisfied for another sp3 hybridized atom [which basically means an atom that has four bonds]) with four DIFFERENT atoms attached to it. What the other atoms is attached to makes a difference, so if the carbon is attached to two carbons, but one carbon is a CH3 and one is a CH2CH2CH3 they're considered " different. " Then you take the hydrogen, or if there's no hydrogen, the atom with the lowest atomic number, and stick it in the background. Since the carbon with it's four bonded atoms is tetrahedral (has four sticking out at equal angles of 120 degrees), that leaves three atoms sticking out into the foreground. Now you rank the atoms in order of their atomic number. If there are two of the same atoms, you rank them according to what's attached to them (so CH2CH2CH3 would be ranked higher than CH3). You give the highest ranking " 1 " and then proceed down the order of atomic number with each rank from 1. If you need to count CLOCKWISE to count " 1, 2, 3 " then you have the R configuration. If you need to count COUNTER CLOCKWISE to count " 1, 2, 3 " then you have the S configuration. That's stereoisomerism. _________ Optical activity is totally different. You fill a polarimeter with a chemical. It sends light through a filter that filters out any angled light rays, so the light travels in straight lines through the tubes, in a verticle allignment (so it only travels through one narrow strip in the middle of the tube.) On the opposite end, you have another verticle filter, that you allign with the first, so that if there is no refraction of light rays, the light will pass right through. But when you fill the polarimeter tube with a chemical, it will defract the light somehow, and that verticle line will get rotated. So you have to rotate the second filter until the light passes through. If you rotate it to the LEFT, you have L or - optical activity. If you rotate it to the RIGHT, you have D or + optical activity. ________ Optical activity and stereoisomerism are unrelated, in that an R configuration can have D optical activity of, say a magnitude of 0.5, while another R configuration of a different chemical might have D optical activity of 0.8, while yet another R configurated chemical might have L optical activity of 0.5, etc. There's no relation. BUT, if one stereoisomer has a D optical activity of 0.5, the mirror image of that isomer will have L optical activity of 0.5. If the S configuration of any giving molecule has L optical activity of 0.7, the R configuration of the same molecule will have D optical activity of 0.7. So R and S don't themselves have any direct relation to optical activity, but for any given optical activity for a given isomer, the opposite isomer will have the opposite optical activity of the same magnitude. Hope that helps, Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 >I assume it's the D version. R is opposed to S, not L. R and S deal with >the actual shape, whereas D and L deal with optical activity. If an R has D >optical activity, the S isomer will have L optical activity at equal magnitude, >and vice versa, but there is no connection in the sense that some R's have D >activity and some R's have L activity, and of any given magnitude. Oh that's so confusing .... here we were referring to them as R and L (for Right and Left) and no one corrected it ... Maybe we should use + and -. Anyway, in some articles it mentions that the - form can kill rats (and people) .... it's pretty toxic at higher dosages, though the kidneys clear it from the blood. So yeah, you are right, the - form is basically " less calories " because it is excreted. Some of the + form is excreted too though. -- Heidi Jean http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/40abcj44.htm When 0.35 per cent. DL-lactic acid was administered to healthy babies from the tenth to the twentieth day of life, a three-fold increase in the urinary excretion of the physiological L(+)-lactic acid and a twelve-fold increase in the D(-)-lactic acid was observed. On withdrawing lactic acid from the diet the level of lactic acid excreted in the urine returned to normal. Since the racemic mixture used consisted of 80 per cent. of the L(+) and 20 per cent. of the D(-) forms it seems that the metabolism of the D(-) form by the young full-term baby is more difficult than the L(+) form. The increase in the urinary excretion of either form of lactic acid indicated that the young infant cannot utilize lactic acid at a rate which can keep up with 0.35 per cent. in the diet. A number of babies could not tolerate lactic acid. In such cases there was rapid loss of weight, frequent diarrhoea, reduction of plasma bicarbonate and increased excretion of organic acids in the urine. All these effects were reversed on withdrawing lactic acid from the diet (Droese & Stolley, 1965). http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/01jun95/acidosis.htm Main Results: A patient had several episodes of Dlactic acidosis after receiving oral antibiotics. Stool cultures yielded Lactobacillus acidophilus resistant to the implicated agents. Provocative challenge with dietary carbohydrate alone, in the absence of antibiotics, failed to reproduce the syndrome. Conclusions: Oral antibiotics may induce D-lactic acidosis in patients with the short-bowel syndrome by promoting the overgrowth of resistant D-lactateproducing organisms. Interactions between carbohydrate intake and antibiotic use are likely determinants in the development of this syndrome. Periodic use of stool cultures with antimicrobial susceptibility testing may assist in the management of these patients by optimizing the selection of antimicrobial agents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2004 Report Share Posted March 20, 2004 > > >-Heidi > > Oh, that's a loaded question. The sugars turn to lactic acid and alcohol ....and acetic acid, lets not forget the acetobacter bacteria in kefir grains ) Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2004 Report Share Posted March 20, 2004 >> Oh, that's a loaded question. The sugars turn to lactic acid and alcohol > > ...and acetic acid, lets not forget the acetobacter bacteria in kefir grains ) > >Bruce Oh yeah! And if you leave the hooch out for month or two the alcohol goes to acetic acid and you get some wonderful vinegar. It is definitely VINEGAR ... acetic ... not just sour lactic acid. I wonder if the lactic acid turns to acetic acid too? I use " kimchi juice " for vinegar too but the taste is quite different, because the sour is mainly from lactic acid. -- Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2004 Report Share Posted March 20, 2004 In a message dated 3/20/04 11:14:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, heidis@... writes: > Thanks! Now I get it: it IS " right " and " left " but in Latin ... > Right, er... correct, only it's important not to distinguish the structural " right " and " left " from the *optical* " right " and " left, " so we can't mix up R/S with D/L. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2004 Report Share Posted March 20, 2004 >R means " right " and S means " left " because S stands for " sinister " and >left-handed people are evil. Really-- that's where it comes from (Roman times). > >D means " dextrorotatory " which means right, and L means " levorotatory " which >means left, but this " right and left " refers to optical activity, whereas R >and S indicate structure. Thanks! Now I get it: it IS " right " and " left " but in Latin ... -- Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.