Thursday, August 18, 2005

Ultra-Lite. Sans the Aircraft.

I have a good friend who’s a beer snob. The worst kind of beer snob. The rookie beer snob. Chris (who knows I love him anyway) will tell you himself that he hated beer for years... until somebody handed him a Guinness. Yep, Guinness. As if the world needed another Guinness snob. Lord, help us all. And hide the Miller Lite.

The shiver that just ran down Chris’ spine at the mere mention of a light beer was palpable across 2,000 miles.

Me, I’m no snob. When I drink, it’s usually whatever comes to the table in a pitcher with enough mugs to go around. But if I’m in a position to order my own brew, I prefer not to have to chew it. Light, crisp, mass-produced American swill is just fine with me. My wallet appreciates it, too. Although it’s usually Bud Light that’s tapped into a sharable container, it’s always Miller Lite that’s ordered in a bottle meant for me.

Until recently.

As I was fighting the worst of the weight gain that came with giving up my Marlboros (seven months ago now) and becoming increasingly sedentary, I was urged to switch to Michelob Ultra, the low-carbohydrate beer. I did. I preferred Miller Lite, but for the promise of dietary benefit (and after the first good beer buzz) I learned to enjoy Mich Ultra. Then reading Chris’ beer blog made me think. Exactly how substantial was the trade-off? I did a little research.

A twelve ounce serving of Michelob Ultra has 95 calories, only one fewer than Miller Lite. (Interestingly, Ultra was first marketed at a Lite-matching 96 calories, so one wonders where in the marketing department that extra calorie was lost). Michelob Ultra is 4.1% alcohol by volume where Miller Lite weighs in a 4.2%. And in the carb category, Michelob Ultra claims 2.9 grams to Miller Lite’s 3.2 grams. Yes, Ultra wins that battle: by 0.3 grams of carbs.

Here’s a little bit of math for you. One Baked Lay’s potato chip has 2.09 grams of carbs. Drinking either Mich Ultra or Miller Lite, you’re barely getting more than the carbohydriacal (yes, I made that word up) equivalent of ONE low-fat potato chip. The difference between the two beer brands is approximately one seventh of that potato chip -- you would have to drink SEVEN Miller Lites to out-carb an equal number of Mich Ultras by the amount of one tasty Lay’s. And let’s face it, by the time you’ve had seven bottles of anything, you’re probably going to ruin your carb count by stopping off at Waffle House on your way home anyway. In someone else’s car.

Someone in the Miller marketing department lost their job over this one. If not, they should have. Michelob should have never been able to pull the “diet beer” title – and sales – away from them. It’s simply not supportable.

So good-bye tasteless Ultra, you lying bastard beer, I’m going back to my ex.

I just won't let Chris see the empties.

13 comments:

jake said...

I prefer Pork Chop in a can... I mean Budweiser.

12 ounces contains 145 calories and 10.6 grams of carbs. More importantly 5% alcohol.

I myself don't like to chew my beverages either. I ate enough mud as a child, I do not want to drink it as an adult.

Sure, beer purests will say that a Guiness at room temperature is how beer was intended to be comsumed, but I say poo to them.

Benjamin Franklin said that Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. And I say that if he wanted them to be drank cold, we would not have given us the refrigerator.

Gryphon said...

Anyone who tells you that Guinness at room temperature is how beer was intended to be consumed IS a snob, and someone who is pretending for show. The Guinness bottle itself will tell you to "Serve Thoroughly Chilled". Guinness, like all stouts, is much better when it's cold. Damn cold.

And Kel, water contains 0 calories, 0 grams of fat, and 0 carbs. And it has just as much flavor as Miller Lite.

Course, if you want the alcohol content, all hard liquor is 0 carb as well. So take a tiny bit of vodka, fill the glass with water and ice, and you'll still have more flavor and less carbs than a Miller Lite. ;-)

But there is a happy medium. Try a Newcastle Brown sometime if you see it offered. Not as strong as Guinness, not as empty as Bud. Nice in the middle beer. Great to cook with too (though not as good as Guinness).

Gryphon said...

As someone who is currently navigating the treacherous waters of the Atkins Diet, I can tell you that Michelob doesn't have the market cornered on that front. When Joan and I began looking for things we could substitute for the foods we could no longer eat, we read labels constantly. Often, we discovered that the "low carb" versions of many foods contain 1-2 carbs difference from their normal, cheaper, cousins. It's all a marketing ploy to tap into the low carb fad, when there still was a fad, and get people snatching up anything with "Low Carb" on the box.

Kate said...

Amber Bock... in moderation. Or Dos Eques with lime in moderate moderation. Or a gin and tonic, which beats beer of any description every time. On a plane. Twice a month.

Gryphon said...

Amber Bock is the only one of the mass market American beers that I think is halfway decent. It's what I drink when I'm at a bar that isn't considerate enough to have Guinness on tap.

jake said...

For the record, Guiness was never intended to be bottled. It is normally served at room temperature, as is Bass, from the tap.

Gryphon said...

"GUINNESS® Draught is best served at 6°C (that’s 42.8°F), with the legendary two-part pour."

That's a direct quote from the Guinness website. 42.8 is not room temperature, unless you live in Siberia...

Kate said...

I gotta agree with Jake here. When Dave and I were in England, you couldn't even find Guiness in a bottle. It was always on tap, and unchilled. I think the chilled Guiness is a bow to the American prederence for cold beer. When trying to break into a new market, you cater to its tastes.

Gryphon said...

Oh I agree Guinness should be on tap if possible. The bottle loses a lot of the flavor. It was just the first thing I had at hand. But the quote from the Guinness site was for the draught. After getting your experience from England, I went searching as my info came from a friend who had spent quite a bit of time in Ireland (and is sadly now passed so I can't ask him again). Best I can get from several online resources is that, in Ireland, Guinness is usually served colder than usual although some pub owners only "cellar" it, leaving it warmer than artificial cooling, but hardly room temperature. My only guess here to explain your experience is that the Brits do things differently. As any Irishman will tell you, the difference between England and Ireland is quite a bit more than the distance in miles you have to travel to get there.

Gryphon said...

Heh. In furthering my research (I'm bored today), this seems to be a debate not only here but in Ireland as well. I've seen several Irish travel guides mention that pubs often have two different kegs of Guinness on tap. One is a "cellared" temperature (usually around 55) and the other is the refrigerated temperature (39-45) since it runs about half and half of which people prefer.

The politics of beer... Might have to try to work that into a column for LAN somehow.

Kel said...

Folks, you're all right. Guinness is intended to be served on tap at 42.8 degrees -- which IS room temperature in the cellar where the stuff is kept. The rest is semantics.

jake said...

A new record for blog comments I think...

Gryphon said...

See Kel, you should write about beer more often. It gets great response! (I say this knowing that this is 11 more comments than Drinking Round the World has gotten in its life...)