# Lo Carb Drinkers Exploited



## Swinging Beef (10/12/10)

What?
Lo carb beer wont make me lose weight?
When did this happen?

 

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest...carb-beer-myth/


----------



## StewTurner (10/12/10)

I think the real problem is calling it 'beer'. I suggest:

'Slightly lower carbohydrate beer-coloured carbonated alcoholic beverage'

Catchy, huh?


----------



## Lecterfan (10/12/10)

I think the "real problem" is mindless consumers who don't take any personal responsiblity in any decision they make. We are all quick to talk about "rights" but not so quick to realise they only exist in a reciprocal dialectic with "responsiblites".


----------



## bignath (10/12/10)

Stew the Cat said:


> I think the real problem is calling it 'beer'. I suggest:
> 
> 'Slightly lower carbohydrate beer-coloured carbonated alcoholic beverage'
> 
> Catchy, huh?




+1 for sure...

And i reckon the real solution is to educate the dicks who love this beer to appreciate a beer with some flavour.

One tool in the comments section said something about him drinking it because he loves the flavour of it, and then references xxxx and VB.....What a wanker...

Should have just said: "i love drinking this beer because i don't like the taste of beer"

"Man up" beer drinkers and have some balls for **** sake...


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

Lecterfan said:


> I think the "real problem" is mindless consumers who don't take any personal responsiblity in any decision they make. We are all quick to talk about "rights" but not so quick to realise they only exist in a reciprocal dialectic with "responsiblites".


Sure but there is also a real campaign of misinformation surrounding these products. I don't think it is unfair that in our regulated markets that people should be able to rely on the claims made by producers - sure, probably not a wise thing to do but in a perfect world, etc.


----------



## felten (10/12/10)

I'm just disappointed I need an account to vote the comments down


----------



## Lecterfan (10/12/10)

bum said:


> Sure but there is also a real campaign of misinformation surrounding these products. I don't think it is unfair that in our regulated markets that people should be able to rely on the claims made by producers - sure, probably not a wise thing to do but in a perfect world, etc.



Tru dat. But as idealistic as I might sound, the idea of "regulated" markets is also an ideal, albeit one that is easier to pretend we are doing.

I am ambivalent about it...I swing between distaste for the ridiculous lengths that marketers go to in order to confuse and entice the consumer to distaste for the consumer that won't make their own ethical choices.

I am no scientist but the best description I've heard so far on "low-carbohydrate" beers is tht the marketing is essentially true, but that ALL beers (using this particular marketing paradigm/semantic definition) are actually "low-carbohydrate".

I also think that with the availability of information these days there is even more onus on the conusmer.

Still, your point is taken. I for one have certain dietary restrictions and as a matter of habit I investigate claims, ingredients etc. When "low-carb" beer first appeared I simply compared the kilojoules and found that I was better off sticking to tooheys old (my drink of choice at the time) as it had something like 30 kilojoules less per 100mls or something.

Maybe I'm just a bit grumpy this morning. 


edit: isn't it still "beer" though? Surely there is worse tasting crap made in Australia that is just as much "beer" as this stuff is? Ot am I being too precious about it?


----------



## Rod (10/12/10)

Lecterfan said:


> I am no scientist but the best description I've heard so far on "low-carbohydrate" beers is tht the marketing is essentially true, but that ALL beers (using this particular marketing paradigm/semantic definition) are actually "low-carbohydrate".




I agree most brews would be low carbohydrate , the carbohydrates has been broken down by the yeast 

To reduce the carbohydrate level further you would need to add enzyme to further reduce the level as in a dry/ultradry brew

this works well taking the FG down from 1006 to as low as 1002 or lower , the enzymes acting as a catalyst to assist the yeasts to ferment lower


----------



## QldKev (10/12/10)

omg - beer is making me fat  

who would have thought?

QldKev


----------



## raven19 (10/12/10)

Give me a brew before any of this commercial crap any day of the week.


----------



## Phoney (10/12/10)

Big Nath said:


> +1 for sure...
> 
> And i reckon the real solution is to educate the dicks who love this beer to appreciate a beer with some flavour.



I have a mate of mine who drinks Pure Blonde.

We've tried and tried to educate him with flavoursome beers, everything from APA's to Czech Pilsners to English Bitters. He just doesn't like them. He can drink Coopers Pale ale but by personal choice will always prefer to go back to Pure Blonde. We give him shit about it and he doesnt care...


----------



## MarkBastard (10/12/10)

From what I understand these beers are marketed (and even then only barely) as low-carb beers. And they are low carb beers.

If people jump to conclusions and don't understand the human metabolic system it is their own fault.

And if you read the article it's the typical wowser rubbish we expect from think tanks and mentions people would be better off drinking light beers. FFS. The reason people drink low carb beers is because they are full strength alcohol yet less carbohydrates. Telling them to drink light beer is not good advice, you may as well tell them to drink water and go for a run, ******* idiots.


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

Mark^Bastard said:


> Telling them to drink light beer is not good advice


Not when people flat out state they are drinking them because they believe them to be a healthier option. If a person states they want to be drinking the "healthiest" beer then there is no questioning the advice that a low alcohol beer is better for you. None.

Now if you want to question people's true motivations for drinking the stuff then go for it but the advice is sound even if it isn't what you want to hear.


----------



## Phoney (10/12/10)

bum said:


> If a person states they want to be drinking the "healthiest" beer then there is no questioning the advice that a low alcohol beer is better for you. None.



Yes there is, Non alcoholic beer - Like Coopers Birrell







Ive drunk it once or twice -more than a decade ago- when I just turned 18 and went into a strip club that didnt have a liquor license.


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

phoneyhuh said:


> Yes there is, Non alcoholic beer - Like Coopers Birrell


Ah, perhaps that's why Mark is so upset.

I take it back.


----------



## MarkBastard (10/12/10)

bum said:


> Not when people flat out state they are drinking them because they believe them to be a healthier option. If a person states they want to be drinking the "healthiest" beer then there is no questioning the advice that a low alcohol beer is better for you. None.



I'm sure the survey was a completely rigorous process (not). I bet if they asked them "how would you feel if I told you light beers were healthier than full-strength low carb beers"? A hell of a lot of the respondents would say "Who gives a crap, shouldn't we be strictly comparing full strength beers of a low-carb and normal carb nature".


----------



## MarkBastard (10/12/10)

Or how about this. Many people drink Vodka and soda water because they believe it to be healthier than other alcoholic drinks because at the end of the day it's mostly ethanol and water.

If you told them they'd be better off doing the same thing but putting a 1/3 the amount of vodka in they would justifiably punch you in the face.


----------



## drsmurto (10/12/10)

Sorry if i have missed your point MarkB but are you suggesting that reducing your alcohol intake isn't a healthy option?


----------



## Phoney (10/12/10)

DrSmurto said:


> Sorry if i have missed your point MarkB but are you suggesting that reducing your alcohol intake isn't a healthy option?



I think what he's suggesting is that drinkers who drink to get pissed are wanting to minimize the impact to their health without cutting down on alcohol.


----------



## MarkBastard (10/12/10)

DrSmurto said:


> Sorry if i have missed your point MarkB but are you suggesting that reducing your alcohol intake isn't a healthy option?



I'm suggesting that it's patently obvious that that is the case, so it's bad advice, or at least unhelpful advice.

I'm pretty sure no low-carb marketing campaigns have told people to increase consumption, or even that they are a healthier option. In America they are called Lite Beers and I understand why someone would object to that. But in Australia they are called low-carbohydrate beers, which is actually quite accurate and perfectly fine. Most of them don't even advertise it strongly any more. The Hahn Super Dry ads for example are abstract and don't mention the benefits of the beer itself. Not sure about the other ones because I can't remember them.

Putting aside our obvious dislike of low carb megaswill, if you were going to treat this as a legitimate beer style and talk about it in an unbiased fashion, low carbohydrate beers would mean ones that finish with a low FG. If people desire that then I don't see what is wrong with it. It arguably makes it less bloating and easier to drink on a summers day etc (I drink Porter on a summers day by the way, just going with the popular consensus).

What I think is happening here is people are letting their hatred of megaswill and beer marketing cloud their judgement and committing a much worse act, siding with the bullshit think tanks and media wankers that are one of the main driving forces between our nanny state.

This is how these wankers work too. Divide and conquer.

This is why I'm passionate about the topic. Not because I give a crap about defending a certain type of beer.


----------



## drsmurto (10/12/10)

phoneyhuh said:


> I think what he's suggesting is that drinkers who drink to get pissed are wanting to minimize the impact to their health without cutting down on alcohol.



Ah, bogan logic.

And this story even made it to the pages of Things Bogans Like


----------



## big78sam (10/12/10)

I just read the "latest threads" in the top right hand corner and it read "Low carb drinkers exploited by Dr Smurto".  I had to do a double take. LOL

EDIT: It raised all sorts of possible threads. "The greatest homebrew in the world is brewed… by Big78Sam" "The most frivolous posts on this forum are posted.. By Big78sam"


----------



## JestersDarts (10/12/10)

phoneyhuh said:


> I think what he's suggesting is that drinkers who drink to get pissed are wanting to minimize the impact to their health without cutting down on alcohol.



Kinda like ordering a diet coke to counter the upsized double quarter pounder meal and extra fries


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

Mark^Bastard said:


> Putting aside our obvious dislike of low carb megaswill, if you were going to treat this as a legitimate beer style and talk about it in an unbiased fashion, low carbohydrate beers would mean ones that finish with a low FG. If people desire that then I don't see what is wrong with it. It arguably makes it less bloating and easier to drink on a summers day etc (I drink Porter on a summers day by the way, just going with the popular consensus).


This is all fair except that "low carb" is a concept that exists outside of brewing and (as pointed out in the article and again in this thread) almost all beer is low carb. Using it to distinguish one style of beer from another is entirely pointless - which it seems to me is the point of the article.

But honestly, you know what is worse than the automatic mega-swill bashing (which you rightly argue against)? The recurrent bleating and chest-beating that always goes on about "Nanny States" here. What a load of shit. Alcohol is a dangerous drug and we should be informed of the dangers and advised what might be considered a safe dose. Nobody is trying to force you to follow that advice and nobody is judging you for it. We're rapidly turning into a society of wilful victims.


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

big78sam said:


> I just read the "latest threads" in the top right hand corner and it read "Low carb drinkers exploited by Dr Smurto".  I had to do a double take. LOL
> 
> EDIT: It raised all sorts of possible threads. "The greatest homebrew in the world is brewed by Big78Sam" "The most frivolous posts on this forum are posted.. By Big78sam"


http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum/inde...showtopic=32427


----------



## ebo (10/12/10)

big78sam said:


> I just read the "latest threads" in the top right hand corner and it read "Low carb drinkers exploited by Dr Smurto".  I had to do a double take. LOL



+1 - well spotted.


----------



## Midnight Brew (10/12/10)

Beers are low-carb to begin with but alot of people do drink them becase they find it eaiser to stomach because it makes them less bloated. But come-on, genious idea to take a segment of the market. "Hey, lets advertise this beer as low-carb to make people think it is healthier! We'll make millions" 

Like someone pointed out earlier, if they understood human metabolism they'd understand beer is low carb to begin with. Just because its got less carbs doesnt mean its better for you in the long term compared to light beer (in the alcohol sence).

I think the best way of summing it up is:

"The sum of the matter is, the people drink because they wish to drink beer."
-Rudolph Brand




JestersDarts said:


> Kinda like ordering a diet coke to counter the upsized double quarter pounder meal and extra fries



Off Topic :icon_offtopic: 
Haha thats me! I get the diet coke cause I much rather prefer the taste. In the instance of Mcdonalds, getting a diet coke isnt going to counter or cancel out the upsized double quarter pounder meal but it wont add more sugar to your intake as coke would. However there is something in diet coke that does make you feel more hungry  so I'm not really winning as to say but for me its the taste.


----------



## MarkBastard (10/12/10)

bum said:


> But honestly, you know what is worse than the automatic mega-swill bashing (which you rightly argue against)? The recurrent bleating and chest-beating that always goes on about "Nanny States" here. What a load of shit. Alcohol is a dangerous drug and we should be informed of the dangers and advised what might be considered a safe dose. Nobody is trying to force you to follow that advice and nobody is judging you for it. We're rapidly turning into a society of wilful victims.



ROFL. As if their intention is just to inform our decisions. That is bullshit and you know it. Why do we have sin taxes? Why are they constantly looking at changing laws to reduce freedom of personal choice?


----------



## MarkBastard (10/12/10)

JestersDarts said:


> Kinda like ordering a diet coke to counter the upsized double quarter pounder meal and extra fries



No one actually thinks that diet coke has magical ingredients that burn off fat from your body. Is that what you think? Is that what you think diet coke drinkers think?

Here is some factual information: A large coke from McDonalds contains 937kj, which is 11% of the RDI. A diet coke contains 9kj, or 0% of RDI.

Considering they are a like for like product that you order in the same way, comes in the same container, takes the same amount of effort etc, it is completely logical to order a diet coke instead of a regular coke even if you are consuming it with fatty unhealthy food.


----------



## mika (10/12/10)

Mark^Bastard said:


> ..... it is completely logical to order a diet coke instead of a regular coke even if you are consuming it with fatty unhealthy food.



No it's not, coz it tastes like crap :icon_vomit:


----------



## Katherine (10/12/10)

I actually like the taste of diet coke... I also like real coke but find it sickly sweet.


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

Mark^Bastard said:


> ROFL. As if their intention is just to inform our decisions.


Who are "they", Mark? Who is it you think is out to separate us from our terribly important beverages and what do they gain by doing so?



Mark^Bastard said:


> Why do we have sin taxes?


There are two answers to this. The first is the one "they" might give - these "sins" present a financial burden on society and as such the users of them should bare a larger burden of the associated costs. Sounds reasonable but it isn't the whole answer because this money isn't directly channelled to the relevant area of consern so there is a weakness to the argument. The second answer (which in all likelihood is more likely to be a tandem truth to the first rather than a substitute answer) is that we are weak and stupid and they know this is a cash-cow they can milk for all perpetuity - perhaps some of us will bare it no longer and drop off but the rest won't and will bare a larger burden for the privilege. 



Mark^Bastard said:


> Why are they constantly looking at changing laws to reduce freedom of personal choice?


This is ludicrous. Never has anyone in history had as great a choice in all things as you do today, Mark. Can you clarify this point for me, please?


----------



## Phoney (10/12/10)

Mark^Bastard said:


> Here is some factual information: A large coke from McDonalds contains 937kj, which is 11% of the RDI. A diet coke contains 9kj, or 0% of RDI.
> 
> Considering they are a like for like product that you order in the same way, comes in the same container, takes the same amount of effort etc, it is completely logical to order a diet coke instead of a regular coke even if you are consuming it with fatty unhealthy food.



Except that artificial sweeteners are actually much worse for your health than natural sugar, and not only that but artificial sweeteners in soft drinks often leave you feeling hungry - which makes fatties eat even more.


----------



## JestersDarts (10/12/10)

Mark^Bastard said:


> No one actually thinks that diet coke has magical ingredients that burn off fat from your body. Is that what you think? Is that what you think diet coke drinkers think?
> 
> Here is some factual information: A large coke from McDonalds contains 937kj, which is 11% of the RDI. A diet coke contains 9kj, or 0% of RDI.
> 
> Considering they are a like for like product that you order in the same way, comes in the same container, takes the same amount of effort etc, it is completely logical to order a diet coke instead of a regular coke even if you are consuming it with fatty unhealthy food.



I thought I was being ironic.

No one actually thinks that low carb beers have less carbs and that lower carbs in an alcoholic beverage lessens the fattening effects of the beer. Is that what you think? Is that what you think low-carb beer drinkers think?

well yes, many bogans do think that.. ref: article in post #1.


----------



## geoffd (10/12/10)

Vodka & Coke, there are 40 times the calories in the vodka than there are in the coke, other than for personal taste there is absolutely no point in substituting with diet coke.

Low carb beers are a con,
(1) they are a con because they are sold for the same price using some 30% less barley
(2) they are a con because they target health consious people with their advertising.
I have a number if issues with this.(a) it is commonly known that the higher the body & lower the alcohol, the more nutritious the beer.
(B) if you reduce your malt by 30% then you also reduce your vitamin benefits, which may actually help your body deal with the most toxic part - the ALC
&copy; the most harmful part of the beer is not being reduced, whilst the most nutritious part is being considerably cut.
(d) as pointed out already in a previous post, only a quarter (+-) of the calories in a beer come from the body, the rest is in the alcohol.
(e) All energy forms are stored as fat in the human body (other than what your metabolism considers appropriate blood sugar levels to feed daily energy requirements) This includes Starch, Malt (& all other sugars) & Alcohol.
​
In essence the megaswillers are profeteering by producing a cheaper product & selling for the same price. They claim it is healthier, but I argue less nutritious. It is not healthy to diet by cutting out nutritious foods & continuing to eat the same ammount of bad foods. That is akin to Weightwatchers recommending giving up fruit & veg so you can maintain your lollies & macdonalds intake!

They are doing a blatant disservice to society by promoting this concept of "healthier drinking"
If you need to diet then just eat/drink less & exercise more.

Disclosure: I have a beergut. apologies if I've made my point longwinded & repeditive. :beer: 

An afterthough, the malt & particularly flaked barley & wheat malts are particularly filling, which encourage a drinker to consume less as they feel full. 
- More Cudos for healthier yummier full bodied beers 
​


----------



## HoppingMad (10/12/10)

I always thought the most fattening aspect of having a few beers was the salted snacks, followed by souvlaki washed down with hamburger that came after a big session, not the beer itself or the 'fattening alcohol' :blink: as stated in this article.

A miracle beer that can zap away the fat of a greasy late night snack? Now I'd like to see that.

Hopper.


----------



## Lecterfan (10/12/10)

HoppingMad said:


> A miracle beer that can zap away the fat of a greasy late night snack? Now I'd like to see that.



I've drunk plenty of them! They are the same as standard beer except you increase the volume of it in until everything that you've put in your mouth for the last 5 hours comes straight back out again.

You didn't specify that it had to be a _healthy_ miracle beer...


----------



## QldKev (10/12/10)

HoppingMad said:


> I always thought the most fattening aspect of having a few beers was the salted snacks, followed by souvlaki washed down with hamburger that came after a big session, not the beer itself or the 'fattening alcohol' :blink: as stated in this article.
> 
> A miracle beer that can zap away the fat of a greasy late night snack? Now I'd like to see that.
> 
> Hopper.



It all comes down to how many drinks

Say you went out for a big night drinking 12 x JSGA = 12 x 548kj = 6,573kj
An average man should have between 9,000 to 16,000kj a day. 

So that beer has made up a big percentage of it; even before you go the kebab shop / maccas

Compare that to the souvlaki = 1,200kj
Or a Big Mac = 2,000kj
-- you want fries with that - large = 1,732kj
-- and a large coke 937kj 


QldKev


----------



## jonocarroll (10/12/10)

QldKev said:


> Say you went out for a big night drinking 12 x JSGA [...]
> 
> [...]
> 
> An average man [...]


If we're talking a big night out for an average man, I'll consider myself below average. Maybe I'm just cheap - that's at least $90 over the bar where I drink those. I'll go home sober and track down something delicious.

Can I just post a screenshot of the last time this topic came up, and everyone's exact same responses? Where's AdamT these days anyways, he's usually the first to jump in on a thread like this.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (10/12/10)

Ummm - i dont believe i have ever seen a beer ad that says or even suggests, that their low (and nowadays you will find they generally use the term "lower") carb beer is either less fattening, or better for you.

They simply say "Low Carb", perhaps mention less filling, dry, crisp etc etc - but they all, and they all _must_ because they are regulated to do so, leave any claims at all about health "benefits" entirely up to you the consumers' imagination.

I make a low carb beer, I say nothing at all about how it will effect your health - You decide for yourself that it is "better" for you and that you will buy it in preference to other beer...... Just exactly how is that me exploiting you?


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

Thirsty Boy said:


> I make a low carb beer, I say nothing at all about how it will effect your health - You decide for yourself that it is "better" for you and that you will buy it in preference to other beer...... Just exactly how is that me exploiting you?


If I (speaking as society) have an existing understanding that low carb anything is better for me than a high carb anything and then you go on to offer me a low carb alternative to something without explaining to me that the usual low carb benefits are not relevant here then one can make the fair assumption that you are inadvertently misleading me (but this is being pretty generous - it more likely that you are being a duplicitous, opportunistic prick).


----------



## kymba (10/12/10)

HoppingMad said:


> ... A miracle beer that can zap away the fat of a greasy late night snack? Now I'd like to see that ...



i'd call it kymba suprise - a magnesium rich apa. one schooner then SURPRISE!

but seriously if there was nothing tasty on offer i would much rather, and often do, drink a low carb beer over anything else. i find my senses are far less offended with a locarb than with anything else the font has to offer

ffs i know i'm being 'exploited' whenever i walk into a pub or bottleshop


----------



## emdub (10/12/10)

I can only add to this discussion in reference to my brother. He, as a long time Tooheys New drinker (along with his friend/flatmate) switched to XXXX Low Carb.
At the "turnout" where I noticed the change he commented that drinking the XXXX didn't get him as drunk and he woke up clearer. He did think, that being low carb, gave him a health benefit as well. I disagreed and just said it's a marketing exercise to make you think that.
I don't know, I didn't read the label. my view is/was my own.
My bro is a bit of a sheeple type, I might add.


----------



## QldKev (10/12/10)

QuantumBrewer said:


> If we're talking a big night out for an average man, I'll consider myself below average. Maybe I'm just cheap - that's at least $90 over the bar where I drink those. I'll go home sober and track down something delicious.
> 
> Can I just post a screenshot of the last time this topic came up, and everyone's exact same responses? Where's AdamT these days anyways, he's usually the first to jump in on a thread like this.



Not sure what this has to do with the topic thou?

What if you went out for a night out to a mates place and took half a carton, thats about $30 worth... 

and WTF has an average man kj intake got to do with a $ spending.. I really think your comment was just for the sake of posting crap.

back to topic...

QldKev


----------



## sinkas (10/12/10)

I still wonder why anyone wants to drink something unneccessary, such as booze, that is made to be "easy to drink". Surely if your havin' a beer, you want to know your havin' a beer, if you dont like it you should try a different drink.

"I drink teds cos its easy to drink, " just makes me sad


----------



## J Grimmer (10/12/10)

When did people become so lost in these marketing gimicks, i like beer that tastes like "beer", and these days prefer to eat and drink foods that are minimally processed rather than low fat low carb, cause i reackon if they take out fat and carbs from foods they will have more than likely added a bucket load of sugar or something worse. When did people lose their common sense about food? my 2c.


----------



## bum (10/12/10)

J Grimmer said:


> When did people become so lost in these marketing gimicks


Pretty much since marketing began or they wouldn't have kept doing it.


----------



## Hatchy (10/12/10)

From reading this thread I decided to try an experiment with high carb beer. I pitched 1056 in an APA yesterday & I've had 8 pints from the fermenter for science tonight. The high carb beer doesn't seem to have made me fatter but I now have 2 airlocks bubbling that aren't attached to my fermenter & I've got 8 pints less beer.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (11/12/10)

bum said:


> If I (speaking as society) have an existing understanding that low carb anything is better for me than a high carb anything and then you go on to offer me a low carb alternative to something without explaining to me that the usual low carb benefits are not relevant here then one can make the fair assumption that you are inadvertently misleading me (but this is being pretty generous - it more likely that you are being a duplicitous, opportunistic prick).



so - society has that understanding do they? and in order to market a product without duplicity - you have to educate the potential customer about their misunderstanding of the health benefits of other products unrelated to yours - and then not only fail to make any false claims about your own product, but head off at the pass any false _assumptions_ that a potential customer might draw about it?

Now that sounds like bullshit to me. Shit - people sell bottled water and no one is suggesting that they should be obliged to tell their customers its no different to what comes out of the tap. Just so long as they don't tell them it is different, then the rest is up to the buyer.

People wanted - In fact people want .. low carb beers. Breweries supply them with the product that they want and make no claims about the product beyond its taste. 

What is it you want them to actually do?

You wander up to the bar:
"Got any low carb beer mate?"
"Yeah I have - would you like one?"

What is my responsibility now? Do I serve you the beer that you want? Or am I morally obligated to make sure that you aren't buying it because you falsely believe it to be beneficial for your health?

Next thing you know Porsche will have to start writing letters to all their customers carefully explaining that no matter what they would prefer to believe - owning a fast, fancy car does not in fact compensate them for having a tiny willy.


----------



## bum (11/12/10)

Thirsty Boy said:


> so - society has that understanding do they?


Yes. That's pretty much what makes this a society - shared and assumed understandings that stop us from fighting each other in the streets (most of the time). [EDIT: I misread this bit - ignore my rhetoric and I apologise. But yeah, I'd say that an all too large section of society thinks that carbs = make fat.]



Thirsty Boy said:


> and in order to market a product without duplicity - you have to educate the potential customer about their misunderstanding of the health benefits of other products unrelated to yours - and then not only fail to make any false claims about your own product, but head off at the pass any false _assumptions_ that a potential customer might draw about it?


May I ask how you got that from my post? I suggested nothing of the sort. It seems pretty clear to me that my point is that the megas have seen a vulnerability in the market and have dug a hole for us to willingly walk into. Just because it is our fault doesn't mean we deserve it.



Thirsty Boy said:


> Now that sounds like bullshit to me.


Good, because it is a deliberate misrepresentation of my point.



Thirsty Boy said:


> Shit - people sell bottled water and no one is suggesting that they should be obliged to tell their customers its no different to what comes out of the tap. Just so long as they don't tell them it is different, then the rest is up to the buyer.


No, just so long as they don't call it "Miracle Water" and have a picture of a cripple walking from a wheelchair as their logo.



Thirsty Boy said:


> People wanted - In fact people want .. low carb beers.


Not denying that. Show me that these beers actually deliver what the customer expects.



Thirsty Boy said:


> Breweries supply them with the product that they want and make no claims about the product beyond its taste.


Do we want to open up their claims about the products' taste to debate? No, probably not. They make no direct claim as to the health-giving qualities of these products but I believe my point about how it is inferred in a previous post. I think anyone but the most blinded could see it - even if they don't agree with it.



Thirsty Boy said:


> What is it you want them to actually do?


Be less sneaky.



Thirsty Boy said:


> You wander up to the bar:
> "Got any low carb beer mate?"
> "Yeah I have - would you like one?"
> What is my responsibility now?


As a retailer? Give me my beer now. As a producer who promises a product that fills a hole I never knew existed? You'd better ******* deliver.



Thirsty Boy said:


> Next thing you know Porsche will have to start writing letters to all their customers carefully explaining that no matter what they would prefer to believe - owning a fast, fancy car does not in fact compensate them for having a tiny willy.


If they call their next model "Viagra 2000" you may have a point.


----------



## InCider (11/12/10)

Considering they pay through the nose...


----------



## [email protected] (11/12/10)

It's a common fact that beer marketeers aim their arrows at the dumb consumer. It's the majority of the beer market in australia. One of the greatest lies is when Carlton Cold came out. Cold filtered became all the rage when we all know it's marketing shit. 

The positive out of all of this is that the overall beer market is changing. Drinkers are more educated and there's a big groundswell toward premium and craft beer. Main streams are dropping in volume by 10-12% per year with the crafty's taking a big proportion of it.

It would be nice to think that in the next 10 to 20 years that the current mainstreams are still on the decline and there are double/triple the amount of smaller breweries propping up the market. The only way that can happen is if the population continue to be educated on what real beer can taste like.

Booz


----------



## kymba (11/12/10)

InCider said:


> Considering they pay through the nose...
> 
> View attachment 42717



i just looked at your avatar for 15 minutes whilst having a superdry...thank you sir, you have made my day!


----------



## InCider (11/12/10)

kymba said:


> i just looked at your avatar for 15 minutes whilst having a superdry...thank you sir, you have made my day!




A pleasure Kymba! Check out Yardy's also... a lovely one too  Where abouts on the sunny coast are you? I'm in Landsborough.


----------



## kymba (11/12/10)

InCider said:


> A pleasure Kymba! Check out Yardy's also... a lovely one too  Where abouts on the sunny coast are you? I'm in Landsborough.



yes i do like what is happening with the canadian flag there

i'm just a bit north mate, in the Yandina


----------



## Armstrong (11/12/10)

How come no-one has anything to say about milk??

Full cream milk is around 4% fat
Lite Milk around 1% fat

pretty similar comparison to our full carb beer being 4g and Low Carb being 1g.

I'm sure I've seen frozen meals that say "96% fat free" ie 4% fat ... That means that full cream milk would be considered "Low Fat!"

Those barstard multinational milk companies are missleading the milk drinking public!!!

seriously guys!

We have heaps of people buying low carb beer for numerous reason whether it be less bloating, dry taste etc. The folkes with diabetes love them.

Low Carb beers are being criticized for not being Low Calorie ... I can't remember them saying they were ... they are just low carb


----------



## brett mccluskey (11/12/10)

J Grimmer said:


> When did people become so lost in these marketing gimicks, i like beer that tastes like "beer", and these days prefer to eat and drink foods that are minimally processed rather than low fat low carb, cause i reackon if they take out fat and carbs from foods they will have more than likely added a bucket load of sugar or something worse. When did people lose their common sense about food? my 2c.






The Ol said:


> I think the fad for this sad beer style started with some american clown ,in the 70's,who came out with the "south beach" diet.It advocated a low fat,low carb,high protein diet and wrongly labelled beer as being high in carbs,namely maltose  Obviously someone who never studied science.Then the yank mega brewers jumped on the bandwagon, :angry:The rest is history. The craze for this rubbish started here with the start of 'dry beers',Same thing ,different name :icon_vomit: Unfortunately the general public are very ignorant of the facts,IMO what drinkers who are "watching their girlish figure" need,and just in general,is a few mid strength ie:3.5-4.2 tasty 'session' beers.But just try and get people to pay decent money for a well made craft brewed mid strength and see what happens  ie: Jamieson Summer ale


----------



## manticle (11/12/10)

As much as I hate the beers themselves for being bland and as much as I hate marketting gimmicks, most people I know who drink them like them because they find the dryness refreshing.

Drink it cold on a hot day, drink it fast and the dry finish on a palate = refreshed.

I'd sooner punch myself in the cock with a concrete glove than drink bland awful mass marketted urine but people like it and who can argue with that?

Having said the above, a can of melbourne at a friend's BBQ on a 40 degree day when the only other free beer on offer is Toohey's red, will see me punch myself once then get into it.


----------



## brett mccluskey (11/12/10)

manticle said:


> As much as I hate the beers themselves for being bland and as much as I hate marketting gimmicks, most people I know who drink them like them because they find the dryness refreshing.
> 
> Drink it cold on a hot day, drink it fast and the dry finish on a palate = refreshed.
> 
> ...


I completely agree,it's only the false idea that they're "heathier" that i find sad.If people enjoy them , and i can at the standard bbq,if they're icy and all thats free/available, then go for it .Some i've found enjoyable,much to my surprise :unsure:


----------



## Nevalicious (11/12/10)

manticle said:


> I'd sooner punch myself in the cock with a concrete glove than drink bland awful mass marketted urine but people like it and who can argue with that?



I nearly lost my mouthful of beer over the screen!!! Gold


----------



## Thirsty Boy (13/12/10)

The Ol said:


> But - Cold filtering wasn't all "Marketing Shit" CUB installed millions of dollars worth of equipment, trained operators to work in & maintain a sterile clean room surrounding a sterile filter, had to instigate a higher grading and higher rate of pay for those workers. And the beer was indeed cold filtered, in as much as it was first filtered to remove yeast etc, and then filtered again through sterile filters to remove any bugs, and at no point was the beer ever pasteurised or heated up as a normal beer would have been. Whether that made the beer taste better or not... A matter of opinion.
> 
> And the Low Carb beers that some people seem to think are a way to save money on malt - are more difficult to brew, more expensive to make and require different and more expensive ingredients than normal beers. And they indeed do have less carbs than normal full strength beers as a result of the extra effort and expense.
> 
> Marketing is one thing - but these are real products, brewed in a real brewery - and if the company says something about the process or the attributes of the beer - they pretty much have to be telling the truth.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (13/12/10)

bum said:


> Not denying that. Show me that these beers actually deliver what the customer expects.



Well, thats really actually quite easy..

The potential customer believes that consuming less carbs is "better" for them
The customer wishes to consume a full strength beer and is presented with a choice between "normal" beer and a "low carb beer"
The customer chooses the low carb beer thinking that they will as a result consume less carbs
The customer drinks the low carb beer
The customer has as a result, actually consumed less carbs than if they had consumed the other beer

Customers expectations delivered.

Your response to the porsche joke is exactly what i mean - if the beer companies marketed these beers as "health beer" or as the "gutbuster ale", or some such thing, then the critisism would be fair enough - but they dont. They dont even imply it in their marketing. Porsche drivers might falsley think their cars make them less fat, bald and old than they are, but porsche just says the cars go fast, look good and handle well - low carb beer drinkers falsley think that somehow its better for them, but the beer company just says that they have less carbs and taste good.

Horrible bloody beers anyway. Anyone with the poor taste to drink one in the first palce deserves whatever they get.


----------



## petesbrew (13/12/10)

Bland shite. Amazing how many versions have been released over the years, but with no improvement tastewise.


----------



## bear09 (13/12/10)

Lecterfan said:


> I think the "real problem" is mindless consumers who don't take any personal responsiblity in any decision they make. We are all quick to talk about "rights" but not so quick to realise they only exist in a reciprocal dialectic with "responsiblites".



Never a truer post written....


----------



## jonocarroll (13/12/10)

This sh!t just got interesting.... I've been loosely following this thread, but now it seems I'll have to read it a little more carefully.

Thanks to the few general-science newspaper articles and radio interviews I've done on beer, radio ABC891 have just asked me to comment on the myth that low carb beers are healthier (a direct spin-off of the poll mentioned in the OP). The interview is tomorrow morning at 7:30am Adelaide time (and if you're curious / want to tear me a new one for getting anything wrong it will likely be available online live).

So, knowledgeable people - what main points should I cover?


----------



## MarkBastard (13/12/10)

QuantumBrewer said:


> This sh!t just got interesting.... I've been loosely following this thread, but now it seems I'll have to read it a little more carefully.
> 
> Thanks to the few general-science newspaper articles and radio interviews I've done on beer, radio ABC891 have just asked me to comment on the myth that low carb beers are healthier (a direct spin-off of the poll mentioned in the OP). The interview is tomorrow morning at 7:30am Adelaide time (and if you're curious / want to tear me a new one for getting anything wrong it will likely be available online live).
> 
> So, knowledgeable people - what main points should I cover?



A lot of people talk about this 'myth' and when doing so assume there is this hypothetical consumer out there that is gullible and believe in the myth. Has anyone quantified this? Does the myth really exist in the eyes of the every day consumer or is it a myth that the enlightened ones have assumed exists because they are from the intellectual class and enjoy assuming what the stupid masses think?


----------



## jonocarroll (13/12/10)

Mark^Bastard said:


> A lot of people talk about this 'myth' and when doing so assume there is this hypothetical consumer out there that is gullible and believe in the myth. Has anyone quantified this? Does the myth really exist in the eyes of the every day consumer or is it a myth that the enlightened ones have assumed exists because they are from the intellectual class and enjoy assuming what the stupid masses think?


A quick ask-around of people I would regards as 'intelligent' suggests that the myth is alive and well.


----------



## Armstrong (13/12/10)

If you are diabetic, they are healthier!


----------



## petesbrew (13/12/10)

A friend of my wife drank Pure Blondes all through her pregnancy cos she believed they were healthy. <_<


----------



## Armstrong (13/12/10)

petesbrew said:


> A friend of my wife drank Pure Blondes all through her pregnancy cos she believed they were healthy. <_<



Can't blame the breweries for the stupidity of the general public


----------



## Lecterfan (13/12/10)

Armstrong said:


> If you are diabetic, they are healthier!




How? I am not being antagonistic, just genuinely interested  ? If they have still fermented out to be a full strength beer I am not sure how this works (working on the premise that anything over %4 is cionsidered full strength)?

If you are diabetes II then (generally - references available if you want to contest this) the overall kilojoule count that needs to be lowered aside from just being concerned about balancing insulin and sugar levels. If these beers are not significantly lower in kilojoules (which they are not), and they are still around %4-%5 alcohol I don't know how this makes them any "healthier" for diabetics? Is there less residual sugars in them maybe?

Again I am not being a smart-arse, just genuinely interested in what it is about these beers that makes them a better option for diabetics than another full strength commrcial offering? (I don't understand the science behind either diabetes or sugar/starch conversion in fermentation).

Cheers


----------



## petesbrew (13/12/10)

Armstrong said:


> Can't blame the breweries for the stupidity of the general public


Hell yes we can. Gotta blame someone now don't we? After all, they're PURE blondes?!


----------



## MarkBastard (13/12/10)

Lecterfan said:


> Is there less residual sugars in them maybe?



That is pretty much the definition of a low carb or dry beer.


----------



## Lecterfan (13/12/10)

Thanks Mark...still, all the Googled literature tends to support the contention that low-alc is even better for diabetics than low-carb.

SO: low-carb better for diabetics than standard commercial beer if they still want a full strength (%4-%5) beer. But in general beer is a shit idea for diabetics, especially type II...

See how out of my depth I am with practical applications haha, I prefer to philosophise in a vacuum where logic rules and all the ifs and buts can be set to one side haha.

Cheers all :lol:


----------



## MarkBastard (13/12/10)

Lecterfan said:


> SO: low-carb better for diabetics than standard commercial beer if they still want a full strength (%4-%5) beer. But in general beer is a shit idea for diabetics, especially type II...



True, but that's like saying you're better off catching the train than driving a hybrid if someone was just asking for the difference in fuel consumption between a Prius and a Corolla.

While factually correct, your answer would be off-topic and not in the spirit of the original question.

Same with saying someone on a diet or a diabetic should just drink light beer or water.


----------



## Lecterfan (13/12/10)

Like people asking for bottling advice and being told to use kegs, or people asking about kits and being told to go AG? :lol:


----------



## MarkBastard (13/12/10)

Lecterfan said:


> Like people asking for bottling advice and being told to use kegs, or people asking about kits and being told to go AG? :lol:



Hahaha yep, AHB is rife with advice that is 'good' but 'bad' at the same time.


----------



## bum (13/12/10)

Thirsty Boy said:


> Well, thats really actually quite easy..
> 
> The potential customer believes that consuming less carbs is "better" for them
> The customer wishes to consume a full strength beer and is presented with a choice between "normal" beer and a "low carb beer"
> ...


But is that correct? I'm sure the market expects to see more than a less than negligible difference in their dietary intake. I'll agree that the above would be pretty close to the exact answer the brewery would give and whoever they gave it to would have to accept it and that would be that but it completely ignores the work done by other brands into fooling the majority of us that carbs are bad. Releasing a "low carb" beer when pretty much all beer is already low carb is misleading. It just is. They don't need to be making any fanciful claims about its health-giving qualities because the "low carb" mantel will do that for them - and this was certainly well known at the development stage for all these beers.



Thirsty Boy said:


> Your response to the porsche joke is exactly what i mean - if the beer companies marketed these beers as "health beer" or as the "gutbuster ale", or some such thing, then the critisism would be fair enough - but they dont. They dont even imply it in their marketing. Porsche drivers might falsley think their cars make them less fat, bald and old than they are, but porsche just says the cars go fast, look good and handle well - low carb beer drinkers falsley think that somehow its better for them, but the beer company just says that they have less carbs and taste good.


As stated above and in the previous post, there is an expectation surrounding the phrase "low carb". While they may technically be lower in carbohydrate content there is most certainly not significant enough of a difference to warrant a distinction in labelling (unless of course you're trying to create an image around that phrase).



Thirsty Boy said:


> Horrible bloody beers anyway. Anyone with the poor taste to drink one in the first palce deserves whatever they get.


Certainly true if they were to buy it again.



Mark^Bastard said:


> A lot of people talk about this 'myth' and when doing so assume there is this hypothetical consumer out there that is gullible and believe in the myth. Has anyone quantified this? Does the myth really exist in the eyes of the every day consumer or is it a myth that the enlightened ones have assumed exists because they are from the intellectual class and enjoy assuming what the stupid masses think?


Is the article in the OP irrelevant here?


----------



## MarkBastard (13/12/10)

bum said:


> Is the article in the OP irrelevant here?



Does it quantify anything or is it just more mainstream media dribble?


----------



## Armstrong (13/12/10)

bum said:


> there is an expectation surrounding the phrase "low carb".



So society is guilty of the same thing my wife is ... jumping to conclusions!




> While they may technically be lower in carbohydrate content there is most certainly not significant enough of a difference to warrant a distinction in labelling (unless of course you're trying to create an image around that phrase).



Who says? As in my previous example with Milk, society seems to be quite happy with these sort of ratios


----------



## Thirsty Boy (13/12/10)

Who says its a myth anyway.. The csiro certainly managed to lend low carb diets a bit of general public cred with their book.

It so happens that i do believe that a weight reduction diet targeted at reduced proportion carbohydrate vs other kilojoules, is more effective than simply a "balanced" diet with an equivalent number of total kilojoules. Does that mean i think you can drink beer and lose weight... Shit no. But if i was on a low carb diet and had decided that i was indeed going to drink a full strength beer - then choosing a "low carb" beer _would_ actually be, the more sensible thing to do. They do have less carbohydrates in them than other beer. And they would be less damaging to your low carb weight loss regimen than other beer.

I utterly fail to see how a product that is what it says it is, does what it says it does and even actually manages to perform some of the function that people choose without prompting to ascribe to it, can possibly be described as exploitative.

But i suspect that thats because i think people should have some responsibility for themselves, if they are so stupid that they lie to themselves in order to save the marketing people the trouble... I dont see that there is any actual way to avoid exploiting them.

I asked bum earlier what it is he actually expects the breweries to do about it... He responded that they should stop being so sneaky. But i want to know how? How can you be less sneaky than providing a product that is exactly what you say it is. What actual thing could be done to make it OK for someone to sell this product, which is clearly in demand, and not be accused of being sneaky or exploitative?


----------



## gregs (13/12/10)

If perception is 50% of the marketing tool then I think Bum has a good point in that there should at least be some truth in labelling. Im not saying that the low carb labelling isnt the truth, but to me its as close to misleading as misleading can be.

Just take a look at the made in Australia labels, ten or so years ago, to buy something that was made in Australia was high on most shoppers list. Then you found out it wasnt made in Australia at all it was only screwed together here or painted here. So why is it up to the public to investigate every item that has a labelling claim? I think the manufacturers walk a fine line here as they are allowed to do so, and if low cab wasnt selling it would be relabelled immediately as the next good thing. 

So just remember that perception is half of the marketing- Made in Australia-Low Carb and so on.

gregs.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (13/12/10)

So - _what_ truth is it that they should put on the label? Given that the actual true truth isn't true enough?

*Warning to consumers:* While this beer contains only 1/3rd of the carbohydrates that a regular beer would contain, remember a regular beer has only a third of the carbohydrates of a softdrink. You have a can of beer in your hand, so you weren't going to drink a softdrink anyway, but i suggest you definately dont given what you now know. Maybe you should consider a light beer instead? They have even less carbs and a lot less kilojoules. Of course, water has stacks less carbs and kilojoules than either this beer or light beer (and dont even think about the soft drink) so maybe you should go with that instead. Yeah, get yourself a nice glass of water aand give the beer a miss altogether. Mind you - dont be fooled into buying that fancy imported mineral water because you think its better for you than the stuff that comes out of the tap, its not really you know........


----------



## bigholty (13/12/10)

I just had a look on the 'Calorie King' website. To compare two common beers, one low-carb and the other not:

Carlton Pure Blonde 375ml 4.6%abv:
Energy - 469kJ
Carbohydrate - 3.4g (13% of total energy, balance is from alcohol)

Carlton Draught 375ml 4.6%abv:
Energy - 581kJ
Carbohydrate - 10.1g (30% of total energy, balance is from alcohol)

So there is considerably less carbs percentage-wise (66%), but this only results in 20% less total energy in the drink as most of the energy comes from the ethanol. Beer is also 100% fat-free!! I wonder why they don't advertise this fact?


----------



## gregs (13/12/10)

I did suggest that the labelling was true, as I have said I think it is misleading due to marketing using perception as a tool, and that is only my opinion, now TB and Bum Im sure you have better things to do with your time than to keep pushing your opinion on this subject over and over.


----------



## bum (13/12/10)

gregs said:


> TB and Bum I’m sure you have better things to do with your time than to keep pushing your opinion on this subject over and over.


Well, I've certainly got better things to do than argue with a person whose opinion and input I have a great deal of respect for and, as you say, I've already made my point. 



> Does it quantify anything or is it just more mainstream media dribble?


Seems like it sits pretty comfortably in both camps to me, Mark.

[EDIT: uh, half a sentence missing]


----------



## brett mccluskey (13/12/10)

Anyone in Melb.would have seen the Sun,last Friday ,p3.A report from VicHealth totally debunking the idea that lo-carb beer is healthier and contains SIGNIFICANTLY less carbs.It's the alcohol ,with the kj's that causes weight gain.VB-165 kj/100ml Carlton Dry 139 kj/100ml .I'd like to see the brewers of these beers substitute some taste and flavour (dextrins) at 4 calories per gram for alcohol,at 7 calories,surely it's not too much to brew a crisp,refreshing ,'lawn mower' beer that has some real taste?


----------



## cdbrown (13/12/10)

bigh said:


> I just had a look on the 'Calorie King' website. To compare two common beers, one low-carb and the other not:
> 
> Carlton Pure Blonde 375ml 4.6%abv:
> Energy - 469kJ
> ...



20% reduction in overall kJ is a good saving and is clearly a "healthier" beer.


----------



## Hatchy (13/12/10)

Why doesn't commercial beer have the nutritional information that food & most drinks have on the packaging?


----------



## DJR (13/12/10)

Hatchy said:


> Why doesn't commercial beer have the nutritional information that food & most drinks have on the packaging?



Yup - was just thinking that. Overall kJ counts on the side of drinks would make people think about it - and particularly sugar loaded RTD's


----------



## bum (13/12/10)

Sounds like a good way to crush few micros to me.


----------



## DJR (13/12/10)

bum said:


> Sounds like a good way to crush few micros to me.



Yup. Ahh well, who cares, let people drink whatever they want i reckon!


----------



## Hatchy (13/12/10)

bum said:


> Sounds like a good way to crush few micros to me.



How so? I've got a feeling that I'm missing something obvious.


----------



## brett mccluskey (13/12/10)

cdbrown said:


> 20% reduction in overall kJ is a good saving and is clearly a "healthier" beer.


All the people i know who drink beer of this style in the belief that its a healthier alternative seem to do it either at a bbq,eating greasy burnt offerings to the gods,potato chips,dips, cabana/cheese nibblies.etc ,or laying on the couch watching footy/cricket. And because it 'goes down like water' they drink it like water. Not much weight control going on there  If people drink it because they enjoy the (lack of) taste then thats their choice and i say go for it But i suppose it's what you personally consider to be 'high'carb content,i don't consider beer to be 'high' It's a bit like the lowfat/full cream milk thing,Full cream 4%-low fat 2%.A 50% drop in fat content!!! . Unless i'm drinking 2/3 litres a day i'm not worrying . If i ever decide to watch my 'girlish figure',i'll think of other ways to do it than resort to lo-carb beer thanks,Like ,exercise more,eat healthier, etc And if necessary drink a bit less  But i'll be drinking full-carb thanks,and nothing less . I also eat full fat cheese,drink full cream milk,and love a good Sunday morning fryup :lol: Life is short!! live it up!! Moderation is for monks :beer:


----------



## bum (13/12/10)

Hatchy said:


> How so? I've got a feeling that I'm missing something obvious.


My assumption (and it is just that) is that the required nutritional analysis wouldn't be cheap and would need to be redone every time something in the finished product is changed (primarily recipe (ingredients and/or ratios) but maybe even down to efficiency?). And then there's the associated printing costs each time. I've come across a few micro brewers (some of them have been quite tall though, however) and they all say that this caper is run on the smell of an oily rag - such a cost might be a bit hard to bare for some.

I agree that it could be helpful for many consumers.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (13/12/10)

Hatchy said:


> How so? I've got a feeling that I'm missing something obvious.




Gotta make sure that informationis accurate if you put it there, which means you have to get the beer analysed. Especially for a micro who makes a lot of one off beers, or who's process allows a bit of variation from batch to batch - that means they'd have to spens money on analysis for nearly every batch. A big brewery would be able to get one batch of each beer in their portfolio anylysed and be pretty sure that if the beer was in spec, that there wouldn't be significant enough variation to require additional testing.

Then get labels made with the info, and changed if this batch hapoened to be different to the last one, and chuck away any of the old ones...

Extra cost for micros who are often right on the line with cashflow - and then if one of the poor buggers happened to put something on the label that was incorrect and got found out.... That would cause amstink that would taint the whole microbrewery industry. Horrible horrible can'o'worms


----------



## Thirsty Boy (13/12/10)

gregs said:


> I did suggest that the labelling was true, as I have said I think it is misleading due to marketing using perception as a tool, and that is only my opinion, now TB and Bum Im sure you have better things to do with your time than to keep pushing your opinion on this subject over and over.



Hell no - i'd planned to keep on going until a moderator popped off a retina due to the sheer repetition and was forced to close the thread in order to save their eyesight.

But seeing as you point it out (and bum and i just posted responses in this thread that were in nearly complete agreement on a variation of the main argument) i suppose i can admit that i have well and truly put forward my thoughts on the matter and should probably just shut the hell up unless i have something new and interesting to add.

So I will.


----------



## jonocarroll (14/12/10)

bigh said:


> I just had a look on the 'Calorie King' website. To compare two common beers, one low-carb and the other not:
> 
> Carlton Pure Blonde 375ml 4.6%abv:
> Energy - 469kJ
> ...


Not the worst interview I've done...

I realised this a few minutes prior to going to air:

87% of 469kJ = 408kJ
70% of 581kJ = 407kJ

so if you're going to metabolise the alcohol only (caveat) then there's nothing between the two.


----------



## Murcluf (14/12/10)

QuantumBrewer said:


> Not the worst interview I've done...
> 
> I realised this a few minutes prior to going to air:
> 
> ...


Just heard you on the ABC giving your expert advice on the topic :lol: second beer related beat up in two day, wonder what they are going to talk about tomorrow ????


----------



## MarkBastard (14/12/10)

QuantumBrewer said:


> I realised this a few minutes prior to going to air:
> 
> 87% of 469kJ = 408kJ
> 70% of 581kJ = 407kJ
> ...



I don't understand what the 87% and 70% are.


----------



## jonocarroll (14/12/10)

Mark^Bastard said:


> I don't understand what the 87% and 70% are.


Sorry, I quoted bigh, but didn't make it too clear. The 'balance is alcohol' percents of the beers he has the values for.





Cheers Murcluf - I've done a 6am interview on Star Trek FFS. Who is listening to this stuff at 6am?!?!


----------



## jyo (14/12/10)

Is there a podcast by any chance, QB?

Cheers, John.


----------



## jonocarroll (14/12/10)

jyo said:


> Is there a podcast by any chance, QB?


If anyone's desperate, PM me for a link.


----------



## MarkBastard (14/12/10)

QuantumBrewer said:


> Sorry, I quoted bigh, but didn't make it too clear. The 'balance is alcohol' percents of the beers he has the values for.



But he also says they are both 375ml and 4.6% ABV. Of course they therefore have the same amount of alcohol kj in them.

Isn't the point the difference in other kj?


----------



## jonocarroll (14/12/10)

Mark^Bastard said:


> But he also says they are both 375ml and 4.6% ABV. Of course they therefore have the same amount of alcohol kj in them.


Correct, but it's nice to see those numbers being equal to really drive the point home. Can't argue with the numbers.



Mark^Bastard said:


> Isn't the point the difference in other kj?


Not if it's the alcohol that you'll metabolise first (and depending on how much energy you require vs how much exercise you're doing, whether you'll get to metabolising the carbs at all).


----------



## [email protected] (14/12/10)

QuantumBrewer said:


> Correct, but it's nice to see those numbers being equal to really drive the point home. Can't argue with the numbers.
> 
> 
> Not if it's the alcohol that you'll metabolise first (and depending on how much energy you require vs how much exercise you're doing, whether you'll get to metabolising the carbs at all).



Thats my understanding, the body will always break down the alcohol first, if it has a lot to break down, carbs, fats and simple sugars will be stored as body fat for later use.

I always hear alcohol makes you fat and this is not true. Its the carbs/fats/simple sugars your body can not break down at the time that make you fat.
This can come from the beer or other drink itself or as i think which was mentioned earlier, more to do with the crap foods people consume whilst drinking the alcohol.


----------



## drsmurto (14/12/10)

Beer4U said:


> Thats my understanding, the body will always break down the alcohol first, if it has a lot to break down, carbs, fats and simple sugars will be stored as body fat for later use.
> 
> *I always hear alcohol makes you fat and this is not true. Its the carbs/fats/simple sugars your body can not break down at the time that make you fat.*
> This can come from the beer or other drink itself or as i think which was mentioned earlier, more to do with the crap foods people consume whilst drinking the alcohol.



Weight gain/loss = energy in - energy out.

Given ethanol has more energy per gram than carbs, ethanol can indeed make you fat. 

Blame it on the yiros you ate after consuming 10 pints.... energy content of the ethanol in 10 pints vs 1 yiros.......


----------



## MarkBastard (14/12/10)

QuantumBrewer said:


> Correct, but it's nice to see those numbers being equal to really drive the point home. Can't argue with the numbers.
> 
> 
> Not if it's the alcohol that you'll metabolise first (and depending on how much energy you require vs how much exercise you're doing, whether you'll get to metabolising the carbs at all).



Okay,

So I don't fully understand what you are getting at here but it seems like it could be one of two things.

1 - You metabolise alcohol energy first and if there's enough of this to get through the other kj are simply discarded (I'm guessing by being sent straight to your shit-creation facilities or pissed out). [I personally think this is BS]. If this is the case I'm going to go and grab a bottle of vodka and then after consuming it I will engorge on a massive feast of epic proportions.

2 - You metabolise alcohol energy first and if there's enough of this to get through the other kj go straight to being a stored form of energy, ie fat. If this is the case then then low carb beers are actually a lot better for you. As the alcohol energy will be metabolised anyway, the only thing left over is the carbohydrate energy. Therefore low-carb beers should only contribute to weight-gain a third of the amount of a full-carb beer.

Considering that I've heard, and I'm not scientist and may be wrong, that alcohol energy can NOT be stored as fat, but rather jumps straight to the queue for metabolising and instead means that other energy in your body is more likely to be stored as fat, then reducing the amount of other energy in your body is paramount.

Forget all the "fatty food you'll eat with beer" arguments and look purely at the beer. If you have lunch, start drinking at 3pm and drink 12 beers and don't eat anything else for the rest of the day, what is the real difference between low-carb and regular carb beers?


----------



## HoppingMad (14/12/10)

Hatchy said:


> Why doesn't commercial beer have the nutritional information that food & most drinks have on the packaging?



Putting nutritional info is largely a voluntary thing. Having worked on labelling for confectionary & icecream brands they have only just started to do this with many of their sugary products recently to encourage responsible eating. This is partly done for marketing reasons rather than goodwill.

All the beer labels already carry standard drink info, abvs, adding nutritional stuff would mean making bigger labels. Labelling is expensive - you'll note that most craft brewers don't add neck labels to save costs. They don't have many pennies to start with.

Hopper.


----------



## drsmurto (14/12/10)

Mark^Bastard said:


> Okay,
> 
> So I don't fully understand what you are getting at here but it seems like it could be one of two things.
> 
> ...



You are overlooking the simple fact (not theory) that ethanol contains more energy per gram than carbohydrates.

Go back to my basic equation.

If you don't eat and only drink pure ethanol and enough of it such that your energy consumption is higher than your energy expenditure YOU WILL GAIN WEIGHT. 

So the myth that alcohol doesn't cause weight gain is actually incorrect.

Too much lettuce consumed in one day can cause weight gain, if you ate enough.

EDIT - spelling


----------



## jonocarroll (14/12/10)

Mark^Bastard said:


> Okay,
> 
> So I don't fully understand what you are getting at here but it seems like it could be one of two things.
> 
> ...


#2 FTW. Wait, not "number two" as in... never mind. Your second option, altered slightly. The total difference is 20% (in bigh's example) of the total energy of the full-carb beer, despite the large reduction in carbs.

The crux of this is that you need to use up more energy than you take in to avoid putting on the kilos. If you are meeting your quota on energy use, then yes - the 20% lower energy drink is better for you, presuming that your choices are that or a full-carb beer. If you drink 12 full-carb beers then hit the gym real hard, you can balance it all out. If you drank low-carb, you might be able to save yourself a few reps. If you don't hit the gym at all, the point is moot.

People criticised that Aussie Olympian who boasted he ate Maccas before a big race, but he uses up all that energy, and then some. That energy was also readily available for him to do that. Now, a couch-potato on the other hand probably doesn't need that much energy all at once, and will store it for when he's later not able to eat (yeah, that's gonna happen).


----------



## MarkBastard (14/12/10)

QuantumBrewer said:


> #2 FTW. Wait, not "number two" as in... never mind. Your second option, altered slightly. The total difference is 20% (in bigh's example) of the total energy of the full-carb beer, despite the large reduction in carbs.
> 
> The crux of this is that you need to use up more energy than you take in to avoid putting on the kilos. If you are meeting your quota on energy use, then yes - the 20% lower energy drink is better for you, presuming that your choices are that or a full-carb beer. If you drink 12 full-carb beers then hit the gym real hard, you can balance it all out. If you drank low-carb, you might be able to save yourself a few reps. If you don't hit the gym at all, the point is moot.
> 
> People criticised that Aussie Olympian who boasted he ate Maccas before a big race, but he uses up all that energy, and then some. That energy was also readily available for him to do that. Now, a couch-potato on the other hand probably doesn't need that much energy all at once, and will store it for when he's later not able to eat (yeah, that's gonna happen).



Okay, I get where you're coming from.

Low carb beers are only of a significant benefit if you so happen to be burning off exactly the alcohol-kj content of the beer but not burning off the carb content.

And in reality the kj component only matters, so let's say a 4.6% full-carb beer has the same kj as a 5% low-carb beer, they'll still be as fattening as each other.

This is what I thought before this thread started by the way, but I still maintain that low-carb beers are lower carb and that the brewery communicating that to the consumer is fine. If they were marketed the same way they are in the US and called 'Lite' beers then I'd 100% understand the sentiment of misleading advertising.


----------



## bum (14/12/10)

QuantumBrewer said:


> The crux of this is that you need to use up more energy than you take in to avoid putting on the kilos. If you are meeting your quota on energy use, then yes - the 20% lower energy drink is better for you, presuming that your choices are that or a full-carb beer. If you drink 12 full-carb beers then hit the gym real hard, you can balance it all out. If you drank low-carb, you might be able to save yourself a few reps. If you don't hit the gym at all, the point is moot.


I think you'd be hard pressed to find any health professional willing to recommend that you hit the gym newted (and even harder pressed to get me motivated to do so). So the issue then becomes how long does the body wait to start storing the unused portion of all that energy into fat?


----------



## bum (14/12/10)

Mark^Bastard said:


> If they were marketed the same way they are in the US and called 'Lite'


The American market reads this as "lighter colored (because they can't spell) and easier drinking" - not "diet".


----------



## MarkBastard (14/12/10)

bum said:


> The American market reads this as "lighter colored (because they can't spell) and easier drinking" - not "diet".





> Essentially the first mainstream light beer, Miller Lite has a colorful history. After its first inception as "Gablinger's Diet Beer," which was created in 1967 by Joseph L. Owades, a biochemist working for New York's Rheingold Brewery,[2] the recipe was given (by the inventor of the light beer process) to one of Miller's competing breweries, Chicago's Meister Brau, which came out with the Meister Brau "Lite" brand in the late 1960s. When Miller acquired Meister Brau's labels the recipe was reformulated and relaunched as "Lite Beer from Miller" (which was its official name until the mid 80s) in the test markets of Springfield, IL and San Diego, CA in 1973, and heavily marketed using masculine pro sports players and other macho figures of the day in an effort to sell to the key beer-drinking male demographic. Miller's approach worked where the two previous light beers had failed, and Miller's early production totals of 12.8 million barrels quickly increased to 24.2 million barrels by 1977 as Miller rose to 2nd place in the American brewing marketplace. Other brewers responded, especially Anheuser-Busch with its heavily advertised Bud Light in 1982, which eventually overtook Lite in 1994. In 1992 light beer became the biggest domestic beer in America.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Lite

The American market, from my experience, consider Lite beer to be synonymous with diet beer. That is exactly why it is called Lite beer by the marketers as well. The easier drinking part is true but that is a by-product of them being dry beers.

EDIT: Also from that link...


> In 2008, Miller Brewing Company test-marketed three craft beers an amber, a blonde ale, and a wheat under the Miller Lite brand, marketed as Miller Lite Brewers Collection


Disproves the colour argument.


----------



## bum (14/12/10)

Mark, did you read that? The beer was never marketed as "diet beer" by Miller.

Talk to some Americans. I've been there many times and speak to them about little other than their beers.

But, let's take your point at face value (even though I do not accept it) - how is this any different to the argument I've been presenting? A word that has an implied (though not literal) meaning in the community is misused by Big Beer. How can you say on one hand "low-carb" is fine but "light/lite" isn't?


----------



## [email protected] (14/12/10)

DrSmurto said:


> You are overlooking the simple fact (not theory) that ethanol contains more energy per gram than carbohydrates.
> 
> Go back to my basic equation.
> 
> ...



I have to disagree, you are not looking at how alcohol is handled by the body.
Most of it is absorbed very quickly in the small intestines, then goes into the blood stream 
and is processed by the liver.

Alcohol is a poison as is treated as so by the body. ie: the body will remove it as quickly as it can.
This has negative effects on other processes in the body.
Alcohol depletes the ability of the body to turn already stored energy(break down fats) into proteins to build muscle.
The actual amount that may end up being stored as fat is around 3 - 5%.
A lot depends on how fat you are already, how much you eat while drinking as to how quickly alchol is processed.

If you drank only pure enthanol you would die.
Have you ever seen chronic alcoholics that only drink hard liquor and do not eat anything? I have they are usually skin and bone.


----------



## MarkBastard (14/12/10)

bum said:


> Mark, did you read that? The beer was never marketed as "diet beer" by Miller.
> 
> Talk to some Americans. I've been there many times and speak to them about little other than their beers.
> 
> But, let's take your point at face value (even though I do not accept it) - how is this any different to the argument I've been presenting? A word that has an implied (though not literal) meaning in the community is misused by Big Beer. How can you say on one hand "low-carb" is fine but "light/lite" isn't?



You were comprehensively proven wrong so it's obvious you'll just argue forever until I give up.

I have been to America about 6 times.

If you want to take this at face value, lite as the American breweries have intended it (synonym for diet) is a word with implied meaning. The implied meaning is that it is healthier than the alternatives.

Low-carb means lower carbohydrates than the alternatives. It is specific no matter how much BS psychology you want to attribute to it.


----------



## bum (14/12/10)

Goddamn, it never cease to piss me off how you REFUSE to read other peoples' point then immediately accuse them of doing that to you.


----------



## MarkBastard (14/12/10)

I WIN!


----------



## [email protected] (14/12/10)

If anyone is interested in reading up on how alcohol consumption effects the bodies fuel utilisation
Study link - American journal of clinical nutrition

http://www.ajcn.org/content/70/5/928.full


----------



## MarkBastard (14/12/10)

Beer4U said:


> If anyone is interested in reading up on how alcohol consumption effects the bodies fuel utilisation
> Study link - American journal of clinical nutrition
> 
> http://www.ajcn.org/content/70/5/928.full



I'm interested, but that's a bit too scientific for me.

Everyone knows about the kj in = kj out rule but it's not that simple and I'd like to know more about metabolism. Do you know any easier to understand resources?

Energy in energy out is correct but it doesn't specify time periods or things like GI.


----------



## [email protected] (14/12/10)

Yeah it is hard to read. 

This is the best explanation i could find on that study - cut and paste

For several hours after drinking the vodka, whole body lipid oxidation (a measure of how much fat your body is burning) dropped by 73%.

The reason why alcohol has this dramatic effect on fat metabolism has to do with the way alcohol is handled in the body. When alcohol is consumed, it readily passes from the stomach and intestines into the blood and goes to the liver. In the liver, an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase mediates the conversion of alcohol to acetaldehyde.

Acetaldehyde is rapidly converted to acetate by other enzymes. So rather than getting stored as fat, the main fate of alcohol is conversion into acetate, the amount of acetate formed is dose dependant on the amount of alcohol consumed. For example, blood levels of acetate after drinking the vodka were 2.5 times higher than normal. And it appears this sharp rise in acetate puts the brakes on fat loss."


----------



## MarkBastard (14/12/10)

Which is only an issue if you're on a diet where you deliberately consume less kj than your resting metabolism to make your body burn stored fat.

So I guess if you're in that case, you need to cut down on drinking even if the kj you are drinking in alcohol fits into your daily kj allowance.


----------



## jonocarroll (14/12/10)

bum said:


> I think you'd be hard pressed to find any health professional willing to recommend that you hit the gym newted (and even harder pressed to get me motivated to do so).


Absolutely. I wasn't advocating it, I was pointing out that if you do go you can work off some of the kilojoules. The fact that no-one would only helps the argument that it is moot.



bum said:


> The American market reads this as "lighter colored (because they can't spell) and easier drinking" - not "diet".


I got caught up the first time I went to the US - dropped back to 'lites' so I could drive... then was told what 'lite' means. Ended up having to stay a couple more hours on water. 'Lite' means low(er) calorie over there in all the examples I've seen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-alcohol_b...ed-alcohol_beer



> In the United States, most reduced-alcohol beers, including Bud Light, Coors Light, and Miller Lite have 4.2% ABV.[2] This is a 16% reduction in alcohol compared to beer that has 5% ABV.



It may not be universal, but that explanation was from an American bartender.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (15/12/10)

Staying out of the marketing/ethics question, because I said I would. I think people are misinterpreting the whole reason for the "low carb" phenomenon in beer, food and everything else.

Whether it is correct or not - the argument in its simplest form is.. all KJs are not equal.

If you are trying to lose weight, then a KJ restricted diet of X calories will result in a certain weight loss

BUT

a diet that still contains the _same_ X KJs, but has a _lower proportion of carbohydrates_ in it - will result in more weight loss.

Trying to eat low carbohydrate foods is about reducing carbohydrates... not about reducing KJs. So in this instance - a beer with the same amount of alcohol but less carbohydrates - is better - NOT because it has less Kilojoules (that's just a side bonus) but because it has less carbohydrates. If you subscribe to the low carb theory - even if they had exactly the same amount of KJs - the lower carb beer would still be "better"

Now - I happen to believe that this is true to a certain extent - but that's beside the point. The arguments people are putting forward about similar amounts of calories, alcohol content etc etc are irrelevant to someone who is on a low carb diet .... they are interested in the CARB content, not the other stuff. Providing of course it doesn't actually have more KJ than the other beer.

Now I admit that a lot of people will think that this is complete bulldust - and maybe they are right too. BUT that's not what the people who are buying low carb products think - and there is enough evidence around to mean that they are certainly not fools for believing it either. Maybe wrong - but not ridiculously or unreasonably wrong.


----------



## jbirbeck (15/12/10)

low carb is bullshit, high carb, low GI, low protein and low fat...there is a reason the Japanese have one of the lowest instances of obesity, heart disease, cancer and diabetes in the world. Low carb is a short term solution and an expensive one at that. But people love it for fast results. I've not met anyone that has kept the weight off after low carb diets...just my 2c

Low carb beers simply continue to play on the bullshit spun by others and believed my most. Low carb beers don't exploit the drinkers, rather the brewery's have discovered a market that has emerged int he last few years.

Low carb beers suck but they have their place...many of my family drink them because they don't suffer 'bloating' and strangely enough they don't get it either when they have my beer. They will always choose mine over the low card but they drink low carb when they need to. If they like it they like it, but they are also aware that they are not a healthy option (now at least)


----------



## MarkBastard (15/12/10)

Rooting Kings said:


> there is a reason the Japanese have one of the lowest instances of obesity, heart disease, cancer and diabetes in the world



And highest stomach cancer.

But hang on, are you seriously saying that low-carb diets will lead to diabetes?


----------



## mwd (15/12/10)

Mark^Bastard said:


> And highest stomach cancer.
> 
> But hang on, are you seriously saying that low-carb diets will lead to diabetes?



I think the link there is obesity is linked to type 2 diabetes Japanese have low rates of obesity therefore less diabetes :icon_offtopic:

wonder if anybody makes a low GI beer.


----------



## jbirbeck (15/12/10)

Mark^Bastard said:


> And highest stomach cancer.
> 
> But hang on, are you seriously saying that low-carb diets will lead to diabetes?



tropical has it on the diabetes...are you suggesting that high carb diets cause stomach cancer? So much to look forward to.  Its probably the higher salt in all the fish they eat that causes the Japanese stomach cancer. whereas us westerners with our salt rich diets don't live longer enough due to obesity related illnesses to have time to develop stomach cancer...or more likely the higher levels of Helicobacter pylori rather than diet...


----------

