Sleeman Lift launched this week. I’m not going to review it. I don’t care what it tastes like. Many of the lifestyle bloggers that you’ll see promoting it in the coming weeks don’t care what it tastes like either. They probably attended the launch because the invitation came with the offer of a Fitbit Flex.
Sleeman has brought in Ben Desbrow, an associate professor from Griffith University in Australia to talk to the media about the science of hydration. He is a very nice man and his studies have been peer reviewed and are generally well intentioned. I popped by the offices of Sleeman’s PR firm on this campaign, Cossette, to talk to him about the potential of hydrating beer. I had done a cursory amount of research, including actually reading the studies that he has co-authored on the hydration potential of various liquids.
The thing to realize is that Desbrow’s work on altering the hydration level of beer by the addition of sodium is that it deals with harm minimization. He works in sports nutrition and athletes, especially rugby players and cricketers, drink beer in great quantity. The idea behind the study is that it might be possible to make that less harmful. That’s why the conclusion in the first study on beer hydration states the following:
All beverage treatments failed to completely restore fluid balance across the 4h observation period suggesting that beer, irrespective of ingredient profile, is an undesirable post-exercise fluid.
You got that? Beer in any form is not a desirable beverage for hydration. In point of fact, drinking beer will not bring you back to a normal level of hydration even if you drink 150% of the volume of liquid you lost through exercise.
Water is a better option. Gatorade is a better option. Chocolate Milk is a better option. Fruit juice is a better option. Coconut water is a better option. Beer is worse at hydration than everything else other than higher alcohol liquids. The study on beer as a hydrating liquid basically states that very low alcohol beer with added sodium is better at hydrating than regular beer.
So there are two things that you need to take away from this study:
- Beer is not good at providing hydration. If you want it to be better, you can add salt to it in small quantities.
- In order for beer to achieve even comparable hydration, you need to drink 150% of the volume of liquid you just lost due to the body’s tendency to produce urine.
For strenuous exercise, participants in the study were pushed to a loss of 1.8% of their total mass. Let’s say you’ve got a big rugby player who does physical therapy pilates. He probably weighs a very solid 220 pounds or 100 kilos. 1.8% total mass lost means that he lost 1.8 kilos. In order for beer to be reasonably hydrating, he would need to drink 2.7 litres of beer. I’m told that the beer that was used in the study was Castlemaine XXXX Gold (we had it at the LCBO a few years ago.) In Australia, that’s a mid-range beer at 3.5% alcohol. Because this is attached to the Sleeman Lift campaign, we’ll go with the nutritional information on that. It is 4% alcohol and 150 calories/473 ml can. That means that in order to come close to a state of regular hydration, our rugby player (probably named Bruce) would have to drink nearly six 473 ml cans of beer at a toll of approximately 900 calories. Bruce can shrug that off. Bruce probably needs 4000 calories a day if he’s an active athlete.
You are probably not an active athlete. You are probably pretty average. You’re meant to consume something like 2000 calories a day.
This is why I absolutely hate Sleeman Lift. The average person will not have read professor Desbrow’s study. The average person’s scientific literacy is non-existent. We live in a world with Anti-Vaxxers and Dr. Oz and The Food Babe. There are people who are preying on society’s basic lack of understanding of science in order to make a buck. Between them, they have less than an ounce of moral fibre. They are, in my opinion, pond scum. Sleeman may now count themselves among that group.
The average person will look at the can and they will see that Sleeman Lift contains coconut water. “That’s healthy” they will think, but it’s actually more healthy to drink water and eat well with appetite stimulant pills. They will see the words “For The Performance Focused” and they will assume that there are significant health benefits to drinking Sleeman Lift. They will not have read any studies on hydration. They have not had my privilege to be able to talk to the author of the studies who readily admits that beer with sodium added is better than regular beer but not as hydrating as other things. No, the average person will simply make the connection themselves and assume that they are being sold something that is good for them as opposed to something that contains empty calories and is both more expensive and less efficient than water. It is always better to just drink pure and soft water at home, and use a filtration system, check this site http://wholehousewaterfiltrationsystem.com/alkaline-water/ to look for the best water filtration services.
That’s what Sleeman is banking on. That you will assume that beer, which has never before in human history been considered a health beverage, has suddenly been made healthy. It hasn’t. It has simply been made very slightly less detrimental. Hell, the media is jumping to those conclusions for you. Look at this report on CHCH Hamilton.
This makes me very, very angry. I don’t like to see the public exploited with implication and I don’t like seeing scientific illiteracy being taken advantage of. I cannot do anything about Anti-Vaxxers or Dr. Oz or The Food Babe. Beer, though? That’s where I’m a Viking. That’s why for the first time in my five years of writing about beer professionally, I am formally complaining to the AGCO in order to have this snake oil removed from shelves.
You see, the AGCO’s advertising guidelines state the following:
Except for public service advertising, the holder of a licence to sell liquor or a manufacturer of liquor may advertise or promote liquor or the availability of liquor only if the advertising: (3) does not imply that consumption of liquor is required in obtaining or enhancing: (a) social, professional or personal success, (b) athletic prowess, (c) sexual prowess, opportunity or appeal, (d) enjoyment of any activity, (e) fulfilment of any goal, or (f) resolution of social, physical or personal problems.
I believe that the implication of “For The Performance Focused” probably contravenes several of those lettered subsections. If I had my way, I’d have every single can recalled and destroyed.
P.S. Thank you for the Fitbit Flex.
Though I agree with your thoughts dont most beer commercials contravene the Alcohol commission s guidelines? Not sure d ever try a beer that promores this. I cycle and run play hockey and I drink beer after all. Its simply a pleasure spect for me. Im smart enough to know that beer may make me smarter ( cue Cliff Clavin) but sure as hell doesn’t help my athletic prowess.
A fair point. The question, I guess, is “can we reasonably assume that no one will believe that this is performance enhancing.” I believe the answer is no. Let us see what the AGCO thinks.
I had a can today and my performance is maximized as hell. That last line was cold, man. You forgot to mention that the beer tastes like poop.
Beer has been considered a healthful beverage for most of its long history. That’s not ‘snake oil’. It is an essential part of a healthy, daily diet for me. My doctors support my approach. I understand your point about Sleeman and the AGCO guidelines (and Advertising Standards) but ignoring the historical and current nutritional value of beer denies reality.
.
In moderation, it can certainly be part of a healthy lifestyle. That I’ll give you. In order to be a hydrating beverage in a post workout setting, you would have to drink something like two liters of beer. That’s not moderate by any medical reckoning.
Remember – we only apply general statements about the goodness of beer. Any specific observations tend to undermine them so best to avoid them.
While funny, I’m not so sure this really needed to be written.. If you’re drinking a bunch of beer thinking its going to hydrate you or help with recovery (a beer after a ride or something is one thing….), you’re not the sharpest crayon in the box and their dumbass marketing will probably get you anyways.
Ah, well. The question I guess is whether I feel I have some obligation to keep the sheep from getting fleeced. I’d rather do something about it than nothing.
Haha yea I saw that in an earlier comment after I posted. Valiant effort, but not sure you’re going to have much luck with that, they’re called sheep for a reason 😉
I would have never heard of this abomination if you hadn’t posted about it.
Very much agree with this though: “I am formally complaining to the AGCO in order to have this snake oil removed from shelves.”
Just for the benefit of the readership, I should point out that Dustin Cook, who I’m replying to here, is a member of the Canadian Alpine Ski Team. If an actual athlete thinks it’s bunk, that’s good enough for me.
AGCO gets the call first thing Monday.
Haha, I’m no scientist but this is a garbage marketing gimmick, pure and simple.
That being said I am all about having a (good/craft) beer or two after a good ride or any sort of outdoor activity. After a gym session… not so much.
But what about ‘when served with pretzels’?.. as in a cereal which can provide so much benefit when ‘served with milk’? Someone’s missing the nutritional boat here.
Actually, Desbrow is working on food and drink and metabolism. It’s all useful research, and it’s a shame to see it co-opted in this way.
My basic understanding is that your metabolism chooses ethanol over water and that’s why it’s important to drink lots of water after the game before going for beers. I also seem to recall that drinking lots of ethanol when you are dehydrated can lead to brain damage. Either way this product is a terrible idea. I believe in social darwinism to some extent but I also believe in seatbelt laws, restricting tobacco sales to minors, and advertising regulations, if only so society doesn’t have to pay for long term medical for its less astute.
I cannot believe this product is legal.
I understand your beef with the beer and Dr. Oz but what about “the food babe” do you dislike? She promotes eating raw and non-processed foods. We need more people like her. I’m sick of parents buying their children Bear Paws because it’s peanut free even though it’s full of chemicals, preservatives, msg, gmo’s, etc.
Mostly because she frequently doesn’t understand the science that she’s condemning. Also, she jumps to conclusions ridiculously. She wrote a piece about beer where she asserted that breweries use a product called Castoreum to produce raspberry flavour. Castoreum is harvested from the anal glands of beavers. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but would you rather use a chemically manufactured artificial raspberry flavour or flense a beaver’s butthole? She makes this sort of unsupported assertion all the time. The result of it is that instead of understanding the science which we live with and might actually have detrimental results, people develop an unhealthy distrust of anything with “science” attached to it.
She’s profiting from turning people off the scientific method by using buzzwords to cause knee jerk reactions. She should be razed from the face of the web.
Wow, I just laughed a little too loud when I read your response. 🙂
I hear what you’re saying now. That “beaver butthole” you speak of is also present in anything with “natural vanilla flavor”. That’s why I like to stick to beers or dessert actually made with vanilla beans.
Ok. Here’s the point: It isn’t. Natural Vanilla Flavor might actually be Vanilla Beans. You’ve perfectly illustrated the problem with the Food Babe. Her readership are credulous and incurious. I know of not a single vanilla flavoured beer in the world that doesn’t actually use vanilla beans or extract for flavouring. The use of castoreum is so rare at this point that it might as well not be part of the discussion. The hint, really, should be that it’s mostly used in perfume and is way too expensive to use in beer.
But that hasn’t stopped you from making the assumption that people are using it. Think about it for a moment: If it were actually happening, wouldn’t there be an outcry from PETA about the poor widdle beavers gettin’ the stank glands juiced out of their collective tucheses? How many beavers you gotta milk for that? Where’s the castoreum factory where a man puts on a rubber glove and spends his day palpating aquatic woodland mammals in their no no hole?
It doesn’t happen. I’m not saying it didn’t used to.
The thing is this: It sounds so nasty that she includes it to make you think people are trying to trick you into licking the rectum of a giant rodent. Her audience, however, now turns to her to see what is ok to consume and the product endorsements she gets out of that make her millions. It’s pure evil.
Whoa, calm down. I was referring to dessert makers using that gland for flavor. Maybe I’m wrong but I’ve read it from multiple sources. (No link at the moment)
Also, I’m not not one of her followers. I just defended the way she promotes healthy eating..
It’s cool. I mostly just wanted to say “no no hole”
Wow, I have been predicting “vitamin” beer for a while now…but to see the industry go in that direction makes me want to cry a little even if it’s a crappy brewery like Sleemans
They had vitamin beers in the 60’s. They flamed out on their own. If I can help that darwinism along, I’m happy to.
Pingback: What's Up Wednesdays: Two Is Better Than One - Beyond the Rhetoric
While I may not be an expert or really care about the beer, the author’s insistence that beer has never been a healthy beverage in all of human history is wrong. The whole origin of beer is based on it being a healthy alternative to actual drinking water. In previous centuries, drinking water was disgusting and killed people regularly; producing beer actually allowed for fluids to be more sterilized, granted it was of a lower alcohol %. I guess I’m just saying we probably should give beer more credit than that, because there is a good chance it’s a big part of the reason our ancestors didn’t all die of the plague.
You’re certainly correct in that you are not an expert. The “whole origin” of beer probably predates civilization. “Drinking water” is an incredibly broad category that would, I assume, include rain water and spring water? Right. Those were fine. The water that the people from the next village up peed in was certainly contaminated and that did require boiling. However, you seem to be of the opinion that all water was bad prior to a certain date. Also, I think you underestimate humanity somewhat if you think they thought beer was somehow magic. I’m pretty sure they had boiling as a technique down before the renaissance. Also, the plague, by which I’m assuming you mean “The Black Plague” isn’t a water borne illness. It’s transmitted by fleas (usually carried by rats) and has nothing to do with water except that some of the rats probably came to Europe in the holds of ships.
That’s not to say that beer, at some point in the past, probably before the renaissance, wasn’t a better option than drinking water from a fetid stream. It still is. It is the equivalent of suggesting that a McDonald’s Super Sized value combo is preferable to starvation. It might well be in extreme circumstances, but that doesn’t mean a doctor is going to suggest replacing your entire diet with it.