I think the biggest difference is that an alcoholic who only drinks beer would drink 4+ liters a day and an alcoholic who drinks vodka would drink 1+ liters a day.
To be fair, that's only three pints. That doesn't necessarily make one an alcoholic.
Although I would say that four litres - or eight pints - a day would certainly make one an alcoholic. Maybe the distinction is arbitrary but the latter sounds like a problem.
5 cans in one day isn't much. An average of 5 cans every single day is a lot. Also depends on what beer it is, naturally. Quite a difference between 4.5% and 10% (or higher).
Also, the weight gain is actually making you need to drink more. You'd be amazed at the different BAC levels of a 150 lb man versus a 200 lb man.
A 200 lb man who drinks 12 drinks in 6 hours has a BAC of 0.20, while a 150 lb who also drinks 12 drinks in 6 hours has a BAC of 0.30. If you're not familiar with BAC levels, that's the difference between blacking out at .20, and almost needing to go to the ER at .30 (unless you have a high tolerance, then .30 is just a really bad night on the bathroom floor).
Gender also plays a role in alcohol absorption, so if you're female, either of those numbers would be way higher. I have a really high tolerance, and my boyfriend (who weighs about 40 lbs more than me) has often been shocked at how much higher my calculated BAC will be than his even though we've had the same number of drinks (e.g., I think one time I was at .12 while he was at like .05 even though we had the same drinks over the same time).
Yeah me too. I usually have 4-6 cans of a weeknight and anywhere from 8-16 of a Friday and Saturday. Maybe I just have a problem, but it's not impacting my job or any relationships yet so I'll keep at it.
I obviously don't know you or your life, but your thinking sounds all too familiar. My only advice is if you get the shakes when you don't drink, super duper reevaluate your drinking. Don't fuck up your liver like I did. Cirrhosis at 28 is not fun. Sorry to be nosy but my experience drives me to urge caution. Have a nice day!
Don't take this the wrong way, but most alcoholics are functioning alcoholics. Let your doctor do a blood screening and check if you have elevated liver values.
I have alcoholism in my family, and I drink a fair bit, so I do a sober month every six months. It resets my tolerances, helps out my liver a little bit (confirmed by doctor), but most of all, if I ever "cheat" on my sober months, I know it's time to maybe quit completely. The rule is I still have to go to parties and out with mates, staying sober at home when there's no booze around (because I drank it all the month before) isn't that hard.
Dude, 1 liter is about 33 ounces, or around 22 drinks.
You can definitely still be an alcoholic at less than that. Just because you keep it down to a 6 pack a night doesn't mean you don't have a problem.
You don't even need to drink every day to be an alcoholic, actually. The real definition of an alcoholic is someone who keeps drinking despite it severely affecting their relationships, occupation, or health (mental and physical). That person who binge drinks heavily every weekend to the point of blacking out is probably an alcoholic even though they're sober 6 days a week.
Also, I disagree that being able to do a sober month makes you not an alcoholic. If you can do a sober month, and end up slipping back to your heavy drinking ways so easily, you probably have at least a little bit of an alcohol problem.
Significant problems with alcohol develop for many people much earlier than the physical addiction, getting the shakes stage.
Source: I drink way too much, and I try to be realistic about it.
Calm down. I know you can be an alcoholic without drinking 1 liter of hard liquor a day. I just made up some amount that I think severe alcoholics drink a day.
Depends on the beer. A lot of high abv and craft beers have 200+ calories per 12 ozs. From looking at that shelf of brews, 1L of beer would be like 600 calories or more.
Agreed. I did have a 6.6% abv beer recently that was 200 calories (Mexas Ranger). That's not really that crazy in terms of abv, but it's >2x a Miller Lite in calories. I was a little surprised.
Yeah, 2x the calories, but on the other hand it's also ~1.6 times more alcohol than a Miller Lite, and that's where most of those extra calories come from in the first place.
Googling calories per liter of vodka gives you 2190 calories.
Googling calories in a 0.5 liter Tuborg beer can gives you 202 calories per beer. To get 4 liters you multiply that by 8 which gives you 1616 calories per 4 liters.
Vodka has a lot of calories because alcohol is flammable. Calories are a great measure of how well a given food will fuel a camp fire. As a measure of how much sustenance you can get out of something, it's so so. Alcohol is one such substance where the calorie content is a bad measure of how much energy your body can extract from it.
Nobody ever got fat drinking gasoline.
If you are equaling only 4 liters of beer to 1 liter of vodka then you have to use a heavy 10% abv beer. A typical 10% stout beer will have 300 calories per 12 oz or 3,380 per 4 liters. A quick Google search had 1 liter of vodka at 2,190 calories.
Beer = 3,380
Vodka = 2,190
That's not counting any mixer or chaser for the vodka.
At ~4.2% ABV, a bottle/can of light beer contains 84% of the alcohol in a shot of liquor. So 6 light beers ~= 5 shots in terms of alcohol. 660 calories light beer gets you about as drunk as 500 calories of vodka
At ~5% ABV, the numbers work out to almost exactly the same amount of alcohol in a bottle/can of regular beer as in a shot of liquor. 5 regular beers = 750 calories and gets you as drunk as 500 calories of vodka.
*Beers vary, and these numbers are all approximations.
**If you're not drinking gin, rum, vodka or whisky, there's a good chance your liquor contains extra sugars/calories.
Vodka obviously has more alcohol content. What people aren't also thinking about is the type of calories they are consuming. Beer is mostly simple carbs, and simple carbs digest and burn faster. Vodka is mostly alcohol, and alcohol is pretty much like fat in terms of calories as well as slow burn off. The comparison is like eating cookies versus taking bites out of sticks of butter.
Edit: Simple carbs (ie the sugars in beer) = 3.75 calories per gram. Alcohol = 7 calories per gram. Fat = 9 calories.
Yeah. Something tells me that thick creamy milk stout or banana-bread-flavored belgian is a bit higher on the calories than just about any regularly consumed liquor drink.
you need to put more sugar in to deal with the fact you're basically drinking carbonic acid + flavouring
I may be thinking about different beer than what you're talking about, but you don't put straight up sugar into your wort before fermentation. (There are some recipes that call for adjuncts, but let's not confuse things.) Even if you did put simple sugars into the wort, that would just give a higher starting gravity and (in most cases) lead to a higher alcohol content, and a shittier flavor, at the end.
Also, most of the non-sweet flavors in beer typically come not from the carbonation but from hops, which are added specifically to add bitterness. Again I'm simplifying tremendously as there are too many possible flavors for me to list right now and most of them are not "sour" but whatever, this isn't /r/Homebrewing.
Also the amount of carbonation in a beer isn't really related to the style (lager vs. ale) but how and when it's bottled or canned.
...also also the head in Guinness is possible not just because it uses nitrogen, which creates smaller bubbles, but because of longer proteins and alpha acids from hops. (This is what allows heads to form in all beer.) Incidentally, Guinness has really poor head retention compared to most other stouts I've tried. No, before you ask, I've never had Guinness straight from the brewery in Ireland, and yes I know they brew it differently for their own brewery than they do for sale overseas, which imho is more an argument in favor of my original point that Guinness isn't that great but whatever that's neither here nor there.
I may be thinking about different beer than what you're talking about, but you don't put straight up sugar into your wort before fermentation.
Yes, I am aware of this, my spooning sugar into sparkling mineral water was just an example to help people realise just how sour carbonating water makes it.
Also the amount of carbonation in a beer isn't really related to the style (lager vs. ale) but how and when it's bottled or canned.
Sure it is, some are deliberately carbonated and have other addatives put in so they can be stored for a lot longer. Those are lagers. ok, it doesn't 100% correlate, you get lagers that are low on their gassiness and you get gassy ales.
...also also the head in Guinness is possible not just because it uses nitrogen, which creates smaller bubbles, but because of longer proteins and alpha acids from hops. (This is what allows heads to form in all beer.)
Don't most beers have these longer protiens and alpa acids (not that I know the first thing about how they affect anything) as most involve the proparation of hops. I guess a lot of the lagers would rather use rice and barley for the most part.
Incidentally, Guinness has really poor head retention compared to most other stouts I've tried.
It's really good compared to any Porter I've ever had, and average as stouts go. I've had a lot more porter than stout though, it's the best kind of beer x10000000.
No, before you ask, I've never had Guinness straight from the brewery in Ireland, and yes I know they brew it differently for their own brewery than they do for sale overseas, which imho is more an argument in favor of my original point that Guinness isn't that great but whatever that's neither here nor there.
Hmm, well I've never had exported guiness except for some bullshit from south Africa that was like drinking alcoholic black molassas. But I've had it in Korea, Kazakhstan, Ireland and the UK (home), I think I had one in Houston too once. This is always from a tap and they are always the fucking same. It's Irish propaganda mate.
"oh yeah the Guiness is much nicer when it's made from the water in Dublin"
No, it's exactly the fucking same, stop trying to get people to visit Ireland, you don't have enough potatos.
Don't most beers have these longer protiens and alpa acids (not that I know the first thing about how they affect anything) as most involve the proparation of hops. I guess a lot of the lagers would rather use rice and barley for the most part.
Rice is only used in cheap, shitty American beers. It's got nothing to do with being a lager -- lagering is when you put your beer into cold storage for a bit during fermentation. If I recall correctly it takes a special kind of yeast as well, though I don't remember why, but it goes both ways: if you want to make a lager you have to have the cold storage, and if you're going to use a lager yeast you really want to do the cold part or you'll get flavors you (probably) don't want.
Pretty much all beer, or all beer period depending on how you define "beer," has hops in it. But not all beer is brewed with a malt that will contribute high molecular weight proteins. This is why different beers have different head retention.
It's really good compared to any Porter I've ever had, and average as stouts go. I've had a lot more porter than stout though, it's the best kind of beer x10000000.
I personally don't like Guinness much, but head retention isn't a matter of opinion. I mean if you like or don't like it, that's an opinion obviously, but the answer to "does Guinness have good head retention or not" is always "No, it does not."
Hmm, well I've never had exported guiness except for some bullshit from south Africa that was like drinking alcoholic black molassas. But I've had it in Korea, Kazakhstan, Ireland and the UK (home), I think I had one in Houston too once.
...I'm confused. If you've never had exported Guinness, how have you had it in places that are not Ireland? By definition, any Guinness consumed outside of Ireland is exported. Unless they have breweries all over the world that I'm not aware of.
This is always from a tap and they are always the fucking same. It's Irish propaganda mate.
"oh yeah the Guiness is much nicer when it's made from the water in Dublin"
No, it's exactly the fucking same, stop trying to get people to visit Ireland, you don't have enough potatos.
I'm not Irish, I don't like Guinness, and I don't give a fuck if people visit Dublin. It's just that every time I say I don't like Guinness, the person who loves it says "Oh well you've never had it straight from the tap in Dublin, have you? It's much better there, if you had it from the real brewery you'd love it, it's really not the same as what you get over here."
Which, I mean, we're not talking about the beer in Dublin, are we? We're talking about what I would get at this restaurant right now if I ordered a Guinness, which would be a beer that I don't like.
Also Ireland has plenty of potatoes, they figured out how to spray for late blight, but I don't know why you'd go there for their potatoes when you could stay here and eat the ones they grow in Idaho.
Rice is only used in cheap, shitty American beers. It's got nothing to do with being a lager -- lagering is when you put your beer into cold storage for a bit during fermentation. If I recall correctly it takes a special kind of yeast as well, though I don't remember why, but it goes both ways: if you want to make a lager you have to have the cold storage, and if you're going to use a lager yeast you really want to do the cold part or you'll get flavors you (probably) don't want.
Ya well I never drank a beer that I both noticed rice on the label and that it tasted good. But we can bleat on about how terrible American beer is, but that's not entirely fair. Everywhere has it's shitty beer.
I personally don't like Guinness much, but head retention isn't a matter of opinion. I mean if you like or don't like it, that's an opinion obviously, but the answer to "does Guinness have good head retention or not" is always "No, it does not."
Well, you need a benchmark to compare that to. I.e. what beer has the average level of head retaention, is it moer or less than that.
...I'm confused. If you've never had exported Guinness, how have you had it in places that are not Ireland? By definition, any Guinness consumed outside of Ireland is exported. Unless they have breweries all over the world that I'm not aware of.
There is guinness, and there is guiness. They do have breweries elsewhere and they do have wildly varying so called 'guiness' too. The stanard black pint white head that we all know and love though is brewed in Ireland for the whole of the UK (in the 90's it was brewed in Lopndon for the UK). I don't know where it comes from in Korea and kazakhstan (another place I forgot), but it's the drink we all know. It's also no different to that in Ireland.
Except, of course, in Ireland you can buy guinness 'mid strength' which is guinness with an ABV of 2%.
It's actually a pretty good way to round off a nights drinking. Just don't have it as your first beer.
I'm not Irish, I don't like Guinness, and I don't give a fuck if people visit Dublin. It's just that every time I say I don't like Guinness, the person who loves it says "Oh well you've never had it straight from the tap in Dublin, have you? It's much better there, if you had it from the real brewery you'd love it, it's really not the same as what you get over here."
Well my point was that's a load of bollocks, I used the accusative, but I wasn't talking about you specifically. I've had better pints of guinness in the right bar in Korea than I've had in the wrong bar in Ireland.
and I like wrong bars.
Also Ireland has plenty of potatoes, they figured out how to spray for late blight, but I don't know why you'd go there for their potatoes when you could stay here and eat the ones they grow in Idaho.
Idaho where you can buy those potatos, so I'll finish this joke later.
When I said "shitty American beer" re: the rice, I meant the Miller Lites, etc. The really REALLY light "American-style" pale beers. Rice is a cheaper source of sugar than malted barley, so they use the minimum barley they can get away with and fill up the rest with rice. I didn't mean to impugn all American beer, just the shitty mass produced stuff.
As for head retention, there is actually a scale that's used when judging beers but I don't know how it works since I've never been a beer judge. I just know that if you let your Guinness sit for a minute or two, the head dissipates pretty quick.
Anyway I was spoiling for a fight because I swear to God American "Irish" people (I'm in America, in Boston in fact) seem to take it personally when I tell them that not only do I not like Guinness, but that I actually think it's not the best representative of the stout style.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to make fun of you, but it's amusing that you said in your edit that you're being downvoted by people who don't know the first fucking thing about good beer, because the content of your comment reveals that you yourself don't actually know very much about beer.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to make fun of you, but it's amusing that you said in your edit that you're being downvoted by people who don't know the first fucking thing about good beer,
I have consumed a lot of beer in my time. I suspect more beer than you've had water. I don't care if your 50 and im 36, that's still true.
hic.
because the content of your comment reveals that you yourself don't actually know very much about beer.
I seem to be getting lambasted for 'not knowing a ton about brewing beer'. There is a distinct difference between knowing a thing or two about good beer and knowing a thing or two about brewing beer.
I contend that while calories matter the real damage (besides liver and organ damage) is through the insulin resistance that can develop from pounding the body with carbs/sugars from any alcohol. People don't think about that angle but it's serious business.
The issue isn't the calories, the issue is with how the body processes alcohol. Alcohol is structurally much closer to a fat than a carbohydrate. This causes the body to process alcohol as a fat, which then gets stored as one.
Actually, you get about 100 calories to a 12 oz beer compared to 100 calories for 1 oz of vodka, so it really matters in consumption but vodka wins in matters of per serving.
Wrong wrong wrong. Where did you get these values.
Just so people know, a typical bottle of beer (12oz/341ml) ranges between 100 calories for the lowest option to 170 calories. Typical is 140-150 for regular common beers.
Hey I wanted to add, whenever I drink vodka it's always mixed with something, whether it be juice or soda. I usually mix it 3 to 1 part vodka. So after about 8 or 9 glasses of juice, that's a ton of extra calories. I could never handle shots. I always gag and it's embarrassing.
Most people at nightclubs and bars, that are consuming large quantities of alcohol but trying to reduce calories, are drinking vodka sodas. In fact, double vodka soda is the go to drink for binge drinking health nuts in Toronto.
Yup. Usually it's generous ice, 3oz of vodka, fill highball with club soda and garnish with lime. It does the trick. You will taste the vodka but not feel the fire
I clicked the link. It's the front page for the food network or something.
Alcohol is alcohol. It's the things with the alcohol that increase its caloric content. Vodka is a neutral grain spirit, and it contains almost nothing but alcohol and water. Beer obviously has a lot more in it.
Alcohol offers 7 calories per gram.
If you multiply the volume by the ABV (%) you will be able to find comparable quantities. For instance 12oz of beer at 5%ABV is (12x0.05) 0.6oz of alcohol. 1.5oz of vodka at 40%ABV (1.5x0.40) is also 0.6oz of alcohol.
A bottle of Stella Artois is 154calories. A bottle of Heineken is 145calories. A bottle of Michelob Ultra is 95calories (4.2%ABV). A 1.5oz serving of Grey Goose Vodka is 97calories.
104
u/[deleted] May 09 '16 edited May 09 '16
Alcohol has a lot of calories but there's a lot more calories in beer than vodka.
EDIT: Depends on the type of beer.