MarcoSciFor

It's a good point. Hence why it is an interesting experiment, particularly if more than one were to carry it out. Particularly people who are taking a rational perspective (as we did all those years ago). But on that point....would a high dose of sugar, have no reaction? There has been much debate over 'sugar buzz', particularly relating to children. Has that been confirmed as real? If so, could there be a combined effect? http://www.yalescientific.org/2010/09/mythbusters-does-sugar-really-make-children-hyper/ If this is the case, there might be reason to look at how the boost of adrenaline acts in concert with the alcohol. However, the reasons why...... need only be asked, if the Spanish method is reproducible. Ie. The objective being intoxication - a definite sense of effect, far greater than if the wine had been consumed pure. If intoxication occurs, I believe that it would be a mistake to immediately put it down to psychosomatic behaviour. The reason being that this is a 'catch all' that could mask the actual cause. Overall, I don't think that it would be good practice to limit investigation of cause and effect. Probably the best solution would be to have a group test, where half are given the same wine of the previous night, and no conversation is allowed, regarding the taste, nor grimaces re the gopping nature of the syrup. However, it then begins to become less of a preliminary, easy to arrange test, and more of a halfway house, that is fairly complex to arrange, whilst still not being rigorous. Hence the reason why I personally believe that testing, as per the original method, is not without merit. It's easy to accomplish, and provides just cause for more detailed examination. Obviously this isn't written in stone, but as there is a prevalence of scepticism surrounding the actual efficacy of the Spanish method...... a quick and easy test, may raise eyebrows. Not only that...... but don't you find it intriguing, that the Spaniards could perpetually trick themselves like this, and know (to the point of laughing at us, when we were laughing at them) that we would become intoxicated, regardless of our scepticism. That alone is worthy of investigation. Note: There were three of us...... all disbelievers. At a certain point...... and it was pretty quick (but I honestly can't say definitively how long it was), and it was after only two glasses of wine (that much I remember - and that it was effectively nothing for us)..... yet we all agreed that we were feeling the effect..... like, somebody said "I don't know about you, but I'm feeling pissed"; and we all agreed. If that is mass psychosis, then Wow! .

Sorry.... I don't understand. For an initial test, I suggested taking blood alcohol readings before and after. The drinking time was 5 minutes, and the measuring time was 10 minutes. Obviously further testing could be done. I also suggested a standard repeatable meal, and the time frame. There is only so much that one can do outside of a laboratory...... and then...... do you have the appropriate kit. The fundamental, is as StringJunky stated. The presence of sugar should delay alcohol absorption. According to current theory..... this would definitely delay any sense of intoxication. Having already determined a sufficient mild dosage.... any marginal effect from the pure wine, would be suppressed completely, due to the added sugar. There should be no doubt about this. With the utmost maximum of sugar, the participant should remain stone cold sober, at least for the ten minute duration....... and onwards, as one would expect a slow feed. However, the Spanish method, delivers the exact opposite. The BAC will be interesting, but it may, or may not explain the intoxication. If an intoxicating effect is experienced.... the question will be why? (and nobody will be interested in airy-fairy answers). If the BAC test eliminates alcohol..... then what? So the primary objective, is to establish if intoxication occurs. If it does, then there will be reason enough for more rigorous testing. Hence why the test can be done outside of a laboratory. It's the utter polarisation of predicted results that makes this (trivial) experiment interesting (and possible). In this way, questions can be raised.... and others, better equipped might look at finding out what is actually happening.

Vis a vis the last two responses..... @ John - this may be the case, so fair point made (see solution to the question) @ iNow - it's a similar case, however I disagree with the next suggested step (see solution to the question). We are now looking at a previous study...... Which, I might add, if correct,..... would have ensured that the effects of the alcohol would have been substantially delayed. This in fact changes everything, because we are no longer in the dark. We have two definitively opposite results....... the perfect scenario. We are NOT setting out to disprove the results of a study...... but likewise, we surely must use the results of the study as part of the parameters of any experiment. In effect, we were not only ardent disbelievers of the Spanish method method, but this position of disbelief must surely be reinforced by the study results, A double whammy you might say. We disbelieve the method, AND we now believe that the effects of imbibing the alcohol should be delayed, to a substantial degree (due to the presence of sugar). In effect.... not only should the Spanish method have failed to produce an intoxicating effect...... but it should have failed miserably (delayed or non-existent) Also, don't forget, I had no idea of this study when I posted this thread. I discovered it just today. This study makes the historical results, all the more interesting. According to it, we should have been able to drink the weak wine easy peasy, and not feel the effects until much later, or not at all. This then should create the conditions for an easy and enjoyable experiment...... hence: Solution to the question This is a test that is so simple to carry out........ you can do it for yourselves. As utter disbelievers (like we were) there should be no problems with expectations. Primarily the prediction is that there will be a significant quick result, or a significant delay - vis a vis intoxication. This tolerance of extremes will help eliminate non-lab conditions..... to the extent that in the future, lab testing would be considered worthwhile. The Experiment (please contribute) Understanding the setup. If you are going to do the tests with friends....... a big fat lad, and a slim lass, are going to need different quantities of wine. So make a decision on how big the test will be. Let's face it..... if you are a regular wine drinker of a certain type....... you'll know what two glasses feel like, and you can just do the test. But in all other cases, and to gain better test results, you may need to carry out the tests over two/three nights. Basic Procedure The test is primarily subjective, to test personal intoxication...... but blood alcohol level testing (if kit available) might help explain the results (or mystify). Food Nothing overly heavy but a bit fatty...... a big burger or a sardine sandwich Duration to test after eating 1 hour The Wine The original method called for weak wine.... let's say 11%. This is very hard to find now. Does it matter? I think that the key is using the same wine...... and it should be a dry red wine. Probably you can find wine at 12%. but either way, the first test should establish a marginal effect regardless of alcoholic content. If test is complex: Measure weight. Test blood alcohol level. If test is simple (control) Drink approximately two glasses of the chosen wine in 5 minutes...... enough to make you just feel the effect, but nothing more. If you feel overly drunk, then abort, and re-test the next day, using a smaller dose. Assuming you have found the correct dose: Drink the appropriate measured dose...... in five minutes. Note how you feel up to 10 minutes - 5 minutes after drinking. Note physiological signs. Note blood alcohol level at 10 minutes (if test is complex) 2nd Test - sugar laced Next night, same meal, same time differential, same wine. This time, add sugar to create a supersaturated solution. In the original method granular sugar was used. I would propose using icing sugar. It is already ground, therefore easier to achieve a fully saturated solution. Grind sufficient sugar in wine to enable decanting, to gain the originally used quantity, with a non-dissolvable sugar residue remaining. If kit is available, measure blood alcohol level, and decant, and drink the same dose in five minutes, and repeat the tests. Results If the published study is correct...... any original mild sense of intoxication should be gone....... the sugar should have delayed the absorption. If the Spaniards are correct...... you will feel a sense of intoxication, and the cheeks will begin to glow. The predicted results are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Therefore you should be able to judge between the two. Any increased sense of intoxication - indicates a positive sugar effect Any decreased sense of intoxication - indicates a negative sugar effect Summary If you drink the same wine every day.... then you can complete this test in a single night. If you judge the dose correctly the first night, to establish the control, then it will take two nights. If you fail to judge the dose the first time, then it will take you three nights. Remember, the different conclusions are at opposite ends of the spectrum..... so don't get too hung up...... only lab testing will produce a definitively acceptable result. Similarly if you do not have access to a digital alcohol meter....... blood alcohol level is very interesting..... but it wont tell us if you feel intoxicated. Psychology vis a vis test subjects.... personally I'd suggest saying that "we are looking to see if intoxication is increased, or reduced". Wrap Given the difference between the Spanish result, and the Study result....... I think that the above experiment should provide enough guidance to suggest a lab test would be worthwhile. Any comments, improvements, or total re-design? Regardless of the above experiment. Dr. Cecile has responded, and is happy to have her comments posted. She has also copied her responses to her lab, so that they are up to date. Therefore, everybody is aware of what we are discussing here (links to this discussion were included). She was primarily concerned about the possibility of inclusion of sugar, creating an alco-pop effect, that might increase consumption, and the speed of consumption. I hadn't initially made it clear about the era, so I was able to discount this to her vis a vis the gopping nature of the sweetened wine, to our 'bitter' accustomed taste buds. The second point she raised, matched some of those posting on this thread...... that of expectancy...... the thought that a particular trick would work, can produce the desired effect. Again, I was able to state that we were complete disbelievers, to the point of laughing at the Spaniards efforts (until we'd had a couple of glasses). Anyway, in our last communication, the final comment was that this was 'thought-provoking'. (Thank you Cecile for that ) So there we have it. Cecile has got a lab, set up for testing alcohol in humans. There's no point in me repeating the test alone. Obv, I've got the wine...... and it's my vin de table..... so I can do the test in a day. (and I've got some icing sugar ) Does anybody else fancy running the above experiment? Now is the time. Seize the moment, and all that. Post here, and I'll run the experiment alongside you. Note..... I've never repeated the experiment. I don't have a digital alcohol reader, just a 'blow job' which doesn't cut the mustard. So for me, it would be once again, subjective. However, with the quantity of wine at my disposal, I'm sure that I can drag in a few willing subjects. I recognise the fact that wine is likely to be expensive everywhere except here....... but surely everybody can chip in for science Post if you're game.

Thanks for the response.... but the statement of checkmate was primary. The rest was pointing out the difficulty of meeting the requirements. Don't think for one minute I don't understand your position.

It's a requirement in this community, one to which you agreed when registering your account. Checkmate. Ensure your premises are grounded in reality and supported by evidence. It's not difficult, and you're not being singled out. Grounded in reality.... I don't think that was a problem. supported by evidence. It's not difficult, I have no chance of supporting this by clinical evidence, so it was not just difficult...... it was impossible. However, I guess that everyone reading this thread, and read my contribution, is aware that they do not see the vast majority of people taking tea with spinning sugar crystals. The Sudan/Egypt element is a bit harder. Google 'sugar in tea in Sudan' and you'll get a whole list of tea articles. here's one...... the crap thing is that it's just anecdotal http://www.tomokogoto.com/blog/sudanese-tea-culture-and-tea-ladies/ Bizarrely, searching for sugar in tea in the uk, produces no sensible results!!! http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/0/22026753 Apparently Who are they? You appear to be using a nonstandard definition, one that is different from most others here and in the literature. Perhaps this is part of the problem. This was the top result, and it happens to match my premise....... is this fair enough? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/addiction Citation needed. Sadly none available, I just guess we've all noticed that the paper wrapped sugar on the saucer, is now smaller than it used to be. However, do bear in mind that I was leaving a 'parting shot'. It wasn't part of my argument..... it was just another brick in the wall. The primary point was that people, certainly in France and the UK do not use 6 or 7 spoons of sugar in their beverages. But no citation I'm afraid. So no matter how true the statement is.... we must exclude this from the discussion. Overall: Obviously I understand the need for hard data. However, if I say "There are no zombies in existence a la Walking Dead"....... must I really provide a Citation for this? Similarly do I really need to provide a citation to back up the claim that say people in the UK and France, do not dose their tea to the point where no more sugar will dissolve. We just know that it is the case. It would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Citations yes..... but there surely must be limits? Hmmm! Good point? or not?

Personally I feel that mentioning 'dismissive tone' is an incorrect assessment of my posts. I posted in a jocular challenging manner, not to be dismissive, but to present a confident forthright argument (as a contribution to the thread). I clearly can't refer to any study supporting my argument...... so what?..... should I not have posted this perspective? Everybody is well aware of what constitutes the principals of a scientifically sound study (but let's not go there, because we've all seen unsound scientific studies being published) So let's be clear..... I didn't post my contribution, sitting on a high horse....... and absolutely didn't post it to be dismissive (because that sounds derogatory to me). Challenging yes..... but with a friendly smile. Sorry if that came across badly - clearly my unintended fault. What do you want me to do?...... retire gracefully? Fine. But it was just a contribution to the discussion, and I still think it was well outlined. Honestly, I was expecting a far more specific challenge to the argument, perhaps explaining why cafe's now provide a smaller quantity of sugar with the coffee, than in previous times. Anecdotal ....... yes,... but that is just the reality of life. Cafe's reduced the sugar left with coffee, because people just weren't using it all (I assume). Also, some explanation as to why when somebody has the addictive substance almost freely available...... why they don't pile in? Pointing at studies of other elements of the debate, just doesn't cut it. When it comes to addiction; people surely just can't get enough....... or if they haven't got their required dose, they would get it through (any) other means eg. more spoons of sugar. Only we don't see it.

Re: cheap wines. No, sadly this is not the answer. This was the lowest grade wine, of the lowest alcohol rating. I remember specifically the moment when the boss told us we were going to pick his best grapes that would produce 13% wine. Bear in mind that wine has gone through a revolution in the last 35 years (and this was 1979). Back then, in France, each epicerie had metal cages on the floor, holding wine in flip top bottles (a plastic flatish lid). Each cage ran, 10%, 11%, 12%, 13%. With a rising price. Wine was drunk like water, so 10% and 11% were normal table wines. I can guarantee that the chateau would only be giving the weakest wine to the workers. ..... and don't forget we were drinking it, and taking full advantage of the fact that it was free. The amount we were legally entitled to was 2 litres of wine per day per person...... but we took what we wanted. Therefore, we knew how much it took to get an effect....... and this was the same crappy wine that was used for the party. 2 glasses should have just eliminated initial thirst....... but it was boom! Out of interest..... these grape varieties have now all been pulled up and replaced with smaller, sweeter berry varieties. Living in a wine producing area, I witnessed this change, in the past decade. Wine now is typically 12 - 14% (in the Corbiers) A chateau I know very well (I have done most jobs in wine production), struggles to get their wine down to 14.5%, so that they can label it as 14% (legal tolerance). The wine I buy each Friday morning costs €3.05 for 5 litres...... it is marked up as 13% The jerry can is filled to the brim, so it gives 7 bottles @ 43.5 cents per bottle. This wine bears no relationship to the watery wine of 35 years ago. So no.... it's not that. So to summarise what it isn't: Drinking the two glasses fast We were beer drinkers..... we drank faster than any French person. Also the wine was like a syrup..... as blokes, this was absolutely gopping, and not easy to drink fast (but I guess we managed ) Anticipation of a new method to get drunk We poo pooed the idea, laughing at the Spaniards (it was friendly - we worked together) So we were ardent disbelievers. High alcohol content 10 - 11% absolute max....... and we already knew the effect of 2 glasses (2 litres also ). Empty stomach Our diet never differed. It was primarily huge bread sandwiches (half a 400g flute) of canned sardines in oil, or saucisson, with tomatoes and onions, with a cold can of Ravioli. If an empty stomach was the cause...... why not the same effect every day (it was 3 weeks of work). The elephants in the room: The Spaniards knew what would happen. (and I honestly think that it is safe to assume that this methodology was part of peasant culture at that time..... though I have nothing to back that up). Physiological effects: Look at the photo. Check out how many people have got flushed cheeks (Spanish and Brits). Can these effects be attributable to anything but a genuine effect? So that's it. I've had a response back from Cecile. I just want to let her know that I intend posting her remarks (and whether she has objections). She proffered two suggestion for the contrary results, however both do not match the circumstances. I've also emailed her team of researchers (prior to receiving her response). They obviously have the lab to test this....... whether they desire to do so, we must wait and see.

I found this. It seems to directly contradict the Spanish method, and personal experience. I think I'll email Cecile, and see what she has to say. http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/01/31/170748045/why-mixing-alcohol-with-diet-soda-may-make-you-drunker So I've emailed Cecile Marczinski, Ph.D. Associate Professor She helps run the Alcohol and Energy Drink (AmED) Research Lab. I wonder if they will repeat the experiment. The results that I witnessed certainly seems to contradict the research, but something else may be happening. Something else must be happening.

No you are right..... there was too much, to read it all, vis a vis available time. But that shouldn't detract from the argument that I presented.... primarily because that argument was based around common knowledge. Clearly there are complex issues at stake here. However, I believe that the 'angle' that I took was valid to the thread, and the logic I used was solid. The argument didn't need to reference studies, because the use of sugar in beverages is something that we all see on a day to day basis, and the range of consumption was broad enough for us all to make a judgement. The fact that certain societies consume more sugar in tea, than others, is a clear indication that this is a lifestyle choice. If we compare this to alcohol consumption: while it is evident that some people can drink a small quantity.... we see with our own eyes that a good proportion of drinkers increase their drinking to the 'supersaturated level'. We just don't see this with sugar. There will surely be a small minority of people who gradually increase the sugar they add to tea........ but this is insignificant, compared to behaviour with alcohol. Therefore I believe that the argument of 'lifestyle choice' versus 'addiction' is valid. Anyway..... I thought that this perspective was a useful addition to the thread. No harm done I presume

Oh Cmon!.......... I'm not lodging this theory with 'Nature'. Are you suggesting that people have gradually migrated from a 'one spoon policy' to: supersaturated 'crystals spinning' (action of the spoon)? Let's take that as the range. Zero sugar....... to crystals spinning (a la Egypt/Sudan). How many people do you know (outside of the territory types mentioned above), that have started using a spoon of sugar, and (through implication of addiction) have moved to 'crystals spinning'? My guess is none. While that statement is entirely unscientific vis a vis standard protocols.......... we have all lived life, and drunk beverages with at least hundreds of people. So let's make it more scientific..... and eliminate all those people who we have met, that have grown up with the 'normality of spinning sugar crystals'. We are left with a pretty average bunch, because I can think of two instances of people who took 3 spoons of sugar ...... and even then.... why did they stay at only 3? Depending upon cup size obv, but you could go for another 3 spoons........ try it But how many people do you know, have gone from one spoon, to two spoons to three spoons....... to six or seven spoons of sugar?..... because that is the question. Even if you know one person..... it means nothing (sample extremes are always eliminated in a good study eh?) If most of the people you have met in your life, had progressively increased their 'direct' sugar dosage, then we'd all assume that the cause may be due to it's addictive qualities. But no......... I know you can't tell me different......... and nobody is going to say different. I think a repositioning is necessary.... and a QED should be stated.... only more text is required. .... because you could say that the 'addictive need' is satisfied by increasing the sugar intake, through other means. This avenue will always offer an avenue to challenge QED...... let's just accept that. However.... if we include cakes etc. there are too many variables....... fats, a feeling of being full, flavours. etc. Challenge away..... but these sugar sources create too much noise. While less so.... we have to be careful of fizzy drinks. So many are laced with synthesised sweeteners....... the very fact that these became successful indicate that the 'sugar addiction premise' is a non-starter (different molecules completely). Therefore, while fizzy drinks tend to confirm the statement: "sugar is not addictive"........ we can focus on the one area, where sugar consumption is within our control, and it is relevant to a large proportion of of the population of the western industrialised nations. That area is tea & coffee.... and it is entirely acceptable to put sugar in either drink. Given that sugar is addictive, and is cheap, and control of consumption is in our hands (ie. have as much as you want, because there is no cost implication)........ if it is truly addictive, then everybody who takes sugar in their drinks, would have gradually increased their sugar dose. In fact, this is not the case. So yes..... I think I can say: Sugar is not addictive.......... QED PS. I don't know about you, but in the past two decades, I've noticed that less and less people take two spoons of sugar....... whereas when I was younger, it was fairly normal. I didn't want to introduce this into the argument...... but if others have found that few people now take two spoons......it's another nail, in the already screwed down coffin lid of sugar addiction. However, I await 'fair challenge' with an open mind.

Having posted a sugar related topic, I thought I'd contribute: I personally question the blanket proposition that sugar is inherently addictive. Typically you'll find that there are people who drink their tea sans sugar, yet drinking coffee with sugar (me for example). If sugar was inherently addictive, one would expect to see the dosage of sugar increasing in ones chosen sweetened drink. Yet we all know that isn't true. People are either a 'one spoon' person, or a 'two spoon' person (sometimes more, but less so as the qty. rises). People tend to remain a one spoon person throughout their life....... or decide to ditch sugar due to published opinion. Either way........ this behaviour doesn't align to the concept of addiction. I would suggest that the weird scenario of people filling their shopping baskets with litres of fizzy pop (seen it)..... is far more related to consumerism linked to the susceptible nature of humans, being open to a projected 'business driven (advertised) life style'. Ie. When my kids are thirsty, I give them fizzy drinks instead of water..... because that is the standard of living that I aspire to (obv not me). The kids then grow up believing that, when they are thirsty they drink fizzy drinks (which happen to contain what..... 30 spoons of sugar per litre or worse). Therefore, I would suggest that the sugar consumption epidemic is due to advertising/aspirational life style, far more than addiction (if addiction at all). But at a fundamental level...... if sugar was truly addictive, we would never be able to stay as a 'one spoon' person. Is that a QED? Probably not...... but it's pretty close.

Funnily enough, I realised I might have a photo of the party Sadly it's poor quality, taken with a mini camera of the period. I'm centre back, and the lady to my (picture) right, with the striped pullover was the one in charge of grinding. I think she used a washing up bowl, as it would be easier for the task, and then decanted batches to the grape picking bucket. There were around 18 of us in that tiny room. You can clearly see the glow on everybody's cheeks. It was taken September 1979. The wine was out of a large wooden barrel ie. there was no descending gasket sealed lid to keep the oxygen out. My guess is that at best it will have been no more than 11% alcohol possibly even 10%, as only the lowest grade wine was given to the workforce. @ Endy ........ increased absorption to BAC was what I was thinking about........ but I figured that this would be a 'known' effect ie. confirmable. However, as you point out.... there is every reason to setup a small scale clinical test with volunteers

I would say 100% certain. These were people who would collect snails during the day, in bags, then cook them at night. They made sparrow traps out of tyre wire. They were poor people, but they had a good life........ just different to ours (Spain was living in a different era back then [still is ]) Clearly one way to get merry quickly and cheaply was this. (try buying booze for a party of say 12 people, when you have limited money) Could they trick themselves into believing they were intoxicated every time, and then trick 3 disbelievers (who were anyway drinking around 1 litre of wine each, per day). I don't believe that the psychosomatic option fits the circumstances. I've read that it could be due the sugar increasing the metabolism...... but this sounds a bit too pat. My guess would be 'an increase in alcohol absorption'.

I was introduced to this trick by a group of Spanish fruit pickers..... they invited us to their lodgings, and proceeded to grind sugar into the awful wine that we had been allocated. They poured the wine into a washing up bowl... added the sugar.... then started grinding it with an upturned glass. They told us it would get us drunk very quickly. Of course we naively laughed at them, saying that there is no additional fermentation, to increase the alcohol. Of course, after two glasses, they were laughing at us...... and we were all eating humble pie, with red cheeks and bleary eyes. In my life, I have never got drunk so quickly on such a small quantity of wine. Why is this? Note: This wasn't a case of trickery. The Spaniards were a large friendly family of what we'd term peasants, ranging from the teens to the grandfather. They'd been coming on contract to the Chateau for years. They knew what they were doing. I can't remember the exact quantities (it was over 30 years ago), but they used a lot of sugar, because they had to grind it into a super saturated solution.