I've had people tell me that, even though they may usually prefer craft beer or other quality beers, they'll semi-happily drink Bud Light or Miller Lite if they're already drunk and especially if it's cheap or free. And while that logic almost works, consider this scenario: someone offers you a tall, frosty glass of urine. And it's free. Free, ice cold, low calorie (no calorie?) piss. How drunk do you have to be to accept it?
While you're thinking about that, let's examine the health aspects of
Now, as Miller Lite ads have so astutely observed, real men demand fewer calories. That's how that works, right? And that's why light beer is so desirable: because it's so much lower in calories. Isn't it? Eh, sort of. The caloric range of beer varies, based on style, ingredients, brewing techniques, etc. But you can usually expect the average can/bottle of light lager to come in at about 110 calories. A can/bottle of regular beer (taking into account all styles) will come in at around 153 calories. That's a 43-calorie difference. Using the same source, that's the same as about half a McIntosh apple. Can you honestly tell me you were going to use those extra calories (and remembering that an average adult male is allowed around 2,000 to 2,500 calories a day) on half a McIntosh apple?
Oh, but we now have Miller 64 and Budweiser 55. Can't argue with math.* But let's consider these comparisons to some non-alcoholic beverages: A cup of black tea (no sugar or milk) is 2-5 calories. A cup of coffee (as with tea, adding things to make cappuccinos or lattes will blow this out of the water) is 2 to 4 calories. An eight-ounce glass of V8 is 50 calories. Skim milk, a beverage that is beneficial for health, is about 55 calories per half cup. Each of these is equal to, less than, or well less than even the phantom beverages of Miller 64 and Budweiser 55. Even Coca-Cola--everyone's favorite healthy beverage--at 95 per eight-ounce glass, still has fewer calories than most light beers. You want to go for no calories at all? Try water--you know, the same thing you're currently drinking, except minus 55 calories and losing that stale cracker taste.
Then there's another question: if you're watching your caloric intake that closely, should you be drinking beer at all? Or any alcohol? Finally, the booze comparisons: A glass of Pinot Grigio wine will be around 123 calories; Pinot Noir, about 122. A shot of Grey Goose vodka (roughly similar to the amount of alcohol in a beer) is 69 calories. Johnnie Walker Black Label Scotch (a personal favorite) is about the same per serving. If that 50 to 100 calorie difference is really scaring you off of regular beer, you shouldn't be bothering with any of these, either. And it's not as though alcohol does anything especially healthful for you (with the possible exception of red wine). If you're a strict diet, booze should be one of the first things to go. This guy says it pretty well:
Depending on your lifestyle, (light beer)'s either a half-assed indulgence or a half-assed health kick. I'll drink light beer when it's handed to me,*** but otherwise I base my beer choices on several different criteria, none of which involve calories. I'll get the cheap one or the good one or the high ABV one or the weird one, but I'll never get the one that wants a pat on the head for sparing me half an apple's worth of calories.
But you just wanted to get drunk, you say? Fair enough. And it makes sense that you'd want so as quickly and as cheaply as possible. (Never mind the fact that if that really is all you want, a handle of cheap whiskey or vodka will do the trick for a comparable cost) Well, here's the problem: beer is not the ideal beverage for that task. The average ABV of beer is around 4-6%. A glass of wine ranges from 8-20% (a variance that surprised me some, actually). And liquors often hover around 40%. For the sake of ease of drunkenness, then, it's no contest. You shouldn't be bothering with beer at all. (And, in that cheap handle comparison above, that one handle will have you and your party trying to hold on to the floor while the party next door is only halfway through their stupid goddamn beer-amid).
And outside of the imperials and a few largely experimental beers, most people will be full before they can get drunk. It's one of beer's great advantages, I find: I've had enough long before I'm too drunk. If it's the buzz I'm after, I reach for scotch. Not to say I haven't been drunk on beer, but the process is neither cheap nor quick. And if light beer drinkers aren't going for cost or drunkenness, what are they after?
Well, we're back to the pesky question of personal choice again. Someone may rightfully point out that people are going to drink what they're going to drink. And, though shallow and obvious, it's true; I mentioned in my first post that taste is not a universal thing. I also can't stop people from drinking light beer and I don't propose to; that, to my mind, would be both immoral and impractical, as well as generally douchey. But prodding should be acceptable, yes? Even as a polite (ha, who am I kidding) question on my end. If you're a light beer drinker and you've made it this far (and again, ha), you should certainly have no problem confronting the question yourself.
My question from the beginning has been why. Along with women's clothing sizes and Jimmy Buffet's appeal, it's something I've repeatedly tried and failed to wrap my head around. Why is light beer such an apparent (if, thankfully, diminishing) staple of our culture? Why do we as a culture continue to embrace a beverage with no serious health benefits, little real chance for drunken carousing (yes, I'd consider that a reason), and less taste than many equally available alternatives? And why are banality and mediocrity celebrated--or at least accepted--so readily in a nation that traditionally relishes its knack for innovation and ambition and betterment?
Stay tuned.
*Or can I?**
**I can.
***Another common argument and where I differ with this sentiment: "I drink it because it's there." Well, after first referring you back to my pee-drinking analogy above, I've long thought that "because I can" is among the worst reasons to do anything. If you're hungry, are you going to eat those old batteries someone handed to you?
No comments:
Post a Comment