10 beers vs. 10 miles - which can be done faster?

yes i have, not fast, but ive done it.

What I'm confused about is that people think the only reason a beer mile, or drinking 10 beers in 50 something minutes for that matter, is hard, is because of the carbonation, and thats the limiting factor.

I'm not a big drinker, but 10 beers in an hour or so isnt a difficult task.

The original argument is this: 50low 10 miler vs. Alcoholic with 10 beers.

I stick to my guns and say its a no brainer.

I say alcoholic. Four beers are going to hit you in 8 minutes? I have very low tolerance, but it takes me at least 20-30 minutes to feel anything from drinking a beer. My roommate has to down nine of them before he feels anything. I've seen him drive after eight beers and he's fine (though I do make fun of him for being a dumbass for doing that). I'm not saying there wouldn't be a difference between a beer and a carbonated beverage without alcohol, but alcohol isn't what make the beer mile so hard.

duh wrote:

I completely disagree, its entirely about the alcohol content.

By your reasoning then, 10 shots of grain alcohol would be infinitely easier. Please.

No...the 10 shots of grain is like 20 shots of regular 80 proof stuff. We're not talking about 20 drinks in an hour, just 10.

His argument is at that level, it's not the alcohol that makes it difficult. And I agree - 10 regular 80 proof shots in an hour IS infinitely easier than 10 beers in an hour.

How can you not understand that volume is the most difficult part? Haven't you ever drank so much beer that you felt full?

Being an ex-alcoholic and an ex-runner (and having done both of these things), I can assure you that the 10 beers can be done much quicker by an experienced drinker.

Well, we don't know very much about this alleged alcoholic, but the odds would favor him. Certainly there are way more people capable of 10 beers than 10 miles in 50 minutes, or for that matter 60, 70, or 80 minutes.

Like someone else said, if it's 10 of your typical redneck faux-beer like Bud or Coors, it's not really a context. I'd put money on myself to down that before your 2:21 marathoner has run 10K. If it's good stuff like Fat Tire, maybe not.

I think everyone is making too much of this guy being an alcoholic. As far as I know, being an alcoholic doesn't make you chug faster or be able to handle high volumes in your stomach better. I have a friend who can consume alcohol all day but can't chug worth shit and has a tiny bird stomach.

It's all about the stomach.

right, but we arent talking about chugging. 10 beers in 50 minutes can hardly be called chugging. And yeah i've drank enough beers to feel full, but i've also gotten way sicker on stuff with a lot less volume.

I think just about anyone when pretty thirsty could drink 120 ounces of soda in 10 minutes or so. But I dont anyone on earth that could drink that much beer in that amount of time. Yes volume is important, but its not the limiting factor.

Put it this way, if this wager was about Orange Juice, there would be no debate in the first place.

I would say things dont get interesting until its 26.2 beers against a good marathoner.

how about this? wrote:

I bet I could f*** 10 chicks faster than I could drink 10 beers.....or run 10 miles for that matter. As long as up the ass counts. And you have to spooge each time before you move on to the next chick.

None of those things by themselves are good things, but you put them all together and act proud?

I would agree that volume is what matters, the alcohol takes long to kick in. In high school we settled a bet between two guys in a drink-off. One downed a six pack (6x33cl = 2 liters) of beer (4.6% alc. by vol.) the other 2 liters of skim milk. Beer drinker won by a large margin. What we should have done was switch the beverages and repeat, but we didn't. I do know that the milk guy was generally a better drinker than the beer guy.

guys on my college team used to do the beer marathon all the time. it usually always took them longer than about 2:10. i would have to say that 26.2 vs. 26.2 would definitely be a better challenge than 10 vs. 10. i saw one guy finish the beer marathon in about three hours and then went on to drink 11 more beers over the course of the night. it wasn't pretty near the end.

dude, that is painful

and hilarious at the same time.

duh wrote:

right, but we arent talking about chugging. 10 beers in 50 minutes can hardly be called chugging. And yeah i've drank enough beers to feel full, but i've also gotten way sicker on stuff with a lot less volume.

I think just about anyone when pretty thirsty could drink 120 ounces of soda in 10 minutes or so. But I dont anyone on earth that could drink that much beer in that amount of time. Yes volume is important, but its not the limiting factor.

Put it this way, if this wager was about Orange Juice, there would be no debate in the first place.

I would say things dont get interesting until its 26.2 beers against a good marathoner.

No way in hell could someone drink 2x2 liters of coca-cola in under 10 minutes, no way

whats everyone's PRs for the beer mile

bc i heard about some guy who did it in 7 something

everyone who really thinks the alcohol is a factor, maybe they should try it with some non-alcoholic beer? surely the only way to convince them?

I don't think its a matter of convincing either way. I could EASILY drink 2 2 litres of coke in 10 minutes, and the same for 10 beers in 50 minutes or whatever. Maybe some people can't do this, and maybe some people can. Whatever. I'm not debating it.

I'm just curious to see what the times of the runner vs. the drinker are.

as someone who has done both beer and soda miles, i can assure you that it's not the alcoholic content that makes it hard: it's the carbonation. i don't see why alcohol would do it, as you're body would barely have anytime to absorb and begin to metabolize it. otherwise, by your logic, when we'd do the tequila mile, we'd run slower than our beer miles (which we didn't).

plus, your example of 10 shots of grain alcohol to the 40oz/volume v. alcohol content in question is a strawman argument. the reply was in regard to the differences between malt liquor and beer (which is marginal compared to your overstated comparison of grain alcohol). however, that being said, that's why people get alcohol poisoning...it's much easier to consume too much alcohol if it's smaller volumes than it is through large diluted quantities such as a 12oz can.

duh wrote:

Put it this way, if this wager was about Orange Juice, there would be no debate in the first place.

Oh yes there would. 10 beers = 120 oz. 1 gallon = 128 oz. So we're talking about nearly a gallon of beer. If it were a gallon of water, orange juice, milk, etc. the challenge would be just as difficult.

Actually, isn't that a common challenge? To drink a gallon of whole milk in an hour? From what I hear it's mighty difficult.

it's simple folks wrote:

Actually, isn't that a common challenge? To drink a gallon of whole milk in an hour? From what I hear it's mighty difficult.

Yeah, not necessarily from the volume (although it is a lot), but more because of the vomit inducing properties of milk.

If the drinker is worth a sh!t, it won't even be close.