Lo Carb Drinkers Exploited

[Thirsty Boy]

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]

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 shite. 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 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]

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]

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