Slashdot Mirror
Beer Added To The Food Pyramid
Alehound writes " Beer Is Food: The US Government labeled beer(alcohol) as a drug, BeerAdvocate.com begs to differ as they inform their reader that beer can be a part of your diet in a healthy way. Beer does a body good? So the "Beer Gut" is a myth? So why the hell do I have a gut? And yes these guys do drink beer for breakfast." It's only 10 in the morning, I'm dumping out the half pot of coffee left, and cracking open a Boddingtons! Do it!
So why the hell do I have a gut? Just a thought but, do you sit in your chair from dusk till dawn? That could it be you know.
I've decided to try one beer with each type of cereal I have in my cabinet. I can honestly say that my cereal is MUCH better with beer!
So are we going to start seeing the fancy labels which are on all the other foods? I wonder what they will consider the recommended serving size? Personaly,I would like to see them use 6 cans as the RDA.
I actually found a good use for budweiser. Not for drinking, but for cooking. You can make a real good gravy using 1/2 part bud and 1/2 part stock (chicken or beef).
Otherwise, make mine Guiness or Sam Adams. Aside from unfiltered beers or home brew, beer does not contain any yeast, and the carbonation is a result of injecting CO2 into the beer before capping it. You'll know if there's yeast in it if you find crunchies at the bottom of the bottle.
Oh yea, beer is just mostly empty carbs. Almost no nutritional value. At best, I'd put it down in the same category as 'snack food'.
The FDA determines the proper adult dose for a drug by giving increasingly higher doses to a bunch of rats until 50% of them die.
I know this because I was told about a supplement that tried to get FDA approval as a drug, but it failed because it could never kill the rats. Therefore it could only be approved as a food (having strange effects on the product's marketability).
So perhaps the FDA got some rats really drunk and they actually got half of them to die...
Now I have an excuse when I show up to work drunk...
"But beer, boss does the body good," I exclaim as I show my boss an upside down picture of the revised food pyramid.
What a suprise, beeradvocate.com is trying to promote beer.
/.?
What does advocate mean again?
And why is this news on
So the "Beer Gut" is a myth?
Much like a girlfriend if you keep suplementing with the physique enhancing beverage!
The ads for Low-Carb beer show fit-n-healthy folks in the middle of various inviogorating excercises. Alcohol may have some good effects on the body according to recent research, but the ads make beer look like Powerade for chrissake. Moderation is good. Preying on stupidity, suggesting that beer is healthy, is irresponsible.
On a similar note, I saw a print ad for Bud Light that showed a condensation-covered label; on that label was a strategically-placed water drop that just happened to make "Budweiser" look like "Bloweiser". Yeah right, just a coincidence. And no, I wan't looking for it.
-- "You can lead a yak to water, but you can't teach an old dog to make a silk purse out of a pig in a poke" - Opus
"Scientists have found that shooting yourself in the head helps reduce blood pressure. Funded by the National Rifle Association the evidence was gathered over a period of five years....."
Unfrotunately, beer does itself contribute to the beer belly. It's not just a matter of how much carbs something has but what kind of carbs they are. Beer has maltose, which is actually one of the more troublesome carbs because it is digested quickly, spikes your blood sugar level quickly and brings with it an associated spike in insulin, which then brings your blood sugar level down low, and makes you hungrier. So, it is in fact the other stuff that makes you fat, but the beer often contributes to your wanting the other stuff. Different types of beer have different elements which modify the digestion process, so the effect varies. A nice stout seems to fill me up quite nicely, so it must have something going for it. But I have lost 25 pounds on my low-carb diet, so until I reach my target weight, I'm gonna hold back on the Guinness.
It was originally concieved as a way to preserve grains that would otherwise rot through the winter. Beer is rich in carbs and B vitamins. You could live for months on beer alone if you had to. It certainly has a place in a healthy diet. I think wine might be better for you though...
Not that I'm condoning drinking American beer, mind you... there is real beer just across your northern border, ppl...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
So why the hell do I have a gut?
Maybe because when you drink beer it's 6-10 at a time and you sit at a desk all day. In large amounts these calories add up.
I doubt that a semi-active person that has a couple beers here and there would get a gut from drinking this tasty beverage. In moderation, beer, just like soda, will not make you fat.
"...whiskey count as beer?"
Rock!
A: It's fucking near water!
There has been more than one study that shows the effects of moderate alcohol consumption to be beneficial to cardiovascular health and in particular reducing the risk of stroke and Type II diabetes.
Also of interesting note, there is what is referred to as The French Paradox (which has nothing to do with French military might and their place in NATO). Instead it refers to the fact that the french have a diet high in saturated fat (think cream and cheese) and high high rates of alcohol consumption (think wine) yet have low rates of morbid obesity comapred to other nations (and especially to the US).
MMORPG fan-boy? Prove your worth
Why the heck don't beer, wine, and liquor have to have the nutriton information label on them like all food does in the U.S.?
-- dR.fuZZo
A friend who researched the education of the founding fathers (she spent a ton of time reading diaries, etc.) told me that the morning meal for many a US patriot was a cup of ale. Apparently the ale they drank was a lot heavier and meal like than what we drink today.
It makes sense. In the days before chlorinated water and refrigerator, ale would have been one of the more reliable ways of preserving foods.
It can be a wonderfully complex process and by learning it you are taking part in a time-honored tradition. Plus, you get cheap, good drink.
It's interesting to watch how the government cracks down on various drugs. The US Government has deemed smoking as pretty bad, yet smoking does not cause drunk driving, nor does it cause men to go home and beat their wives. An addiction to tobacco does not ruin someone's life the way an addiction to alcohol can. I hear lots of complaining about the costs smokers create in terms of health care, but I never hear about the costs associated with heavy drinkers, not to mention rehab programs.
What's really interesting is how they make marijuana illegal, when in many ways it is not as bad as smoking or drinking. In terms of health, people say marijuana does less damage than all that tar and chemicals they put in cigarettes. Some people say it's even less addictive than tobacco, though I would not know. Marijuana also does not make you overconfident the way alcohol will - making you think you are the best driver in the world when in reality you should not be anywhere near the controls of a vehicle. The government likes to say that marijuana use just leads to usage of dangerous drugs like cocaine, but that is not true - just like alcoholics generally don't move onto cocaine either.
I'll probably get modded down for this, but I feel the world would be a better place without alcohol. But that simply will not happen. People will not give it up, just look at when they tried prohibition in the US.
In one episode of 'Cheers', Cliff is seated at the bar describing the
Buffalo Theory to his buddy, Norm. (I don't think I've ever heard the
concept explained any better than this....)
"Well you see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as
fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest
and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection
is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the
whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.
In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the
slowest brain cells.
Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But
naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this
way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making
the brain a faster and more efficient machine. And that, Norm, is why you
always feel smarter after a few beers."
Semper ubi sub ubi
It's interesting you chose that particular slander for your post, since it was the early 20th-century equivalent of "reefer madness". One of the driving rhetorical points of Prohibitionism, and the reason that it was embraced by some elements of what became the women's movement, was just that: "Alcohol causes our responsible men to become irresponsible and beat their wives. If we get rid of booze, there will be no wife-beating!"
Naturally, it didn't work that way. Sober men are just as capable of rage as drunk ones, and neither beer nor gin can make a violent man from a peaceable one. Moreover, blaming a man's misdeeds on the drugs he consumes, rather than on his own character, does nothing to cause him to correct himself. A violent person who can excuse his behavior the next morning by saying, "It was the bottle talking," sees no reason to become less violent.
The remedy for domestic violence is not to dissuade men from drinking, but to convince them (as has thankfully been done in society at large, thanks chiefly to feminism and the law) that domestic violence is wrong, shameful, and criminal. Only by ascribing responsibility solely to the individual -- not to his drug, and not to "society" -- can the problem be corrected. Why? Simple: The booze doesn't make decisions; individuals do.
Leave beer alone, for -- as with marijuana -- the vast majority of users enjoy it responsibly. Lay the blame for wrongdoing on the wrongdoers -- and shame on you, if you let them blame it on the bottle.
Beer (and other forms of alcohol) IS and have been part of a food pyramid for nearly 4 years!
Some Background For The Uninitiated
The concept of the Food Pyramid was proposed by researches at the US Department of Agriculture, who needed to convey the idea of a healthy diet (according to the dogma of the time) in terms of proportion, variety and moderation. Thus, the pyramid graphic was presented. The problem is that word, "dogma".
The USDA is by far not even close to the leading edge of nutrition and dietary research. Their food pyramid represented a diet heavy in breads, with a little less emphasis on fruits and vegetables. Meat was eschewed, as was diary, and fats, oils, and salts were placed at the top of the pyramid to emphasize that they were to be used sparingly.
Two problems with the Food Pyramid were immediately obvious. First, it ignored contemporary research and accepted medical though which stated that diets high in fish and poultry were beneficial. The USDA assumed that all means were bad because of their high animal fat content. But research at the time (and subsequent) proved that not all fat was bad, and not only was some fat good, but actually necessary. Also, the Food Pyramid didn't differntiate between breads that were healthy (whole grains) and those that were unhealthy (white rice, bleached flour, corn startches, pasta, and processed grains in which the fiber had been stripped chemically). They simply lumped all grains together.
The second problem was that the food pyramid tried to convey a sense of proportion by giving recommended serving amounts. But these serving amounts were meaningless to the average person. They needed to know what a serving was. Was it a gram, kilo, cup, pound, ounce, or something else?
Enter the Diet Fads
Actually, "Fad" diets aren't new. The term is used for just about any new diet which proclaims a principal not accepted in contemporary circles - so fad diets are not inherently bad, but most turn out that way. Fad diets did for Americans what the USDA didn't with thier Food Pyramid or "Four Food Groups" of prior years. It gave people a guide to how much of what should be eaten. The other problem is that these fad diets were targeted towards weight loss. Most of them worked for most people who tried them to some degree, but their failure came when the diet was over. Without a sense of proper nutrition, people reverted to their unhealthy ways of eating. Thus was coined the term "Yo-Yo" dieting, where a person loses weight, then gains it back, and loses it again. This constant state of flux is not healthy, and coupled with the sedantary lifestyle of the average American, it has lead to an epidemic of obesity.
The word "diet" itself has become synonymous with "trying to lose weight", and likewise has become eschewed by the very diet industry that gave rise to that misconception. Instead, they are using terms like "nutrition system" or "program".
Fighting Fat With Knowledge
Enter the molecular biologists, who have put the American diet and the human metabolism under a microscope. Some of the results they have come up with are startling, and have been used to construct a New Food Pyramid to counter the USDA's Food Pyramid. A notable development is the recognition that there are cultural differences that prevent a food pyramid for the American diet from being at all practical for other cultures.
Healthy, as in Beer
Beer, and other forms of alcohol, were discovered to be healthy in moderation. Moderation, of course, is the key to everything in a diet. A glass of wine daily can reduce risk factors related to heart disease and stroke. Beer was found to have a phytoprotein that actually aids in repairing cardiac muscle tissues. Red wine, long given to Soviet Nuclear Submariners, can protect the body from low levels of ionizing radiation (though potassium iodide is b
Now for an alternate take on things... Beer is the root of civilization. Yes, that most lovely of liquids: the Wobbly Pop. Hang on to your brews boys.
Most traditional archaeologists tend to think of civilization as a sort of ladder, and the first few rungs were actually quite slippery. Here's one possible ladder: (there are several)
First, if you want to have a town with art, politics, hookers, etc. the first thing you need is a food supply that is reliable and doesn't move around a lot. Deer, elk, tapirs, camels, elephants, etc. all move around most vexingly. Turnips do not. Agriculture seems like the way to go, but first you need a crop to cultivate. 30,000 years ago that wasn't an easy thing to find. Beans, squash, wheat, turnips, you name it, are all highly domesticated plants that we've been selectively breeding for thousands of years. When agriculture was starting out the ancestors of today's crops just weren't that productive. Take corn for example. Today a stalk of corn puts out great big honking cobs chock full of juicy kernals. 30,000 years ago the stuff looked a lot like grass. It is in fact, more than a little bit unlikely that you could have lived off the stuff back then. (more on that later) So if no suitable crops existed, we had to breed one.
Here we hit a major hang up. Breeding massive changes into plants isn't exactly a speedy process when you *know* what you're doing. How exactly our ancestors ever managed to develop a crop suitable for agriculture is actually quite a hot topic of debate! Still, somehow we managed, but it probably took a while. Even for relatively smart people, it is not inconceivable that this took tens of thousands of years before there was any sort of payoff. So what kept our forefathers going?
Beer.
Living off of primitive wild corn would probably have been impossible. However, collecting relatively small ammounts to ferment into chicha (BEER!) for those important social events (religion?) was a much more reasonable undertaking. Of course, excessive beer consumption does tend to make one lazy, so naturally our fastly-becoming-religious ancestors decided to start throwing a bunch of seeds together in one place so they didn't have to look all over the bloody planet to round up enough for a good er... mass. Gradually they tossed the crappier grass out and the better stuff got inbred, mutated all to hell, and gradually become more and more like the corn of today. Eventually, we got a crop good enough to actually become a dietary staple. Someone might then have said "Hey guys! We can eat this stuff too! F@$* this hunter-gatherer walking-around-all-day BS. Let's just stay here all the time. There's BEER!"
So we have a nice town springing forth from the wilderness. Art, culture, and all the trappings of civilization are flowering forth... and people are shitting in the river. This is baaad. People are getting sick! Fortunately, achohol tends to be safer to drink than brownish water! While the high-proof Canadian beers of today would be a tad difficult to live on, the watered down chicha of the day was just the thing for daily consumption. To this day there are still countries where beer is cheaper than safe drinking water. As a beneficial side effect, people with beer tend to be easier to talk into paying taxes, running off to kill people they've never met before, building pyramids, etc...
Of course, archaeology itself would be nowhere without beer. Seriously, how many major archaeological digs are carried out without beer? Almost any site that has ever been completely excavated is within a short distance of a pub. Occasionally people mount expeditions into the jungles of Yucatan, etc. to discover these fabulous lost cities. They dig for a bit, the beer runs out, and they go home. To any government officials out there who are trying to get some remote lost city excavated, build a pub next to it. The archaeologists will come.
Today we pasteurize beer - before this practice became mainstream, beer used to be pretty unsanitary.
Pasteurization has nothing to do with sanitary in beer. Homebrewers never pasteurize their beer.
Firstly, let's talk about unsanitary. Unsanitary - back then - meant things like cholera, which lived quite happily in water and was a serious health threat. The alcohol in beer kills things like cholera. There are no known human pathogens that can grow or live in beer, so you can't mess up and brew something that'll hurt you. So, in the context of unclean water, beer _is_ sanitary - the alcohol kills germs.
Secondly, let's talk about pasteurization. In milk, pasteurization kills off certain bacteria that are present in the production chain (read: cow) but bad for humans in some cases. In beer, pasteurization kills off the yeast (not bad for humans, BTW) which insures that the fermentation will stop and the flavor of the beer will reach stasis. It does not kill of nasties; nasties can't live in beer. Again, homebrewers don't pasteurize, they don't need to, and it's too hard to do without killing the flavor. In fact, unpasteurized beer with yeast residue has lots of vitamin B, which helps with hangovers.
In short: beer didn't used to be unsanitary, water did. Beer still isn't. Water may be, depending upon where you live.