That enzyme stuff works

The Homebrew Forum

Help Support The Homebrew Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

stigman

Landlord.
Joined
Feb 27, 2016
Messages
936
Reaction score
656
Location
glossop Derbyshire
Brewed the splash of brut ipa kit from malt Miller went from 1.056 to 0.998, according to Brewers friend that's 104% attenuation and 0 calories should help the beer belly a little.
DSC_1173.JPG
Screenshot_20180806-211159.png
 
Brewed the splash of brut ipa kit from malt Miller went from 1.056 to 0.998, according to Brewers friend that's 104% attenuation and 0 calories should help the beer belly a little. View attachment 14795 View attachment 14796

I might be persuaded that the first number is a reasonable estimate.

Could you do an experiment with the hydrometer? At 20C it should read 1.000. If it does not, that might explain much.
 
I might be persuaded that the first number is a reasonable estimate.

Could you do an experiment with the hydrometer? At 20C it should read 1.000. If it does not, that might explain much.

It's correct Slid I know how to read my hydrometer it actually shows 1.000 but with water @20 it's 2 points high so I have to knock of 2 points all the time,
 
hate to disappoint you stig....

https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/alcohol-facts/health-effects-of-alcohol/calories/calories-in-alcohol/

If you now feel the need to get rid of your stock, you have my address :laugh8:

That seems like a load of tosh to me. It actually states "Calories from alcohol are 'empty calories', they have no nutritional value. " So just what is that supposed to mean? Bear in mind that I got my degree in Animal Physiology and Nutrition and I have no idea what that means.
By the way, that was back in the 70s and in agriculture at least they hadn't been using calories as a meaningful guide to the nutritional value of food for at least 30 years.
You could for example eat 2,500 calories of bran every day as your food source and you will literally starve to death.
So if your body converts alcohol into something it can burn then it does have nutritional value as long as the energy required for the conversion is less than the energy you end up with.
 
Alcohol has a gravity lower than 1.000 so when a beer finishes below 1.000 it means the sugar:alcohol balance is tipped in favour of alcohol. The beer will be very dry!
 
That seems like a load of tosh to me. It actually states "Calories from alcohol are 'empty calories', they have no nutritional value. " So just what is that supposed to mean? Bear in mind that I got my degree in Animal Physiology and Nutrition and I have no idea what that means.
By the way, that was back in the 70s and in agriculture at least they hadn't been using calories as a meaningful guide to the nutritional value of food for at least 30 years.
You could for example eat 2,500 calories of bran every day as your food source and you will literally starve to death.
So if your body converts alcohol into something it can burn then it does have nutritional value as long as the energy required for the conversion is less than the energy you end up with.

There was once this nutritionist type burd on a radio show, when this geezer phones in and sez he only eats pork scratchings and was as fit as a flea. This burd said he might be telling the truth cos they are perfectly balanced with protein, fat, carbs an' stuff, so long as vitamin and mineral supplements are taken. Pork scratchings lol... the food of the gods after vindaloo.
 
It's correct Slid I know how to read my hydrometer it actually shows 1.000 but with water @20 it's 2 points high so I have to knock of 2 points all the time,

I just checked out the kit and recommended yeast / additive enzyme on the MM site and stand corrected (again!).

"Day 2 – add 15ml of NBS Amyloglucosidase 300 Enzyme" - I guess this is the enzyme referred to? Another guess is that very highly attenuating yeasts produce a similar enzyme?
 
......... It actually states "Calories from alcohol are 'empty calories', they have no nutritional value. " So just what is that supposed to mean? ..........

I had another look and got past the "Pint and Pizza" bit! :laugh8:

It goes on to say in the next paragraph ...

"Drinking alcohol also reduces the amount of fat your body burns for energy. While we can store nutrients, protein, carbohydrates, and fat in our bodies, we can't store alcohol. So our systems want to get rid of it, and doing so takes priority. All of the other processes that should be taking place (including absorbing nutrients and burning fat) are interrupted."

Apparently, drinking alcohol interrupts the body's process of burning body fat and digesting fats from any food already in the system.

My mate Eric died a few years back, about a year after five of us had got together to celebrate our 70th birthdays.

Back in the 1960's, Eric had a "GOD Prescription" to combat what was diagnosed as Chrone's Disease, which was at that time regarded as a form of cancer. The "GOD" stood for "Guinness on Demand" and the Prescription was fulfilled by the local Chemist.

The Guinness was basically all Eric had for nourishment for about five years and he was the happiest cancer sufferer I have ever met. Fortunately (?) they came up with a variety of operations and drugs that could treat the disease so the "GOD Prescription" was withdrawn and Eric became a miserable "cancer sufferer in remission" instead!

In synopsis, if there are enough calories in a Guinness to keep body and soul together I doubt very much that a high attenuation from any brew will result in zero calories that the body can absorb!

Sorry Stig but I agree with dad_of_jon ... :thumb:

... even though I still want a Pizza and a Pint! aheadbutt
 
That seems like a load of tosh to me. It actually states "Calories from alcohol are 'empty calories', they have no nutritional value. " So just what is that supposed to mean? Bear in mind that I got my degree in Animal Physiology and Nutrition and I have no idea what that means.
By the way, that was back in the 70s and in agriculture at least they hadn't been using calories as a meaningful guide to the nutritional value of food for at least 30 years.
You could for example eat 2,500 calories of bran every day as your food source and you will literally starve to death.
So if your body converts alcohol into something it can burn then it does have nutritional value as long as the energy required for the conversion is less than the energy you end up with.

alcohol clearly does have calories what I was (admittedly very poorly) trying to highlight was the brewers friend calc is off a bit :doh:yeah the empty calories bit is silly.
 
That seems like a load of tosh to me. It actually states "Calories from alcohol are 'empty calories', they have no nutritional value. " So just what is that supposed to mean?
It is a rubbish term. It just means that it isn't accompanied by vitamins, minerals, fibre - that kind of gunk. Sugar is called the same thing because of it and it makes it sound like it's got no calories.

The alcohol disrupting fat processing means the fat gets sent straight to fat stores, which wasn't mentioned. There are so many crappy articles out there by good people.

Fructose gets treated exactly the same way as alcohol and your liver packs up everything else to churn through it first. It's one of the things that pisses me off when people go on about 'natural sugars' being healthy. Those stupid Hemsley sisters replacing sugar with agave syrup, which is almost pure fructose, then saying it's wayyy healthy. They are so clueless.... clueless millionaires. Manipulative, then.
 
The thing I don't understand is that they measure calories in food by the time it takes to burn..with fire...who made that up?

Everyone knows that coal will burn and up in Derbyshire my Mam used to serve it as desert after I had eaten my gravel!

Incidentally her favourite mantra for beer was "Get it down you, it will do you good." ...

... or after six or more pints "Get it up, you'll feel better!"

Happy Days! :laugh8:
 
The thing I don't understand is that they measure calories in food by the time it takes to burn..with fire...who made that up?

A bloke called Joule. He famously measured the temperature of water at the top of a waterfall and then again at the bottom to demonstrate the equivalence of different types of energy.

Caloric was a medieval model for what constituted heat. It was supposed to be a massless, colourless fluid. This model was later replaced by kinetic theory.
 
Back
Top