4 ms·

could you point to the specific part of those Wikipedia entries that says that very large quantities of these drinks were taken because of the difficulty of fin

could you point to the specific part of those Wikipedia entries that says that very large quantities of these drinks were taken because of the difficulty of finding clean water? Or were you making another point here?

christianqchung 2y ago
It's not in there, I just read the articles. Maybe the point is about how low alcohol beer was commonly drunken, though I'm not sure how that relevant either.
- ahoka 2y ago
  Of course it’s not there as those 2-3% percent beers would kill nothing.
  - jodleif 2y ago
    It’s because they boiled the water in order to brew the beer
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      I don’t think that’s likely to be true. Many of these beverages were made strong but then diluted with regular water that had not been boiled.
penteract 2y ago
Germ theory wasn't widespread throughout the time period we're talking about, so they wouldn't have been able to give the reasoning that we would about why clean water is important or how alcohol acts as a disinfectant. However, the Small beer Wikipedia page says that very large quantities of these drinks were consumed > It was common for workers who engaged in laborious tasks to drink more than ten imperial pints (5.7 litres) of small beer a day to quench their thirst And that it was believed to be good for people > "For the drink of the more robust children water is preferable, and for the weaker ones, small beer" The fact that aqua vitae means "water of life" is also evidence for this.
- ahoka 2y ago
  You need at least 40% alcohol to kill _some_ pathogens.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    Failing to kill 100% of pathogens does not mean it had no benefits
  - idunnoman1222 2y ago
    To make beer, you boil the wort, after fermentation the finished beer keeps for sometime and you can taste when it’s gone off. Also hops is a preservative.
    - ywvcbk 2y ago
      People knew that boiling water “improved” the quality of water for thousands of years. Regardless there is plenty of evidence that medieval people drank plenty pf water. Why do some people feel so strongly about this myth?
      - jncfhnb 2y ago
        The claim isn’t that they didn’t drink lots of water. They did. And they frequently got sick
        ywvcbk 2y ago
        The claim is what exactly? That people drank both water and various alcoholic beverages. Well that’s certainly an interesting hypothesis.. Weak unfiltered beer will go bad on a couple of days even if you keep it in a fridge if it’s not properly sealed. Also hoops weren’t widely used until the high/late middle ages.
        jncfhnb 2y ago
        The claim is simply that people drank large volumes of alcoholic beverages across history and an important reason for that was it was generally safer to drink than water. It shouldn’t be particularly crazy or controversial
jncfhnb 2y ago
> The term [Aqua Vitae (“water of life”)] was used by the 14th-century alchemist John of Rupescissa, who believed the then newly discovered substance of ethanol to be an imperishable and life-giving "fifth essence" or quintessence, and who extensively studied its medical properties.[3] You’re not going to find a well defined germ theory breakdown of the potability of water because it did not exist. It’s not like they could identify clean water vs dirty water. It’s not like drinking dirty water meant you were going to die either. Generally speaking, people understood that drinking more alcoholic drinks was likely to have health benefits among other things, hence the term “water of life”. Drinking alcohol was seen as a move that would improve your health, including as literal medicine. It was frequently drank because it was good for you. Not strictly because they knew they couldn’t drink the water. They did drink a lot of dirty water too.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ywvcbk 2y ago
  Do you think distilled alcohol can be used as an alternative hydration source instead of water? Might I ask have you ever tried it? > Drinking alcohol was seen as a move that would improve your health, including as literal medicine Even if that’s true it’s not at all related with alcohol being a replacement for water. It’s like if someone if in 400+ years decided that most people in the 2000s only ate supplements instead of actual food due to similar reasons.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    If you’re referring to the fact that alcohol is a diuretic, then just say that. that’s basically a myth in the popular understanding. A drink has to be fairly strong to dehydrate you. A beer will probably hydrate you. But it might vary by person for stronger beers. The drinks we are discussing here are extremely weak and definitely going to hydrate you. > Even if that’s true it’s not at all related with alcohol being a replacement for water. It’s like if someone if in 400+ years decided that most people in the 2000s only ate supplements instead of actual food due to similar reasons. Then maybe read my whole post where I explicitly said they drank a lot of dirty water

christianqchung 2y ago

It's not in there, I just read the articles. Maybe the point is about how low alcohol beer was commonly drunken, though I'm not sure how that relevant either.

ahoka 2y ago
Of course it’s not there as those 2-3% percent beers would kill nothing.
- jodleif 2y ago
  It’s because they boiled the water in order to brew the beer
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    I don’t think that’s likely to be true. Many of these beverages were made strong but then diluted with regular water that had not been boiled.

penteract 2y ago

Germ theory wasn't widespread throughout the time period we're talking about, so they wouldn't have been able to give the reasoning that we would about why clean water is important or how alcohol acts as a disinfectant. However, the Small beer Wikipedia page says that very large quantities of these drinks were consumed > It was common for workers who engaged in laborious tasks to drink more than ten imperial pints (5.7 litres) of small beer a day to quench their thirst And that it was believed to be good for people > "For the drink of the more robust children water is preferable, and for the weaker ones, small beer" The fact that aqua vitae means "water of life" is also evidence for this.

ahoka 2y ago
You need at least 40% alcohol to kill _some_ pathogens.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  Failing to kill 100% of pathogens does not mean it had no benefits
- idunnoman1222 2y ago
  To make beer, you boil the wort, after fermentation the finished beer keeps for sometime and you can taste when it’s gone off. Also hops is a preservative.
  - ywvcbk 2y ago
    People knew that boiling water “improved” the quality of water for thousands of years. Regardless there is plenty of evidence that medieval people drank plenty pf water. Why do some people feel so strongly about this myth?
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      The claim isn’t that they didn’t drink lots of water. They did. And they frequently got sick
      - ywvcbk 2y ago
        The claim is what exactly? That people drank both water and various alcoholic beverages. Well that’s certainly an interesting hypothesis.. Weak unfiltered beer will go bad on a couple of days even if you keep it in a fridge if it’s not properly sealed. Also hoops weren’t widely used until the high/late middle ages.
        jncfhnb 2y ago
        The claim is simply that people drank large volumes of alcoholic beverages across history and an important reason for that was it was generally safer to drink than water. It shouldn’t be particularly crazy or controversial

jncfhnb 2y ago

> The term [Aqua Vitae (“water of life”)] was used by the 14th-century alchemist John of Rupescissa, who believed the then newly discovered substance of ethanol to be an imperishable and life-giving "fifth essence" or quintessence, and who extensively studied its medical properties.[3] You’re not going to find a well defined germ theory breakdown of the potability of water because it did not exist. It’s not like they could identify clean water vs dirty water. It’s not like drinking dirty water meant you were going to die either. Generally speaking, people understood that drinking more alcoholic drinks was likely to have health benefits among other things, hence the term “water of life”. Drinking alcohol was seen as a move that would improve your health, including as literal medicine. It was frequently drank because it was good for you. Not strictly because they knew they couldn’t drink the water. They did drink a lot of dirty water too.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ywvcbk 2y ago
Do you think distilled alcohol can be used as an alternative hydration source instead of water? Might I ask have you ever tried it? > Drinking alcohol was seen as a move that would improve your health, including as literal medicine Even if that’s true it’s not at all related with alcohol being a replacement for water. It’s like if someone if in 400+ years decided that most people in the 2000s only ate supplements instead of actual food due to similar reasons.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  If you’re referring to the fact that alcohol is a diuretic, then just say that. that’s basically a myth in the popular understanding. A drink has to be fairly strong to dehydrate you. A beer will probably hydrate you. But it might vary by person for stronger beers. The drinks we are discussing here are extremely weak and definitely going to hydrate you. > Even if that’s true it’s not at all related with alcohol being a replacement for water. It’s like if someone if in 400+ years decided that most people in the 2000s only ate supplements instead of actual food due to similar reasons. Then maybe read my whole post where I explicitly said they drank a lot of dirty water