http://health.msn.com/nutrition/slideshow.aspx?cp-documentid=100249686&imageindex=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
#1 - MGD 64: 64 calories, 2.9% ABV
I’d rather drink 
Ok, maybe not.
Of the five best, I can tolerate Amstel Light, if it’s really cold. The others are out.
Also, what do they mean “worst beers for your gut”? Those five worst (plus Guinness, Boddingtons, Sam Smith, etc.) seem to be the building blocks of any respectable gut!
Cheers!
Frank,
I’m thinking they’re taking Caloric value + Alcohol volume + Carbohydrates into account when deciding on the “worst” of the worst. I’ve read, a couple of times now, that Guiness is surprisingly low in calories and, as most stouts, relatively low in alcohol as well.
I don’t think Guinness is particularly high in calories. Did I miss something in the article?
David,
For that same reason it was probably excluded. Frank just mentioned it, along with Boddingtons (yum!) and Sam Smith, because its richness and heft make people think it’s a caloric bomb.
Ahhhh. Slow . . . . . on . . . . . draw . . . . . today. Thanks, J
I like how the article connects to a Bittman article on sandwiches, each of which would add far more calories than any of the “worst” beers.
Lite beer= yuck. I’d rather drink fewer good beers than more of that crap. Bleh.
Guiness is actually surprsingly low in alc. – 3.7%, which makes it a great chugging beer.