Question for beer historians

[deliusism1]

My only real comment on this post is about the idea that most beers were weak in the “olden days”. Historical evidence shows that this is absolutely not the case. Most beers were considerably stronger in the 19th century than they are now. Before that, technology was not sufficiently advanced enough to record the OG or FG of any beer with a great deal of accuracy, but most anecdotal evidence suggests that beer in general was fairly strong. Weak “table” beers certainly existed, but I think it’s safe to say that they were probably not the mainstream beer of choice. Having said all that, I must qualify my statement with the admission that I’m speaking pretty broadly, and that what was considered “beer” back then was not always in line with what we consider it now. This is a topic that could obviously spark a very long discussion (not that there’s anything wrong with that ), and there will undoubtedly be some disagreement on some of the points brought up. Carry on.

[brew_cat]

From things I’ve read people used to drink a heck of a lot more then we do now.

[steeler_d]

@damian_winter

Fwiw Hangovers are not just caused from dehydration. Dehydration is only part of the cause. Ever wonder why people drink bloody Mary’s next morning for hangover. It’s not hair of the dog lol. It’s cause the V8 juice. Your body is starved different minerals. Your body is missing Potassium and b vitamins. Making you feel tired and hungover. Potassium helps your heart. To much can cause congestive heart problems Other factors also help you have hang over smoking a lot more when you drink. Starving your brain of oxygen and more carbon dioxide.

Have you ever noticed that hangovers from drinking homebrew are not quite as bad as hangovers from comercial (filtered) beer or from alcohol of another source? I have.

It has been explained to me that the yeast in suspension of unfiltered beer is a good source of B-complex vitamins. Even if clear to the eye, there is yeast left in solution. Enough to help counteract the B-vitamin depletion.

That’s not to suggest that you can avoid the hangover completely. But I do think it helps.

[rebuiltcellars]

@deliusism1

My only real comment on this post is about the idea that most beers were weak in the “olden days”. Historical evidence shows that this is absolutely not the case. Most beers were considerably stronger in the 19th century than they are now. Before that, technology was not sufficiently advanced enough to record the OG or FG of any beer with a great deal of accuracy, but most anecdotal evidence suggests that beer in general was fairly strong. Weak “table” beers certainly existed, but I think it’s safe to say that they were probably not the mainstream beer of choice. Having said all that, I must qualify my statement with the admission that I’m speaking pretty broadly, and that what was considered “beer” back then was not always in line with what we consider it now. This is a topic that could obviously spark a very long discussion (not that there’s anything wrong with that ), and there will undoubtedly be some disagreement on some of the points brought up. Carry on.

That was my understanding too, but “typical” beer strength has changed often over time based primarily on tax rates and availability of grain. The ratings for Scottish Ales for example is a hold-over of the tax rate for a barrel based on alcohol content. If you go further back, Belgian abbey beers still keep the “dobel” and “triple” labels that came from the strength rating, based on which draining of the mash tun the wort came from - though I suspect that the actual strength as well as the character of the beer itself has changed from what it historically was. Triples were first sparge, dobels were second sparge. The “small” or “household” beers came from the third sparge.

[grainbelt]

@deliusism1

My only real comment on this post is about the idea that most beers were weak in the “olden days”. Historical evidence shows that this is absolutely not the case. Most beers were considerably stronger in the 19th century than they are now. Before that, technology was not sufficiently advanced enough to record the OG or FG of any beer with a great deal of accuracy, but most anecdotal evidence suggests that beer in general was fairly strong. Weak “table” beers certainly existed, but I think it’s safe to say that they were probably not the mainstream beer of choice. Having said all that, I must qualify my statement with the admission that I’m speaking pretty broadly, and that what was considered “beer” back then was not always in line with what we consider it now. This is a topic that could obviously spark a very long discussion (not that there’s anything wrong with that ), and there will undoubtedly be some disagreement on some of the points brought up. Carry on.

No one ever said most beers were weak. Styles and strength of styles changed. Beer styles are a snap shot in time.
But yes there were more table beers them there are today. Now days you hear the 3.2 bullshit.
Go back further and more beer was sour beer.