When I started drinking (in my mid-teens) Cider was the only way to go. But after being sick so many times through consuming too much of it, my brain started associating the smell of Cider with being sick, so I can't really enjoy it any more without gagging. My late teens and early twenties were predominantly lager (Stella, Fosters, Becks, Kronenbourg etc.), price per pint being the chief determining factor. Although after getting my driving licence at 17, I stopped drinking regularly.

Once I hit 30 (or thereabouts) my interest in beer resurfaced, and my taste seems to have switched to bitter/ale/stout. Currently my favorite pint is without a doubt, draught Guinness. To me, Guinness used to taste foul unless you were in the ROI, but since it all comes from Dublin now it's far more palatable to me. If I'm at the pub and it's not available, I'll try whatever they on tap. I had a nice pint of UBU in Stratford-upon-Avon this last weekend.

I also enjoy wheat beers like Hoegaarden and Erdinger. Leffe Blonde and Brune are quite nice as well. At home I usually have a few bottles of Old Speckled Hen, since Guinness in a can is pretty nasty. The one thing I still haven't developed a taste for though is whisky, it's still like swallowing battery acid to me.

I think this is all about the season and location. No inclusive list but I can think of:

January/February, on a hot beach somewhere, Tiger lager or Huda Bia, or Redstripe, even.

April/May, visiting a friend in Nuremberg: Kulmbach/EKU Pils drafht

June, helping a friend deliver his boat out of the Florida Keys: Busch in a can

October, with a nice juicy pork roast: Spaten Oktoberfest.

Early December, reading a spy novel in a tavern: Sierra Nevada Celebration on tap

Market research.

You guys are not alone. I've got a very sweet tooth and really hate anything to eat/drink which tastes bitter. So this includes (almost) all beers. And this coming from somebody from Belgium! I really prefer wine, but on the other hand I don't drink that much at all. Eg. I've never, EVER opened up a bottle of wine only for me to drink or in the company of only my wife. (with the exception if wine was needed to prepare some food dish) Even if I drink, I'm a real social drinker, so I only drink when I've got company, and even that is not guaranteed. Very often, I'm the only one of the bunch with a soda in front of me. Which usually makes me the designated driver too, but I don't mind that.

Same as you Matt, I've tried this every so many years again to see if my taste pattern had changed as I grew older. Seems it didn't (or hasn't so far). I'm 35 now and don't think this will ever change in the future. But I don't really think I'm missing out. In fact, it makes my life simpler: less options (HUNDREDS of beers!), less risk (when driving: was that last beer the one that put me over the legal limit?), less cost (although we can't really complain about the price here -unless you start drinking those trappist beers-, beer is more expensive than soda )

Last time I was in Britain, I've tried cider. Now that I liked! But that was probably my sweet tooth talking (or tasting) again.

I remember an experiment in my high school biology class in which it was demonstrated that about 25% of the population lack the gene for tasting bitter substances.

I wonder if this correlates in any way to people's like or dislike of beer?

tanstaafl.

Until you've tasted beer from Shepherd Neames, you've not tasted beer: It's my one regret about living in the North of England where beer is served with all the appearance of an ice cream cornet!
I keep bottled Amsterdam brewed Heinekin in the fridge, the stuff served over the bar is little better than Stella(or wife beaters as it's generally referred to hereabouts).
I'd drink Pilsner Urquell, but it plays havoc with the blood sugar level.
I also keep Cobra in the fridge specifically for eating with curries: I don't know why it suits, but it does.
I used to drink Peroni in the summer, a fine Italian lager(In bottles, unpalateable draught), but the last couple of years, I've transferred my affection to Whitstable Bay summer brew.
I agree with Andy on Guinness: Has to be Irish - in my youth, only three pubs in London served other than Park Royal. I've recently rediscovered bottled Guinness: A very different taste, given out in British hospitals as a tonic at one time - its been my drink this winter.
Speaking of Guinness products, I always thought Harp was a cut above other lagers, but it's long gone here - I last had it in Florida.
All opinions expressed above are solely those of the writer, who dislikes being contradicted almost as much as he dislikes being more than a yard from a bar(disorientation and dizzy fits set in)

Damn, some trappist beers are like drinking liquid candy, so anyone with a sweet tooth should absolutely love them. I know it's why I do.

I'm sure you'd absolutely love Icewine too. It's sweeter than most candy.

There's also the reverse problem, which is when the same kind of beer tastes very different depending on how old it is, how well it's been stored, that sort of thing. (At least, I assume that's what the difference is.)

This happens to such an extent that it makes me wonder how useful it is to even recommend beers, particularly draught beers, to people: some of the best pints I've had have been Ruddles County, but most Ruddles County is just average. There's a pub near me that does a jolly good St Austell's Tribute -- but also other pubs in Cambridge where the Tribute isn't very nice.

So my beer recommendations are a travelogue, not a travel guide. You can go and seek out Jennings Sneck Lifter, Theakston's Old Peculier, St Peters IPA, or Robinson's Unicorn (formerly Best), but I can't guarantee you that you'll have the same good experiences there that I did. You're just as likely to do well if you walk into a decent real ale pub (Kingston Arms, Cambridge; Ginger Man, Austin) and order at random.

Peter

Yes, that's quite nice too.

Perhaps you've come across nefarious barkeeps, who change out the kegs without changing out the tap handles (or perhaps, even, the prices).

-jk

That's definitely not the problem with me. It simply comes down to the fact that I hate the taste of almost all types of alcohol. I like some wines, and that's it.

I even dislike foods prepared with beer or wine. Every time I say this the very next thing I hear is someone saying "but the alcohol burns off!" It's incredible how often I hear that, and it's completely untrue.

The one instance I haven't minded alcohol in food is bananas foster, and even then only if it's prepared with Myers Dark Rum.

Then you're eating some dishes that haven't been prepared properly. Besides, alcohol doesn't have any "taste."



Did they flambé the alcohol? It shouldn't taste like someone poured rum on your dessert.

Sorry, Bruno, alcohol just doesn't burn off. Perhaps if you're the type that enjoys beer and such, it doesn't have a taste for you, but for me I can taste it every time. I'm not talking about low-end restaurants either, here.

I'm telling you, I've had the same reaction from everyone else I've told this to. Then one of those people came across an article about common cooking myths, which included the "it cooks off" myth. I'll see if I can find it.

Here's where I first saw it (halfway down the page). It took me a bit of searching, but you can find the information used for their chart at the USDA's site. It shows that even when flamed, only 25% of the alcohol evaporates.

Yeah, people don't believe me when I tell them I can taste coffee in things, either. "It just makes the chocolate more chocolatey" or some such nonsense. No, it makes everything, including other foods I'll eat later, taste like coffee.

It's amazing then that my personal experience contradicts some of the personal experience of the author of that site Matt. The pre-soaking beans (you simply can't use the long cooking times required to soften them for many recipes), banana in the fridge (they're not inedible, but they turn to shit, inside and out), simmer on a gas stove, cleaning a gas stove (because this has nothing to do with gas/electric but the design of the specific product).

A couple of the things on the site I'd never heard of as myths before and just sounded completely ridiculous that anyone wold even consider. Then there was the eggs thing. I think adding even milk to eggs for an omelet isn't a good idea.

Lastly, back on topic, the examples they give of alcohol in food, other than flaming are crap. I suppose you can toss some alcohol into a pot filled with another liquid, but why would you? At least not with anything other then wine. I didn't expect the alcohol to be "burned off" if you poured into a pot of stew or chili. It will however dilute. And since alcohol is typically measured by volume, the percentage weighed against the total volume of food/other liquid would be minuscule, especially when you're starting with something that's already a maximum of 14% ABV (most red wine).

The best use of wine is for deglazing, not dumping it into a large amount of other liquid. You're going to reduce the overall volume of liquid dramatically and perhaps finish it off with something else. I just deglazed a pan of onions, garlic, lobster tails and shrimp two nights ago (after removing the meat) and you would be able to taste the enhanced flavor added by the white wine, but you'd be mistaken if you thought it was alcohol. First because alcohol doesn't have flavor, and second because if there was any in there you'd probably need a decent lab to measure any at all. The contents of the pan were added to a much larger pot of risotto which had already been through close to a litre of chicken stock.

None of the examples on the site use anywhere close to the heat typically used when adding wine/alcohol to a pan. In other words, the examples are bunk, sorry.

Bitt, Coffee imparts a very distinct flavor to pretty much anything it's added to - there wouldn't really be a point in adding it if it didn't. What specific foodstuffs are you talking about though? It does give a roasty and more nutty flavor to chocolate, but it doesn't make it more cocoa-y.

It's certainly true that when you cook with alcohol, some of it makes its way into the final product, even when you flambé or whatnot. Still, several classic dishes just won't be the same without the alcohol in them. Bread pudding without bourbon, poached pears without port, steamed mussels without a white wine and butter reduction, beer-battered fried fish without the beer... Sure, you can do any of these dishes without the booze, but they're just better with than without.

Also, it's worth noting that alcohol is a hell of a solvent, and many different flavorings that you add by the drop come with an alcohol base. Most notably, most vanilla extracts are alcohol-based. Also, bitters like Angostura, which are normally used by the drop in cocktails, are also used to flavor foods and soups.

On the flip side, I agree with Bitt that I dislike many things made with coffee, like tiramisu, where I find the coffee flavor overpowers everything else.

I don't know of anyone who would want the alcohol to be missing in this dish! That would be a crime.

And it's the hops, malt and yeast that you'll taste, not the alcohol which will be long gone after the deep fry.



You might not like it with any hint of coffee, but overpowering sounds like a bad tiramisu. The perfect example has to be very well balanced, and unfortunately, more often than not, you'll get a sub-standard example when ordering out. At least that's my experience. I've had some pretty bad ones, but also quite a few really great ones. Tiramisu also takes alcohol - and it most definitely stays in.

Bruno, you can have your opinion. No matter what you say, the fact is I can still taste the alcohol in the dish.

And you're right, Dan, there are definitely foods that need to be made with alcohol. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying I usually don't like those foods because I can still taste that flavor and it's unappealing. There are certainly exceptions and some things I like. My wife and I make a great risotto with red wine (it ends up purple ).

Regardless of whether the actual alcohol burns off, the question is whether that means the taste of it goes with it. It doesn't. If it did, why bother cooking with it in the first place?


I definitely agree with that. I hate coffee flavored chocolate. I hate coffee in general.

What I think I hate most about it is that coffee almost always smells fantastic to me in every step all the way up to the actual drinking of it. I love smelling the beans, I love the roasting, the grinding, and the entire preparation. But then when I actually take a sip it tastes terrible!

I'd agree that much of that site is opposite to my experience.

The simmering one is particularly odd. All the electric stoves I've ever used work the same way, they have stepped power output (more often consisting of just on an off) and so regulate their temperature by switching on or off (or stepping up and down). The result is they aren't great for simmering, as they typically drop on and off the simmer all the time.

Gas in contrast lets you set the heat output you want and that is what you get.

If you reduce beer the resulting taste it beery, if you reduce wine the resulting taste is winey etc

Beer and wine don't really taste alike, so if the resulting taste is the alcohol, why doesn't the result always taste the same ?

Sorry, I should have said that I didn't agree with much of that site. I just used the alcohol thing as a jumping off point, mostly to find the actual USDA information. In searching for it, I came across a good number of other sites that say the alcohol doesn't burn off either. I'd be happy to check out a site that disagrees so I can get the dissenting opinion

You can taste the beverage, and I'm not disputing that. That's the whole point, to impart the flavor profile of the wine or other beverage into the dish, usually done in a subtle way however.

And in a case of a botched process, I will agree that you might even feel the alcohol - but that is not the correct way to use it in a recipe. You should not get a nose of alcohol nor the mouth-feel. Only the flavor profile of the drink, be it nuttiness, fruit, etc. Obviously excluding recipes where there *IS* a goal to have the alcohol content.



Exactly. We've pretty much been in total agreement the whole time. Maybe just not in agreement over terms.

IMO, there are three reasons not to have any particular ingredient. Personal choice/preference, morality, medical.

And for all three of those, if we're talking about adding any kind of alcohol to food, it doesn't matter whether some or all of the actual alcohol is cooked off. So I agree, just go without.

It's like if someone is allergic to shellfish and someone else tells them to pick the shrimp out of their dish. There will always be trace amounts of anything left behind.



You would totally hate a coffee porter then.



I like coffee, and even I've had that experience before. Since you like the smell of the roast so much, I think there's probably some use of coffee somewhere that you'd enjoy, specially since such a large part of the perception of taste is olfactory.

Sorry, I wasn't speaking of alcohol in the chemical sense, just the beverage sense. Perhaps that's my problem here. The study is looking at how much of the chemical is burned off. I still argue that the chemical remains, but you're correct, it's the flavor of the beverage that mostly stays behind.

But I'd also argue that when I tell people I don't want to order something because it's cooked in beer or wine, I'm coming from the idea that I don't want the flavor. That's what most people are trying to say when they say "it burns off." The logic remains: if the flavor went away, why would you cook with it in the first place?

Why are you even arguing with me over my own tastes? I keep saying that I dislike beer, and you keep saying I haven't tried the right ones. Now it's the same with coffee?

Just trust me, I don't like beer, I don't like coffee, I don't like black licorice or brussels sprouts or cucumbers. There's an incredible amount of things I do enjoy, but I know, from a great deal of experience and trying many types of foods and beverages, what I don't like.

Umm, no one's arguing with you Matt. You said you liked the smell of coffee. I only suggested that there's probably something out there that has that smell without the taste you don't like. Don't know how that's an argument.

I also didn't suggest you would like any beer. Just that because something is considered "beer" doesn't mean it's at all similar in taste to something else that's also "beer." That doesn't mean you'd like one though and I didn't mean to ever suggest that.

The difference is like comparing one type of meat to another - they're all proteins and fat, but chicken is not beef is not pork is not lamb.

Besides, the less beer you have, the more for me.

What I did find strange was that of the whole message you quoted back and focused on that one specific sentence and took it out of context. Maybe we should start another thread for arguments and then everyone can be clear about what's supposed to happen in it. Because this isn't the right room for that, though I won't argue about it.

Just when combined with your insistence that I also haven't tasted the right beers.

I'm just trying to say that I try lots of things in order to know my tastes. I can see you're trying to help, so I'm sorry for snapping.

I've tried most of the coffees my wife orders that seem like they'll be good quality, just to see if it's something I'd like. On our trip to San Francisco, one of the main things she wanted to do was get some Blue Bottle coffee. Once again, it tasted awful

To bring it back on subject (because I'm feeling guilty about pulling another thread off its rails):

My wife is a big fan of Sam Adams. The Octoberfest in particular. Any suggestions for other stuff she might like?

I've always been puzzled by the different range of flavours that different people either like or can tolerate.

I can honestly say that I don't know a single* flavour in a (well cooked) food stuff or beverage that I actively dislike. That isn't to say that I enjoy a badly executed bit of cooking.

When I was young I wasn't keen on bitter flavours, but I understand this is due to the way the taste system develops with age.

I had to retrain my taste system to drink coffee though. I had always loved the smell of roasting coffee, but couldn't stand the taste. When I got to my teenage years it became clear that not drinking either tea or coffee was a major barrier to getting along in polite society

So I started drinking coffee with 4 spoons of sugar in it. I reduced the sugar down to nothing over a couple of weeks and at the end of it I liked coffee, without sugar.

I have friends and family member who have a seemingly unending list of foods that they don't like. More puzzling are the ones that also have a whole list of foods that they are convinced they won't like, despite the fact that they haven't (and often won't) tried them.

I've always wondered whether my taste system is somehow less sensitive than normal.


* until last year I didn't like tea. After spending a lot of time last year perfecting tea smoked duck breasts I decided to give tea another go. I now have at least one cup of Lapsang souchong most days.

If you don't like Coffee, you're not going to necessarily find one particular one you do like. Whatever exactly you dislike is going to be front and center completely nuking whatever subtleties make them different.

My wife also dislikes coffee. But she'll eat tiramisu. She doesn't even especially like the smell of coffee, so you've already got one up on her there.

Anyway, I'm just not trying to suggest that you haven't tasted the right anything, so I don't want you to think that. I wouldn't tell someone who doesn't eat meat that they just haven't tasted the right one. They all taste different, but it's still possible to dislike them all for whatever reason, including whatever they do have in common.

I'd rather lick a dog's asshole than eat black licorice, that's how bad I hate the stuff. Of course if it tastes like black licorice I suppose I'm doubly screwed.

I do get some of the type of recommendations you've mentioned though. I hate, even more so that black licorice, raw tomatoes. So every now and then someone's like, "but you have to try these cherry tomatoes, they're so much better." No thanks, been there, done that. Tomato (raw) gives me an almost instant gag reflex. I love tomato sauce though.

Interesting! I do know others who have felt the same way about tomatoes. I can't remember if it was the exact same thing, though. I think I knew one person who hated tomatoes but liked ketchup. Then again, that stuff has so little tomato in it I'm not surprised

Myself, unless it's just a bad or bland tomato, I love 'em.

I love Sam Adams. It's now the largest American-owned brewery, and though they don't get a lot of love from beer snobs, they make some fantastic brews that are available everywhere. Their current seasonal offering (Noble Pils) is one of my favorite Spring seasonals of all time. Other than the ghastly Cherry Wheat, I can't think of a bad Sam Adams beer.

Octoberfest is another word for Märzen, a special style of lager. Other good and widely-available Märzens include Ayinger, Hacker-Pschorr, and Spaten. It's hard to know what you'll be able to find locally, but anything in the top ranks of the Bock/Dunkel/Helles Lager styles here would be a good place to start. If you can get it down there, Penn Dark is a Dunkel lager made right here in Pittsburgh, and it's fantastic.