55 calories? Are you serious?

[Sarahfeena]

So, at what point of calorie-reduction does it stop being beer at all?

[Zuul]

I'm not a fan of light beers in general, even if they aren't to that degree. I like my beer dark and rich. When I'm done with a glass, by God, I want to know I drank something.

[Cluricaun]

I had some of those Budweiser 55s the other day. They're surprisingly not as bad as I thought they were, they're no less watery than Coors Light is and you can still get the job done with them, but since beer seems to be priced on the "more calories more money" system they're retardedly overpriced if they cost more than $3 a six pack.

I'm still not certain who the exact target market is for this stuff though. Really healthy folks who run and stuff don't tend to be big time beer drinkers in the first place and big beer drinkers tend to be fine with normal light beer if light beer at all. They're better than no beer, but not by much.

[Sarahfeena]

I think the target market is women.

[OneCentStamp]

So, at what point of calorie-reduction does it stop being beer at all?

It stops being a beer at the "Bud Light line."

Despite the name, Bud Light is not that light a beer by modern light beer standards. Miller Lite has like half the carbs of Bud Light, and Michelob Ultra and Budweiser Select are lighter yet. MGD 64 and Bud 55 are off the charts ridiculous. IMNSHO, it stops being beer at all right around the Bud Light line. Anything lighter than that is a chemistry experiment, not a beverage.

Think of it this way: a single ounce of pure alcohol is 64 calories, and that doesn't include any of the carbohydrates that give beers its body and much of its flavor. A beer with 55 calories, or 64 or 93 for that matter, simply can't have very much going on.

[Oliveloaf]

I have always thought that Corona Light was a ridiculous product, as Corona is pretty light as it is.

Can't recall tasting Bud Light, but Miller Lite is really just beer-flavored water.

So...I agree, the Bud/Miller Light/Lite line is the last stop for real beer.

...

Toss me an Urquell so I can get back to work.

[Exy]

Think of it this way: a single ounce of pure alcohol is 64 calories

That's actually not quite correct, a gram of alcohol has 7 Calories, meaning an ounce (by weight) has around 200.

One "standard drink" in the US has just about 14 grams of alcohol (which is around half of a weight ounce, and is defined as 0.6 fluid (that is, volume) ounces.) A 12-ounce beer, a shot of 80-proof liquor, and a 5-ounce glass of wine are all around one standard drink.

So, on its own the ethanol in one standard drink provides around 100 Calories, so a 55 Calorie beer can't be much more than half the strength of a real beer, and that's assuming there's virtually no other carbs besides the alcohol. Since, of course, those carbs are important contributors to the flavor of beer, well . . . there's a reason why 55 Calorie beer doesn't taste like much of anything.

[OneCentStamp]

That's actually not quite correct, a gram of alcohol has 7 Calories, meaning an ounce (by weight) has around 200.

I was typing without thinking. I meant that one fluid ounce of 40 proof liquor has 64 calories. One ounce by weight of alcohol would of course be much higher, since it's pure alcohol, and alcohol is less dense than water as well.

Thanks.

[The Original An Gadaí]

Call me when they've got 55 calorie bottles of Jameson.

[Glazer]

That's actually not quite correct, a gram of alcohol has 7 Calories, meaning an ounce (by weight) has around 200.

One "standard drink" in the US has just about 14 grams of alcohol (which is around half of a weight ounce, and is defined as 0.6 fluid (that is, volume) ounces.) A 12-ounce beer, a shot of 80-proof liquor, and a 5-ounce glass of wine are all around one standard drink.

So, on its own the ethanol in one standard drink provides around 100 Calories, so a 55 Calorie beer can't be much more than half the strength of a real beer, and that's assuming there's virtually no other carbs besides the alcohol. Since, of course, those carbs are important contributors to the flavor of beer, well . . . there's a reason why 55 Calorie beer doesn't taste like much of anything.

One shot of 80-proof liquor is only 0.4 fl.oz. You need 120-proof liquor to equal 0.6 fl.oz.

[Exy]

One shot of 80-proof liquor is only 0.4 fl.oz. You need 120-proof liquor to equal 0.6 fl.oz.

A shot is normally 1.5 ounces.

[Glazer]

A shot is 1 oz. a jigger is 1.5 oz.

[Exy]

A shot is 1 oz. a jigger is 1.5 oz.

Hmm, I don't have a shot glass to check. Wikipedia suggests that 1 oz. is a "short shot" or "pony shot" and that a normal shot is 1.25 to 1.5 oz., but that it's not standardized across the U.S. Here's their table.

Anyway, 1.5 oz. of 80-proof liquor is a standard drink, however big a glass you serve it in.

[Glazer]

Maybe it's just the bible belt but I've always known it as 3/4 oz.= pony shot,1oz.=shot and 1 1/2oz.=jigger or double. But I will bow to Wiki as I don't have any tables handy to back me up. Your point sir.

[Orual]

I will never understand the purpose of light beer. It doesn't taste like beer. It doesn't even taste like beer-flavored soda, a la PBR (which I have great affection for, in the right circumstances).

If you're drinking 55 calorie beer, you're probably not drinking it for the taste. And if you're trying to get buzzed on that stuff, it probably takes about a gallon anyways. Seems pretty pointless to me.

[Oliveloaf]

A shot is 1 oz. a jigger is 1.5 oz.

This is as I have always understood it.

[Cluricaun]

Call me when they've got 55 calorie bottles of Jameson.

R-r-r-r-r-ring....

[The Original An Gadaí]

I was contemplating writing Quarts of Jameson to preempt the inevitable posting of that pitiful bottle.