Re: organic beer and ale: hops

[Guest guest]

Hops came to prevalence because it suppresses bacterial activity in favor

of yeasts- Medieval brewers didn't have microscopes, of course, but they

liked the results they got with it in their worts, and so eventually it

became part of the general recipe:

http://www.florilegium.org/ click on beverages and then find the

Medieval/Renaissance brewing page.

Gotta love the SCA, somtimes.

Desh

[Guest guest]

Desh-

> Hops came to prevalence because it suppresses bacterial activity in

> favor

> of yeasts- Medieval brewers didn't have microscopes, of course, but

> they

> liked the results they got with it in their worts, and so eventually

> it

> became part of the general recipe:

Yes, exactly -- hops dramatically increase the alcohol content of the

resulting brew at the expense of adding lots of potent phytoestrogens

and, well, lots of extra alcohol. My point being that modern hops-

based beer doesn't have a particularly long history.

-

[Guest guest]

,

How do you make the leap from suppesssing bacterial activity to dramatically

increasing the alcohol content?

In terms of modern brews, the sterilization process and the standard of

innoculating with pure yeast instead of wild fermentation makes bacterial

contamination rare in the first place. Getting rid of what little bacteria

remains via the preservative quality in hops would provide very little extra

sugar to produce alcohol out of. So where is the " dramatically " part coming

from?

There is definitely an increase in alcohol content if a modern brew

(sterilization, innoculation, etc) was being compared to a wild brew where

bacteria would be dominant (aka sour beer or small beer) - but I don't think

this is a direct function of the hops since bacterial beers, such as

lambics, still include hops (albeit slightly aged ones). It seems that is

more the fault of innoculating the wort with a pure yeast (as well as

sterilizing the equipment), which is a similar issue to the one we find in

modern bread.

-Lana

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Desh-

>

> > Hops came to prevalence because it suppresses bacterial activity in

> > favor

> > of yeasts- Medieval brewers didn't have microscopes, of course, but

> > they

> > liked the results they got with it in their worts, and so eventually

> > it

> > became part of the general recipe:

>

> Yes, exactly -- hops dramatically increase the alcohol content of the

> resulting brew at the expense of adding lots of potent phytoestrogens

> and, well, lots of extra alcohol. My point being that modern hops-

> based beer doesn't have a particularly long history.

>

> -

>

[Guest guest]

Ok so how does the suppression of bacterial activity result in much

higher alcohol? Unwanted bacteria spoils the flavor of beer, this is

why beer is pasteurized, not to kill or prevent Pathogens. It was not

the alcohol content that old brewers were worried about, it was the

flovor of the beer. Some bacteria will consume alcohol, but to say

that is the reason hops were added to beer is wrong. Find me a citation.

There are many styles of beer that are partly fermented by bacteria,

and have a high alcohol content, and a low hop rate. example: Flanders

Brown - up to 8% ABV - 20 IBU (very low bitterness due to hops)-

fermented at least in part by lactobacillus. Beer Judge Certificate

Program (BJCP) Style Guidelines 2004, Flanders Red Ale.

Hops have nothing to do with alcohol content. The reason hops are used

so widely in beer today is two fold; Their clean bittering properties

and their diverse aromatic qualities. Brewers tried many other

ingredients before finding one that was perfect for their brews and

when they found it it stuck. these days hops are not needed to

preserve beer because beer we drink no longer spends months on a boat

in wood casks for British soldiers in India, or traveling by land from

England to Moscow for the Russian Czar.

Some of the beers that age best are low hopped beers; Belgian ales

such as Chimay, an 8%+ beer that is recommended by WAPF. Alcohol is a

far better preservative than hops.

I am not trying to be combative, but I due feel responsible to correct

comments that I know to be untrue. I read books about beer and

homebrewing, I listen to 5 Different pod casts about beer and

homebrewing, I subscribe to two magazines about beer and homebrewing.

I spend more time studying and researching beer and homebrewing then I

do on my Engineering curriculum.

I won't comment on topics I don't know anything about.

All educated responses will be appreciated.

Cheers,

>

> Desh-

>

> > Hops came to prevalence because it suppresses bacterial activity in

> > favor

> > of yeasts- Medieval brewers didn't have microscopes, of course, but

> > they

> > liked the results they got with it in their worts, and so eventually

> > it

> > became part of the general recipe:

>

> Yes, exactly -- hops dramatically increase the alcohol content of the

> resulting brew at the expense of adding lots of potent phytoestrogens

> and, well, lots of extra alcohol. My point being that modern hops-

> based beer doesn't have a particularly long history.

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Wow! Now Lana knows what she is talking about. Refreshing.

>

> > Desh-

> >

> > > Hops came to prevalence because it suppresses bacterial activity in

> > > favor

> > > of yeasts- Medieval brewers didn't have microscopes, of course, but

> > > they

> > > liked the results they got with it in their worts, and so eventually

> > > it

> > > became part of the general recipe:

> >

> > Yes, exactly -- hops dramatically increase the alcohol content of the

> > resulting brew at the expense of adding lots of potent phytoestrogens

> > and, well, lots of extra alcohol. My point being that modern hops-

> > based beer doesn't have a particularly long history.

> >

> > -

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

> I am not trying to be combative, but I due feel responsible to correct

> comments that I know to be untrue. I read books about beer and

> homebrewing, I listen to 5 Different pod casts about beer and

> homebrewing, I subscribe to two magazines about beer and homebrewing.

> I spend more time studying and researching beer and homebrewing then I

> do on my Engineering curriculum.

>

> I won't comment on topics I don't know anything about.

>

> All educated responses will be appreciated.

I think it is quite virtuous to not comment on topics one doesn't know

anything about. At the same time, it can also be virtuous to lighten

up and not get too puffed up by one's own knowledge.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the advice. Maybe stating how I am qualified to comment on

this topic was over the top.

Cheers,

>

> ,

>

> > I am not trying to be combative, but I due feel responsible to correct

> > comments that I know to be untrue. I read books about beer and

> > homebrewing, I listen to 5 Different pod casts about beer and

> > homebrewing, I subscribe to two magazines about beer and homebrewing.

> > I spend more time studying and researching beer and homebrewing then I

> > do on my Engineering curriculum.

> >

> > I won't comment on topics I don't know anything about.

> >

> > All educated responses will be appreciated.

>

> I think it is quite virtuous to not comment on topics one doesn't know

> anything about. At the same time, it can also be virtuous to lighten

> up and not get too puffed up by one's own knowledge.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

I did give one citation. Hops actually lowers the alcohol content, while

acting as a preservative. But the herb definitely added to the buzz-

original worts contained pounds of it and as an infusion itself is

soporific. I can see how 's brain might scramble that info.

http://www.greydragon.org/library/hops.html

http://mysite.verizon.net/mshapiro_42/cbeer.html#history%20of%20beer

I am much more interested in medicinal beers than homebrewing and

microbrewing specifics; I live around the corner from a microbrewery

which hosts homebrew contests, and we're friends with one of the master

brewers. Boy would he hate the ester-heavy ciders I make

Desh

[Guest guest]

Desh-

> I did give one citation. Hops actually lowers the alcohol content,

> while

> acting as a preservative. But the herb definitely added to the buzz-

> original worts contained pounds of it and as an infusion itself is

> soporific. I can see how 's brain might scramble that info.

No, I've read specific statements that hops increased the alcohol

content by suppressing bacteria which would have competed with alcohol-

producing yeast. I haven't had time to chase down any citations, but

with luck I'll get a moment soon. I suppose the information I read

back whenever could've been wrong, but IIRC I saw it in multiple

places over the years, and the foundation may have been one of them.

-

[Guest guest]

Oops, forgot to point out that even Wiki knows that hops suppresses

bacteria in favor of yeasts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hops

Desh

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> Thanks for the advice. Maybe stating how I am qualified to comment on

> this topic was over the top.

You're welcome. I do that all the time too.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> No, I've read specific statements that hops increased the alcohol

> content by suppressing bacteria which would have competed with alcohol-

> producing yeast. I haven't had time to chase down any citations, but

> with luck I'll get a moment soon.

From the link Desh sent near the bottom of the page.

Prior to hops, the stronger (more alcoholic) beer was, the longer it

kept. The addition of hops is a preservative, thus allowing beer to be

weaker and still keep longer.

http://www.greydragon.org/library/hops.html

Cheers,

[Guest guest]

,

> > No, I've read specific statements that hops increased the alcohol

> > content by suppressing bacteria which would have competed with alcohol-

> > producing yeast. I haven't had time to chase down any citations, but

> > with luck I'll get a moment soon.

>

> From the link Desh sent near the bottom of the page.

>

> Prior to hops, the stronger (more alcoholic) beer was, the longer it

> kept. The addition of hops is a preservative, thus allowing beer to be

> weaker and still keep longer.

>

>

> http://www.greydragon.org/library/hops.html

I'm sure read that same idea in my post a couple of days ago:

" The use of hops might be recent in Europe (and even that goes back

over a thousand years) but their use appears to be very ancient in

other parts of the world.

" And my understanding of the brewing process is that hops actually

allowed for beer of lower alcohol content because of its nature as a

preservative, so less alcoholic beer could be made without worrying

about spoilage. I would be interested in knowing where you got the

hops increase alcohol information. "

But his contention I think it that he has read citations/info stating

otherwise. So unless someone is willing to do some legwork to see

where he might have obtained such info, we wait :-)

--

" A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents

and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents

eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with

it. " Max Planck

[Guest guest]

,

> > No, I've read specific statements that hops increased the alcohol

> > content by suppressing bacteria which would have competed with alcohol-

> > producing yeast. I haven't had time to chase down any citations, but

> > with luck I'll get a moment soon.

>

> From the link Desh sent near the bottom of the page.

>

> Prior to hops, the stronger (more alcoholic) beer was, the longer it

> kept. The addition of hops is a preservative, thus allowing beer to be

> weaker and still keep longer.

>

>

> http://www.greydragon.org/library/hops.html

I'm sure read that same idea in my post a couple of days ago:

" The use of hops might be recent in Europe (and even that goes back

over a thousand years) but their use appears to be very ancient in

other parts of the world.

" And my understanding of the brewing process is that hops actually

allowed for beer of lower alcohol content because of its nature as a

preservative, so less alcoholic beer could be made without worrying

about spoilage. I would be interested in knowing where you got the

hops increase alcohol information. "

But his contention I think it that he has read citations/info stating

otherwise. So unless someone is willing to do some legwork to see

where he might have obtained such info, we wait :-)

--

" A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents

and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents

eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with

it. " Max Planck

[Guest guest]

-

> I'm sure read that same idea in my post a couple of days ago:

>

> " The use of hops might be recent in Europe (and even that goes back

> over a thousand years) but their use appears to be very ancient in

> other parts of the world.

>

> " And my understanding of the brewing process is that hops actually

> allowed for beer of lower alcohol content because of its nature as a

> preservative, so less alcoholic beer could be made without worrying

> about spoilage. I would be interested in knowing where you got the

> hops increase alcohol information. "

I don't think this message came through, but I've been having a few

email problems recently, so that's unfortunately not a surprise.

Hops certainly didn't become common in Europe over a thousand years

ago, but I think their first known usage was somewhere in the 900s.

(940-something or thereabouts IIRC.) But where were they standard

elsewhere in the world dramatically earlier?

At any rate, anything that has a history of only a few thousand years

is modern in terms of the species.

> But his contention I think it that he has read citations/info stating

> otherwise. So unless someone is willing to do some legwork to see

> where he might have obtained such info, we wait :-)

I spent about fifteen minutes googling around trying to find whatever

articles I read a few years ago, but either they're no longer online

or I just can't find them. In any event, if the preponderance of the

evidence suggests that what I read is incorrect, so be it. Learn

something new every day.

The hops/alcohol issue, though, doesn't really bear on the question of

whether beer is a health food.

-

[Guest guest]

-

> From the link Desh sent near the bottom of the page.

>

> Prior to hops, the stronger (more alcoholic) beer was, the longer it

> kept. The addition of hops is a preservative, thus allowing beer to be

> weaker and still keep longer.

>

> http://www.greydragon.org/library/hops.html

It's interesting that you've seized on the one part of my post that

seems to have been based on bad information while ignoring all the

rest. The former is entirely fair; errors need to be corrected, and

the last thing I want is to walk around believing something that's not

true. The latter, however, seems to speak for itself.

-

[Guest guest]

If you would like me to pick apart the rest of it I will, but this

kind of topic could go back and forth forever so I won't do it on

(NN). I think everyone else has already done a pretty good job of it

anyway.

Not here for a never ending argument, just good nutritional info.

Cheers,

>

> -

>

> > From the link Desh sent near the bottom of the page.

> >

> > Prior to hops, the stronger (more alcoholic) beer was, the longer it

> > kept. The addition of hops is a preservative, thus allowing beer to be

> > weaker and still keep longer.

> >

> > http://www.greydragon.org/library/hops.html

>

> It's interesting that you've seized on the one part of my post that

> seems to have been based on bad information while ignoring all the

> rest. The former is entirely fair; errors need to be corrected, and

> the last thing I want is to walk around believing something that's not

> true. The latter, however, seems to speak for itself.

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

-

> If you would like me to pick apart the rest of it I will, but this

> kind of topic could go back and forth forever so I won't do it on

> (NN). I think everyone else has already done a pretty good job of it

> anyway.

Uh, no, nobody's really addressed much of anything I said, with the

possible exception of fetal alcohol syndrome, which I actually didn't

specifically bring up anyway.

But just to generally reiterate and slightly flesh out my argument

against beer as a dietary staple...

Consuming large amounts of alcohol is probably a bad idea for a

variety of reasons. Hops notwithstanding, beer itself is a relatively

recent invention, and even so, many if not most of the most

traditional, ancient beers had much less alcohol than modern beer.

Consuming lots of carbs is likewise a bad idea. Carbohydrate

metabolism is dirtier than fat metabolism, which is to say it

generates more harmful free radicals and does more damage to the

body. Furthermore, carbs spike insulin (and unlike protein, don't

stimulate compensatory glucagon) which inhibits fat burning,

stimulates fat deposition, contributes to various degenerative

diseases, and so on. Carbs like those found in beer also pose

digestive problems and can contribute to dysbiosis and various forms

of bowel disease.

And I'm not even going to bother getting into the swamp of debate over

gluten and celiac disease.

Certainly there are much worse things to eat and drink, and I don't

suppose an occasional beer is going to do most people any real harm,

but I think that it's clear that on balance, drinking lots of beer

isn't a good idea. (And as I said before, I wish it were otherwise.

I love a good beer, particularly dark, rich ales.)

> Not here for a never ending argument, just good nutritional info.

Well, sometimes there's legitimate disagreement over what good

nutritional info is, and without debate, there's no way to resolve or

even clarify that disagreement. Heck, I just found out that my long-

running impression that the introduction of hops enabled brewers to

significantly increase the alcohol content of beer is apparently

incorrect, based on bad information. I wouldn't have found out about

that mistake without entering into this conversation.

I'm not trying to force you to continue the discussion or anything,

but NN is a discussion group, not a wiki, so debate is inevitable --

and very much a part of the group's mission.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> Uh, no, nobody's really addressed much of anything I said, with the

> possible exception of fetal alcohol syndrome, which I actually didn't

> specifically bring up anyway.

The only thing I can see that you have said that hasn't really been

addressed or asked about is that " significant " amounts of alcohol,

and " large amounts of alcohol " are problematic. I think no one has

addressed it because no one really disagrees. It is something you

introduced in the second post of this thread which only tangentially

addressed 's initial question, which had to do with whether

getting organic beer is really worth the effort.

> But just to generally reiterate and slightly flesh out my argument

> against beer as a dietary staple...

>

> Consuming large amounts of alcohol is probably a bad idea for a

> variety of reasons.

One, you haven't defined " large amounts of alcohol. " Two, even so I'm

not sure anyone would really disagree. You have invoked Sally Fallon

and the WAPF as to their particular stance, but it seems to me

they/she border on being abstentionists, if not outright

prohibitionists on the matter.

> Hops notwithstanding, beer itself is a relatively

> recent invention, and even so, many if not most of the most

> traditional, ancient beers had much less alcohol than modern beer.

But alcohol per se is not the issue, while how much you ingest

certainly is an issue. People have from time immemorial been getting

drunk. So to suggest that ancient beers had less alcohol (which is

highly debatable, especially given our discussion about the use of

hops) and thus imply they were less problematic is something you have

not demonstrated. The demarcation has to be made between use and abuse

or the discussion is really leading nowhere.

> Consuming lots of carbs is likewise a bad idea.

Again you are assuming something that no one in this thread seems to

be asserting, the consumption of large amounts of carbs in the form of

alcohol.

> Carbohydrate

> metabolism is dirtier than fat metabolism, which is to say it

> generates more harmful free radicals and does more damage to the

> body.

I will have to go find it, but on another list someone posted a study

showing the substitution of alcohol for food carbs is far less

problematic.

> Furthermore, carbs spike insulin (and unlike protein, don't

> stimulate compensatory glucagon) which inhibits fat burning,

> stimulates fat deposition, contributes to various degenerative

> diseases, and so on.

I don' think that is necessarily true of alcohol. My understanding is

that alcohol slows down the burning of fat until it is burned by the

body, and then fat burning proceeds at a normal pace. It doesn't

inhibit it in the sense that an abundance, or rather an overabundance,

of food carbs do allowing for fat deposition. But its has been awhile

so I could be mistaken, or it may be there is a difference between

wine and beer in this regard. I will see what Google brings up.

> Carbs like those found in beer also pose

> digestive problems and can contribute to dysbiosis and various forms

> of bowel disease.

Still, all this is diet dependent, just like the list you gave in an

earlier post. Beer in the presence of a certain kind of diet, may

surely help bring on these problems. It is not a given that it does so

in all diets. That is why I asked you earlier what is the diet of the

groups involved in these studies showing problems with beer and other

forms of alcohol? What was the amount of alcohol consumed? What was

the frequency? Were these low PUFA diets? Were they high in saturated

fats? Were they high in other kinds of carbs like refined sugars? How

many calories were they consuming? What kind of beer? There are many

questions that would need to be answered before blaming beer as a

contributing factor.

> And I'm not even going to bother getting into the swamp of debate over

> gluten and celiac disease.

Right, which isn't really necessary because I don't think anyone is

arguing that alcohol consumption is for everybody, even if we think it

is okay in moderation for many people.

> Certainly there are much worse things to eat and drink, and I don't

> suppose an occasional beer is going to do most people any real harm,

> but I think that it's clear that on balance, drinking lots of beer

> isn't a good idea. (And as I said before, I wish it were otherwise.

> I love a good beer, particularly dark, rich ales.)

I don't think your conclusion is clear on balance at all, again

correcting for your " lots of beer " assumption, which is why the thread

has continued on.

--

" A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents

and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents

eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with

it. " Max Planck

[Guest guest]

,

> Hops certainly didn't become common in Europe over a thousand years

> ago, but I think their first known usage was somewhere in the 900s.

> (940-something or thereabouts IIRC.) But where were they standard

> elsewhere in the world dramatically earlier?

I vaguely recall Babylon and China, but that doesn't mean they were

much used for fermented drinks. Another trail to run down. IIRC the

use of hops for beer was imported by another culture outside of

Europe, but it was the Europeans who ran with it big time.

> The hops/alcohol issue, though, doesn't really bear on the question of

> whether beer is a health food.

Yup, I agree, although hops do have some nice medicinal qualities :-)

--

" A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents

and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents

eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with

it. " Max Planck

[Guest guest]

What can I say ? Michel just said it all. I feel like the topic

has been covered pretty well. If you have read every post I then you

know all of the points you made in your second post on this topic have

been addressed. I am sorry other got to it in a more timely manner

that i did. To be honest I planned only to concede superiority of

nutritional knowledge and state that beer is not all bad. I am new to

all of this NT stuff. Until a few months ago my idea of nutrition was

low fat high protein Bill Eating for Life. I joined this

group to learn and hopefully in time teach. So far most of the serious

topics, such as the recent Cholesterol thread, are still way over my head.

You are right about another point. I should not have taken your

initial comment personally. I did so probably because when you take in

allot of information about beer and brewing from media sources you

hear allot about Noe Prohibitionists so I guess I am a little

defensive. Even people who are not Prohibitionists sometimes make

drinkers feel like they are doing something wrong by enjoying a

bevarage that has been in our diet since before 3500 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer#History

I don't type well and I verify the things that I say so these posts

take me a while to put together, and I have had enough for tonight and

nearly enough on this topic. If you still don't think everything has

been addressed go back over the entire thread and tell me what you

would like me to comment on from you second post. If it has not been

commented on I will not comment unless it involves excessive

consumption as I only asked you about light to moderate consumption.

Please see my post under the title of " I don't drink nearly enough!! "

and comment.

Thank you for engaging,

>

> -

>

> > If you would like me to pick apart the rest of it I will, but this

> > kind of topic could go back and forth forever so I won't do it on

> > (NN). I think everyone else has already done a pretty good job of it

> > anyway.

>

> Uh, no, nobody's really addressed much of anything I said, with the

> possible exception of fetal alcohol syndrome, which I actually didn't

> specifically bring up anyway.

>

> But just to generally reiterate and slightly flesh out my argument

> against beer as a dietary staple...

>

> Consuming large amounts of alcohol is probably a bad idea for a

> variety of reasons. Hops notwithstanding, beer itself is a relatively

> recent invention, and even so, many if not most of the most

> traditional, ancient beers had much less alcohol than modern beer.

>

> Consuming lots of carbs is likewise a bad idea. Carbohydrate

> metabolism is dirtier than fat metabolism, which is to say it

> generates more harmful free radicals and does more damage to the

> body. Furthermore, carbs spike insulin (and unlike protein, don't

> stimulate compensatory glucagon) which inhibits fat burning,

> stimulates fat deposition, contributes to various degenerative

> diseases, and so on. Carbs like those found in beer also pose

> digestive problems and can contribute to dysbiosis and various forms

> of bowel disease.

>

> And I'm not even going to bother getting into the swamp of debate over

> gluten and celiac disease.

>

> Certainly there are much worse things to eat and drink, and I don't

> suppose an occasional beer is going to do most people any real harm,

> but I think that it's clear that on balance, drinking lots of beer

> isn't a good idea. (And as I said before, I wish it were otherwise.

> I love a good beer, particularly dark, rich ales.)

>

> > Not here for a never ending argument, just good nutritional info.

>

> Well, sometimes there's legitimate disagreement over what good

> nutritional info is, and without debate, there's no way to resolve or

> even clarify that disagreement. Heck, I just found out that my long-

> running impression that the introduction of hops enabled brewers to

> significantly increase the alcohol content of beer is apparently

> incorrect, based on bad information. I wouldn't have found out about

> that mistake without entering into this conversation.

>

> I'm not trying to force you to continue the discussion or anything,

> but NN is a discussion group, not a wiki, so debate is inevitable --

> and very much a part of the group's mission.

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

-

> One, you haven't defined " large amounts of alcohol. " Two, even so I'm

> not sure anyone would really disagree. You have invoked Sally Fallon

> and the WAPF as to their particular stance, but it seems to me

> they/she border on being abstentionists, if not outright

> prohibitionists on the matter.

I haven't particularly invoked them because I don't agree with their

extreme abstentionist position. Remember, I drink scotch from time to

time and I like wine and beer and indulge in those on occasion too.

In my particular case, I suffer too many immediate effects to be able

to enjoy them regularly, but a few glasses of wine per week and the

odd scotch probably don't amount to a problem in most cases and, at

least in the case of the wine, arguably do a lot more good than harm.

As to quantifying " large amounts of alcohol " , I think that's probably

a fool's errand. " Too much " is probably different for everyone.

> > Hops notwithstanding, beer itself is a relatively

> > recent invention, and even so, many if not most of the most

> > traditional, ancient beers had much less alcohol than modern beer.

>

> But alcohol per se is not the issue, while how much you ingest

> certainly is an issue. People have from time immemorial been getting

> drunk. So to suggest that ancient beers had less alcohol (which is

> highly debatable, especially given our discussion about the use of

> hops) and thus imply they were less problematic is something you have

> not demonstrated. The demarcation has to be made between use and abuse

> or the discussion is really leading nowhere.

Alcohol isn't the only issue with beer, nor have I suggested it is.

And are you going to quantify " time immemorial " , and " getting drunk " ?

My point in the above statement was that (a) beer is a pretty recent

invention, and ( most ancient beers most likely had less alcohol

than modern beers (and by " ancient " I mean ancient within the

timescale of modern civilization and beer, not on the timescale of the

species). I'm not saying that modern beer is a problem only because

it's more alcoholic, or that beer period is a problem merely because

it's a more alcoholic modern invention.

> > Consuming lots of carbs is likewise a bad idea.

>

> Again you are assuming something that no one in this thread seems to

> be asserting, the consumption of large amounts of carbs in the form of

> alcohol.

Uh, no, again you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Without getting

into the debate over whether alcohol is a carb, beer has plenty of

carbs that are not alcohol.

> I will have to go find it, but on another list someone posted a study

> showing the substitution of alcohol for food carbs is far less

> problematic.

Does alcohol metabolism produce any FADH2, or just NADH? If it just

produces NADH, I don't see how any portion of its metabolism would

bypass complex I in the mitochondrial membrane and thus be

meaningfully less dirty than regular carb metabolism, unlike fatty

acid metabolism. If it does behave more like a fatty acid, that would

certainly be very interesting, and a point in favor of alcohol, but as

I just said, beer has plenty of non-alcohol carbs.

> > Furthermore, carbs spike insulin (and unlike protein, don't

> > stimulate compensatory glucagon) which inhibits fat burning,

> > stimulates fat deposition, contributes to various degenerative

> > diseases, and so on.

>

> I don' think that is necessarily true of alcohol. My understanding is

> that alcohol slows down the burning of fat until it is burned by the

> body, and then fat burning proceeds at a normal pace. It doesn't

> inhibit it in the sense that an abundance, or rather an overabundance,

> of food carbs do allowing for fat deposition. But its has been awhile

> so I could be mistaken, or it may be there is a difference between

> wine and beer in this regard. I will see what Google brings up.

I've read conflicting assertions about the effect of alcohol on fat

burning, but in general, the consensus seems to be that alcohol at

least stops fat burning until it's completely burned itself. The

effect may wear off more quickly than it does with non-alcohol carbs,

though... but again, while I don't mean to be tedious, beer contains

non-alcohol carbs, often in abundance. This particular argument would

make a lot more sense if applied to dry spirits.

> > Carbs like those found in beer also pose

> > digestive problems and can contribute to dysbiosis and various forms

> > of bowel disease.

>

> Still, all this is diet dependent, just like the list you gave in an

> earlier post. Beer in the presence of a certain kind of diet, may

> surely help bring on these problems. It is not a given that it does so

> in all diets.

Is that necessarily true? I'm not sure we have enough data to reach a

rigorous conclusion, but since beer can account for a significant

percentage of calories, it's fair to say that it might be enough to

cause problems all by itself, at least in some people.

> That is why I asked you earlier what is the diet of the

> groups involved in these studies showing problems with beer and other

> forms of alcohol?

I guess I missed that message too. What specifically are you

referring to?

> What was the amount of alcohol consumed? What was

> the frequency? Were these low PUFA diets? Were they high in saturated

> fats? Were they high in other kinds of carbs like refined sugars? How

> many calories were they consuming? What kind of beer? There are many

> questions that would need to be answered before blaming beer as a

> contributing factor.

Well, one of the problems I mentioned which nobody has addressed (at

least in any post which I've actually received, though as I noted I've

been having email problems recently) is the tendency of inebriation to

cause or contribute to accidents. Are you really going to say that

these other factors might exonerate drinking too much beer as a

causative factor in any car crashes? And perhaps more to the point,

are you going to apply that standard to everything? Will you say that

we can't consider cyanide a poison that can cause death because we

haven't tested its effects on population eating low-PUFA low-carb high-

sat-fat super-healthy diets? Rationally speaking, if dissacharides

and starches cause dysbiosis and bowel diseases and beer contains

problematic carbs, how is it a stretch to suggest that beer can

contribute to dysbiosis and bowel disease?

> > And I'm not even going to bother getting into the swamp of debate

> over

> > gluten and celiac disease.

>

> Right, which isn't really necessary because I don't think anyone is

> arguing that alcohol consumption is for everybody, even if we think it

> is okay in moderation for many people.

Again, you're conflating alcohol with beer. They're not the same

thing. The SCD, for example, allows certain very dry spirits, some

wines in some cases, but never beer. The difference is in the (non-

alcohol) carb content. I would tend to suspect that alcohol in

moderation (perhaps in the neighborhood of what you'd get from a glass

or two of wine on many but not all days, but who knows where the

border is, and it probably varies from person to person) is good, or

at least okay, for many people. But alcohol isn't the issue, it's

only one sub-part of the issue, which is beer. The question is

whether *beer* is good for you.

> I don't think your conclusion is clear on balance at all, again

> correcting for your " lots of beer " assumption, which is why the thread

> has continued on.

Well, so far most of your objections to my arguments have conflated

beer with alcohol. The problems I have with the idea that beer is

healthy have more to do with its carb content (and the type of carbs

it contains, coming as they do from grains) than with its alcohol.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> > I will have to go find it, but on another list someone posted a study

> > showing the substitution of alcohol for food carbs is far less

> > problematic.

> Does alcohol metabolism produce any FADH2, or just NADH? If it just

> produces NADH, I don't see how any portion of its metabolism would

> bypass complex I in the mitochondrial membrane and thus be

> meaningfully less dirty than regular carb metabolism, unlike fatty

> acid metabolism. If it does behave more like a fatty acid, that would

> certainly be very interesting, and a point in favor of alcohol, but as

> I just said, beer has plenty of non-alcohol carbs.

I'm not familar with this theory. You are saying that complex I,

where NADH passes off hydrogen ions and electrons to FMNH2, which in

turn reduces CoQ10, produces more free radicals per unit energy

obtained than complex II or succinate dehydrogenase, which reduces FAD

to FADH2, which in turn reduces CoQ10?

Is this adjusted for the energy produced? In other words, the first

mode of action generates some 30% more energy than the latter -- is

the increase in free radicals generated greater than that?

Do you have any idea what this is the case?

For every 2-carbon unit from glucose produces 5 NADH and 1 FADH2,

whereas from glucse it produces 4 NADH adn 2 FADH2. So the difference

would seem fairly modest but probably physiologically significant.

Of of course there are other effects that could also affect redox

status. Glucose, for example, produces a lot more CO2. A brief

glance seems to indicate there are conflicting effects of CO2 on

oxidant status dependent on concentration, location, etc. Glucose

produces more water (or rather uses up less), no idea if that makes a

difference.

Are there any good feeding studies that compare, say, saturated fat and starch?

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- Idol <paul.idol@...> wrote:

> As to quantifying " large amounts of alcohol " , I think that's

> probably a fool's errand. " Too much " is probably different for

> everyone.

, I think you're right that " too much " is probably different for

everyone. Here's a biased, but interesting opinion from an expert on

brewing:

Beer's Bad Rap for Carbs Unjustified

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=7525

=====================================================

In the recent flurry of publicity over low-carbohydrate diets, some

diet promoters have depicted beer as an unhealthful source of

fattening carbohydrates. Not so, says a brewing expert at the

University of California, .

Rather, beer, in moderation, can be part of a " low-carb " diet and

potentially a good source of soluble fiber and prebiotic substances

that promote digestion, reports Bamforth, chair of the

Department of Food Science and Technology.

" Certainly obesity and the serious health problems it creates should

be of great concern to everyone in the United States and other

developed nations, " said Bamforth. " But to erroneously claim that beer

is high in carbs does a disservice to health-conscious individuals. "

Bamforth directs the brewing program at UC , where he holds the

Anheuser-Busch Endowed Professorship of Malting and Brewing Science.

The findings of his review of brewing and nutrition research related

to carbohydrate content will appear in the November Journal of the

Institute of Brewing.

" The message for consumers, " Bamforth said, " is that the only

sustainable and sensible way to lose weight and avoid weight gain is

to focus on the calorie content of all foods and beverages, including

beer, " Bamforth said. " And they should remember that, contrary to

popular thought, beer is not comprised merely of empty calories.

Rather, it can contain significant levels of vitamins, antioxidants,

minerals and fiber. "

=====================================================

[Guest guest]

--- Idol <paul.idol@...> wrote:

> Alcohol further contributes to the problem by stimulating appetite, so

> when drinking, you're likely to eat more...

, I find the opposite. If I drink a beer or two before a meal, I

eat much slower and don't want to eat as much.

> right when your fat burning is shut off, meaning more of your larger

> portion of food will be converted to fat and deposited rather than

> being burned.

If you're eating an otherwise low-carb meal, that shouldn't be a problem.

I do wonder about how much blood sugar spikes from drinking carby ales

on an empty stomach, however. That might be the worst effect for me.