3 ms·

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 clea

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
        ywvcbk 2y ago
        > important reason for that was it was generally safer to drink than water. Any evidence besides conjecture to back this up?

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
        ywvcbk 2y ago
        > important reason for that was it was generally safer to drink than water. Any evidence besides conjecture to back this up?