Here’s an interesting couple of infographics about how a hangover effects your body. The first is from Sloshspot (though I can’t find the original post) and the second is from an academic paper, Alcohol Hangover: Mechanism and Mediators, written in 1998.
For a larger view, click here.
For a larger view, click here.
I’ve often used the proverb “frying makes every thing taste better,” and people who’ve eaten with me know I take that seriously. I live for French fries and potato chips, and my favorite sandwich is the Monte Cristo, essentially a deep-friend sandwich. I’ll fry pretty much anything, and indeed have tried frying many an unusual foodstuff. There’s certainly a rich tradition of using beer in batters and other sauces that food is cooked in, but I confess I’ve never considered frying the liquid itself, for what I thought were obvious reasons. But then I don’t have Mark Zable’s experience and wherewithal. His father Norman has had a Belgian Waffle concession stand at the Texas State Fair for 47 years, and several years ago his son Mark began tinkering with a number of new food ideas, such as Chocolate Covered Strawberry Waffle Balls and Sweet Jalapeno Corn Dog Shrimp.
But it’s his latest creation that made me sit up and take notice: Fried Beer, which they’ve trademarked and the process they use is also being patented.
To me they look a bit like ravioli with beer inside. Three years in the making, the Dallas Morning News has the story:
For three years, Zable has been on a mission to concoct Fried Beer. He remembers staring at a bar menu in a restaurant. Calamari. Nachos. Fried cheese.
Bor-ing.
“Someone needs to figure out a way to fry beer,” he thought.
Zable started experimenting. But the beer-and-dough concoction kept exploding once it hit the fryer. He kept getting burned.
So he consulted with a food scientist — still, no luck.
Then, earlier this year, he finally found the recipe for success. Now Zable keeps the process shrouded in secrecy and has applied for a Fried Beer patent and trademark.
Mark Zable figured out how to fry beer by sealing it in dough. He had to persist because early efforts blew up.
I’m certainly willing to give it a try. Apparently when you bite into it, the beer squirts out into your mouth to mix its flavor with the dough. How bad could that be? It will debut at the Texas Fair and is also one of eight finalists in the Sixth Annual Big Tex Choice Awards.
Mark Zable with his fried beer. [photo by Vernon Bryant, Dallas Morning News.]
And here’s Zable talking about what he went through to come up with it:
They’ve also set up a website, where they further describe Fried Beer:
People said it could not be done; impossible is what we were told! When you put beer into a fryer, it will cause a violent reaction with the oil…
We took that challenge and did everything we could to prove naysayers wrong! As a result of three years of research and development, we are now excited to present Fried Beer™ to the world! In such a revolutionary way, we are able to put beer inside dough that is shaped like a ravioli and deep fry it. The process is so unique, we have a patent pending on the manufacturing process!
By using our patent pending process, we are able to place beer inside a salty pretzel like dough, and deep fry it. When you take a bite, beer pours out of the inside pocket of dough. We even had to get the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission to rule on our new product. The verdict… You have to be over the age of 21 to purchase Fried Beer™.
CBS also did a video report on Zable’s Fried Beer:The only other food I’ve seen that’s even similar is a Korean dish also called “Deep-Fried Beer” at the Korean Food website ZenKimchi’s Korean Food Journal. ZenKimchi even includes the recipe, though it seems more like a deep-fried batter that includes beer as an ingredient, so I’m not quite sure if it’s misnamed or it is similar at all. Though I may have to give the recipe a try one of these days.
Korean Deep-Fried Beer
A new study was just published online, and will be in print in next month’s journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research with the nearly impenetrable title Sociodemographic Predictors of Pattern and Volume of Alcohol Consumption Across Hispanics, Blacks, and Whites: 10-Year Trend (1992–2002). CNN simplified the story’s title, originally from Health.com, to More Americans Drinking Alcohol. To me the most interesting thing about this is that it’s really two stories, one positive and one sort of negative, and it’s all in the way it’s framed.
As presented on CNN, the story begins with mainly the positive aspects of the story. More Americans Drinking (Alcohol) summarizes the study like this:
Between 1992 and 2002, the percentage of men and women who drank alcohol increased, as did the percentage of whites, blacks, and Hispanics, the study found.
Americans don’t seem to be drinking more, however, as the average number of drinks consumed per month remained steady.
“More people are drinking, but they seem to not be drinking heavily as frequently,” says Rhonda Jones-Webb, an epidemiologist and alcohol expert at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, in Minneapolis.
So that’s good news, especially considering that moderate drinking is healthier for you than abstaining or over-indulging. So if more people are hitting the sweet spot, so to speak, that should be good news, eh?
Oh, but wait, here comes the other shoe:
Yet the study revealed an important exception to that trend: an uptick in the number of people who binge drink at least once a month. Binge drinking is defined as consuming five or more drinks in one day.
“We need to address this increase, which may be associated with alcohol abuse,” says Dr. Deborah Dawson, Ph.D., a staff scientist at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, in Bethesda, Maryland. “We may need focus our attention on preventive measures that target binge drinking.”
Of course the main problem with all that alarm over binge drinking is the definition itself. Five drinks in one day is an absurd way to define binge drinking. Originally it was essentially a bender with no limits. Little by little the definition has been whittled down by organizations and our government keen to have a number they could use in compiling statistics. But that also means a five-course beer dinner creates an event where every single diner is a binge drinker. Even the new Dietary Guidelines just released have changed the standard from daily to weekly allowable amounts and changed the daily standard to four drinks for a male, so long as the weekly limit is not reached. So that means four drinks in one day is fine, but one more and you’re a dangerous binge drinker. It’s this sort of nonsense that allows neo-prohibitionist groups to use suspect statistics with the government imprimatur to give them more credibility than they rightly deserve.
Then there’s this chestnut:
The rise in the proportion of drinkers and in binge drinking could be a sign that society is more accepting of alcohol consumption (and overconsumption), says Dr. Stephen Bahr, Ph.D., a professor of sociology at Brigham Young University, in Provo, Utah.
“There has been much emphasis on drug education and treatment but not as much emphasis on alcohol misuse, which could signal a change in norms and explain the increase in the prevalence of drinkers,” he says.
I don’t know what planet Bahr lives on, but when my kindergartner is lectured to with MADD propaganda that alcohol is a drug and he comes home with the notion that his parents are drug users because they have a beer with dinner, I’d say there’s plenty emphasis on alcohol misuse. It’s absurd in light of all the anti-alcohol propaganda for anyone to suggest people are drinking more because they haven’t heard it might be bad for them. If anything, they’re preached to death.
The original Health.com piece, Survey: More Americans Drinking Alcohol, is under the section heading Alcoholism, subtly framing the story as if it’s about alcoholism, which of course it’s not. More people drinking does not automatically mean there are more alcoholics or even more people at risk of becoming alcoholics. But framed the way it is, that’s what it seems to presuppose.
Some of the other findings, as reported by Health.com:
The study itself only concluded the following, at least in the abstract:
The only common trend between 1992 and 2002 across both genders and 3 ethnic groups was a rise in the proportion of drinkers. There was also a rise in drinking 5 or more drinks in a day (Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics) and drinking to intoxication (Whites and Blacks), but this was limited to those reporting such drinking at least once a month. The reasons for these changes are many and may involve complex sociodemographic changes in the population.
I’m sorry, having five drinks on a given day once a month, or even once a week, is hardly a sign of the fall of civilization, even if a few more are now than they were ten years ago. I’m not even sure it’s all that newsworthy. But for reasons passing understanding — perhaps it’s simply the 24/7 news cycle — it became news and even got picked up by CNN.
Presumably to bolster his support for the proposed alcohol fee in San Francisco, Chronicle columnist C.W. Nevius’ newest column, Chronic Drunks’ Treatment Costs S.F. Big Bucks, highlights the use of emergency and health services by the city’s chronic drunks. And it totals a lot of money and understandably frustrates the city’s service providers.
But here’s the thing. A five-year study of the problem revealed that there are only around 225 people — these “chronic inebriants” — that are high ambulance users, and “fewer than 300 individuals account for 80 percent of the ambulance runs for alcohol treatment.” There are around 809,000 people living in San Francisco, meaning less than 3/100th of a percent are chronic drunks abusing the city’s healthcare system, and that’s not including all the people who flock to the city in order to drink. I’d be frustrated, too, but since those fees are already borne in the taxes that every person pays (at the local, city, county, state and federal level) I don’t quite see how further taxing just those people that also drink alcohol is a reasonable remedy to this problem, as supporters of the AMFO (Nevius included) have argued.
The stories Nevius tells are tragic and detail real abuses, but never does he use the phrase “personal responsibility.” Clearly, these are people with problems. But alcohol didn’t cause their problems, something in their personality, life, etc. did. I grew up with a psychotic, alcoholic stepfather who abused my mother and me both emotionally and physically, but even as a child I knew the alcohol didn’t make him that way. There were deep-seated problems that caused his illness and alcohol was just one of the ways he tried to cope. He was responsible for his own behavior, it couldn’t be dismissed or blamed away because he got drunk.
By the statistics in Nevius’ own column, at least 99.97% of San Francisco residents are not abusing emergency services, but he and the other supporters of the new alcohol fee think that all drinkers should be punished for their own good behavior to pay for those who are irresponsible. What could make less sense than that?
I started to write about this nonsense last year, when the authors of Eat This, Not That declared Sierra Nevada Stout to be the “worst beer” based almost solely on the fact that it’s 210 calories. This year, they’ve declared Sierra Nevada Bigfoot Barleywine Style Ale to be the “worst beer for 2010,” again based almost entirely on the fact that it is 330 calories. Here’s the entire write-up:
Most beers carry fewer than 175 calories, but even your average extra-heady brew rarely eclipses 250. That makes Sierra’s Bigfoot the undisputed beast of the beer jungle. Granted, the alcohol itself provides most of the calories, but it’s the extra heft of carbohydrates that helps stuff nearly 2,000 calories into each six-pack. For comparison, Budweiser has 10.6 grams of carbs, Blue Moon has 13, and Guinness Draught has 10. Let’s hope the appearance of this gut-inducing guzzler in your fridge is as rare as encounters with the fabled beast himself.
But so what? Avery’s The Beast has 480 calories (and Samael’s Ale has 458 and Mephistophele’s has 434). Dogfish Head 120 Minute IPA has 450 (and their Raison d’Extra has 425). Goose Island Bourbon County Stout has 415 calories. Bell’s Expedition Stout has 400 (and their Third Coast Old Ale has 335). Alaskan Barleywine has 373. Rogue’s XS Imperial Stout has 366 calories (and XS Old Crustacean has 346). Sprecher Barleywine has 352 and so does Real Ale’s Sisyphus Barleywine. Fish Poseidon’s Imperial Stout has 338 (and their Leviathan Barleywine has 319). Bristol Old No. 38 Barley Wine has 318. Three Floyds Dreadnaught Imperial IPA has 316. Pike Barleywine has 315 calories. Even McEwan’s Scotch Ale has 295. And the more extreme beers made by Samuel Adams, Utopias has 720 and Triple Bock had 636.
What’s the one thing all of those beers have in common, including Bigfoot? You don’t drink them the same way you do the beers that they compare them to; Budweiser, Blue Moon, Guinness Draught and Leinenkugel’s Fireside Nut Brown Ale. Those are all beers you drink by the six-pack, or at least share by the six-pack. The other beers are all sipping, bottle-sharing beers. Big difference. You can’t really compare them because they’re not made for the same purpose or use. It’s apples and oranges while the Eat This, Not That authors can only see beer as one interchangeable commodity. To them, all beer is the same, only the calories change. They can’t see that some drinks, usually the heavier higher caloric ones, people naturally drink less of. Like heavy foods, you feel full sooner and so don’t eat, or this case drink, more of them.
That the Eat This, Not That folks would have you believe all beers are equal is readily apparent when in their original book from 2008, they recommend that you should drink beers like Carta Blanca and Amstel Light. Their top picks, Michelob Ultra and Beck’s Premier Light, I wouldn’t drink even if they were the only beers on a menu. I’d order water or an alternative alcoholic beverage instead. In the 2009 follow-up, “Supermarket Survival Guide” they continue to recommend almost entirely big, bland beers from national and international companies. Curiously, though Yuengling Light, a recommended beer in 2008, has turned evil a year later and is now on the “Not That” side, because it’s all about calories and carbs. But a close look at the two sides reveals that there’s really very little difference between a recommended beer and the not recommended ones, just like the difference between low-calories light beer and “regular” beer is vanishingly small. That so many people are duped into believing the sacrifice to drink light beer is worth it for their health continues to amaze me and may be one of the greatest lies ever perpetrated my marketing.
But most of the beers on their recommended, as well as their not recommended list, lack one overall, and apparently overlooked, quality: taste. Who cares how many or how few calories or carbs a beer has if it doesn’t taste good, or tastes of nothing, like so many of the beers they’re listing are. And they’re also overlooking the right beer to pair with the right dish, event or occasion. It should be about proportion. I might not recommend Bigfoot as a beer to drink every day of the year. Of course, I wouldn’t suggest any beer for that duty. There’s no such thing as an all-purpose beer. There never should be, despite the mainstream media, marketing “gurus” and even the big breweries attempts to the contrary.
Calorie or carbohydrate-counting may be fine for some people (though I can’t for the life of me come up with a reason why) but applying it to beer is utterly ridiculous and without merit. If following their advice is what passes for healthy living, I’m happy to die sooner having lived a fuller, more enjoyable life. Life’s just too short to drink low-calorie beer.
I know what I’m drinking tonight.
A recent study from several universities in the Netherlands shows as much as a 40% decrease in the risk of type 2 diabetes for people who drink alcohol in moderation as compared to people who abstain altogether. Reuters is reporting today about the study, which went online last week at the website for the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
The study itself, entitled the “Combined Effect of Alcohol Consumption and Lifestyle Behaviors on Risk of Type 2 Diabetes,” concluded that even a healthier overall lifestyle could not explain the lower risk brought upon by moderate alcohol consumption, as had been previously thought.
From the Abstract:
Objective: We studied whether moderate alcohol consumption is associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes in adults with combined low-risk lifestyle behaviors.
Design: We prospectively examined 35,625 adults of the Dutch European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-NL) cohort aged 20–70 y, who were free of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer at baseline (1993–1997). In addition to moderate alcohol consumption (women: 5.0–14.9 g/d; men: 5.0–29.9 g/d), we defined low-risk categories of 4 lifestyle behaviors: optimal weight [body mass index (in kg/m2) <25], physically active (≥30 min of physical activity/d), current nonsmoker, and a healthy diet [upper 2 quintiles of the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet].Results: During a median of 10.3 y, we identified 796 incident cases of type 2 diabetes. Compared with teetotalers, hazard ratios of moderate alcohol consumers for risk of type 2 diabetes in low-risk lifestyle strata after multivariable adjustments were 0.35 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.72) when of a normal weight, 0.65 (95% CI: 0.46, 0.91) when physically active, 0.54 (95% CI: 0.41, 0.71) when nonsmoking, and 0.57 (95% CI: 0.39, 0.84) when consuming a healthy diet. When ≥3 low-risk lifestyle behaviors were combined, the hazard ratio for incidence of type 2 diabetes in moderate alcohol consumers after multivariable adjustments was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.32, 1.00).
Conclusion: In subjects already at lower risk of type 2 diabetes on the basis of multiple low-risk lifestyle behaviors, moderate alcohol consumption was associated with an approximately 40% lower risk compared with abstention.
All good news, right? Well, one feature that’s ubiquitous every time another study has great news about drinking beer drives me absolutely crazy. The Reuters’ report concludes with this unnecessary disclaimer, as they all seem to.
That said, [the lead research scientist] also noted that experts do not recommend that non-drinkers take up moderate drinking simply because it is related to lower risks of certain diseases. Alcohol always carries the potential for abuse, and the known risks of problem drinking have to be balanced against the possible health benefits of moderate drinking.
It’s as if they’re afraid that if they don’t say something like this, that people will go on a drinking binge, thinking it’s good for them all of a sudden. Can they really think so little of their audience? Or is simply being worried about liability? Either way, it drive me to drink.
There’s a nice article by the nutrition correspondent for Ask Men, Simon McNeil, entitled The Health Benefits of Beer. There’s no new ground covered, but he does offer a good overview of recent findings showing that beer is healthier for us — in moderation of course — than previously believed. It’s also great to see that message get some play in a mainstream magazine.
I probably shouldn’t speak for you, but this is certainly my worst nightmare. I tweeted this yesterday, but thought it still deserving of a snarky comment again today. Somewhere near Manchester, England is the Alcohol-Free Shop, a store dedicated to all things non-alcoholic. They carry non-alcoholic beer, wine, cider, ready-made cocktails and celebration drinks. They actually don’t carry that many different N/A Beers — are there very many? — but have plenty of other products.
But here’s the one think that actually bothers me. The company’s motto, slogan, whatever is “alcohol-free is good for you.” My problem with that is, of course, it’s not remotely true. Study after study has shown that people who drink moderately live longer, and are generally healthier, than people who either drink too much or abstain altogether. Being alcohol-free is therefore, in effect, bad for you. It’s good for you at all.
Under the heading Why Choose Alcohol Free?, they suggest “it is also recommended that we all have at least two alcohol-free days a week.” I’ve never heard that one before, have you? And how convenient that the first place I’ve heard it is a place trying to sell non-alcoholic drinks.
Then there’s this gem:
Our range of non-alcoholic, alcohol-free, and de-alcoholised drinks give people the opportunity to still enjoy a glass of wine with a meal or a bottle of beer on a sunny terrace and keep within healthy alcohol-consumption limits.
I’ve only had a few N/A wines but the ones I’ve tried were every bit as bad as the N/A beers. If you want to lay off the alcohol for a night, just have something naturally non-alcoholic, not an impostor that tastes like crap anyway. What’s the point?
Here’s their list of when and who might want non-alcoholic drinks:
This is a bit of a head-scratcher, especially give the recent troubles that Toyota has been experiencing. You probably already know about my friend and colleague Rick Lyke‘s great campaign, Pints For Prostates, that seeks simply to raise awareness about prostate cancer and encourage men to get tested for it. As a cancer survivor, Lyke is understandably passionate about his cause and has done a lot of good work toward his goals.
As he notes, despite all the Toyota controversy, the car company is, of course, still trying to sell its cars. One marketing scheme they’ve introduced is asking NASCAR fans to “Sponsafy” a race car using an online graphics program. Fan-craeated cars are posted in an online gallery and are voted on, with the winner having their actual car design on the pace car for NASCAR Sprint All-Star Race in Charlotte, NC on May 22, 2010.
Here, I’ll let Rick pick up the story: “Well, I thought “sponsafying” a car for the contest might be a fun way to promote the Pints for Prostates campaign and reach a few men with a simple message: “Get a PSA Test.” After all, look at what the NFL did for the cause of breast cancer awareness early this past season by allowing players to wear pink.” So he designed and submitted the car below.
Here’s where things take a turn for the weird. Again, here’s Rick:
Amazingly, Toyota Racing has rejected the design saying it “Contains offensive or inappropriate content.” Really? What is offensive about a car design that encourages men to pay attention to their health? Using the universal language of beer to reach men with an important health message certainly cannot be inappropriate for a sport that was once sponsored by a tobacco company and has had cars sponsored by beer, spirits and wine brands for decades. Makes you wonder if Toyota has something against men’s health?
There is still time for the Pints for Prostates ride to be part of the Toyota Sponsafy promotion and with your help we can make it happen. Please send a quick email to Kym Strong (kym_strong@toyota.com) of Toyota Motorsports and Greg Thome (greg_thome@toyota.com) of Toyota Corporate Communications. Use the subject line “Race the Pints for Prostates Car.”
As of this morning, there were 6,390 cars on Toyota’s online gallery but none with a healthy, helpful message to keep men safe from prostate cancer. And the reason for that — which I still can’t quite wrap my head around — is because it’s “offensive” (to whom?) and is “inappropriate content (what exactly?).” Take a look at the design. What do you see? I see a light blue ribbon, the logo (a pint glass with the text “Pints for Prostates” and another light blue ribbon) and the text “Get A PSA Test” in several places. Seriously, WTF!?! If you agree that makes no sense, let’s all e-mail Toyota as Rick suggests. Tell them you don’t find Pints For Prostates inappropriate at all, but you are offended by Toyota’s response to it.
Earlier this week, both the UK Guardian and Reuters had stories about a study which confirmed that beer is a very rich source of silicon. It was done by Charlie Bamforth, among others, at the Department of Food Science & Technology at U.C. Davis, and the study, Silicon in Beer and Brewing, “found beer is a rich source of silicon and may help prevent osteoporosis, as dietary silicon is a key ingredient for increasing bone mineral density.”
From the Reuters article:
“We have examined a wide range of beer styles for their silicon content and have also studied the impact of raw materials and the brewing process on the quantities of silicon that enter wort and beer,” researcher Charles Bamforth said in a statement.
The study, [to be] published in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, found the beers’ silicon content ranged from 6.4 milligrams per liter to 56.5 mg per liter. The average person’s silicon intake each day is between 20 and 50 mgs.
They found pale ales showed the highest silicon content while non-alcoholic beers, light lagers and wheat beers had the least silicon.
“Beers containing high levels of malted barley and hops are richest in silicon,” said Bamforth.
Add silicon to the long list of ways in which the moderate consumption of beer is good for you.