"These findings provide compelling evidence that acute alcohol consumption decreases GLP-1, a satiation signal, elucidating alcohol's 'apéritif' effect." This could increase hunger and cravings (including for more alcohol).
The double whammy is that alcohol is an extremely calorically dense substance. Even worse, it is consumed in liquid form, which also bypasses some satiation mechanisms in the body. There's a reason tour de France riders get most of their replacement calories in liquid form
And if you haven't asked a friend who's on one, taking a GLP-1 medication reduces drinking by about 50%: https://recursiveadaptation.com/p/first-ever-randomized-tria...
Holy crap, that explains why my cravings for alcohol have gone down significantly since I started Mounjaro.
Which is interesting because there’s a lot of Mediterranean cultures that drink after every meal (lunch & dinner). And the reason is “for digestion”. So this would suggest the opposite effect is happening. Drinking actually hurts digestion.
The digestif isnt the wine you drink at dinner though, it's the (different) wine you drink after dinner, and it really is very different. For example: small prosecco before dinner, then red or white wine with the food, and then a Fernet Branca at the end of the meal. Digestifs seem to often have a bitter or aniseed element in them. I wonder if that is now known to have a legitimate scientific basis, or if it's just s…
The alcohol is still just alcohol. It’s doesn’t matter what variety of grape it comes from.
Indeed the average base spirit has 2-3 calorie per millilitre. This is 5-6x the amount found in coca cola or pepsi. But then again, the quantities are also much less than when drinking soft drinks (hopefully).
Glucose and ethanol are metabolized through different pathways that will have different efficiencies. How much impact does that have on comparing the two? Glucose can go right into the bloodstream (?), but ethanol needs to be reacted (taking energy) to turn into blood glucose. This is a confusion I have about calories-in-calories-out in general, fat/carbs/protein are all metabolized with different (and variable) effi…
I know the efficiencies are variable among people and labels are not exact, but if you eat an amount of chicken breast labeled 100 calories, and an amount of butter labeled 100 calories, don't those numbers represent the amount of protein and fat respectively that the average person would absorb?
Glucose and ethanol are metabolized through different pathways that will have different efficiencies. How much impact does that have on comparing the two? Glucose can go right into the bloodstream (?), but ethanol needs to be reacted (taking energy) to turn into blood glucose. This is a confusion I have about calories-in-calories-out in general, fat/carbs/protein are all metabolized with different (and variable) effi…
I know the efficiencies are variable among people and labels are not exact, but if you eat an amount of chicken breast labeled 100 calories, and an amount of butter labeled 100 calories, don't those numbers represent the amount of protein and fat respectively that the average person would absorb?
Almost. Protein takes a bit more energy to metabolize than fat. It gets even more complicated when food contains indigestible fiber.
I know the efficiencies are variable among people and labels are not exact, but if you eat an amount of chicken breast labeled 100 calories, and an amount of butter labeled 100 calories, don't those numbers represent the amount of protein and fat respectively that the average person would absorb?
Almost. Protein takes a bit more energy to metabolize than fat. It gets even more complicated when food contains indigestible fiber.
I thought the energy needed to metabolize protein was included in the calorie estimation?