Monday Rant: Quite Filling

The ringing chorus of light beer ads might still echo in our minds. "Great taste! Less filling! I don't recall exactly which light beer that series of ads stemmed from, but I would guess it was Miller. With that said, I still don't understand the concept of any beer throughout the world being less or more filling than an other. If you drink the same amount of two different types shouldn't physics dictate that you're full all the same?

Probably since the beginning of time indulgence of both food and drink have been a common happening in human civilization. Some of us beer geeks even go as far as pairing foods with the correct beers to experience different nuances and flavors.

In my college years, food went hand-in-hand with what we were drinking. We were fortunate enough to have a Sheetz directly across from the local tavern. That Sheetz is no longer there today, but is now down the street in Slippery Rock. When we first go away to school we are told about the horrors of the freshman 15. It took me a few years to really put mine on. So, once I was of legal age to drink a whole bunch of us ventured right to Sheetz after having some beer on the weekends. I've always been a proponent that beer doesn't directly cause weight gain. What I do agree with is that eating after drinking does way more to put it on. Think about it. Your liver is busy processing the alcohol and not the fat. Once you toss some late night fried goodies in there where does the fat then go? It gets stored.

I eventually noticed what was happening and decided to join a gym two years ago. I'm now a braggert about the weight I've lost. Tell you something you didn't know, right? In essence, I've always tried to do my eating during or before consumption of any form of alcohol.

This has also lead to a very minor problem. I feel very full on a typical Saturday night while sampling some new beer. Yikes. At least I still be sure to try and work most of it off throughout the work week.

After further research, it was Miller!

 

Great Scott!

Charlie Papazian's writings through the Examiner always tend to intrigue me as well as forcing me to ponder various beer questions. The most recent one  found by Papazian asks what might have happened if we didn't have Prohibition in the 1920's.

I tend to agree with what he thinks might have become of the beer seen here in America had that historical timeline of events not taken place. The deeper question I came up with is what would the beer scene be today if the market hadn't crashed in 1929? We obviously would have dodged the Great Depression.

As we take a slight adventure in playing with the space-time continuum in terms of the Great Depression, we know that many American breweries that started up again after Prohibition didn't make it. The ones that survived changed the final product due to economic struggle eventually became what some of us know as the evil empire i.e. Coors, Miller etc.

The final beer product became more of a riced-up and watered-down lager. Unfortunately this became the American staple for beer at the time. We all know what it led to today. Now, back to my original question. if there wasn't a Great Depression, do the major American breweries at the time keep on making better beer? Would many of the smaller breweries that we enjoy today even exist? Would Doc Brown still have poured half of a Miller High Life into Mr. Fusion?