This past Sunday my wife and I made the trek to Ann Arbor, MI to so I could pick up a few bottles of Jolly Pumpkin’s special release of Perseguidor (review coming soon).  My wife stayed in the van with our kids while I joined the line that was already of formidable size by 11:50.  Thought I to myself, “This will only take 1/2 an hour.”

Wrong.

Nearly two and a half hours I finally paid for my beer.  A hundred or so people in front of me, most of them paying with credit card, and only one cashier made for quite a wait.  I really have no complaint with Jolly Pumpkin for to reasons:  1) Perseguidor is worth the wait, and 2) The line moved slower because Captain Ron made it a point to chat with every customer.  I have to say, Captain Ron is extremely kind and easy to talk to, as well as knowledgeable in all things beer.

No, my complaint lies in the troop in front of me.  Let me air a few frustrations, and let me know if I’m off base, especially regarding my last complaint.

First off, the smoke.  I’m not a smoker, but I did used to put down about half a pack a day.  Obviously, my lungs are accustomed to carbon monoxide, tar, and nicotine.  Thus said, even back in my smoking days,smoke blown in my face drove me up the wall.

Secondly, these guys conversation.  Trust me, I tried to tune it out, but the volume of their voice could have pushed past lead earplugs.  Each conversation they held centered around either marijuanna, getting in fights at bars, srazy sexual adventures, and their “bitches.”  Sorry.  I value substance.

Thirdly, their language.  I actually heard the term (cover your ears), “Oh f&#king f#*kers.” Nice.  I’m no prude.  Honestly, stay away from me when I’m working on my car or motorcycle.  But after two hours of incessant “f” bombs, I was ready to bust a cap in these homeboys (their Detroit dialect must have worn off on me).  In all seriousness, when vulgarity comprises more than 25% of one’s vocabulary, I tend to assume one is overcompensating for a weak self esteem or lack of intelligence.

Finally, here is WHAT REALLY TICKED ME OFF.  The group of individuals in front of me (4 males and one female) kept going on and on about how silly craft beer is.  One guy kept saying, “somebody bring me a Highlife.”  Trust me I wish I as making this up.

You may be asking yourself, “why would somebody whose beer of choice is Miller High Life wait 2 hours in line in sub freezing temperatures to buy a $10 bottle (12 oz) of sour ale that is blended from three different ales, aged for three years in barrels, with an additional six months in the bottle?

Here’s why.  One of the five thorns in my side brought his four pals along to breach the four bottle limit.  Since he could only purchase four, he used his buddies to add to his stash.  No harm done right?  I mean, in a perfect world my wife was going to stand with me and buy four bottles herself (but instead had to wait in a minivan with 5 children for two hours…yes, she is amazing!)  Upon closer inspection, even the Persguidor hoarder got on my nerves.  I heard him exclaim, “yeah, I’m buying 20 bottles.  I hate the S@#t though…can’t stand sour beer.  I’m just using these to trad on Beer Advocate.”

You have got to be kidding me?  There were people in line behind me who didn’t get any Perseguidor because it ran out, and this guy is depriving them of a fantastic beer that they actually wanted to drink so that he could use it as currency on Beer Advocate.  If I were Captain Ron, I might be a little downtrodden…his heart and soul went into this beer!

Here’s where I need your unbiased opinion.  Should I have been irritated over this, or am I making a mountain out of molehill?  Is it ok for someone to buy up a bunch of special release beer that they find disgusting just to trade for beers that better accommodate their palate?

When it comes down to it, maybe I shouldn’t care.  While I feel bad for those who missed out on Perseguidor, perhaps they should have come earlier…after all, I nearly didn’t make the cut. Maybe it’s not a big deal, after all the beer Advocate perseguidor purveyor was a member of my craft beer culture.  Maybe I’m a jerk…you tell me.

As you have no doubt heard, BrewDog has now made the world’s strongest beer at 32% ABV.  Of course, if naysayers would have it, it’s not technically beer at all.  More on that in a moment.  My real problem is not with intelligent dialogue on the topic, it is with dismissive and percile logic used on posts like the one that has elicited my response. The amount of assumptions and lack of thorough intelligence is singularly lopsided as far as this gent is concerned.  Roger Protz is apparently the world’s leading beer authority and a very intelligent fellow, but what he wrote will not do and is not enough to convince anybody who is not already of his disposition.  If you are going to attempt to destroy the merits of what someone has accomplished, at least do it in a thoroughgoing manner.  This brings me to what I’m going to do now: I’m fighting fire with fire.

Roger Protz has written about BrewDog’s latest beer, denigrating its reputation and calling the brewers bonkers, calling it not a beer at all, etc.  Here is one of my assumptions: the reason he thinks it’s not a beer may something to do with the fact that he’s a CAMRA member (nothing against CAMRA).  Okay, I’m not going to leave it there.

Why Bother at All?

As a pre-curser to what I’m going to say, I want to state that building a good argument takes time.  My father taught me (rightly) at an early age that if you are going to do something, it’s only worth doing if it’s done right.  Argumentation is much the same way.  A short post, which is written only to put something up and appeal only to those who agree with you is okay if you are not being contrary.  If you are, then more effort is required.

I could have written the same post that Protz did in ten minutes.  Why?  Because it is dismissive and amateurishly un-thorough for someone who has written 17 books.  Make me a believer is all I’m saying.  As a result, I can only address what he has written in his post, even though I know that there is much more to what he had to say than meets the eye.  Unfortunately, the article is what it is, and I’m addressing that.

Assumptions and Insults:

First, I want to talking about his assumptions and the insults that he uses to build his argument. The first point (if it can be called that) Protz makes is that BrewDog has an over-inflated ego and naked ambition.  I’ll dignify the comment even if it isn’t worth it.

Who argues this way?  Starting an argument with an insult seems a bit like two children on the playground.  Name calling?  That’s how you’re addressing BrewDog’s latest beer?  Oh!  They’re doing it because of ego and ambition…I guess that is enough to destroy their achievement.  Oddly enough, Protz’s argument is somewhat of an inclusio in this respect (namely, he starts and ends with this same concept of mudslinging).  Not only so, but they’ve surpassed/outdone (to use American parlance) their former ego-mania, a.k.a., you thought they were ego-maniacs before.  Obviously, Protz believes that other people also already make this assumption and that he is preaching to the choir, so to speak.

One could employ the same sort of rationale that Protz does and call writing 17 books, etc., as nakedly ambitious.  Of course, one would be wrong in this assumption; I believe it’s passion that drives him.  Could the same not be true of BrewDog?  Maybe it’s an ego-maniac who assumes that he doesn’t have to “make a case” because of his great reputation as an authority on beer.

Let’s assume that BrewDog is ambitious and ego-maniacal.  So what?  What does this have to do with the achievement?  The assumption seems to be that since they are ego-maniacs, this discounts what they’ve accomplished.  Is ambition to succeed an inherently bad thing?  If so, does this necessitate that someone is also an ego-manic?  Defiance, maybe…but doesn’t that seem to be the point behind the name?  (More on that in a second…)

My point is that name calling does nothing but fortify people who already share the same disposition, partially because they share the same myopathy.  I was really hoping for BrewDog to send out a response along the lines of “I’m rubber, you’re glue” to really heat up this profound debate.  Instead, they merely relegate themselves to the likes of quoting John Locke (major figure for American democratic ideology) on their site.

Next, BrewDog chose, deliberately, according to Protz, to launch the beer on the day that Parliament was reviewing laws that were specifically applicable to 32% “beer.”  First off, I was unaware that there are “non-deliberate” ways of choosing.  Do we really need to know that a choice is deliberate?

Protz’s ostensible point is that he sees the move as intentionally defiant.  Which is it?  Are they defiant by releasing this beer or are they ego-maniacs?  Maybe he believes that it’s simply a case where the ego-mania is substantiated by the act.  I think it’s not defiance he sees at work, but rather ego-mania because he seems to miss the point of the name entirely.

I’m grossly unfamiliar with English culture and politics.  Is it possible that Roger Protz is even more so? How does he miss the point of BrewDog’s latest beer’s name?  By way of dismissive insult, he essentially accuses them of smoking some of the good stuff to come up with this name, implying that they are pot-headed miscreants.  This does two things.  The association of alcohol/alcoholism (the real unspoken narrative within which this article is written) gives the spurious impression that to side with these, “the wild buckaroos” (an apparent insult via American attitudes), is to side with pot-headed booze hounds…yes, the BrewDog pun is intentional.  Rubbish!  Stuff-and-nonsense! Bullocks!  See, I can do it, too.

Tactical Nuclear Penguin is as intentional in its name as it is in its release date.  How is it that he either misses or doesn’t take this into account?  The “tactical nuke” appears to be aimed directly at the ridiculousness of the British Parliamentary procedure as it relates to legislation against beer.  Since when has protest been equated with nonsense?  I suppose Protz didn’t consider this simply because nonsense seems to be his modus operandi…there is an insult worth making.  Like I’ve said, most of this is not worth really dignifying, but I suppose I’m a little petty.  Now to the beer itself.

It’s not beer at all?  According to Protz, brewer’s yeast can only go to 12 or 13 degrees.  He can’t mean Plato; I know he simply can’t mean that.  I’m assuming, an inference I have to attribute either to language barrier or lack of information about his usage, that he must be talking about percentage alcohol.  Maybe there is a law in England that I don’t know that restricts calling something a beer if it’s over 13 degrees Plato…but I can only assume that he must mean alcohol percentage.  Still, this is incomprehensible to me.

At home, on my crude brewing equipment, I’ve attained 14% ABV with ease.  I used Trappist Yeast and added no nutrients to my brew.  Also, I used ambient air, which is far less soluble than pure oxygen. Thus, I had none of the advantages that, say, a brewer has.  Is he seriously trying to tell me that I simply imagined this?  There is a difference between theory/what you read and practice.

Let’s assume for one minute, as crazy as it sounds, that breweries can exceed what I’ve done.  For instance, let’s say I didn’t use the world’s most alcohol tolerant yeast (in fact, I didn’t).  Some brewer’s yeasts are capable of, let’s say, 15 or 16% in terms of thresholds.  Let’s further assume that yeast rousing, nutrient addition, oxygen solubility and brewer expertise play significant factors.  Based on this, I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to assume that a brewer could achieve 17 or 18%.  In fact, White Labs makes a super ale yeast, ironically from England, that will ferment up to 25%.

Since BrewDog’s info is proprietary, it’s hard to know how they do it.  What I do know is that it’s ale yeast.  Who knows what someone might achieve through the use of ale yeast?  Point is that the water is a bit muddy in this respect.  Whatever the case may be, what Protz said is unfounded.  So, let’s say the lower end that might be achieved is 17-18% and the high end is 25-26%.  Now it’s starting to appear plausible.

That’s only X amount, you might say.  Either way, when it comes down to it, BrewDog could not have gotten their beer all the way to 32% ABV by simply brewing it, hence the need for freezing/freeze distilling/eisbocking, call it what you will.

It is entirely possible to gain another 2-5% ABV by freezing beer.  Alcohol, especially higher levels, takes longer (and lower temps) to freeze than water.  Essentially, taking the water out once it is frozen raises viscosity, ABV, and concentrates (a very important word) the alcohol to higher levels.  Who is going to argue that taking water out makes it less of beer?  Isn’t it water to alcohol ratios (sugar being included here) that make a beer stronger or weaker?  If one argues that eisbock isn’t beer (I’m not saying that this is what Protz is doing), then what is?  Tell me the magical percentage of water one must have to make something a legitimate beer.  If you can’t, then don’t detract.  Saying that doing this procedure somehow makes it less of a beer is ludicrous. Maybe fruit juice concentrate is not actually juice until water is added.  How about we add water to BrewDog’s beer?  Can we call it beer then?

Alcohol fortification seems to be the most legitimate sticking point on which to hang one’s hat.  They did pick up alcohol from those barrels of whiskey (which is made of grains, water, and yeast by the way).  So, I guess you might not call it a beer based on that.  Problem is that we call all sorts of barrel-aged beers by that name all the time.  To be consistent, we ought to avoid calling all of them beers in the proper sense of the word.  It seems to me that this semantic problem really comes in when you start the discussion about the world’s strongest beer–then we become particular about what to call it.  I guess we could call it the world’s strongest barrel-aged beer.  Would that appease?  Probably not.

(It’s interesting to note that the real difference between distilling and eisbocking is simply one of ethanol purity.  In eisbock making, the ethanol stays in the original substance and the water is removed.  In distilling only the ethanol is captured, leaving the rest behind.)

The whole discussion seems moot on several points, namely, calling the Tactical Nuclear Penguin beer.  The only sense that it is not beer is the couple of percent ABV from the barrels.  So, what should be the denouement?  BrewDog makes the world’s strongest beer that is 90% beer, 70% of that being regular beer, 20% being eisbock beer, and 10% being added ethanol?  Whatever you might call their creation, I call it beer.

(Thanks for sticking with this article, I felt the expatiation was a necessity, because the beeriness of this beer is in dispute.)

My question to Mr. Protz is, how do you know they used champagne yeast or wine yeast?  I don’t. Perhaps you have the code to this Nuclear program.  Here is yet another assumption that this beer simply can’t beer based on the definitions by which Protz is playing.

If that isn’t enough, he goes on to talk about the issue of sensibility (now he’s using sense…interesting).  He quotes James Watts as saying that BrewDog is pushing the boundaries, an interesting admission in the face of Mr. Protz’s argumentation over the fact that this isn’t a beer, or at least not a conventional one.  In an attempt to turn the phase on its head, Protz once again, boringly so, appeals to his trusty insulting insinuations: “Indeed, and it’s also pushing beyond breaking point what sensible beer writers and connoisseurs will take from this bunch of ego-maniacs.”

Is that so?  A.k.a., if you don’t agree with me, you are not a sensible beer writer or connoisseur.  Since he is a recognized authority, he must be right.  Classic argument from authority fallacy stuff at work here.  I suppose some of us simply aren’t sensible, then.  What else is one to conclude from this fellow?  Furthermore, the presumption that he is speaking on behalf of all “sensible” beer connoisseurs and writers goes beyond hilarity.  Who sounds like the ego-maniac now?

Finally, we get to the pith and marrow of what Mr. Protz is really about: “Those of us who attempt to paint an image of beer as a fine drink enjoyed in moderation by sensible people have the ground cut from beneath our feet by BrewDog, which just plays in to the hands of the yellow press, ever anxious to give beer a bad name.”

I see.  Now it’s about the good name of beer.  I didn’t realize that we should always act based on perception.  Status quo is the name of the game, my good little soldiers.  The implication of the first line is that BrewDog is attempting to paint a low brow drink to be swilled down.  Protz is apparently part of the good guy grouping whereas BrewDog falls into the bad guy camp.  Again with the implication that sensible people wouldn’t drink a beer like this.  So, BrewDog is cutting the ground from beneath the feet of the beer saviors, are they?  Hogwash.  How so?  Who says people have to drink this beer excessively or in an isolated manner?  Who says those purchasing the bottle are, or must of necessity, be drinking it excessively?  This same sort of logic would probably have Scotch consumed only from airplane size bottles.

So, the “yellow press” is ever anxious to give beer a bad name?  Isn’t this an interesting self-defeating statement?  Think about it.  If they are ever anxious to give beer a bad name, doesn’t it follow that they will ever find ways to do it?  I’m sure they really talk up the merit of 3.8% beers, don’t they?  The point is that those who look for something to degrade about beer will find it, no matter what beer is in view.  It’s more interesting to me that Mr. Protz joins in on the head hunting.

Now he justifies himself by saying that it is not the norm for him to agree with the Alcohol Concern.  That may be true, but it is not re-assuring because it’s a slippery slope, partly because I’m now wondering what is the cutoff of good sense, as far as Mr. Protz is concerned.  Can I drink a beer that is below the 30% threshhold?  How about 20%?  The last thing I want to do is to appear un-sensible.

I’ve already mentioned Protz’s inclusio of insult, but it is worth noting that Protz once again appeals to his trusty weapon to deal with the issue at hand.  He quotes Jack Law as basically saying those guys act like babies.  Very compelling stuff, Mr. Protz.  Then comes the remainder of Mr. Law’s argument, which Protz endorses, namely, “He added that the fact that the beer, priced at £30 a bottle, had achieved a new record was not admirable. ‘It’s a product with a lot of alcohol in it, that’s all. To dress it up as anything else is cynical.’”

What shall we call Scotch, since we are taking on new ideas about what is legitimate for certain alcohol thresholds?  I don’t feel cynical when I call a strong beer a beer, do you?  Frankly, there are few people here whose attitudes seem cynical, and they can be found in Protz’s article.  By the way, it’s interesting to note that in the U.K., beer is taxed based on alcohol percentages and not a flat barrel rate like in the U.S., so who might be to blame so far as the price is concerned?

So, what is this stuff all about?  Ostensibly, there are some major drinking problems in the U.K. and Scotland in particular.  Because of this, there has been a lot of lobbying and parlimentary hullaballoo over the topic.  Given that the government is now deciding for the people what is too strong a beer or a drink, BrewDog seems to have challenged the notion up to its threshold.  I suppose the previous challenge wasn’t enough.  Honestly, are beer drinkers going to pay $60 for a bottle of beer just to get drunk?  Are beer lovers really the problem?  My guess is that the answer to that question is no.

I want to state without equivocation that what I’ve written is not a personal attack on Mr. Protz.  He is a well respected member of the beer community.  However, sloppy and dismissive writing and logic are always of paramount concern to me when I read such nonsense.  My article is not so much an argument against Protz as it is an ardent defense of BrewDog and craft brewing in general.  Plus, I figure that my ardent defense of this particular beer might ingratiate us to BrewDog enough for them to send a couple bottles my way.  If they can’t ship it here, they can fly me there.  I’m okay with that.

In all seriousness, if you’ve read this article and know how to get one of these beers my way, I’d love to taste it.  I’m always keenly interested in beers like these.  Why?  Because while it is true that good craft beer is made from grains, water, yeast and hops, it is also made of that all-natural ingredient of adventurous iconoclasm–a fact my Protz has seemed to have forgot.

***WARNING*** this is a rant.

Do you ever attend beer events?  If you have been to one, you will probably know exactly what I’m talking about.  If you haven’t, prepare yourself to eventually meet some of the people I’m about to describe.

What the hell is wrong with people?  Seriously!  Like many others, I’d been planning to attend the Black Tuesday festivities for some time.  All is well and good.  Through personal correspondance, website information, and personal admonition, it was pretty easy to ascertain that Patrick and company did not want visitors to show up to the brewery until 4:30 or after.  It was courtesy to their neighbors that ilicitated the request from the Bruery.  But some people are simply habitual line steppers…literally (but more on that in a moment).  Sometimes the thing that makes beerfests, events, and occasions horrible is the people that show up to them.

As an aside, I’m willing to grant that the Bruery might have been able to organize the event a little better. They may even admit this proposition themselves.  Of course, it is rare that the first go at something achieves the end in mind.  So, I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Patrick and staff; they did an excellent job in spite of the circumstances.  Did they think Black Tuesday would attain the level of popularity that it did?  I don’t think so.  But Beer Advocate has a way of changing things.  Who knows, maybe some of the members (I’m not talking about the brothers or even many of the respectable members) will recommend Coffee Stout Oak-Aged Gasoline as the next big thing (I’m not bashing Black Tuesday in any way).  Either way, I don’t think Patrick and crew expected the turn out that they got.  And therefore, their yields were nowhere near what the demand required.

There were those who could not help but trample the wishes of the Bruery and show up a few minutes (or hours) early.  They camped in their tents, cars, and parking lots in order to get what they wanted, despite the best hopes that the Bruery had.  After all, he wasn’t talking about you anyway…he must have meant someone else.  The “I’m the exception to the rule” mentality is sometimes too pervasive to stop.

My real problem isn’t with those people, as big of jerks as they are.  My real problem with the event was Mr. “I’ll pretend to talk to you until cutting in line is a seamless transition” guy.  What a jerk.  Did I get some Black Tuesday?  Yes, I did.  But what about the guy who was the cut off?  I saw at least 30 people cut the line in order to join the line that they did not wait to form.  It’s not enough for some to come early, complicity with their friends; to cut is too much.  Oh, to have immunity from the penal system for a few moments in time.  Simply said, these people are absolutely deplorable.  Not only do they not arrive on time for the event, they have the gall to jump in front of people who put in the effort to score some of this coveted beer.

Honestly, the last 30 people in line were the real losers in this deal.  The sense of kinship and fun that Nate and I had at Dark Lord Day serves as a stark contrast to the crashing feel that Black Tuesday had for many people (especially the “no Black Tuesday for you” crowd).  Meanwhile, the eBay prices for this hot commodity are soaring.

One unfortunate facet of the Black Tuesday event was the fact that people could not consume a beer or two while waiting in the five hour (at the very back) line, due to Calfornia’s liquor laws.  This is one more contrast that serves to sharply define this night from other beer events.  Again, this is no fault of the brewer; it’s a state and a grounds issue.  They simply don’t have the setting to allow drinking around the facility.

Please do not take this as an attempt to excoriate the Bruery in any way; they are a great group of hard working, beer loving, and innovative minded people.  They graciously brought cheese, chocolate truffles, and water around, too.  My beef is with some of the true jerks that showed up, in true jerk form, to what might have been a fun (albeit slightly unorganized) event.

When I did my interview with the Bruery, I brought a bottle of Dark Lord to taste side by side with Black Tuesday.  When we tasted the beers side by side, Patrick stated, and I think accurately, that he felt pretty good about Black Tuesday.  He is surely correct about the beer.

As far as the day goes, I think Black Tuesday left a lot to be desired compared to Dark Lord Day.  The sad and ironic part is that the experience had little to do with the people at the Bruery and a lot to due with some of the people that showed up.  Kinks, and there were some, will be worked out by Patrick and company–that comes with doing this thing a few times.  Unfortunately, the bottle hoarding, line cutting, self-interested scum will be in the line, unless they are weeded out.

Isn’t it amazing how a few people can crash a whole market…or an event?  If you went, what did you think? Personally, I’d like to see most of the changes affect these type of people next year.  What experiences have the rest of you had at beer events?

Extreme interventionism, while well intentioned doesn’t always work.  Does anyone remember the prohibition, Al Capone, and Bugs Moran?  The problem:  prevalent drunkenness.  The solution:  Industry interventionism (prohibition)  The result:  Drunkenness (still), organized crime, lost tax funding, and an increase in home brewing (hey, at least SOMETHING positive resulted!)

And here I must insert the obligatory disclaimer.  I am not advocating any political/partisan opinion (I try to remain aloof on this site) nor am I advocating anarchy and/or suggesting that all government programs are a blight on the map of human history.

I say all that to bring to light some recent faulty thinking in ye old land of Scotland.  A quite fantastic and respectable craft brewery, Brewdog, released a mammoth beer: Tokyo.  This beer, that I unfortunately have not sampled, boasts and ABV of 18.2%, and has drawn some unfortunate social reactionary criticism.  In fact, Scotland Parliament filed a motion condemning the brewery.  One politician, Robert Brown, said of the ABV: “reprehensible in a society where the medical evidence shows that, across all age groups and socio-economic categories, individuals are drinking too much alcohol.”  In isolation his statement may well be correct, but to imply a high quality and complex beer is intrinsically responsible for the statement is affirming the consequent and scapegoating, and is false.

Parliament, in their motion, blames Brewdog for not being an instrument of change in curbing nationwide alcoholism, and for instigating it.  Hold on here.  This is craft beer.  It’s expensive.  When is the last time you saw a drunk transient walking through your downtown holding a bottle of Grey Goose vodka?  Never, of course.  How about that binge drinking frat dude?  Is he toting a high end bottle of Brewdog’s Tokyo?  Or do you spy  a $3.00 forty ounce bottle of Miller High Life duct taped to each hand as he plays “Edward Forty Hands.”

My point is, if parliament–or any other governing body–wanted to discourage alcoholism by imposing legislation on brewers, they would file motions against brewers that put out horrific swill that even a hobo could afford.  They wouldn’t slap the wrists of a company making a beer that is geared toward and consumed by a beer enthusiast willing to forfeit more for better and spend more money for a higher quality beer, that in all reality will be share amongst friends.  This wouldn’t force the poor into not drinking alcohol at all, but it would make thrift necessary. Or they could impose tougher laws on drunk driving and obscene displays of drunkenness.  Or reaffirm a general sense of civil morality and self control…and so on and so on.

Brewdog knows this.  They understand the reactionary interventionist ill logic.  So what do they do?  They bite back and produce the extreme opposite of the 18.2% Tokyo; a 1.1% brew that is apparently hopped beyond belief (malt/hop ratio).  The producer of the UK’s “biggest beer” reacted by making the UK’s “littlest beer,” and they have affectionately named it Nanny State. The name doesn’t suggest the ABV to be a token of penance; rather, it seems to be a passive aggressive attack on the floundering reasoning of the critics…the Nanny-Statists.

It is brilliant, clever, humorous, and sad that a brewery that prides itself on quality should have to so defend itself.  I believe the effect of the controversy may have the opposite effect that Scotland’s Parliament intended as brew dog is rocketed up in recognition from the free publicity.

Thank Heaven for Beer tips its hat to you, Brewdog, and all the other responsibly minded brewers worldwide, who find themselves the scapegoat at the whimsy of legislatures.  A problem exists, yes, but interventionism has yet to prove itself a worthy method.

Topic: The Beer Belly Myth

I’m sure you’ve read an article or two in the past year or so, or at least seen a triumphant twitter update, that exuberantly claims defeat to an age old myth, the beer belly.  Citing a British study on Czech men and woman that states, “They found no link between the amount of beer they drink and the size of their stomachs. Writing in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, they said claims people are obese because they drink too much beer are wrong,” many beer authors breathed a sigh of guilt-relinquished-relief and proudly declared to the world that their beer belly must come from unknown origins; perhaps genetics, constipation, a tapeworm: anywhere but from beer.

Am I the only one not buying this?

It seems much easier to say, “I’m just a little chubby,” than it is to say, “I drink too much beer.”

Now, I’m not MD…I don’t assume to possess a detailed knowledge of the gastro-intestinal workings of the human body, energy absorption, etc., but I did ace health class in high school, I do enjoy beer, and I am a not so proud proprietor of a…*gasp*…beer belly. (Those are internet worthy “expert” qualifications, right?

Hear me out.  Let’s take a quick look at this study.

Who are the subjects:

891 Czech men and 1,098 women between the ages of 25 and 64

How much are they drinking:

The survey showed the men consumed on average 3.1 litres of beer each week with women drinking on average 0.3 litres per week.

What were the conclusions:

Doctors measured their weight and their waist to hip ratio and body mass index, both used to measure obesity.

The scientists found no link between beer consumption and obesity.

They said the findings suggested there is no truth in the claim that drinking too much beer makes people obese.

“There is a common notion that beer drinkers are, on average, more ‘obese’ than either non-drinkers or drinkers of wine or spirits,” the researchers said.

“This is reflected, for example, by the expression ‘beer belly’.

“If this is so, then beer intake should be associated with some general measure of obesity, such as body mass index or with indices of fat distribution such as waist to hip ratio or with both.”

But they said: “The association between beer and obesity if it exists is probably weak.”

What were they drinking? Let’s interpolate a bit here.  Admittedly postulating, I’d be willing to bet that the majority of the beer drinkers in the study primarily drink Pilsner, rarely going much higher than 5.5%.  Typically, the higher the ABV, the higher the calorie count (reference Simply Beer for more info).  I guarantee that the typical beers consumed by Mike and I on a weekly basis have at least double the calories found in the typical Czech’s beer.

How about their consumption? The average male drank 3.1 liters of beer a week.  That’s 8.7 long necks a week.  Pretty moderate consumption if you ask me.  How many beers do you consume in a week?  More than the average Czech test subject?

What about life style? Here I am primarily in the dark.  Although an educated guess, based off the more predominant and widespread agricultural and industrial subsistence of the Czech Republic (contra the US), would  be that the Czech test subjects lead a more active lifestyle (vocationally) than the majority of Americans, including myself.

Here’s what I’m getting at.  You can’t take one small, isolated test subject from a different country, different culture, with different habits and lifestyles, and transpose the results upon an overwhelmingly different country, whether that be the US, the UK, Germany, or wherever.  Odds are the average beer geek who believes drinking beer has no impact on his beer gut drinks more than 3.1 litres of beer a week.  I do!  I know several guys who put down twice that in a weekend.

I wonder what the test results would have been like had the survey been administered in my home town, Toledo, OH?  Or how would they differ were the researchers to use the grounds of the Great American Beer Fest as their subject?

The bottom line is:  When you drink a beer you consume calories.  If your body doesn’t fully use this energy, the surplus has to go somewhere, and that place is your (and my!) gut, same as when I ate that fatty cheeseburger and french fries on Saturday.  Beer is no different than any other food.  While I can’t blame my gut solely on beer, I can partially…just as I can partially blame that cheeseburger, my desk job, and my lapsed jogging routine.  Beer isn’t the SOLE cause, but a peripheral cause of that gut.

You don’t have to call it a beer belly since it stands to reason that while affecting the “beer belly” other factors have a bigger effect.  Until I rid myself of the bulge above my belt, I’ll call it my “I’m too complacent to jog” belly.  Although I’ll admit that’s not as cute sounding.

What can be done?  I think an appeal should be made here–an appeal for the classics.  Sure, I realize that advances in beer technology, malting, and curiosity drives forward the mechanism of beer styles.  The classics exist because people ventured out.  The same amount of breakneck speed that we have today does not apply, in the same way, that the slow advance of experimentation did.  The stream of history is now a rushing current.  I think, in a real sense, that we aren’t, or maybe even can’t, create classics in the same sense that people did before.  Things simply move too fast these days.

I’m suggesting that we ground ourselves a little bit in history, the tried and true, the slow pace of less industry.  It’s strange to think that most beer styles were developed before or shortly after the current industrialization of the world.  Let me clarify that classic and standard are not the same thing; Budweiser is the standard American Lager, but it’s hardly a classic.  So, when I say classic styles, I mean classic renderings of styles.  Maybe archetypes would be a more nuanced phrase.

Am I just being a naysayer?  Not really!  I’d venture to say that I love extreme beers as much as anyone…but not at the expense of our beer heritage.  Sometimes people speak about how bored they’ve become with the fact that every brewery makes this or that style.  I’m personally of the opinion the the style should not be on trial, only its rendering.  Even if craft brewing is really catching on, many are missing the boat simply because they don’t want a quadruple IPA. I’m not saying to dumb it down–just pull it back a little.

Is anyone else tracking with this?  Maybe we’re bored because we’re boring in our unending thirst for the new.  It’s a bit ironic when our iconoclasm becomes platitudinal.  Don’t simply mistake this for railing against the new.  What I’m saying is this: like eating, drinking, sleeping and living, I’m asking myself to have a balance in approach rather than a lopsided solecistic attitude toward beer.

What do you think?  Will you do the same? I fully intend to revisit this topic before long.  Until then, how about a Hefe-Weizen, a true Pilsner, or a simple Bitter?  My ideal brewery makes some really good classics along with the really bad ass new ones.  What about yours?

***Note*** I want to be fair and state that some breweries are making classics, even if they are on Hegelian terms (thesis–>antitheis—>synthesis).  I’m more of a Kierkegaard guy (either/or).

I am on my lunch break here guys…those precious 2.5 seconds I just wasted could have been put to a better purpose…like daydreaming about beer…

Having recently contemplated the intricacies (and oddities!) of the U.S. Drinking Age, I began to ponder why a beer website, such as Sam Adams needed such strict age checking before visiting their site.  Is it really necessary?  I mean, Samuel Adams does not sell any of there fermented product on their site (although they do offer a pretty rad Ski Lift Beer Tray…which I must have).  Besides, correct me if I’m wrong, but the brief and markedly credible research I’ve done has shown that even sites selling beer do not legally have to verify age upon entrance to the site, only upon checkout.

Consider this…it would be like Wal-Mart denying your accompanying six year old entrance to their super-center for fears that he might catch a glimpse of some God-awful, commercially owned, swill of a beer in aisle 13.  What’s next?  Will there be a ten second lag of white noise this next Superbowl so that parents can clear the room of all the virgin eyes and ears before 3 cute toads fill the screen and croak praises to Budweiser?

Sure, I may be making a mountain out of a mole hill, but it just seems so unnecessary.  Scratch that.  It seems prohibitive to sales and customer retention.  In my absurd obsession with time frugality, I will avoid those sites that hinder my quick access.  So why do it?  Why hassle beer guzzling consumers?

I cannot answer for Sam Adams, or other US brewers, but I can extrapolate.  The age verification application that guards the gates of SamAdams.com is sponsored by Century Council, which is a non-profit funded by brewers/distillers to combat underage drinking and drunk driving.  You may remember their commercial touting the epic one liner, “friends don’t let friends drive drunk…”  Yeah, good message (seriously).

Let’s face it, there are more than a few bitter neo-prohibitionists and irresponsible citizens looking to sue alcohol companies for negligence when friends or family members break the law and end up disabled or dead after having too much to drink.  Case in point, Bacardi was sued in 2004 after such an incident.  The plaintiff alleged Bacardi contributed to the death of their son (19 years old) who died of alcohol poisoning.  Bacardi just so happens to be a member of the Century Coalition.

Brewers must be scared silly…I would be!  I am a huge fan of moderation.  I am passionate about keeping inebriated consumers off the road.  I would be mortified if I found my underage son passed out with a bottle of tequila in his hand.  But I also brew my own beer and supply it to my friends and family free of charge.  The moment it leaves my hands, it is no longer my responsibility.

I doubt that Jim Koch of Sam Adams, or all the other brewers out their under the scrutinizing eyes of the blame shifting public out there, truly believe that putting a age verification application on their actually deters underage drinking.  I can just imagine a couple of 19 year old frat boys:

FRAT BOY ONE:  Hey bro, lets go pick up a 24 of Keystone Ice and get smashed!!!

FRAT BOY TWO:  I was going to say the same thing…until I stopped by their website and realized we’re not old enough to drink Keystone Ice.  Let’s get some root beers instead!

Not likely.  But the brewers have to do something.  They have to at least pretend like they have control over minors for whom they are not guardians.  So until logic decides to embrace American culture with her beautiful figure, I will have to tolerate irritation and work on developing the virtue of patience.