Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!grkermi!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!crs
From: crs@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: The \"Women want light beer\" fallacy
Message-ID: <27108@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 11-Jun-85 15:12:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: lanl.27108
Posted: Tue Jun 11 15:12:02 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Jun-85 06:10:39 EDT
References: <2548@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 36

> Occasionaly I will have a Michelob light before a meal because
> I do find it less filling,...

Isn't this psychological?  I can't understand how beer that occupied
twelve ounces by volume in the can or bottle can occupy any *less*
volume in one's stomach.  I can understand how something can be less
appetite destructive but not less filling given a fixed volume.

> They just play on it because 1. it probably works to push the fewer calories
> aspect ...

Two things:

1.  If light beer produces less reduction of appetite than regular
beer (for what ever reason) isn't it counter productive from the
calory reduction view point?  If the beer doesn't "fill you up" as
much, you have more room for food and, hence, consume more calories
than you saved by drinking light beer.

2.  I don't drink light beer so I'm not knowledgable about the caloric
difference between light and regular beer but I can't imagine that the
actual difference can really be great.  With that in mind, it occurs
to me that anyone who *truly* needs the lower calory beer probably is
in more danger from excessive drinking than from too many calories.

Can anyone enlighten me about any of this?


Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa

-- 
Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa