In this thread about iron supplements I pointed out that Guinness really doesn’t contain very much iron (about as much as a quarter of a boiled egg, say, or one-fourteenth as much as a bowl of popular breakfast cereal). Champagne contains more iron than Guinness (although you probably wouldn’t drink it by the pint).
So what I want to know is, where did this myth come from? Everyone “knows” that Guinness has lots of iron, they used to dish it out in hospitals or after blood transfusions or whatever, but the facts just don’t back it up.
Is it just the power of those “Guinness is good for you” ads? Or was there some kind of screw-up like the misplaced decimal point that gave spinach its mysterious powers?
It could all be down to 1930s advertisements like these showing a man hefting a steel girder and felling a large tree, after drinking Guinness.
The myth is prevalent throughout the world, and all over the Internet, despite studies showing the iron content in Guinness isn’t markedly different from that of other drinks.
Was just coming in to post “Guinness is good for you”.
For what it’s worth my mothers doctor reccommended her to drink a glass of Guinness a week when pregnant with my brother, and that was less than 20 years ago.
While there is a wide variety of stouts available nowadays, there were a lot less before, and Guinness is a lot more “foody” (more calories and more carbs) than regular beer.
Guiness doesn’t actually have any more calories than your “regular” beer. I’m assuming by regular, you mean macro. It also doesn’t have any more alcohol (it has around 4.5% by vol., if I recall) than “regular” beer. This has been another myth that always bugged me. Guiness seems thicker because the carbonation is different, and people assume thicker = more calories/carbs = more alcohol. All my info is from a calorie book that lists nutritional contents of most beers and liqours. The following site also lists calorie and alcohol content info for a lot of popular beers.
For what it’s worth, when I was in Ireland a year ago, the “Guiness for strength” ads (the same ones as shown in Ice Wolf’s link) were all over the place. So it’s not just 1930s advertisements. And I can see a very natural (if incorrect) connection between “strength” and “iron”. Of course, there’s no (real) particular connection between Guiness and strength, either, but since when did that ever stop an advertiser?
Yes they are just historical posters. Those posters have been re-issued for purely collectible reasons. They are not part of any current Guinness advertising campaign (at least in the UK or Ireland). I have several on my living room wall actually.
Thanks for the input, folks. Iteki, it’s interesting that that table is on the Foster’s site, like there saying “Hey, look, our beer is basically just yellow water!”
I reckon it came from the fact that traditionally the Irish were poor and underfed. Eggs and whatnot were expensive and any iron that you could get would be considered good for you. Guinness was also expensive, but being a practical people, we spent the money where it was needed most - drink.
Have I been labouring under the mis-apprehension that Guiness is good for you? It actually constitutes lunch for me (2 if i’m very peckish) and is so much easier than chewing.