Do an online search under the benefits of beer and you'll be inundated with, well, the benefits of beer. Yes. Beer actually has benefits. Some of these are cancer prevention, protecting your heart, increased bone density, controlling diabetes and more besides. Pretty cool stuff. But. Said statements are always pre-empted with "moderate amounts" which pretty much seems to be two beers per day at least, that's what the netspurts say and how many I have daily on average. One point that needs to be made here though is simply what's moderate for one may not be for another.
Now.
Before you accuse me of trying to justify a large beer intake (something I have been guilty of in the past and, lord willing, will be again) the truth is that individuals can and do respond differently to the same stimulus. The reason individuals do so is because, um, we're different, which is why we're called "individuals" to begin with. Yep, you read it here first. Sorry if this sounds patronizing but you'd be amazed how incredibly stupid some people are. Anyway, some individuals can have two beers a day and reap the benefits. Or have 1-4 beers a day and reap the benefits.
Some can't.
Likewise, some people can have no alcohol whatsoever and reap the benefits.
Which incidentally, our online fitness gurus expound: no alcohol. Nada. Nyet. Nein. Alcohol is painted as an omnipresent evil in every work-out space across the planet, the penultimate destroyer of human health. Yes, it is true: if there's alcohol in your system, the liver switches from breaking down body fat to ridding the body of alcohol first. Thus alcohol isn't a fat creator inasmuch as an inhibitor i.e. it inhibits the liver from breaking down fats because said liver is ridding the body of alcohol.
It's busy doing other shit.
...with me so far?
So based on this premise, heavy beer drinkers should all be over-weight. Right?
Question one: how much alcohol is needed for this inhibiting effect to actually occur? Y'know, for yours and my liver to "switch over" from cleaning out fats to ridding the body of alcohol? It has to be more than the two beers recommended by netspurts because the two beer standard has proven benefits for bodily health. So what is it: three beers? Three and a half? Or is it five or six beers? Is ten beers the tipping point? Well gosh darn it, no-one seems to know.
Now, taking my earlier statement of our individuality into account, if we don't know how much beer is needed to switch the liver from fat-fighting to alcohol-fighting, then we certainly don't know how much is needed between individuals. A 200+ pound male whose 6"3 may well have a totally different response to beer amounts than a 165-pound male whose 5"9 in fact, I'd say this is highly likely. Whilst it would be neat to have an average amount for an average male physique, you'd still have to take into account individual metabolism, recovery and response.
Which we can't. It's simply too difficult and there's too many variables.
Question two: does this switch over occur the same way for everyone? Or is it in fact different for each of us? I tend towards the latter without any evidence but I don't think this assumption illogical: different people respond to the same stimulus differently. We all know this. Throw in a range of variables such as age, gender, height, weight, build, ethnicity, strength levels, genetic make-up, cardiovascular health etcetera and not only will you find different responses to the same amount of beer but different activations of the liver.
How long is it before the liver switches back to its original cleaning purpose? And does it switch back the same way for everyone as well? Does it even switch back within the same time period? Will the liver of an athlete clean faster, better, quicker and get back on point faster, better, quicker than a desk bound slob who does zero exercise and eats shit? Or is it the strongest who have better liver functions? Is there enough hard evidence to strongly support -- not suggest -- this is the case? Any of it?
...for the record no, there isn't.
Question three: is there a limit to how many variables we should consider before prescribing a definite, uniform amount of beer per person? I guess this is really the crux of the matter, isn't it? The variables. When considering a range of possible variables you'd also have to take into account different nutrition, surely -- differences between a fatty, clean, organic, keto, vegetarian, Western, Eastern or Mediterranean diet. Differences in the amount of food eaten. Differences in what said meals are accompanied with or how they're prepared.
I've seen zero scientific research on the above variables yet plenty of reputable online sites, trainers and authors still keep repeating alcohol kills gains, alcohol kills gains over and over. I actually wonder sometimes if they all just copy each other but guess what? Too much exercise kills gains. Worse, fit and healthy people have strokes, cardiac arrests and heart attacks every day. So. Having set the groundwork I'd like to share my own experiences past and present regarding alcohol and gains.
Tell you what...
...you decide what you want to take away from this.
MY PAST EXPERIENCE
When I was a young adult I drank every day, got drunk as often as I could, had terrible hang-overs where I swore off the stuff before repeating the whole thing verbatim the following weekend. I did this for 10+ years and put on zero body fat . I did this for 10+ years and put on zero body fat. And one more time for the incredibly stupid: I did this for 10+ years and put on zero body fat. But you know what? I did this for 10+ years and put on zero body fat. To which people say, "Oh, but you were young then. Everyone's like that when they're young."
Really? I wouldn't know. I'm just sharing my past experience. Maybe heaps of young people drank like I did and actually did put on fat, I still wouldn't know. What I do know is these people are bringing in a variable without knowing it, and that's the variable of age. Has any of the research I've seen regarding beer, working out and the liver switching between fat-fighting and alcohol-fighting taken the variable of age into consideration? That'll be a no, kemosabe.
If I'm working out now and drinking less beer than in my youth then why is my midsection worse compared to back then? Shouldn't I have looked worse as a younger version of myself who never worked out, hardly ever exercised, drank like a fish, ate takeaways and shit for years, smoked like a train, partied hard and had erratic sleeping patterns if in fact I even had a sleeping pattern to begin with? You'd assume so. To which people say, "Oh, but you had a faster metabolism back then. We could all eat and drink anything we liked without gaining weight."
This introduces yet another variable: metabolism i.e. the speed with which we digest whatever we've eaten or drunk. So. Has any of the research I've seen regarding beer, working out and the liver switching between fat-fighting and alcohol-fighting taken the variable of metabolism into consideration? That'll also be a no, kemosabe. But based on past personal experience I can irrefutably state that enormous amounts of beer (you can add wine and spirits to the list too, by the way) resulted in zero weight increases for me as a younger man. Take what you will from that.
MY CURRENT EXPERIENCE
Now as we age we fucking wilt. Joints stiffen as ligaments and tendons become less flexible. We experience an exponential decrease in muscle apparently. Testosterone levels reduce. Cells and organs age. Strength tapers off. Bones lose density. Skin loses elasticity and sags. Fat for men redistributes in the abdomen and hips y'know, all the good stuff -- I'm certainly not as flat across my stomach as I used to be. I even have love handles now.
So. Is my waistline today a direct result of beer drinking? Can I honestly say my alcohol consumption is inhibiting my liver from its primary function and thus body-fat is being stored rather than burnt? Well, here's the truth: I've no fucking idea but off the top of my head I'd say no. The evidence for this is my belt: it either goes in a notch, out a notch, or stays the same and y'know what? Over the last 20+ years it's never gone more than a notch either way.
What I do notice is my metabolism has slowed. I can't eat the same proportions I used to and had to relearn to eat till full and leave it there; what can I say, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But I usually have 2-3 beers a day. Some days I have none, some days I have five. Some weekends I don't have any beer, some weekends I have nearly a dozen and again, zero fat gains. Belt is the same, weight on the scales is the same, we are good here. Take what you will from that.
:: CONCLUSION
So in conclusion, I personally believe you can drink far more than the netspurts state yet still gain muscle. If you've read this far you'll know why I say this. However the liver switches to removing alcohol from the human body and however long that action takes (for any given individual) before it switches back, whatever fat increases may occur during said time are minimal to minor, if not practically non-existent in my humble opinion. I think the whole thing has been blown the fuck out of proportion by do-gooders, health nazis and the fitness industry. Drink beer, men. Drop the tonic water.
For hard-gainers or people looking to gain weight, I'd actually recommend drinking beer as this will introduce more calories into your daily intake (plus you look manly and get mildly buzzed). People tend not to take into account the 130+ calories one beer contains. Just don't go overboard. No-one needs to get drunk everyday let alone every week. If you're still doing that at our age you need to see a shrink -- I'm lucky if I get drunk once or twice a year. The only exception to this would be your doctor's advice (get that second opinion!) and I'd want to see the research personally if it were me because life, dear friends, is for living. Kia ora whanau.