Beer Before Liquor
cam...@wbur.bu.edu
allright . .how about this .. .
"Beer before liquor, never sicker, liquor before beer, never fear"
does anyone know about the voracity of this saying? .. .does it have ANY
basis in fact? .. .I know many people that swear by it, but I'm still not
sure it's true.
chris "liquor? .. I hardly even know her!!!" Amidon
camidonATwburDOTbu.edu
Bruce Tindall
In article <camidon.8...@WBUR.BU.EDU>, <cam...@WBUR.BU.EDU> wrote:
>allright . .how about this .. .
>"Beer before liquor, never sicker, liquor before beer, never fear"
>does anyone know about the voracity of this saying? ..
The version I heard in COLLEGE! (c. 1974) was "Beer *on* liquor (etc.)",
i.e., *after*, which means exactly the opposite of the
version quoted above.
A hypothesis from the medically ignorant: shots of hard liquor (whether
followed by beer or not) on an empty stomach are more likely to irritate
the stomach than shots that hit a layer of relatively dilute alcohol
solution (beer) already in the stomach.; this would make my version of
the rhyme the correct one. Just an uneducated guess. Your cue,
Medline Boy!
--
Bruce Tindall tin...@panix.com
Ralph Jones
cam...@WBUR.BU.EDU wrote:
> allright . .how about this .. .
> "Beer before liquor, never sicker, liquor before beer, never fear"
> does anyone know about the voracity of this saying? .. .does it have
> ANY
> basis in fact? .. .I know many people that swear by it, but I'm still
> not
> sure it's true.
Gee, what I heard was "Whiskey on beer, never fear, beer on whiskey,
mighty risky".
rj
Jeff Claggett
On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 14:23:41 -0600, Ralph Jones <rnj...@teal.csn.net> wrote:
>> sure it's true.
>
>Gee, what I heard was "Whiskey on beer, never fear, beer on whiskey,
>mighty risky".
"Beer before" is the only version I've known. And after some personal
experiances with the porcelin goddess... I tend to believe it...
--
Jeff "Independent research? Naw, self testing work... " Claggett
jcla...@bellsouth.net
Simon Slavin
In article <camidon.8...@WBUR.BU.EDU>,
cam...@WBUR.BU.EDU wrote:
> allright . .how about this .. .
> "Beer before liquor, never sicker, liquor before beer, never fear"
> does anyone know about the voracity of this saying? .. .does it have ANY
> basis in fact?
It's available in many versions. The one I learned is
"Beer on wine, das ist fine.
Wine on beer, das ist fear."
and was confirmed to me by a surgeon friend: if you really
absolutely /have/ to mix your drinks, start with the ones
with the most alcohol and work down. You cope with alcohol
best when your system isn't already fuddled with alcohol.
Simon.
--
Simon Slavin -- Computer Contractor. | Oh, sorry, you neglected to
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | mention above that the child
Check email address for spam-guard. | was the antichrist. -- sharkey@
Junk email not welcome at this site. | ee.mu.OZ.AU (Nicholas MOORE)
Kedamono
In article <B02F7434...@hearsay.demon.co.uk>,
sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk.NOJUNK (Simon Slavin) wrote:
> In article <camidon.8...@WBUR.BU.EDU>,
> cam...@WBUR.BU.EDU wrote:
>
> > allright . .how about this .. .
> > "Beer before liquor, never sicker, liquor before beer, never fear"
> > does anyone know about the voracity of this saying? .. .does it have ANY
> > basis in fact?
>
> It's available in many versions. The one I learned is
>
> "Beer on wine, das ist fine.
> Wine on beer, das ist fear."
>
> and was confirmed to me by a surgeon friend: if you really
> absolutely /have/ to mix your drinks, start with the ones
> with the most alcohol and work down. You cope with alcohol
> best when your system isn't already fuddled with alcohol.
>
I don't know about your surgeon friend, but your average American
beer-like substance, (Budmilloors, a color a friend of mine said, "If that
came outta me, I'd go the doctor for help." I held up my stout, and said
"And if this came out of you, well you imagine the rest.")
Anyway, Bud is only 3.2% alcohol by volume, while wine is at least 5%
minimum, 10% to 15% on average alcohol by volume. Beer's redeeming feature
is the water content, so when you sock yourself with Wine, you're already
have a lot of water to dilute the beer in your gut. In the other
direction, you got a lot more alcohol running through your system, and the
little bit more ain't gonna help. You'll still be genuflecting to the
porcelain god.
Sound like your surgeon friend better not operate on people if he has that
kind of erroneous information to pass out.
--
The Kedamono Dragon | The "Anthill Inside" Page is at:
Keda...@concentric.spammit_net | http://www.concentric.net/~kedamono
Keda...@aol.spammit_com |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my Bryce art page: http://www.concentric.net/~kedamono/art.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a look at the Alternate History Travel Guides! | Ook!
http://users.aol.com/kedamono/sliders/alterguides.html | Gleep!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Join the ITA, http://www.concentric.net/~kedamono/alterguide/ita.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Spam Trap, Remove "spammit_" from email address.
gskimin
Martin Veasey wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Sep 97 07:33:47 GMT, Bob.H...@worldnet.REMOVE.att.net (Bob
> Hiebert) wrote:
>
> > I have read the other responses, but I haven't seen anyone address the
> > voracity of the statement yet. The real answer is beer, wine, liquor can be
> > consumed in large quantities in any order without getting sick....in the
> > short term. The long term affects also have nothing to do with the mixing,
> > just the total quantity consumed.
>
> Nope, the real answer is that alcohol can hang around in the stomach for
> quite long periods of time without causing problems. Sickness, drunkeness
> and hangover are caused by blood alcohol concentration and the body being
> poisoned by the by-products of alcohol metabolism.
>
> If you can slow the absorption of alcohol down, the peak level of alcohol in
> the body is lower (though it lasts longer) and the sickness may well be less
> bad. Maybe beer before whiskey helps; maybe whiskey before beer. Maybe pasta
> before beer helps even more!
> --
> Martin Veasey
> martin@cheam.d*spam*emon.co.uk
> (My apologies for the security measure above,
> please remove *spam* from my address before replying)
I'd always heard that, before a long Friday night, you should drink some
oil or cream. "Coats your stomach -- takes longer to get drunk."
I'd always thought it'd just make me puke earlier, leaving me feeling
crappy all night, probably send me home right away.
- Gary (Good beer, good Scotch) Skimin
Bob Hiebert
cam...@WBUR.BU.EDU wrote:
>allright . .how about this .. .
>"Beer before liquor, never sicker, liquor before beer, never fear"
>does anyone know about the voracity of this saying? .. .does it have ANY
>sure it's true.
I have read the other responses, but I haven't seen anyone address the
voracity of the statement yet. The real answer is beer, wine, liquor can be
consumed in large quantities in any order without getting sick....in the
short term. The long term affects also have nothing to do with the mixing,
just the total quantity consumed.
Bob "line 'em up" Hiebert
----------------------------------------------
E-mail address is invalid. Correct to reply.
For the one true alt.folklore.urban archive:
http://www.urbanlegends.com
Martin Veasey
> I have read the other responses, but I haven't seen anyone address the
> voracity of the statement yet. The real answer is beer, wine, liquor can be
> consumed in large quantities in any order without getting sick....in the
> short term. The long term affects also have nothing to do with the mixing,
> just the total quantity consumed.
Nope, the real answer is that alcohol can hang around in the stomach for
Kathy P.
Regarding this thread - the novels with the "hard-nosed or hard-bitten"
detectives always have someone drinking whiskey with a beer chaser. So I
always assumed liquor first, then beer..
JMHO
Kathy
Bob Hiebert
That's because the detectives drank cheap whiskey.
Bob
Adam Payne
On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 10:55:34 -0600, Larry Kubicz <lku...@uswest.com>
wrote:
>
>
>Jeff Claggett wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 14:23:41 -0600, Ralph Jones <rnj...@teal.csn.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Gee, what I heard was "Whiskey on beer, never fear, beer on whiskey,
>> >mighty risky".
>>
>> "Beer before" is the only version I've known. And after some personal
>> experiances with the porcelin goddess... I tend to believe it...
>
>Back in my college days (late Tertiary) "beer on..." was the generally
>accepted version. After having a few, however, we could never get
>the little rhyme straight, so we summed the whole thing up as:
>
>"Accelerate."
>
>Larry Kubicz
"Liquor first, never after."
Simple, elegant, and multipurpose.
Adam Payne
aze...@wt.net
pa...@NOSPAM.bu.edu (Adam Payne) wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 10:55:34 -0600, Larry Kubicz <lku...@uswest.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Jeff Claggett wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 14:23:41 -0600, Ralph Jones <rnj...@teal.csn.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Gee, what I heard was "Whiskey on beer, never fear, beer on whiskey,
>>> >mighty risky".
>>>
>>> "Beer before" is the only version I've known. And after some personal
>>> experiances with the porcelin goddess... I tend to believe it...
>>
>>Larry Kubicz
>
>"Liquor first, never after."
>
>Simple, elegant, and multipurpose. <----heh heh heh
>
>Adam Payne
I always thought that the reason for the "beer before liquor, never
sicker" phrase was becauseyou get accustomed to drinking beer at a
fairly fast rate (ie 12 oz every 10-15 min or whatever). If you
continue drinking hard liquor or mixed drinks at that rate you are
probably going to be in trouble...