Posts Tagged ‘wine’

A Welcome Report Against the Tide

Monday, March 8th, 2010

The tide of scare stories in the press about alcohol has been temporarily stemmed by reports, first mentioned in the Sunday Times, of a study in Boston (the US one) that suggested that alcohol isn’t actually as fattening as commonly assumed — for women anyway. Alcohol contains a lot of energy and it had been assumed that any excess in the body was converted into fat, as with any other foodstuff. However, it’s now hypothesised that regular drinkers’ livers process energy from alcohol in a more complex way than previously thought and that much excess energy is turned to heat, not fat. So the argument goes that alcohol is not as fattening as its calorie count might suggest.

A couple of pieces of anecdotal evidence might support this. One is that while there are many CAMRA types who have large beer bellies, they’re probably not as large as their calorie intake might lead one to believe. A moderately heavy ale drinker might drink twenty pints a week — at a couple of hundred calories a go that’s four thousand extra calories — almost the equivalent of two days worth of energy for an adult male — or about 15 Mars bars a week. Most drinkers in this category take a surprisingly long time — several years — to develop a belly. I’ve also been on an alcohol reduction drive recently and have expected the weight to fall off. Even allowing for my new found substitute of chocolate digestives, I’ve not seen my weight plummeting to the extent that the shortfall in calories might suggest. And also there are plenty of women wine drinkers, as the study suggests, who aren’t anorexics but don’t put on the vast amounts of extra weight that the calorie content alone of the wine might suggest.

However, I don’t subscribe to the point of view that’s current in some drinking circles that beer is entirely unfattening and it’s the fondness for curries and takeaways that it creates which is wholly responsible for bellies.

This article in the Daily Mail summarises the various healthy effects that have been scientifically proven for a number of drinks — from red wine to beer via Baileys, gin, cider and others. It has to be added that the overall negative health effects of alcohol aren’t included but these generally tend not to be pronounced at moderate levels anyway. Beer is revealed as being a particularly nutrient-rich drink, with four pints giving an adult’s complete daily intake of folate.  There’s even a study that purports to dismiss the causative effect of beer on large bellies.

Health Fascist Iconography

Sunday, November 29th, 2009

I just spotted this pernicious little symbol on the back of a bottle of Banrock Station wine. I suppose it could be advising overweight females not to consume the contents but is probably more likely to target pregnant women.  This seems like the start of a slippery slope in which producers of alcohol try to appease the health fascist lobby. As far as I’m aware there is only really conclusive medical evidence that heavy drinking in pregnancy is of any risk to health and the main risk period anyhow is right after conception when the foetus is developing rapidly. That is usually before a woman knows she’s pregnant so the little symbol would be better targeted at women wanting to conceive (or, conceivably women who aren’t intending to conceive but who might do so by accident) — I’m not sure a suitable symbol for that could be put on a wine bottle, though.

Stigmatism

Stigmatism

This is really stupid tokenism — a useless gesture made to exclude what is likely to be thought to be a conveniently small group of people from consumption of a perfectly legal product — and one that’s completely safe if drunk in moderation by anyone. Any woman who’s trying to conceive a healthy child is going to be aware that she shouldn’t get completely plastered — and even if she wants to then a little symbol on the bottle is not going to stop her — she’s bought the bottle by then.  The only purpose behind this is some misguided PR on the side of the wine producer.

Something Fishy

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

There’s a fascinating article in this week’s Economist (it appears to be free for non-subscribers but perhaps only for the current week) on the reason why most red wine traditionally doesn’t complement fish. It’s all to do with the iron content of wine and how iron reacts with fatty compounds in fish to produce genuinely vile flavour combinations – it’s all scientifically proven. (The iron-rich red wines tasted ok when they were chelated i.e. had the iron removed by addition of a chemical to make it inert.)

One thing this shows is the fascinating role of minerals in the taste of food and drink.  The amount of iron that makes it into wine, through the skins and stalks (and even the juice as it’s in some white wines), must be pretty miniscule but it’s enough to make it unpalatable with fish.

Wine is thought to have a fairly low mineral content compared with drinks where the vegetable matter is more aggressively infused into the drink, such as the malt that is ground to make the wort for beer. It makes one wonder how much of these trace elements might be ingested by a regular beer or wine drinker compared with the tiny amounts of these elements put in the average vitamin pill.