Wine laced with sugar results in rapid intoxication - Why?

[MarcoSciFor]

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.

[Endy0816]

Could be impacting BAC level. Without the action of yeast(mainly), you can't make the drink any more alcoholic, but you can change how your body is effected by it.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Endy0816

[John Cuthber]

How sure are you that this isn't psychosomatic?

[MarcoSciFor]

How sure are you that this isn't psychosomatic?

 

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'.

[Endy0816]

Diet mixers can have a similar effect. Sounds like an excellent experiment to conduct. In the name of science of course.

[MarcoSciFor]

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

 

 

 

[MarcoSciFor]

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

"In other words, it is not that diet soda accelerates intoxication. Rather, the sugar in regular soda slows down the rate of alcohol absorption," explains Dennis Thombs, a professor at the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth. He published a paper with similar findings.

So what was the motivation for the new study? "I wanted to know if the choice of a mixer could be the factor that puts a person above or below the legal limit," writes Marczinski, who's a professor at Northern Kentucky University.

And it turns out, diet soda might just push you past that tipping point. Marczinski's study found that the average BrAC was .091 (at its peak) when subjects drank alcohol mixed with a diet drink. By comparison, BrAC was .077 when the same subjects consumed the same amount of alcohol but with a sugary soda.

 

 

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.

 

Edited August 24, 2015 by MarcoSciFor

[Phi for All]

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.

 

I think this is where you went wrong. Higher quality, more expensive wines don't necessarily have the most alcohol content. Fortified wines like Thunderbird, MD 20/20, and Night Train Express are classic hobo wines, very cheap and around 18% AC.

[StringJunky]

 

I think this is where you went wrong. Higher quality, more expensive wines don't necessarily have the most alcohol content. Fortified wines like Thunderbird, MD 20/20, and Night Train Express are classic hobo wines, very cheap and around 18% AC.

Yes, German wines are around the 9-11% and you can pay a very pretty penny for them. There is no correlation between alcohol content and quality. Done with appropriate care, higher proofs will last longer keeping-wise and mature more slowly.for potentially more complex flavours, but of itself, % proof means little.

[MarcoSciFor]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

If I had been caught out claiming that a psychological response could not explain flushed cheeks, I'd be blushing as red as a beetroot.

I also suspect that those looking on would find my circumstances amusing and would be grinning like idiots- with or without the help of liquor.

It's well documented that you can get people to act "drunk" by giving them water and telling them it's alcohol.

 

http://www.doctoroz.com/blog/harry-fisch-md/sex-alcohol-unpredictable-bedfellows

[iNow]

The underlying premise in the OP is just wrong. Adding sugar to wine doesn't result in rapid intoxication. As John mentioned, much more likely here is this was merely a psychosomatic and/or placebo effect. Further, adding sugar to drinks mostly just makes us drink them faster since they tend to taste better. Faster consumption and positive/fun surroundings in the social environment clearly are the more parsimonious explanations.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23216417

 

If the OP disagrees, then an appropriate next step would be to share some evidence that adding sugar to a drink increases the alcohol content (not to be confused with adding sugar during the brewing/fermentation/distillation process which very clearly does).

[MarcoSciFor]

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.

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Without an objective test of BAC this is pointless.

With such a test it is trivial.

 

You also need to control the time over which the alcohol is consumed.

[StringJunky]

Indications I've found suggest sugar impairs absorption, which makes sense, because osmosis direction will be towards diluting the sugar

[MarcoSciFor]

Without an objective test of BAC this is pointless.

With such a test it is trivial.

 

You also need to control the time over which the alcohol is consumed.

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.

 

[John Cuthber]

"f the BAC test eliminates alcohol..... then what?"

Then you know it is psychosomatic, because no other intoxicating substance is present.

[MarcoSciFor]

"f the BAC test eliminates alcohol..... then what?"

Then you know it is psychosomatic, because no other intoxicating substance is present.

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/

Dr. Wesnes conducted a study in which he found that having a large amount of sugar for breakfast led to a severe deterioration of attention span when compared to having no breakfast or eating whole grain cereal. Dr. Tamborlane, also from Yale, reported that children given sugar had higher levels of adrenaline. A possible explanation for this effect is that since sugar is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream, blood sugar rises quickly, which can lead to higher adrenaline levels and thus symptoms similar to those associated with hyperactivity.

 

 

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!

 

 

 

 

 

.