phyzguy said:
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is a fairly light beer at 100 calories per 12 oz.
This means 100 calories/bottle (33cl). Looks ok with regard to the link above.
Then 4 liters of beer works out to about 1100 calories. Let's further assume that you weigh 100 kilograms (220 pounds).
This is right on the spot.
In order to burn this, you would need to run about 7 miles at an 8-10 minutes/mile pace. You would need to cycle for about 2-3 hours at a 12 mph pace, or walk for 3-4 hours at a 3-4 mile/hour pace.
This sounds terrible!
If we just do a straightforward physics energy calculation, 1100 food calories is equivalent to:
1100 * 1000 * 4.2 = 4.6 million Joules
Jesus, 4.6 million Joules! Please explain 1000 and 4.2
This is equivalent to lifting your assumed 100 kg body a distance of
h = 4.6E6 J / (10 m/s^2 * 100 kg) = 4600 meters or about 15,000 feet
So climbing a 15,000 foot mountain would be required to burn up the 4 liters of beer. This assumes that your body is 100% efficient. In practice, you body is probably less than 50% efficient, so you would only need to climb about a 5000 foot mountain.
Jesus, climbing a >1500m high mountain. Is this really true? While I ride the bus to work in the mornings and hardly even walk more than 1km per day (on flat ground) I will only get fatter?
It is a good and neccesary thing then that I will begin working out next weekend. My plan is to go to a jym 3 times a week.
I have to do something because I need myself a nice and beautiful woman...
No matter how you slice it, it takes a lot of exercise to burn off 4 liters of beer.
Obviously!
Thanks for your fabulous scientific explanation!
But viewing the above link for beer data I have come to the conclusion that average calories are some 150 and average corbonhydrates are around 10 grams.
On the other hand, I belong to the naive(?) people that don't believe in calories. I am on a LCHF diet by choice (which I forgot to mention) and I fully believe that fat is not that harmful because it mainly "slides through". My reasoning for this is such that why should our bodies be so stupid that it will convert fat into fat? Which is the only way it can end up on my stumoch
However, there is no fat in beer. Even though fat carries a lot of calories.
In beer I have problems with the energy in alcohol and the sugar/maltosis/corbonhydrates.
There was by the way almost no beer in that link above that contained so little alcohol that I drink (2.8%). I actually saw only one (2.4%, Budweiser Select 55) which contained 55 calories and 1.9g carbonhydrates. Which is an extreme example of a low calory beer.
While I drink 2.8% and 4 liters I consume 11,2 cl of pure alcohol every evening.
My beer cans have strangely enough no nutrition declarations on them. Only what they are made of. ALL other "food" has however nutrition declarations on them.
So I can't tell the amount of carbonhydrates which is very interesting to me. But while the density of beer is almost exactly as that of water, 10grams should equal 10% carbonhydrates. Here it would have been interesting to know the sugar/maltosis part. But let's say 5% sugar.
Here I can tell you a true story. My stumoch grew, not because of beer consuming, but of orange juice consuming! I drank two liters of orange juice everyday for about three months and afterwards I had gained about 20kg! But I thought "this is natural stuff...".
So beer did not build my body. Now beer however seems to make me stuck at 100kg. In spite of me following LCHF almost to the extreme. I even eat "King of the Day" at Burger King everyday without bread. And of course with water. Yet I am stuck...
Roger