Amusing beer list

Like I stated it would be financial suicide to cater to one pattern of beer drinkers,

This might be the case for your situation, and I wouldnt tell you to do otherwise, but I wonder about this statement. Is it really true?

It reminds me of the smoking ban arguments. I claimed a ban was never necessary, that if a bar banned smoking they would thrive. Bar owners claimed otherwise. I like smoke-free establishments, I would have given them business. Someone just had to have the cajones to go for it. If the smoking ban went away, how many places would stay smoke-free? I think a bunch would.

I see plenty of places that do fine catering to one pattern of beer drinker. There are plenty of macro-only places that I wont go to that continue to survive. And there are no-macro places that seem to be doing just fine.

As an aside, you know what really bugs me? Higher end dining places with craptacular beer lists. Maybe Im not in a wine mood tonight. Or maybe Im going to order something that goes better with beer than wine. So where is the freakin decent beer list? Fortunately, this is much less of an issue than even 5 years ago, but it still exists.

Like I stated it would be financial suicide to cater to one pattern of beer drinkers,

This might be the case for your situation, and I wouldnt tell you to do otherwise, but I wonder about this statement. Is it really true?

It reminds me of the smoking ban arguments. I claimed a ban was never necessary, that if a bar banned smoking they would thrive. Bar owners claimed otherwise. I like smoke-free establishments, I would have given them business. Someone just had to have the cajones to go for it. If the smoking ban went away, how many places would stay smoke-free? I think a bunch would.

I see plenty of places that do fine catering to one pattern of beer drinker. There are plenty of macro-only places that I wont go to that continue to survive. And there are no-macro places that seem to be doing just fine.

As an aside, you know what really bugs me? Higher end dining places with craptacular beer lists. Maybe Im not in a wine mood tonight. Or maybe Im going to order something that goes better with beer than wine. So where is the freakin decent beer list? Fortunately, this is much less of an issue than even 5 years ago, but it still exists.

I read Alan's comment to be context specific to his own establishment. And, I would agree with him in regards to his establishment.

Context is everything.

If business was about following "X" rules for "Y" success, nobody would fail. Context is everything. With context including clientele wants and demographics, market trends, profit margins, personal/business principles and ethics, etc. etc.

Like I stated it would be financial suicide to cater to one pattern of beer drinkers,

This might be the case for your situation, and I wouldnt tell you to do otherwise, but I wonder about this statement. Is it really true?

It reminds me of the smoking ban arguments. I claimed a ban was never necessary, that if a bar banned smoking they would thrive. Bar owners claimed otherwise. I like smoke-free establishments, I would have given them business. Someone just had to have the cajones to go for it. If the smoking ban went away, how many places would stay smoke-free? I think a bunch would.

I see plenty of places that do fine catering to one pattern of beer drinker. There are plenty of macro-only places that I wont go to that continue to survive. And there are no-macro places that seem to be doing just fine.

As an aside, you know what really bugs me? Higher end dining places with craptacular beer lists. Maybe Im not in a wine mood tonight. Or maybe Im going to order something that goes better with beer than wine. So where is the freakin decent beer list? Fortunately, this is much less of an issue than even 5 years ago, but it still exists.

I agree with both of you. NABC, BBC, and Cumberland all seem to be doing fine without selling macro, but I still question the money they are leaving on the table. They are different from the other bars in that they produce their own product. Is there any place in town that doesn't brew their own that has banned macros? My wants are to drink good beer wherever I go, not avoiding places that serve beer I don't enjoy.

Jack's/Equus is the first place that comes to my mind on the upscale with a crappy beer list. I don't think they have anything local and BBC is 1 mile away.

While we are on this subject, who has the best draft beer list in the area? Can anyone top Richo's?

Here are the results of a study I found. Basically, the caloric difference between "regular" and "lite" beer, on average, is 9 calories per 100 mL. Since 100mL equals roughly 3.5 ounces, you're talking about a 20 calorie difference, on average, between 8 oz of "regular" beer and 8 oz of "lite" beer.

Not much of a difference. Even if you drink a six-pack, you're talking about a difference of 120 calories. 120 calories is roughly the caloric content of 1.5 oranges, half a candy bar, a medium portion of cottage cheese, half a bagel, or a container of low-fat yogurt.

Thus, in my opinion, those folks intent on saving 20 calories/beer are greatly deceiving themselves.

Here's the study: http://www.brewery.org/library/AlClbinger.html

Any the portion I pulled:

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Of the 202 samples tested, 163 were regular beer (Table 1), 26 were light beer (Table 2), and 13 were non-alcoholic beer (Table 3). These represented 81, 19 and 9 different brands of regular, light, and nonalcoholic beer, respectively. Each Table lists the brand name of the beer, the name of the brewer, the country of origin, alcohol content, and the calories per 100 ml (milliliters) (3.5 ounces).
Alcohol in regular, light, and non-alcoholic beer averaged 5.0, 4.1, and 0.3 percent, respectively (Table 4). Calories in regular, light and non-alcoholic beer averaged 43, 32, and 17 per 100 ml, respectively. The range in values for alcohol and calories was wide. Alcohol in regular beer ranged from 1.0 to 9.5 percent, while light beer ranged from 2.4 to 5.4 percent and non-alcoholic beer from 0.1 to 0.7 percent. Similarly, calories varied among all types of beer. Some variation was noted in alcohol content among different containers of the same type of beer. A dilference of 1.5 percent was found in one type of regular beer and 1.6 percent in another. Although the labels showed no code numbers, each container of beer is likely from a different manufacturing batch.

A comparison of alcohol and calorie content between regular and light beer from the same manufacturer can be made by examining Tables 1 and 2. For example, eight regular beers made by Anheuser Busch (does not include beer claiming half the amount of alcohol as regular beer) averaged 5.11 percent alcohol. Four light beers from the same manufacturer averaged 4.17 percent, 15 percent less than found in the regular beer. Calories in the same Anheuser Busch regular beer averaged 44 per 100 ml and 35 in light beer, or 20 percent lower calories. Similar comparisons may be made for other manufacturers.

Like I stated it would be financial suicide to cater to one pattern of beer drinkers,

This might be the case for your situation, and I wouldnt tell you to do otherwise, but I wonder about this statement. Is it really true?

It reminds me of the smoking ban arguments. I claimed a ban was never necessary, that if a bar banned smoking they would thrive. Bar owners claimed otherwise. I like smoke-free establishments, I would have given them business. Someone just had to have the cajones to go for it. If the smoking ban went away, how many places would stay smoke-free? I think a bunch would.

I see plenty of places that do fine catering to one pattern of beer drinker. There are plenty of macro-only places that I wont go to that continue to survive. And there are no-macro places that seem to be doing just fine.

As an aside, you know what really bugs me? Higher end dining places with craptacular beer lists. Maybe Im not in a wine mood tonight. Or maybe Im going to order something that goes better with beer than wine. So where is the freakin decent beer list? Fortunately, this is much less of an issue than even 5 years ago, but it still exists.

I agree with both of you. NABC, BBC, and Cumberland all seem to be doing fine without selling macro, but I still question the money they are leaving on the table.

It's about more than money for these places. What you are doing is taking the viewpoint of the majority and forcing it on establishments (NABC, BBC, Cumberland) who don't share this viewpoint or exist within the majority. The viewpoint, of course, is do whatever to make the (most) money. And while these places are surely in it for the money (as a means to survive, pay bills, and make a livelihood), I would like to think they are more in it for the love of brewing, the ability to put a local product into the local market, to give like-minded people an option away from macro beer, etc.

Cumberland is packed all the time. BBC seems to have healthy crowds. I don't see them leaving money on the table. I see them successfully taking money from customers that support a certain business model. If the model wasn't working, they'd either 1)change it or 2)go under. That's how the market works.

It it were me, I wouldn't want the money that comes from selling a product that I'm ethically opposed to. If someone asked for a Bud Lite, I'd tell them to take that dirty money elsewhere. Or, if I was in a good mood (unlikely), I'd offer them a few tastings of my product.

Also interesting is that, on average, for every 0.1% the ABV goes up, you pick up 1 calorie.

Also interesting is that, on average, for every 0.1% the ABV goes up, you pick up 1 calorie.

Nevermind. This might not be totally accurate. Math/science ain't my thing. The first calculations were about as far as I can go. Need a nap now.

A sweet beer is going to have more calories than a dry beer, at same abv level.

Which is why the Mich Ultras are basically low abv off-water.

Not necessarily true. I could brew the same beer twice and omit most the hops in the second. It would be sweet, have the same ABV AND the same calories.

LITE beers are lite due to the amount of water added after fermentation. Miller Lite is High Life with more water. Two beers out of one tank.

While we are on this subject, who has the best draft beer list in the area? Can anyone top Richo's?

Sergios?

A sweet beer is going to have more calories than a dry beer, at same abv level.

Which is why the Mich Ultras are basically low abv off-water.

Not necessarily true. I could brew the same beer twice and omit most the hops in the second. It would be sweet, have the same ABV AND the same calories.

I think it could be argued that they would have the same sweetness, just the one has more bitterness to balance it. I guess its a difference between sweetness in human perception vs sweetness in some laboratory sense, and I meant the second.

I just meant amount of unfermented/unfermentable sugar left behind.

However, speaking of hops, do they contribute any calories?

Brand ABV Calories

Anchor Steam 4.9% 153
Bud Light 4.2% 110
Coors Light 4.15% 104
Flying Dog Double Dog Pale Ale 10.5% 292
Red Hook IPA 6.5% 188
Sam Adams Boston Lager 4.75% 160
Sierra Nevada Pale Ale 5.6% 175

http://www.beer100.com/beercalories.htm

While we are on this subject, who has the best draft beer list in the area? Can anyone top Richo's?

Definitely Sergio's.

Roger was King for years when it came to the breadth and depth of beer selection, Sergio wins today with over 1000 beers. Of course part of the reason for the disparity is probably due to the fact that Sergio doesn't have to concern himself with keeping a microbrewery running or marketing said beer all around Louisville and Southern Indiana. In my mind, they occupy two very different niches in the community.

Brand ABV Calories

Anchor Steam 4.9% 153
Bud Light 4.2% 110
Coors Light 4.15% 104
Flying Dog Double Dog Pale Ale 10.5% 292
Red Hook IPA 6.5% 188
Sam Adams Boston Lager 4.75% 160
Sierra Nevada Pale Ale 5.6% 175

http://www.beer100.com/beercalories.htm

Dogfish Head 120 Minute IPA 19% 450

Of course a lot of soft drinks have between 150 and 200 calories per 12 oz, but that doesn't stop the weight watchers from putting away two or three of those a day!