Discussion in 'Beer News' started by mjshearer1, Feb 19, 2013.
Clearly, then, the correct answer is a black shandy of Gatorade and BCBS.
Or Bourbon County Lime-A-Rita-rade Stout Blast!
I love a beer after my run (usually 3 to 5 miles), but I usually chug a bottle of water first, then open a beer.
Just looking at them I want to buy Marathon runners a stout. Belly up to the bar...well, best you can with that 20" waist. Cheers!;
In beer, the fermentable sugars have been converted to ethanol, which can be used for fuel. I'm not sure where it lands in the "simplve" vs "complex" realm. Some beers will have non-fermentable sugars remaining, but I guess if yeast can't produce ethanol and carbon dioxide from them, neither can we.
You're right, they are not readily available, but ethanol is made into fuel (acetyl CoA). Just doesn't benefit your liver.
As far as hydration goes, it certainly doesn't help.
I would recommend nobody listen to those scientists.
^ Link to article
^ Link to peer-reviewed article
I don't know, you're both making solid arguments. Really a toss-up as to who to believe here.
Appearing soon in a journal near you! A revision of the recent study, where the scientists/researchers discover that the previous results are negated by further research!
Butter's bad for you; switch to margarine!---No, wait, margarine's worse!
Oatmeal's good for you!---Except it may not make any difference.
Don't eat eggs! All that cholesterol!---But actually, they may be OK.
Salt will raise your blood pressure!---On further study, it doesn't matter.
The French do everything wrong according to "nutrition science"; too much red meat, too much tobacco, too much fat, too much alcohol, not enough exercise and yet---and yet, they have lower rates of heart disease than we in the US.
Nutrition science, yet another BS discipline where what little we know is trumped daily by what little we know that has been discovered since yesterday.
See Mike Ten's post above: "I don't know, you're both making solid arguments. Really a toss-up as to who to believe here."
(Waiting for the posts of outrage to follow from the nutrition experts.)
I drink a large format bottle of beer every night after my workout (within 30-60 minutes). I've lost 86lbs so far. Coincidence? I think not!
Imagine what the world is missing out on while you're here pounding your keyboard on BA instead of revamping the world of nutrition science.
/ Not a nutrition expert
The guy arguing me didn't even know what he was arguing about, he could post all the articles he wants.
Yes, ethanol can be turned into acetyl CoA in the liver, but then it inhibits gluconeogenesis so the point is moot. Alcohol can also cause hypoglycemia.
Beer can be beneficial after a workout if it is alcohol-free (or nearly alcohol free) because it still contains carbohydrates. But it's nowhere near as beneficial as Gatorade, which contains multiple types of carbs and minerals.
And since we're on Beeradvocate, not NearBeeradvocate, most people who read this likely aren't going to reach for the non alcoholic option.
You said low alcohol, not alcohol-free. Nice backpedal.
Provided it is low alcohol it does serve a purpose, of course you are better off with self-tailored mineral water/protein/supplement based after workout drinks. I would say beer is better than Gatorade though.
You should have led with that instead of the bald-faced "Yes it's true, moron" angle you took.
Also, the article doesn't mention what the placebo was, exactly.
jtmartino is saying Gatorage > non-/ low-alcohol beer > high-alcohol beer.
Your link says non-alcoholic beer > unspecified placebo, which doesn't support your earlier statement that low-alcohol beer > Gatorade.
I'd love to know the approximate rankings, healthiness-wise, of the following 5 options, after a workout:
- non-alcoholic beer
- 3-4% beer
This part is debatable. That single study doesn't provide enough evidence nor clinical data to support the statement either way.
Polyphenols in beer may reduce inflammation, but whether or not that effect is superior to the effects of Gatorade post-exercise is undetermined. One would think that if polyphenols in beer reduced inflammation so effectively, every single athlete would drink nonalcoholic beer instead of Gatorade or similar drinks. But they don't.
Huh? Earlier you said:
How is that different from how I characterized what you said?
low alcohol is "alcohol free". Even Malzbier has alochol in it, there is no such thing as an alcohol free beer in the us or german markets. There wasn't a backpedal just a misunderstanding on your part.
Gatorade has high fructose corn syrup, anything with that shoudl be avoided in any situation.
So, no one can comment on a scientific discipline as an outsider? Guess we need to have the credentials of the other BAs who are posting on this thread.
And was I wrong about any of those contradictory nutrition statements that appeared in the news in the past few years?
You didn't - I stand by my statement. I didn't want to discount the German study, however. I don't have any scientific data to support my statement - I don't think anyone has compared Gatorade to alcohol-free beer side-by-side.
On one hand, you have energy and mineral restoration. On the other, you have the purported benefits of polyphenol compounds found in some beers. It's worth a discussion, and if someone can provide data other than a meandering study with a flawed design as evidence, I'd be willing to listen.
I say flawed design because there were a lot of variables that were not controlled for in the German study and they had multiple unrelated outcomes (who cares about whether or not the people got sick with a cold when the study was analyzing the relationship between beer and post-exercise inflammation?)
1. 3.5% beer is low alcohol, and will affect the body very differently than 0.5% beer.
2. People are afraid of HCFS because of fructose. But fructose is a simple sugar metabolized by the liver. There is nothing wrong with consuming it in controlled doses, and it's found in most fruit. Overconsumption of fructose (which is easy due to its prevalence as a low-cost sweetening agent) leads to problems.
Depends, are you critiquing the science or the lack of clarity on it? Making a sweeping statement like "this field is all BS" should require some credentials. If I said "All IPAs are terrible," you'd ask me to back up my statement.
The media (arguably scientifically illiterate) is tasked with reporting to the public (demonstrably scientifically illiterate). Truth gets lost along the way. This thread is a great case in point; the scientist referenced didn't even say what the article claimed he did. I'm quicker to blame the media when I see contradictory messages.
That being said, there's all sorts of sloppy science out there too. Every field has people who are bad at their jobs and people who do great work. But just as fast food workers who are bad at their jobs get filtered out, I trust that the academic system has similar protocols in place. I'm more inclined to trust them than the average guy who probably hasn't taken science since high school. Just because skepticism is healthy doesn't mean it is informed.
I figured it might be something like this. It seems to be, handwavily speaking, that a lot of difficulty in biology-related experiments is even identifying which factors need to be controlled in the first place (not to mention controlling them at all, given how much human beings differ).
I agree with statement 1. But that confirms what I have been saying.
A normal serving of gatorade contains far more HFCS than is necessary as well as more than likely using very low quality gmo hfcs.
At any rate it is useless to argue one against the other, its better to build a post workout drink that suits your body and workout.
How does one go about this?
Doing some research.
Well, thanks anyway.
Water, dextrose & a broad spectrum of amino acids.
Yeah, I'd expect you to back up your statement, but I wouldn't discount it just because you aren't a professional in the brewing industry. I wouldn't even expect you to be a homebrewer, just familiar with beers.
Can't disagree with that.
My point, which was implied, is that despite lots of research, we have barely scratched the surface on the complexity of the human body and the interactions of various chemical compounds in foods when ingested. To then make some sweeping generalization like "we did a study and X food/drink is bad for you" is an example of the hubris of the scientific community. Releasing preliminary research and coming to generalized conclusions which are later contradicted by other studies contributes to my statement that what passes for nutritional science is a lot of BS, as evidenced by this simple thread where several BAs who seem to have a decent knowledge of nutritional chemistry have vastly different opinions on the effects of the same drinks.
My understanding is that it is press releases that say that.
No, you initially said "low alcohol" then you changed it to "no alcohol." They are not the same, and what you "have been saying" is unclear. Yes, your second statement was accurate that no alcohol beer has benefits, as supported by the link you provided. No, your first statement that low alcohol beer is better than Gatorade was not accurate, nor have you been able to provide evidence otherwise. Perhaps it's my misunderstanding of your definition of "low alcohol," but you are not going to convince anyone.
I am under the impression that you are not qualified for, nor do you have any evidence to support how much HFCS "is necessary" for people post-workout.
Nor do you have any evidence supporting the implication that the quality of HFCS matters or that GMO HFCS is worse than non-gmo HFCS.
Nor do you have any evidence supporting your claim that "low alcohol" beer is better post-workout than Gatorade.
I won't get into this any further with you because it's clear you are just repeating information you heard from others without understanding the fundamental science behind this topic.
I always have a shower beer after a work out.
I never changed anything, you misunderstood and obviously have a hard time admitting it.
I use to run with my company back at Bragg half drunk then next morning all the time. Felt that I ran better the night after a good time. Cant say that the guys behind me were enjoying the smell to much though I think I am getting to old for that anyways
I love the shower beer!! Nothing is better after a long days work than an ice cold beer and a steaming hot shower!!!
I cant find the link, but I remember reading about this. It mentioned something along the lines of how a small amount of beer, perhaps .2 liters, hydrates the same or better than water. At such a small amount perhaps the added nutrients in beer do become more beneficial than the negative effect of alcohol. However, of course, .2 liters of anything is not enough to hydrate after a proper workout, and any more alcohol and you would definitely start to hinder the rehydrating effects. Its a win lose, thought I say more of a win because, well, you get to drink a beer.... Sometimes its just more fun to say, Yay Beer!!.. and move on, know what I mean
First off, I was talking beer vs. Gatorade in that post, not beer vs. water. To address the overall issue, your statement may be true for nonalcoholic beer or very low ABV beers (<4%). Any more and the alcohol starts to dehydrate the body through anti-diuretic hormone inhibition. I posted a link to a study on the NIH website that dealt with this same issue - it's worth reading.
True, true. I'll look that article up... Thanks.
Vindicated by so-called science, you mean
So-called habits vindicated by so-called science so long as you drink so-called beer with low ABV.
Sounds like a win.
i'm not reading the article. afraid they will define "after a workout" as being too short of a time period for my liking. I worked out yesterday- I am going to have my beer today (no need to point out my beer consumption yesterday either).
Separate names with a comma.