Am I the only one who eagerly clicked through hoping that through some scientific miracle drinking scotch could lead to weight loss?
As to the actual topic, I'm not sure that its so much that people think scotch has a higher alcohol content, I've always imagined it had more to do with seeming somewhat classier and in control. Sipping a scotch while your companions pound beers establishes you (perhaps on a subconscious level) as the leader of the group whose choices aren't really up for discussion.
Of course I rather like scotch so maybe I'm biased.
But no-one really wants weight loss, and that should be easy to prove: say you were offered a choice, drop 5lbs of fat or convert 5lbs of fat to 10lbs of muscle, what would you do?
Definitely take the 5lbs of fat as 10lbs of muscle. I work in construction, I'm already muscular and always have been, however I'm struggling with weight I gained when I was forced to be unemployed during my Canadian immigration (they wouldn't give me a work visa despite job shortages in the construction sector and my employer meeting all the criteria to hire from outside Canada and they weren't obligated to give a reason why). I've lost a lot, and I've turned even more of it into muscle.
I'd take the 10lbs of muscle, because most people wouldn't believe how much better it makes you feel doing regular things. I'm seriously like a pack-mule coming out of a supermarket. I don't struggle like I used to, which means I don't get tired like I used to.
Sure it would be great to be lean, but my body type would never allow it, it would be unhealthy.
It's never that easy. If your 6 foot 4 inches, at 220lbs, your probably fairly thin and may want to add muscle.
In the end if you have very little muscle, regardless of weight, you should add it. It will help you lose fat (ie ripping muscles speeds up your metabolism - yes, but most importantly the burn effect lasts much, much longer than an equivalent amount of endurance work). Also you'll have more energy to do more activities allowing you to lose more fat.
It shouldn't. His point is that if you're 220, what you really want to lose is fat, not weight. Having more muscle will increase your caloric burn rate and actually help you to lose fat faster. This is why dieting must always be paired with exercise.
To take the argument to an absurd extreme, the fastest way to lose weight would be to cut off your leg.
Obviously "losing weight" is really a euphemism for "losing fat."
The only time I'd have taken the additional weight is when I was playing rugby, and then mostly because I couldn't really afford much food. I was 20, 65kg and worked really hard to try and get to 70kg. Being hit hurt when I was that light (ok, it hurt at 70kg too, but at least then the other guy noticed me when he ran over me)
I think anyone into endurance sports would take the weight loss too (based on the running & cycling I've done).
Well, most cyclists (except for track sprinters) aim to be as light as possible.
Thus, at the elite level, one expects superior performance from smaller athletes in aerobic events where power requirements are approximately proportional to body mass--such as distance running and uphill cycling. (Technically, the power requirement scales more closely to mass, i.e. M0.76-M0.79 than does the power supply, M0.67; Swain, 1994). It is not surprising that the pre-eminent climber of the 1990s, Marco Pantani, is one of the smallest men in the peloton at only 55 kg. Anything that can be done to reduce the weight of a cyclist and bicycle, without compromising the cyclist's aerobic power, will improve hill-climbing performance.
Yep, but most of us are nowhere near that level where we have so much that more muscle is a disadvantage ;) I guess it's highly dependent on how you currently are. Someone who does weightlifting in a gym could probably indeed improve his cycling performance just by removing muscle.
And of course sports performance is not the only criterion for choosing +5lbs muscle vs -5lbs fat ;)
The point I was making along the lines of, just because a heavy drinker might be quite slender, it doesn't imply that they're healthy. They've lost their muscle mass along with their fat.
PS I am a Marathon runner and I'd take the muscle... And have you seen the quads on a serious cyclist?
PS I am a Marathon runner and I'd take the muscle... And have you seen the quads on a serious cyclist?
Quads, yes, but have you seen the rest of the body?
WRT runnimg, generally speaking (elite) marathon runners have much higher ratios of slow-twitch muscle than average. That means they will have lean bodies, without the peak strength or muscle mass of a fast-twitch heavy athlete like a sprinter.
Take a look at http://www.letsrun.com/2010/heightweight0504.php. The entire running world was shocked when Solinsky broke 27 minutes (for a 10 km). He's 6'1", and 160lbs - obviously still what most people would consider skinny, but way, way heavy compared to most distance runners.
(You might have good reasons to want more muscle - I'm just pointing out that it's unusual for a distance athlete)
Cyclist's and Marathoners have significantly different needs. A Cyclist is primarily limited by wind resistance and their ability to absorb oxygen, but they do not need to carry their own weight. A Marathoner has far less wind drag, and is mostly limited by their need to store energy and avoid injury both of which are hampered when they carry more weight.
A light cyclist has a huge advantage in non-flat terrain. He needs strong legs and light everything else. A runner needs core and back muscles to run in a way that does not waste a lot of energy and prevents injuries.
In my experience running is harder on your entire body, cycling just on legs and lungs.
On the contrary, we do need strength - without it your form will go to pieces as soon as you tire and your gait will become much less efficient, and increase your risk of injury. 10lbs of muscle on your back, core and hips could make a massive difference.
Obviously a Marathon runner wouldn't be interested in adding 100lbs of muscle the way a bodybuilder would.
It should be noted that at 80kg, Fabian Cancellara is considered much too heavy to ever win a grand tour. He is spectacularly fast on the flat because he is only slightly less aerodynamic than a much smaller and less powerful man, but he is quickly overpowered on a mountain stage by lighter riders.
Relative to the average American they do have similar thin and muscular body types. And, I think it's easy to underestimate how strong these people are because they have so much less fat than the average person. But, as you say the relative cost of drag for increased body size helps support a more bulky cyclist.
Just FYI Paula Radcliffe weighs 54 kg the cyclist Leonardo Piepoli who is a man and the same height as Radcliffe weighs 52 kg. I do think that cyclists are on average heavier than marathon runners, but the top climber cyclists are not. The advantage Cancellara has on flat terrain is much smaller than the advantage a climber has in the mountains.
In my personal experience with cycling and running I'd say that carrying 1kg of fat running is a smaller disadvantage than carrying 1kg of fat cycling in mountain terrain. This is reversed when you consider cycling on flat terrain.
Seems equivalent to being the one person with a D-SLR and 5 lenses when everyone else carries a point and shoot. Even if you take fewer pictures people assume you're the more serious photographer. Apparent overkill is an effective way to preempt annoying comments?
Until you get cornered by the asshole with the Rebel and the abysmal EF-S 18-55mm kit lens who's badgering you with questions about why your 50mm f/1.2L doesn't zoom.
Sadly the merits of prime lenses and the subtleties of optics are lost on the masses. Show up with a hasselblad medium format film camera and a Zeiss prime anywhere amateurs assemble and be met with confused stares
"Oh and you still get the anti-inflammatory actions of alcohol too, just without any of the extra calories."
Alcohol causes inflammation, it's not an anti-inflammatory in any way. Maybe the author was confused because both alcohol and aspirin reduce your risks of heart attacks, and the latter is an NSAID. But taking alcohol if you have inflammatory problems is an extremely bad idea.
From another post by the author:
"it is interesting to note that small amounts of alcohol (the occasional drink) is associated with reduced levels of markers of chronic inflamamtion like IL-6, CRP and leptin."
Don't have any sources of the research, but it seems like he may post it soon.
I'd be interested to see this research. It's obviously no surprise that drinking would be associated with lower levels of inflammation, considering how much physcial/emotional discomfort alcohol causes to people prone to inflammation. I just have a really hard time believing there could be causation without seeing the research.
Last weekend I went out with a flask of Laphroaig (some damn good scotch), and was just sipping that most of the night. I let a bunch of my friends have some, and always came back with some left in the flask. It's a great way to drink really delicious scotch, share with your friends, and drink less.
Came here to talk about Laphroaig. Laphroaig is the smokiest whiskey you can get, really nice drop, from the Isle of Islay. Very flavorful.
Perhaps worth saying as well, please do not buy a nice whiskey, and ask for coke mixed in. If you tried that in Scotland or Ireland, they would at best refuse you.
Bruichladdich Octomore (~130 ppm) and Ardberg Supernova (~100 ppm I think) are way up there beyond the Ardberg 10. Off the top of my head I'd guess the Ardberg 10 is something like 20-40 ppm.
The "ppm", in the Scotch context, is for the amount of peat phenols, which is essentially a peatiness metric, and it is recently a competition metric, for some reason, between at least a few distillers (
http://blog.thewhiskyexchange.com/2009/03/bruichladdich-octo... as an example article but you can just google scotch ppm and get a ton of articles ).
I haven't had the Octomore but the Supernova is not that great in my opinion. It was interesting to taste a Scotch intentionally that peaty, but I'd consider it more of a novelty than a great taste improvement. That said taste is an amazing thing, so it might be precisely your cup of tea.
In terms of enjoyable smokiness I'm with you on the Ardberg, but in terms of the crazy +peatiness competition in Scotches, it isn't the winner.
I had a chance to sample the Octomore while visiting Bruichladdich this year. Holy crap that stuff is like drinking liquid fire. Does not have the smooth finish like Lagavulin 16, but it was sure fun to try.
That's my standby, although I also enjoy Lagavulin and Laphroaig.
But my absolute favorite is Port Charlotte, which is produced by Bruichladdich. (I'm not enough of a connoiseur to appreciate the differences among PC 5, 6 and 7.) It's the most intense and flavorful scotch I've ever had, but not very rough. Pretty smoky too. Unfortunately it's kind of expensive and kind of hard to find.
Re: sweetened whisky drinkers, a friend of mine who runs a rather nice bar (awarded best cocktail menu in the world from quite a few sources) simply smiles, says they don't stock coke, and suggests something else that's not as dominating to the customer.
As a condition of this award, we agree to pay a yearly ground rent in the sum of one dram of Laphroaig, to be claimed in person at the distillery. You’ll understand we’re not offering heritable ownership or any right to cut peat, farm sheep or extract minerals from the plot - far better to
take up your right to a warming measure of Laphroaig.
Upon the Leaseholder’s arrival at Laphroaig we undertake to provide a map, with adequate directions for locating the PLOT, and suitable protective clothing against Islay’s rugged weather and eccentric wildlife.
The point of this article seems to be: people believe scotch has more alcohol than it does, so you can drink less without their pressuring you into drinking more.
Obviously you could just have a water
This is more about hacking other people than it is about diet. Managing other people's impressions of you without having to be upfront about what you're doing.
Pretty easy to say, harder to do. It's best to set up barriers like this to prevent overeating. Another barrier is eating foods with low calorie density. The barrier here is the harshness of the drink - it is very hard to chug scotch. It is not very hard to chug a beer.
When I don't want to eat a lot, I set up barriers. I have literally no food in my apartment. 0. I am a former fat person, who has gotten into shape purely by avoiding the need for willpower. I like this hack - I'll try it this weekend.
Also you need to drink beer faster, because it gets warm and stale pretty fast. With scotch (and other strong alcohols) you can take as much time as you want.
Just ordering Scotch wouldn't work for me: I love the stuff and, corrected for the alcohol content, I will consume it faster than beer. If you have the same 'problem', what may work is ordering water on the side.
I have/used to have this problem - which is why I gave up drinking. In fact as I read this, I thought to myself "yeah, that's fine if you have the will-power not drink the scotch very quickly and order 2 more in the course of your friends single bottle of beer.
I find spirits much easier to drink in rapid quantities without realising I'm doing it. Quite apart from the lower volume, the lack of carbonation makes the onset of drunkenness less evident
I think many alcohol drinkers would find it easier to drink 1.5 oz of liquor, than 12 oz of beer or a 6 oz of wine, especially if the beer is in a bottle. I think the main benefit here is that holding a different drink separates you from the people who are heavy drinkers. It would work the same if the group were taking shots, and you chose a sip on a beer.
I have to agree 100% with this story. I have recently taken up a taste for scotch. Not only do I drink less, I save money because I'm drinking less. Here in SF a beer or non-scotch drink might range from $5-$10. I can get one scotch for usually $8-$11 dollars, drink it for 2-3x longer than other folks with their beer and cocktails, and in the end save money even if I have a second.
I had some Blue label on Saturday. Oh my, so so lovely...
Funny, my experience is exactly 100% the opposite. I'm also a a huge whisky fan, and find that if I'm drinking whisky all night I both drink a lot more and spend a lot more than if drinking beer. Even when sipping slowly and taking my time I find that a scotch takes, a best, half as long to finish as my friends spend on their beers.
I have had a totally different experience actually. I would assume that the following will hold true for most of the people in the simplest form of the arguement:
The more i like the drink the faster and more i would drink it. I am an avid scotch drinker and have been a connoisseur for several years now and (unfortunately) the suggested practice would fail miserably for me and potentially for scotch-lovers.
I'm surprised as to how you can talk about Scotch and Johnnie Walker in the same breadth. Sure it's technically Scotch Whisky, but it's a disgustingly promoted chain brand that convinces people they're drinking real Whisky instead of overpriced mass-manufactured tat, like Ginsters Cornish Pasties (made on the Cornish border next to the main road leading into Devon).
I'm not attacking you, and I apologise if this has come across this way, but really, it's made in a factory in Glasgow, not the original Kilmarnock distillery and Blue Label is ridiculously overpriced for what it is. There are so many other beautiful Scotches out there, it's a sin to eschew them in favour of lining Diageo's pockets.
It's hard to drink Scotch in America without lining Diageo's pockets--I mean, they own Glenkinchie, Lagavulin, Knockando, Oban, Royal Lochnagar, and Talisker, among others. If you're claiming Talisker is mass-manufactured tat, I don't know if we can be friends anymore. And do bear in mind that Talisker is the largest component of the Red Label blend.
That's fair enough I'd say if it's hard to get decent Whisky in the states. It's difficult to get decent Bourbon in the UK unless you're willing to go for Jack Daniels or worse.
A bunch of my friends and I have been organising a regular event we call Scotch Guard. It is a time when we come together and bring exotic alcohols to share and sample.
I have noticed my gut has receded slightly since attending these events because I haven't been drinking as much beer, yet still socialising just as much. 'Tis a good hack I say.
Another benefit to your diet is taking a glass of whisky as an alternative to your "evening snack". For me, it is a good way to avoid the urge to eat something. Especially when paired with a good cigar or tobacco pipe. Last night that was a dram of Highland Park 18yo accompanied by a Trinidad Reyes cigar, which was a wonderful experience.
The only problem with giving in to vices like these is giving yourself an excuse to drink. Thankfully, I'm pretty relaxed with alcohol and often don't drink anything at all for weeks or even a few months on end, but you still have to be careful that it doesn't become a daily ritual.
.jpg){kind=link}
As to the actual topic, I'm not sure that its so much that people think scotch has a higher alcohol content, I've always imagined it had more to do with seeming somewhat classier and in control. Sipping a scotch while your companions pound beers establishes you (perhaps on a subconscious level) as the leader of the group whose choices aren't really up for discussion.
Of course I rather like scotch so maybe I'm biased.