Is Bud Light better than Miller Lite?

As an Australian living in Florida, there are some clear differences in beer preference between the two countries.

For example, I prefer a more bitter, stronger lager in the European (and Aussie) tradition, as I think do most of my country-blokes and -sheilas. A common preference is for the golden, clear, pilsner style, although the universality of this type downunder shows a deeply held (dare I say, spiritual?) skew. There are, of course, many choices of hand crafted special, and boutique beers in both countries, but by volume, pils wins in both.

Light beers are afar and away more popular in the US. Why this is so, I couldn't tell you, but might be related to the social pressure in Australia: real men drink full-strength beer. But that's a topic unto itself.

One noticeable characteristic of the light beers is their lack of hop taste, which I think might be related to their low carb quality. I'm researching that.

I set about seeing if I could find a clear winner between the two best-selling light beers, Miller Lite, and Bud Light.

That's Dee in the background, making light (ha ha) of my foolishness.

Light, or "lite" beers are those considered to be either low in alcohol, or low in calories. In the US, the convention is that they are low in calories, a state achieved by reducing the carbohydrate content.

Check out Wikipedia on this.

The relevant details are:

Miller Lite: 3.2 grams of carbs and 96 calories, per 12 ounce serving.

Bud Light: 6.6 grams of carbs and 110 calories per 12 ounce serving.

Both contain 4.2% alcohol.

This is a terrific link showing the above values for all beers.

For those folks interested in gluten content of beer, this link contains really good information about gluten levels in Bud light. It seems it takes special brewing and ingredients to make a truly gluten-free beer. Thanks to the Beer Fox.

Dee selected two equally cold bottles of the competing brews, and poured me the official tasting cups.

Hmmm, already the difference in colour is clear, although you might not be able to tell from the photo. One is definitely darker, more rich looking than the other. It has a more definite head, although both don't have much in the way of head or carbonation.

Word of the taste-test spread, and Stephanie, another barmaid, wanted a piece of the action.

She felt as I did, that the pronounced difference in colour and fragrance made it pretty clear which was which.

This site is a useful reference as to how real beer-tasters taste beer. Seems I didn't adhere to any of the recommendations. Then again, I'm just an amateur.

Uh-huh. Just to make sure, right?

Funny thing, Steph said she doesn't really drink. I wonder if this is a good or a bad quality in someone tending bar.

On one hand, employers know she will always be sober on the job: on the other, how can she communicate with her customers?

By the way, if you're looking for some hot barmaids, try here. (Not that any are as hot as Steph, or Dee, obviously.)

No surprise. The Budweiser has more flavour, a depth of nose and a more satisfying aftertaste. According to the ladies behind the bar, women prefer Miller precisely because of its "watered down" flavour.

However, they did say that from day to day the consumption of either brand varies, because drinkers stick with their first choice. Of course, if you're conscious of carbohydrates in your diet, Miller will be your first choice, but the taste will reflect that lack of depth.

Okay, after a few beers I am definitely feeling like a Pie Floater.

Thanks to Dee and Steph at the Sniki Tiki, a superior tiki bar on Siesta Key, just near Sarasota. It's part of the Captain Curt's Crab & Oyster Bar empire, so if you're in the mood for something fishy, fried or fatty with your beer, this is the place.

Actually, the Sniki Tiki is one of the best tiki bars around, and in season is always pretty busy with tourists, snowbirds and locals. They have live music sometimes too.