Random

Let me preface this by saying that my days of drinking large quantities of major-brewery beers have been past for quite a long time. I think when the need of pints into the double digits eases, the desire for quality becomes more important. Some would say that I'm not a loyal customer. Or some would say that I've broadened my horizons. Whatever.

All that being said, when it's over 95 degrees and sweat is dripping off my nose and onto the charred burgers on my grill, I have very few beer requirements. They need to be cold. Very, very cold. Once that requirement is met I would probably drink anything. However, I do find myself gravitating toward an ice cold Bud Light as the beer of choice in those occassions. At almost all other times BL wouldn't be the choice (the thought of that being the lone beer in the fridge on an evening in November actually sends a chill down my spine) but on a hot afternoon nothing could be better. (Especially in one of those 16oz aluminum bottle bombs)

But is it really better for your diet to drink BLs? Based on the data, I don't think so. According to my trusty FitClick online diet tracker, a 12 oz. can of Bud Light is 110 calories. Compare that to a regular can of Bud (146 cals) and you save 36 calories per can. That sounds ok, but if you drink 3 beers you save 108 calories, or about  20 Chees-Its. (Doesn't sound like much now, does it, chubs?) It basically lets you have 4 beers instead of 3 -- again, not bad, but is it really worth the flava' trade-off? You could have a Newcastle for 140 cals. A Stella for 135 cals. A Sierra for 150 cals. It's really a marginal amount. And I'd argue that you'd drink less with a beer of greater flavor. So you actually might end up worse off with the BL.

So, drink 'em if you like 'em. (Which means it's too damn hot to drink anything else or your taste buds are shot from years of abuse). But not because you're on a diet.