In an effort to prove some friends wrong that Guinness is not a heavy beer I'm setting out to create a blonde Guinness recipe. Basically a Guinness clone less the roasted barley. But before I do I thought I would see if anyone has done before? Or is this just a waste of water and time.
Blonde Guinness
- Thread starter ronan
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk:
kingwood-kid
Well-Known Member
If your friends can't tell the difference between light-colored and light in calories, I'm not sure any experiment would help. I also don't advise doing any brewing experiments you can't see yourself drinking. Guinness without roast is a slightly-sour blonde with a whole lot of flaked barley.
kingwood-kid said:
Sour? Why? It's not Foreign Extra Stout...
Other than that, I agree. A blonde Guinness will be totally unrecognizable, and thus won't prove anything. "This is a different beer!" they'll say. The roasted barley is pretty much the entire source of Guinness' character, and by extension its identity. So your friends will be right. Guinness isn't Guinness without the roasted barley. There is NO SUCH THING as "Guinness without the roasted barley". You'll just end up with a very boring beer.
I have a far better suggestion, which is much more likely to work. If you really want to convince them that Guinness isn't heavy, then show them something that is! Give them two or three examples of the heaviest milk stouts, the chewiest oatmeal stouts, and/or the most monstrous Russian imperial stouts you can find. And then follow them up with a Guinness. If they don't then notice that it's, if anything, actually a *watery* beer, then nothing is ever going to work. Certainly not a "Not Guinness", anyways.
I think it's called a pale ale.
kingwood-kid
Well-Known Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness
You can direct your friends here, where it discusses Guinness' characteristic sour taste and mentions its 198 calories per imperial pint, "fewer than skimmed milk or orange juice and most other non-light beers." That's about 22 more calories than an equivalent amount of Bud Light. If you drank 159 Guinness and your friend drank 159 Bud Lights, you'd gain 1 more pound than he would.
You can direct your friends here, where it discusses Guinness' characteristic sour taste and mentions its 198 calories per imperial pint, "fewer than skimmed milk or orange juice and most other non-light beers." That's about 22 more calories than an equivalent amount of Bud Light. If you drank 159 Guinness and your friend drank 159 Bud Lights, you'd gain 1 more pound than he would.
Similar threads
