Re: organic beer and ale: hops

[Guest guest]

,

> Regardless of the straight carb count of various drinks, though, I

> think not counting alcohol at all when trying to lose (or maintain)

> weight through carb restriction is a mistake. Alcohol has 7 calories

> per gram, and while only a relatively small amount of it is turned

> directly into fat, most of it is converted to acetate, which then

> shuts off the body's own fat burning for quite some time while the

> acetate is metabolized.

Fat is also metabolized to acetate, so in that sense, unless alcohol

has hormonal effects, it would be the total caloric content (i.e. the

total acetate yielded) that would differentatiate it from eating fat.

But, more importantly, acetate does not shut off fat burning --

malonyl CoA does. When mitochondrial acetyl CoA (which is just

acetate joined to CoA) accumulates beyond a certain threshold, it is

transported into the cytosol (the liquid of the cell outside all the

organelles). In the presence of insulin, acetyl CoA carboxylase will

convert it into malonyl CoA, which both acts as a substrate for fatty

acid synthesis and also shuts down the carnitine shuttle, which

transfers fatty acids into the mitochondria for beta-oxidation

(burning them for fuel by breaking them down into acetyl CoA, i.e.

acetate carried by CoA). In the absence of insulin, cytosolic acetyl

CoA is used for ketone synthesis.

Of course by " presence " and " absence " of insulin, I am referring to a

relative phenomenon, not an absolute one. There is always insulin and

glucagon present, but it is the relative ratio of insulin to glucagon

that turns these pathways on or off in proportion to the ratio's

magnitude.

So the question is, does alcohol stimulate the release of insulin? If

not, all it is doing is acting as extra calories that will only shut

off fat-burning in the presence of dietary carbohydrate, to the same

extent that including the same caloric amount of fat would decrease

burning of endogenous fat in the presence of dietary carbohydrate. If

it does, then it contributes to the suppression of fat-burning in the

same way carb does.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think alcohol stimulates insulin

release. So I don't think it would act like much more than extra

calories.

Of course, like you said, alcoholic drinks tend to be carby, but it is

only their carbs that really count as carbs, I would think.

Chris

[Guest guest]

-

> , 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.

That's good news for you, but AFAIK it's atypical, though the degree

varies.

Have you ever calculated the number of calories consumed in a beerless

meal versus the number consumed with a couple beers and a subsequent

smaller meal? The latter could still add up to more, but if not, I

envy you. <g>

> > 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.

Why would you assume that? The body has to do *something* with the

food you eat, and all else being equal, if it's not going to burn it,

it's going to deposit it, low-carb or no.

> 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.

Well, that and whatever long-term contribution to insulin resistance

you might be making by spiking your blood sugar in that fashion,

assuming it spikes.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Fat is also metabolized to acetate, so in that sense, unless alcohol

> has hormonal effects, it would be the total caloric content (i.e. the

> total acetate yielded) that would differentatiate it from eating fat.

>

> But, more importantly, acetate does not shut off fat burning --

> malonyl CoA does.

Yeah, that was a dumbass thing to say. I can't remember exactly what

I was (or wasn't) thinking, but dumbassery notwithstanding, I believe

it's quite well-established that alcohol stops or substantially

reduces fat-burning until it's fully metabolized.

And alcohol does have hormonal effects. At least in the presence of

carbohydrate, it causes a disproportionate increase in insulin

secretion. I'm not sure whether it has the same effect in the

presence of protein, but beer, wine, mixed drinks, and some spirits

contain carbohydrate, and so drinking them results in an excessive

insulin spike. This often results in a subsequent hypoglycemic state

which then contributes to more eating, and over time it also can

foster insulin resistance.

> So the question is, does alcohol stimulate the release of insulin? If

> not, all it is doing is acting as extra calories that will only shut

> off fat-burning in the presence of dietary carbohydrate, to the same

> extent that including the same caloric amount of fat would decrease

> burning of endogenous fat in the presence of dietary carbohydrate. If

> it does, then it contributes to the suppression of fat-burning in the

> same way carb does.

>

> I don't know for sure, but I don't think alcohol stimulates insulin

> release. So I don't think it would act like much more than extra

> calories.

Well, I remember coming across a reference to a study in which, IIRC,

men were given vodka on an empty stomach and their fat burning was

measured to drop by... three quarters for, I think, a couple hours or

so. I don't have time to look for it, so maybe it was misreported,

but if not, the results seem pretty compelling.

-

[Guest guest]

,

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

> extreme abstentionist position.

Okay. You brought Sally and the WAPF up a couple of times to buttress

your point (or so it appeared) which made it seem as if your mind was

with them, even if your heart is not :-)

> Remember, I drink scotch from time to

> time

I didn't know you were a scotch drinker. I must have missed that in

one of your posts. I plan on bringing a nice bottle of Glenmorangie

Quinta Rubin to the conference in November.

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

Practically speaking, isn't the occasional use of alcohol the position

of the WAPF, even though their rhetoric seems to lean heavily toward

not drinking at all?

> 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.

I posted something quite awhile back about the medicinal benefits of scotch.

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

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

Right, which is one reason why I don't think its useful in this discussion.

> > > 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 " ?

time immemorial = since whatever we know of human society has existed,

however you want to measure that.

drunk = when fermented beverages *take control* of your personality,

affecting your thinking, motor skills, and numerous other factors. It

is not scientific and it certainly is not a legal definition (whose

definition I consider to be absurd) but it think it will do on an

every day level.

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

> invention, and

Just a quick Google search suggests otherwise

( 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).

Again, a very debatable point.

> 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.

I didn't think you were saying the former, and I don't know that the

latter ( " a more alcoholic modern invention " ) is true.

> > > 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.

Yes, I meant to say the " the consumption of large amounts of carbs in

the form of beer. "

> > 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 am not familiar with the process you describe above. And I don't

think, for many people, that the non-alcoholic carbs in beer are

*necessarily* problematic. Depends.

> > > 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.

Right. I may not have been clear but that is what I was trying to say above.

> 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.

I definitely think it applies to wine and spirits. I don't agree that

the non-alcoholic carbs in beer are necessarily problematic.

> > > 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.

Yes but we are back to how much as a percentage of calories does beer

figure into a particular person's diet, and then we have to look at

what makes up their diet. Just about any food/drink will be

problematic for some people, but I'm not sure we can extrapolate from

that across the board. Can the potentially negative effects of beer

for some people be mitigated or overcome by diet? There certainly

seems to be evidence demonstrating such for the alcohol portion of

beer. I think you can extrapolate that for many people the

non-alcoholic carbs are not a problem *in moderation*.

> > 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?

You listed a number of problems with beer and it sounded like you were

referring to studies demonstrating your point.

> > 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.

I did address this earlier. But this just hearkens back to another

point made earlier as well, that is abuse is different from use. No

one here is arguing for the abuse of beer. That inebriation has a

tendency to cause or contribute to accidents is one thing, but that

assumes someone is drinking in a manner that leads to inebriation, and

isn't part of the argument of anyone in this thread. Also, since any

alcoholic beverage can inebriate, this makes me wonder about your

claim that you are only talking about beer. I have never been quite

sure throughout this thread as you seem to be going back and forth.

> Are you really going to say that

> these other factors might exonerate drinking too much beer as a

> causative factor in any car crashes?

I never argued for " drinking too much beer " in the first place so of

course I wouldn't argue that the other factors of beer exonerate

*people* who drink to excess and cause harm to others as a result.

> 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?

This argument wrongly assumes that I think drinking large amounts of

beer is healthy. This is something which you have introduced into this

discussion that as far as I know applies to no one involved in this

thread. Nor do I think a super-healthy diet is necessary to mitigate

problems with beer or other fermented alcoholic drinks.

Second I do think it is important to consider diet because you seem to

be saying that beer is problematic, period, and then bringing up those

problems which, as best I can tell, do not account for any confounding

variables. If you want to argue that the excessive use of beer is

problematic, you will get no argument from me. But if you want to

argue that even in moderation it still is problematic for most people,

then I need to see the evidence for that.

Finally, it seems you are arguing for excess use here (as opposed to

just use in other places), a standard which can be applied to a lot of

things that are otherwise okay when not used to excess.

> 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?

I didn't say it was a stretch but I did qualify the problematic

qualities of beer. Without getting into the SCD I don't think the

above is a given because 1) you seem to be working with a use of beer

that no one is defending, i.e large amounts of it, whatever that is

and 2) I think there are confounding variables that have not been

accounted for.

> > > 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.

No they are not but since your own statements seem not to be clear on

this matter, I don't always make the distinction. Nonetheless, my

immediate statement above is still true, whether you plug in beer or

any other type of fermented drink for " alcohol consumption. "

> 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.

Well we could go round and round about the specific carbohydrate diet,

and after seeing you and the glutenator go at it for awhile, I don't

think we would get anywhere :-) But generally, everything you seem to

be arguing for against beer seems to be buttressed with the concept of

large amounts, and seems not to have accounted for its moderate use in

the face of specific diets.

There is no question in my mind that some people are impacted by its

use no matter what. Some people can't handle ferments, alcoholic or

not, no matter what, either. But that doesn't answer the more general

question which would have to account for some confounding variables

and I don't see much information that does.

> > 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.

At one time you argue that large amounts of beer are problematic. Now

you seem to be arguing that beer itself is problematic, no matter the

amount.

--

" 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've had a couple Michelob Ultras, and they are BORING. Pretty much

> the ultimate in pointless, empty calories, even if they don't have

> many carbs. 84.6 calories of alcohol for absolutely no gustatory

> enjoyment whatsoever. Between the alcohol and the carbs, though, just

> one regular, carby beer is pretty much enough to destroy weight loss

> for many people, and more than one... well, it wouldn't be a pretty

> picture.

I haven't found that to be the case, and I don't even really try to

restrict carbs, although it tends to turn out that way.

> Alcohol further contributes to the problem by

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

Personally I have found that to be true only when I have had too much

alcohol, and in that case not only do I eat more, but don't really

care what I eat, but I haven't been like that for a looooong time.

Generally speaking I have not found alcohol to be an appetite

stimulant.

--

" 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 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.

I hear this from a lot of people, especially with good beers. Me,

having a beer (or wine) before a meal is not a good idea <g>

--

" 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]

--- wrote:

> > If I drink a beer or two before a meal, I

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

>

--- <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> I hear this from a lot of people, especially with good beers. Me,

> having a beer (or wine) before a meal is not a good idea <g>

, I found a new way to make beer into a meal - add an egg to

it, or preferably an egg yolk:

" So what do you want, egg in your beer! "

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gubotohp/2310565229/

Anybody tried this?

[Guest guest]

,

> , I found a new way to make beer into a meal - add an egg to

> it, or preferably an egg yolk:

> " So what do you want, egg in your beer! "

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gubotohp/2310565229/

>

> Anybody tried this?

I haven't (and it doesn't seem all that appealing) but you know a I

bet a beer float would be pretty tasty with some beers. That way you

get the egg and cream, or maybe just adding thick heavy cream would be

fun :-)

Drinking any kind of alcohol on an empty stomach is likely to hasten

the appearance of a friend of mine. He looks like me. He sounds like

me. He even dresses like me. But I assure you, he most definitely

isn't me, although when all is said is done, I'm most likely to be

blamed for the wake he leaves after his disappearance the next

morning.

Strange phenomenon, really :-)

--

" 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