Wine Guy 23 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Is it worth the trouble to drink light beer, or even take the time, or waist the space in your beer selection to please the crowd that likes to fuss about calories. If so, what do you recommend for a "light" beer Calorie for Calorie, flavor for flavor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squidsdc Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Is it worth the trouble to drink light beer, or even take the time, or waist the space in your beer selection to please the crowd that likes to fuss about calories. If so, what do you recommend for a "light" beer Calorie for Calorie, flavor for flavor The Today Show did a piece on "superbowl" foods, in comparing which had more fat or calories...things such as fried cheesesticks with marinara sauce, vs. garlic breadsticks with some kind of a creamy sauce. (the cheesesticks won) In the light beer category, they compared Becks Premier Light to Michelob Light--Becks won at 64 calories vs. 123 for the Michelob Light. Now since I don't drink light beer, I can't vouch for the taste of either "eat this, not that for the superbowl" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Riley Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 "People who drink light "beer" don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot." -- Capital Brewery, Middleton, WI. I believe that, of all the national brands on the market here, Amstel Light has the fewest calories. Lord knows, we sell oceans of it, and so many of our clients ask for it (boy, do they! *Ba-DUMP-bump!*) I'm not a fan of light beer. In fact, it reminds me of the old joke: Q: How is light beer like making love in a canoe? A: They're both f****** close to water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squidsdc Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 No, no, I think PBR light is the closest thing to water as one can get! (I should know, it's a staple in my parent's house and they would only drink whatever has the fewest calories) I think Amstel Llght has even more calories than the Becks. But I also know many people who ask for it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ol_ironstomach Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 I usually choose Amstel if I'm having a light beer, but I'm after the reduced alcohol more than the low calories. Let's face it - light beer mostly tastes like crap. There used to be a surprisingly good light amber lager put out by New Amsterdam Brewing, but it's been out of production for probably a decade now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielK Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 I'm not a fan of light beer. In fact, it reminds me of the old joke:Q: How is light beer like making love in a canoe? A: They're both f****** close to water. Close, but no cigar. That's from Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl, and the quote is AMERICAN beer, not LIGHT... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtymartini Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 I usually choose Amstel if I'm having a light beer, but I'm after the reduced alcohol more than the low calories. Let's face it - light beer mostly tastes like crap. There used to be a surprisingly good light amber lager put out by New Amsterdam Brewing, but it's been out of production for probably a decade now. Umm, light beer typically doesn't have less calories or alcohol, just less taste(pun intended). A Guinness has the same calories as Amstel Light. It's the vodka mentality, less taste equals less. P.S. George Burns smoked cigars till 100 Charles Burkowski drank past 85 sometimes what's healthy and what is good for you are not quite the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Riley Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Close, but no cigar. That's from Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl, and the quote is AMERICAN beer, not LIGHT... I think the joke pre-dates MP-LATHB, and it's pretty interchangeable, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ol_ironstomach Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Umm, light beer typically doesn't have less calories or alcohol, just less taste(pun intended). A Guinness has the same calories as Amstel Light. It's the vodka mentality, less taste equals less. Luckily, the refreshment fridge is close to the laptop. Per the labels: Amstel Light: 95 calories per 12 fl oz Guinness Draught: 128 calories per 12 fl oz Light beers, in this context, are brewed for reduced calories, but that's partly achieved by reducing the alcohol content; the rest presumably comes from removing all the good tasting bits too. Most pilseners are closer to 5.0% abv, and I'm s.o.l. regarding Munich helles. But I see that Urquell is only marginally higher in abv (4.2 vs 4.0), so maybe it's time to kick the Amstel back into the "stuff I keep on hand for houseguests on a diet" heap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Luckily, the refreshment fridge is close to the laptop. Per the labels:Amstel Light: 95 calories per 12 fl oz Guinness Draught: 128 calories per 12 fl oz Light beers, in this context, are brewed for reduced calories, but that's partly achieved by reducing the alcohol content; the rest presumably comes from removing all the good tasting bits too. Most pilseners are closer to 5.0% abv, and I'm s.o.l. regarding Munich helles. But I see that Urquell is only marginally higher in abv (4.2 vs 4.0), so maybe it's time to kick the Amstel back into the "stuff I keep on hand for houseguests on a diet" heap. I had the feeling that Guinness must have been doing a promotional campaign a while back, because several times when I ordered a light draught beer, I encountered a bartender/server telling me that Guinness had about the same number of calories and that it was low in carbs. There seemed to be talking points that had been established on the subject . I recall one gentleman in particular who did not take a polite no for an answer and repeatedly insisted that I would rather have Guinness than Miller Lite. I like pilsners. I may sometimes drink other beers, but I prefer pilsners (whether they are merely light or "lite" beers. If I'm not concerned about money I'll order Stella Artois or Urquell, but more often I go with the cheap "lite" draught.) I tend to drink light beer because I don't like the strong flavor of darker beers. Sometimes I will drink darker beers--and I have, on occasion, drunk Guinness and found it acceptable--but they are not what I generally choose to drink. It is really irritating to be told that you would rather have something else than what you ordered . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squidsdc Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Luckily, the refreshment fridge is close to the laptop. Per the labels:Amstel Light: 95 calories per 12 fl oz Guinness Draught: 128 calories per 12 fl oz Light beers, in this context, are brewed for reduced calories, but that's partly achieved by reducing the alcohol content; the rest presumably comes from removing all the good tasting bits too. Most pilseners are closer to 5.0% abv, and I'm s.o.l. regarding Munich helles. But I see that Urquell is only marginally higher in abv (4.2 vs 4.0), so maybe it's time to kick the Amstel back into the "stuff I keep on hand for houseguests on a diet" heap. Guinness Draught, according to calorieking.com has only 4% as well, but the Amstel wins at 3.5%. I still will go for the Guinness every time, just 'cuz I prefer the flavor over a pils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Rose Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 I don't think that the calories are that high, if I am going to drink a light beer, I go for things like Anchor Steam or other micro brews. I have heard various bartenders recommend these often when asked for a light beer. Fortunately for we restaurant folk, light in color is usually mistaken for light in calories too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 The Today Show did a piece on "superbowl" foods, in comparing which had more fat or calories...things such as fried cheesesticks with marinara sauce, vs. garlic breadsticks with some kind of a creamy sauce. (the cheesesticks won) In the light beer category, they compared Becks Premier Light to Michelob Light--Becks won at 64 calories vs. 123 for the Michelob Light. Now since I don't drink light beer, I can't vouch for the taste of either "eat this, not that for the superbowl" Don't waste your money or calories on the Beck's light...it's like drinking skunky water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wine Guy 23 Posted February 10, 2008 Author Share Posted February 10, 2008 the next item to be ruined by our uninformed, mis-educated, TV minded, Facelifted consumer is the creation of "Light" Wine. White and Red, and will be served in a "Juice Box" with a twisty straw, and contain the catchy name "Why Wine, with Light Wine" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Freshman Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Is it worth the trouble to drink light beer, or even take the time, or waist the space in your beer selection to please the crowd that likes to fuss about calories. If so, what do you recommend for a "light" beer Calorie for Calorie, flavor for flavor At the risk of exposing myself to a torrent of attacks, I will suggest Budweiser Select. Marketed as a "hip" Budweiser, it actually has less calories than Bud Light (99 to 128). I love Sierra Nevada (200 calories) and pretty much any other Pale Ale you put in front of me, but I also like ice cold Bud (145). I find the taste of Bud Select to be far superior to Bud Light, Miller Lite, Amstel or pretty much any other light beers. Plus, I feel soooo cool and trendy drinking it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobRutII Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 I'm no fan of light beer in general, and my metabolism at this point is such that I don't have to be. However, when that inevitably goes south, I will likely go for either Sam Adams Light or Yuengling Light. These two are easily the most flavorful 'light' beers I have ever had-- they taste like just barely watered down versions of their respective big brothers. That being said, I think I'll go have another Hopslam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtymartini Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 So, really the proctologist says to his nurse, 'no, damn it! I said butt light!'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckc54 Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Is it worth the trouble to drink light beer, or even take the time, or waist the space in your beer selection to please the crowd that likes to fuss about calories. If so, what do you recommend for a "light" beer Calorie for Calorie, flavor for flavor Do what the German's do. They have something called a Radler, which is regular beer mixed half and half with a lemon lime type drink. I would suggest 7 up or Sprite. Especially tastes good on a hot summer day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now