clayton@satan.DEC (06/07/85)
[guzzle, slurp, ahhhh] > The American brewing industry seems very taken with the >idea that women like very light beer and so they can use this as an excuse >to brew ever-thinner/lighter/weaker-tasting (read: CHEAPER) beers. >Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 But there may be *some* basis for their assumption. Of the women that I know who drink beer (or drink at all) a majority of them do prefer the lighter beers. I think this is mainly do to the FEWER CALORIES and that it is less filling (women generally having a smaller appetite), rather than flavor or character of the beer. Seems to me though, if you don't drink it because you like the taste of it, why drink it at all? It may be a stereotype that you envision as being based on the women being being the weaker sex stereotype, while I see it as a sterotype based on the women have to stay slim and keep calories down image. Personally, I prefer Canadian beers because most of them have much more body and flavor. Occasionaly I will have a Michelob light before a meal because I do find it less filling, and the least watered down (also the least 'light'). I often find that when I am at a party where there are several kinds available I'm usually offered a Miller, or a light beer of some sort, and will suprise them by requesting something 'stronger' (Moosehead, Labatt's, Brador,...). It's not a stereotype that is limited to the breweries advertising departments. They just play on it because 1. it probably works to push the fewer calories aspect and 2. it increases their profit margin because, as you said, they are making cheaper beers. Elizabeth Clayton decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-satan!clayton
crs@lanl.ARPA (06/11/85)
> Occasionaly I will have a Michelob light before a meal because > I do find it less filling,... Isn't this psychological? I can't understand how beer that occupied twelve ounces by volume in the can or bottle can occupy any *less* volume in one's stomach. I can understand how something can be less appetite destructive but not less filling given a fixed volume. > They just play on it because 1. it probably works to push the fewer calories > aspect ... Two things: 1. If light beer produces less reduction of appetite than regular beer (for what ever reason) isn't it counter productive from the calory reduction view point? If the beer doesn't "fill you up" as much, you have more room for food and, hence, consume more calories than you saved by drinking light beer. 2. I don't drink light beer so I'm not knowledgable about the caloric difference between light and regular beer but I can't imagine that the actual difference can really be great. With that in mind, it occurs to me that anyone who *truly* needs the lower calory beer probably is in more danger from excessive drinking than from too many calories. Can anyone enlighten me about any of this? Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa -- Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (06/12/85)
In article <2548@decwrl.UUCP> clayton@satan.DEC writes: >But there may be *some* basis for their assumption. Of the women that I >know who drink beer (or drink at all) a majority of them do prefer the lighter >beers. I think this is mainly do to the FEWER CALORIES and that it is less >filling (women generally having a smaller appetite), rather than flavor or >character of the beer. Seems to me though, if you don't drink it because you >like the taste of it, why drink it at all? > >Elizabeth Clayton decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-satan!clayton As someone who as brewed quite a variety of beers (in my little 5-gal fermenter -- some of the best beer I have ever had, by the way) I wonder about the fewer calories in light beers. I am speaking of light vs dark here not the 'light beers' that are on the market (bud light, miller light, and so forth). The difference between the light and dark is strictly due to the degree that the malt is toasted. Toast it a little, you have a light beer. Toast it more you have an amber beer. Damn near burn it and you have a dark beer. My light and amber beers always had the same amount of corn sugar and malt as my dark beers. Of course, by varying the ingredients you can make the calorie differential anything you want (I think most dark beers are heavier due to more malt, hence more calories). Just tossin' a little info about beer brewing in (home brewing forever!). geoff sherwood (by the way, I much prefer the dark beers -- especially with German halltauer (I know I spelled that wrong) hops and British Munton&Fison Malt. Yum.)
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (06/12/85)
In article <27108@lanl.ARPA> crs@lanl.ARPA writes: >> Occasionaly I will have a Michelob light before a meal because >> I do find it less filling,... > >Isn't this psychological? I can't understand how beer that occupied >twelve ounces by volume in the can or bottle can occupy any *less* >volume in one's stomach. Light beer may be less carbonated than "regular" (heavy? (-: ) beer. This would make it less filling. >2. I don't drink light beer so I'm not knowledgable about the caloric >difference between light and regular beer but I can't imagine that the >actual difference can really be great. The difference in some beers is reputedly about 50% -- a savings of about 70 calories per 12 oz. can. The calorie reduction is achieved by reducing the alcohol content. I don't know how this works out in states like California where all beer is <= 3.2% alcohol (anything more alcoholic is malt liquor, ale, or stout). -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI "How goes the rat race?" 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. "The rats are winning." Santa Monica, CA 90405 -- Paul Lynde (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe