Talk:Small beer

definition

I have cleaned this up a bit - small beer isnt under 1% alcohol for example, and the fact that it is not produced in the US is non-notable. Not sure that the sorghum beer is relevant either - dont think it is a small beer at all. This should be a historical article. Justinc 18:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I have removed it. Jooler 10:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Alcohol content

Hi folks, it would be interesting to know what the typical alcohol content of small beer was, though. Adetaylor 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Any one have any info on this? --173.79.190.48 (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The source for the claim that medieval table beer was typically under 1% ABV is pretty weak - a blog-post on bonappetit with no source for its own claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.73.133 (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

small beer wasnt used because of unsafe water. it was widely drank because beer has a high caloric content (think in the realm of gatorade/energy drink) and because everybody was an alcoholic 97.120.235.10 (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Origins

The article says that it was drunk in mediaeval times in Europe but it doesn't say why. Surely the primary reason is that it was safer to drink than water, by virtue of its having been boiled as part of the brewing process, though that was not appreciated at the time, of course. 92.40.170.109 (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Done something - I think it was "appreciated at the time" in fact. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

- Can something on the association between small beer consumption and genetic variation be included? I'm aware of the argument that populations in Western Societies were selected for greater genetic tolerance to alcohol, including for genes which processed alcohol more swiftly, than populations in Eastern Societies, and that this was attributed to Western Societies using fermentation (small beer) to make water safe to drink, whereas Eastern Societies used boiling alone (in the form of tea) to produce drinkable water. It would be good to include both the evidence for and against this hypothesis; if the brewing process involved boiling this may complicate the argument somewhat, though I would imagine it would typically not be drunk soon after boiling, and so the antimicrobial properties of alcohol may still be a part of it.

- I removed the two blogs (seriously, blogs should not be cited) arguing for either position. I would also add a bit of original research here in that the antimicrobial properties of alcohol are irrelevant at the 2% we're talking about. It would primarily be the filtration and boiling of water that would help. For the most part, water would be fine to drink throughout history, but whenever you see outbreaks of disease (especially in larger cities), there should be noticeably less disease among the population that more regularly drinks beer than water from public sources. I'm going to look for actual research to cite (rather than blog posts), since as I recall from public health courses that this was a very real driver in investigating water-borne illness back in the 1800s, so it's not just a myth as the other blogpost claimed. For example, see this wiki article for properly cited research indicating that people did, slowly, come to understand that water could have illnesses and that boiling (such as when making beer) could resolve this issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_water_supply_and_sanitation#Understanding_of_health_aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.200.125 (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Imperial pints

Workers did not drink ten imperial pints of anything during the Middle Ages, as asserted by the article. The imperial pint was not introduced until 1824. They may have drunk ten English pints, or an amount equal to ten imperial pints, but they cannot have drunk any imperial pints (nor any liters) per se. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)