Alcoholic Drink To Lose A Few Kg's
Posted 14 January 2005 - 12:13 AM
Has anyone got any suggestions that won't add to my waiste line ??? I'm not really a big fan of mid strength beer (unless I'm driving)....
Support our Australian advertisers:
Posted 14 January 2005 - 12:35 AM
Just on that - one thing I like about Cascade Premum Light is that it actually tastes like Cascade Premium - unlike a certain other Premium Light brand, which tastes nothing like its full strength counterpart.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 12:45 AM
Posted 14 January 2005 - 01:47 AM
Full of antioxidants.I certainly enjoy 2 or 3 glasses per week.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 02:08 AM
Also, wait till RITH offers his opinion. During his recent 5 week break from running due to ITB probs, our man RITH experimented with many brands of exotic and premium beers, consuming enough of that tasty stuff to sink a battleship in the process.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 02:49 AM
Funny how everyone says its red wine with all these health benifits when actually plain old non alcoholic red grape juice is better for you.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 03:04 AM
But I doubt drinking wine would ever become taboo.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 04:54 AM
Regular Beer (360 gram):
150 calories, 13g carbo
Light Beer (360 gram);
95 gram, 5g carbo
Red/White Wine (100 gram):
75 calories, 3g carbo
Source: Mike's Calorie And Fat Gram Chart For 1000 Foods
Posted 14 January 2005 - 11:09 PM
I recently had cause to think about the question of beers,weight loss and marathon preparation. Although not heavy by any stretch, carrying a few less kilos around 42.2k can only be a good thing.
Essentially the response I had from supercoach(2.09 marathoner) was that 1 or 2 beers at night will not kill you. And in fact he had one the night before his 2.09. He said with a consisitent programme and not having too many big blowouts (read too many beers) the weight will come off.He emphasised that commitment is good but a balance(particularly at my speed) is definitely in my best interests. Yip-yah!
To answer the question posed - Boags premium - there's no contest.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 11:25 PM
Posted 14 January 2005 - 12:17 PM
Posted 14 January 2005 - 12:18 PM
Of course the majority of the beer I drink I brew myself or my mate does and that will range from anything to something else
Posted 14 January 2005 - 12:21 PM
Posted 14 January 2005 - 12:51 PM
That being said I am an advocate of home brew and most amber, pale red & white drinks.....
Why else would I set up a running club with a beer at the end???!!!! :D
Posted 14 January 2005 - 12:55 PM
A tip I was given for watching your weight and still being able to have a drink is to have a meal mainly made up of protein when you are drinking, as you will be getting your fair share of carbs and sugars with the alcohol.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 01:35 PM
Posted 14 January 2005 - 01:41 PM
Seriously, people don't drink that stuff do they?
Morts, a couple of homebrews should fix you up, just go easy on the sugar and the good thing about it is that it's all natural.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 01:49 PM
Posted 14 January 2005 - 04:05 PM
Posted 14 January 2005 - 04:16 PM
It tasted so good I did not realise it was a mid strength but still like VB.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 04:37 PM
If its a light beer, then any from Hahn, Cascade or Boags light.
For a heavy: Coopers Pale!
Having said that there is always room for a little wine.
mmmmm, reading through this - may be this is why my speed sessions are not improving as i would hope!
P.S. My signature seems particularly appropriate for this thread!
Posted 14 January 2005 - 04:44 PM
Posted 14 January 2005 - 04:45 PM
My favourite beers are Grolsch and Stella and I actually do like Melbourne Bitter as well, for a change.
I'm going to try and take a sabbatical from it though until Six Foot, training is hard enough without the dehydrated gob and a stinking hangover.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 04:57 PM
Cascade Premium Light plus occasional glass of red during normal training week.
Cooper's Stout on Sunday evenings after long runs and also traditionally on the night before 6 Foot. My scientific rationalisation is that red wine and stout are some of the highest natural sources of pyruvate (a high energy yielding metabolic intermediate in carbohydrate metabolism)- no definitive scientific proof of endurance boost but that's my rationalisation crutch and I'm sticking to it B)
Posted 14 January 2005 - 05:34 PM
If you like heavy beer, drink heavy beer. Look at the stats quoted, the number of calories per glass is not much different between heavy and light. The real trick is not to have too many glasses, nor accompanying snacks. In which case my tip is to switch from quantity to quality. The budget will then be a natural brake on how many calories you consume. So, find an excellent craft brew that you like, such as one of the James Squires, Little Creatures, any respectable imported beer -- yes, Belgian is a good place to start; Westmalle Tripel or Rodenbach Grand Cru anyone? -- and you are on the right track. And if you brew your own, as some others have suggested, for heaven's sake, invest some time and money in doing it properly so that you make good beer, not cheap swill. The home brew kit marketers would have you believe you can make 22L for $12 and get everything you need from the supermarket; think $20 and make your acquaintence with a good home brew shop and you will actually make decent beer.
And one more thing, if you drink, don't drive.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 05:37 PM
Posted 14 January 2005 - 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Puntermatt:
You can't go wrong with XXXX Gold mate. Although a midstrength beer, it is a genuine lager. Trust me on that.
It is indeed a lager.
Oddly enough, all Australian beers called 'bitter' are not bitters at all, but lagers.
But to the topic at hand: if I were trying to lose weight, I wouldn't cut back on an essential staple such as beer. I would cut back on luxury items, such as food.
My choice of beer is very simple. Draft, poured from a tap. VB usually, Stella sometimes.
At home, Grolsch.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 05:59 PM
Originally posted by pepster:
Isn't the main difference between light and heavy beers their alcohol content and not calories/kilojoules?
From my limited knowledge of brewing one or 2 kegs of home brew, light beer has a lot less sugar, therefore less calories.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 06:00 PM
In good old oz a light beer is roughly the same calorie wise. American light beers are actually diet beers. Found that out when a few mates went to Hawaii and asked the barman to serve only full-strength beers. When he served a 'light' beer they went off until he explained it all.
To keep with the drink of choice thread, I prefer red wine but am also quite partial to the odd drop of amber fluid - more the brew type though. Having said that, it all depends on the weather, recent activity, company, aim of drinking etc.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 06:02 PM
Am I wrong? I hope not because I also love tooheys extra-dry, db super-dry and asahi, especially in hot weather.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 06:06 PM
Posted 14 January 2005 - 06:29 PM
I'm not much of a connoisseur, so I prefer a good old Catlton draft in a Pot. (and don't you dare call it anything else or I'll start talking about AFL) For some reason, drinking VB off tap doesn't seem right.
If I'm buying fancy pants beer in a bottle, then I find it hard to go past a Boags Premium.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 06:34 PM
Originially posted by paul c
Catlton draft in a Pot. (and don't you dare call it anything else...
Don't normally do this but I prefer to call it Carlton Draught rather than "Catlton draft". :P
Posted 14 January 2005 - 06:41 PM
Originally posted by MarkO:
Heffeweiziens (sorry about the spelling)
Hefeweizen - Hefe = yeast, Weizen = wheat, i.e. a Hefeweizen is a particular type of wheatbeer. Originates AFAIK in Bavaria, comes different varieties, i.e. light, dark..
Posted 14 January 2005 - 06:45 PM
Wine...reds, whites, rose..love 'em all.
Drank very many Boags Premium Lights last night, then ran 3 x 1km intervals this morning much faster than I have in last few months, so have to rate it highly.
Try (emphasise try) to have two alcohol free days per week. Drink on! As Oscar Wilde once said..."Work is the curse of the drinking class." :D
Posted 14 January 2005 - 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Freerunner:
Funny how everyone says its red wine with all these health benifits
Turns out the original medical research paper from which all those stories about the benefits of red wine originate was a classic case of medical researchers ignoring the fact that correlation doesn't prove causality, i.e. it turned out later that while people who drank a moderate amounts of red wine had a lower risk of heart problems than those who didn't, it had not much to do with the red wine but more likely with the fact the people who drink red wine also tend towards a different diet (less fast food, more mediterranean style food, olive oil and stuff like that).
Posted 14 January 2005 - 06:53 PM
This is one instance where the medical jury is in. It's quite clear that reasonable quantities of wine (alcohol, actually) are good for you.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 06:55 PM
Originally posted by gnscon:
[QUOTE] Don't normally do this but I prefer to call it Carlton Draught rather than "Catlton draft". :P
It would be fascinating then to hear you say 'draft' and then to say 'draught'.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 07:41 PM
Beer is like drinking liquid lard ( although a compulsory accessory to any BBQ).
Don't see too many people with a "Scotch Gut" around.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 07:50 PM
Originally posted by Bellthorpe:
It also turns out that since any original paper that might not have demonstrated causality, there have been scores of papers that have.
References ? What were the statistical methods used to demonstrate causality ?
I don't assume they actually performed an experiment under controlled conditions where the wine intake was the only variable.
The problem I'm seeing is that under conditions where you don't control all the parameters of your experiment (i.e. most, if not all field studies) it is _very_ difficult to prove that an observed effect is caused by the change in one parameter. In particular, you would have to prove two things: that you actually know all the parameters in your experiment/study, which is not trivial, and that the obseved effect is not significantly correlated with any _combination_ of other "input" parameters in your experiment.
This is one instance where the medical jury is in. It's quite clear that reasonable quantities of wine (alcohol, actually) are good for you.
Interestingly enough, the original paper blamed the observed health benefits not on alcohol, but on antioxidants and therefore claimed that red wine was particulaly good.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 08:25 PM
The most recent paper I've read on the topic is "Alcohol Consumption: An Overview of Benefits and Risks" by John B. Standridge, MD; Robert G. Zylstra, EDD, LCSW; Stephen M. Adams, MD, published in the Southern Medical Journal.
The Abstract begins: "Published health benefits of regular light-to-moderate alcohol consumption include lower myocardial infarction rates, reduced heart failure rates, reduced risk of ischemic stroke, lower risk for dementia, decreased risk of diabetes and reduced risk of osteoporosis. Numerous complimentary biochemical changes have been identified that explain the beneficial effects of moderate alcohol consumption".
It then goes on, of course, to say: "Heavy alcohol consumption, however, can negatively affect neurologic, cardiac, gastrointestinal, hematologic, immune, psychiatric and musculoskeletal organ systems".
In light of current medical opinion, I now limit my drinking to beer, wine and spirits.
Posted 14 January 2005 - 09:16 PM
Personally though, for most of us I think this means that all the talk about what form your alcohol comes in is rather irrelevant. Except for creamy cocktails, and perhaps some other exceptions, it is mainly the alcohol itself that contains the calories, so a nip of scotch is not that much of an improvement over a pot/middy/ten of beer (and for reasons other than pure calories as the article mentions).
Where beer contains extra calories, compared to say a scotch and water, is in the unfermented carbohydrates, generally referred to as dextrins, that are present in most beers, less so in dry beer (that is, in fact, what makes them taste "dry"--dextrins give beer body or, as beer taste evaluators call it, mouth feel). But as I said in my first post, you are just tinkering at the edges when you shift from drink to drink, provided you are not drinking too much (and I mean that in both senses).
Obi-wan...yes, you are right, mate, you can make absolutely top-notch beer for a lot less than I quoted, but I was assuming kit-based brewing and for someone more or less starting out, not using advanced methods...that comes later when the bug really bites. The easiest way to make an excellent beer at home is a fresh wort kit (15L) from St Peters brewery -- just add 5L of water and pitch a good quality dry yeast and your uncle's name is Robert.
My bottom line is, as long as you keep it in moderation, a bit of beer or wine or whatever will do you more mental good than physical harm.
Cheers, Prost, Kanpai, Chin-chin, etc
Posted 14 January 2005 - 10:08 PM
When I lived in Brissie, it was the patriotic duty to drink XXXX. So I did.
Being Dutch, it is only natural that I drink Grolsch (flip tops) and Heineken. So I do.
And with due respect to our Croweater friends, I also have a case of Thomas Cooper's Export at home right now...Simply the best.
And Blue Dog and Truckie....I recall we polished off many a jug of Hahn Premium (light) at Rowers on 2nd January.
And at the James Squires pub....well, I enjoy everything on tap! How many more days before the CR get together??
In summary, I drink beer (light or heavy), well, because I like it!
Cheers and good health!
Posted 15 January 2005 - 02:25 AM
I haven't found a beer I hate. B) :)