I think the serving size probably is the answer too. I guess if I drank the same volume of whiskey that quickly, I’d get sick before I could get really drunk. Some of the effect may just be a product of my tipsy imagination.
Uh, isn’t that self-evident? Along the same lines, I’ve found that the inexpensive suits are the cheapest to wear.
Yeah, no kidding. I can get 750ml of Congress Vodka for 5.99, so if you can handle doing shots, it is far cheaper than wine per unit of alcohol. (40% to your 12-14%).
When I asked a similar question recently, I was informed that it has a lot to do with your sphincter. No, not that one…the one leading from your stomach to your intestines. Seems it reacts differently to varying levels of alcohol. So if you sip hard liquor all night, it will get into your bloodstream slower than chugging a few beers or drinking a few glasses of wine. When my search comes up with the post, I’ll add it to this one.
Ah, here it is.
This is an interesting point, in addition to the serving size irregularities. Hard alcohol triggers a physical gag reflex in most people when consumed too quickly, I would say that the alcohol I find most easy to pace is whiskey (rocks), because the strength of the taste keeps me aware of the fact that I am drinking alcohol.
Wine can be drunk in larger volumes because it is low enough in alcohol content to keep from triggering the gag reflex, which makes it like beer in this regard. But beer is carbonated, and that tends to help you feel fuller and moderate your pace. Wine can easily be lost track of, because it is very easy to drink a lot of it.
I have devoted much study to this topic.
That’s a very valid point. I tend to drink beer very slowly because I had weight loss surgery, and any carbonated beverage fills me up pretty quickly. Wine, OTOH, I can drink pretty quickly.
It looks like it (the carbonation) sure does help you absorb the alcohol you do drink, according to the linked post. So maybe the beer drank hits your bloodstream faster, but you’re drinking less because of the bloat-factor.
Wine is the perfect storm of drinks.
I know this is very true for me. I can basically pour a glass of wine down my throat near the end of the night. Probably as much as a shot, but a lot easier.
No.
You may be surprised at how ignorant some people are about the alcohol content of things. Wine, whiskey, beer. Some people have no idea the ounce per ounce differences. They might know there is a difference, but have no idea as to exactly what that difference is.
My biggest chuckle is seeing folks who intend on getting drunk, then drink beer. Or dumber yet, then drink light beer!:p:rolleyes::smack:
Wine gets me wasted and I’m a heavy guy. I can drink 12 beers and only be buzzing, but 3 glasses of wine and I’m falling over laughing.
But what kind of beer, and what kind of wine?
Okay, lemme put it to you this way:
Immediately after a large meal, I can drink three beers or malt lemonades and get pretty buzzed, subjectively speaking. This is with Mike’s Hard Lemonade, 11.2oz bottles of 5.2% alcohol.
Immediately after a large meal, I can drink around 5-7 shots of Jack Daniels before I really get a noticable buzz.
What gives?
Coors light / White Zin
Zeriel, How fast are you drinking the shots?
There is your answer. Coors light has only 4.2% alcohol. Thats about 20% less alcohol than most regular beer. White Zin, depending on brand can have 12% alcohol. Also, it takes longer to drink that many beers. By the time you get to number 12 numbers 1-4 may already be processed out of your bloodstream (depending on how long it takes you to dring that many).
Trying to get drunk on light beer is a waste of money. The way beer is made light is by reducing the main calorie contributor: alcohol. And that’s usually done by adding carbornated water to a batch of regular beer (hence the watered down taste of light beer. It IS watered down!). Drinking a 4% light beer instead of it’s 5% regular version means one has to drink at least 20% more beer to get the same buzz. Actually you’ll probably have to drink more, what with the added water and time it will take to drink that extra beer.
Not to knock what you like, but I always found Coors Light like making love in a canoe.
Related to the earlier point of volume, if you run the conversions you’ll realize that 12 fl oz of wine is half a standard 750 ml bottle. Down two glasses of wine poured at that volume and you’ve drunk an entire bottle by yourself. Assuming red wine at 16% alcohol, that’s about 120 ml of alcohol, the equivalent of 10 shots of 40% (80 proof) distilled liquor, which is roughly standard for Vodka, Whiskey, etc. Who wouldn’t get drunk from doing 10 shots in, say, one hour?
Even assuming a lighter pour, at 8 or 9 fl oz, you’re still drinking a full bottle in three glasses or so, and wine is pretty easy to drink, not having either the perceptible “kick” of high-alcohol shots or the volume and carbonation of beer. Most people could probably finish a glass or even two of the generously poured wine in an hour without thinking too much about it.
Go through 3 of those 12 oz whoppers in two hours and you’ve just done 15 shots. That’s the kind of prodigious drinking that I would have bragged about in my younger days, even if it was spread over the course of 3 or 4 hours. But yet, having a few glasses of wine at nice dinner with friends isn’t perceived the same way as a shot-fest. Sure, I’m glossing over absorption and other factors in concentrating on pure alcohol volume, but the point still stands that you’re probably drinking a LOT of alcohol in a relatively short time without realizing it.
True enough, I suppose, but 16% is a little high for most fine wines. 9-12% is the average. Once you get past 13 you’re into the “Bum Wine” catagory (Mad Dog, Wild Irish Rose, etc…) I can’t imagine anyone drinking those except to get drunk.
I think you are exaggerating.I did a quick survey of the wines in my house. Mostly reads at about 14% to 15% and a few whites as low as 12.5% but most whites were about 13.5% some up to 14.8%.
I also did a quick measurement of my wine glasses. I have a set of what I think of as fairly standard red wine glasses. Filling them 1/2 way to the top was 6 oz. I would point out that I really only fill them 1/3 of the way up.
I’d say more like 8-15% is average. I would most definitely NOT consider any wine as falling into the bum wine category based on abv alone. It’s a ridiculous notion. I wouldn’t even use it as a general rule. You must not be a big zinfandel drinker. 
And in the table wine category (in the US) - 7% to 14% abv, there is a 1.5% tolerance level for labels. So your wine has a label on it stating 12.5% abv, it could have 14% abv, it could have 11% abv, or anywhere in between. And short of analysis, you have no way of knowing.
Who would’ve known that Stag’s Leap 2003 Cask 23 Estate Cabernet Sauvignon, at 14.2% alcohol was “bum wine”. Same with the 2004 Duckhorn Estate Cab, at 14.5%. Guess I’ll just pour my bottles down the drain.