Lo Carb Drinkers Exploited

[Thirsty Boy]

But - Cold filtering wasn't all "Marketing ****" 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]

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]

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

 

[bear09]

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]

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]

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]

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]

If you are diabetic, they are healthier!

 

[petesbrew]

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

 

[Armstrong]

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]

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]

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]

Is there less residual sugars in them maybe?

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

 

[Lecterfan]

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 **** 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]

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 **** 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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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).

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.

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]

Is the article in the OP irrelevant here?

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

 

[Armstrong]

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]

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... **** 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

 

[Hatchy]

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

 

[DJR]

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