Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Nutrional Information

  • 02-05-2017 11:28PM
    #1
    TallGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,908 ✭✭✭


    Maybe it's just me but anyone else noticed the new nutrional information boxes appearing now on cans of Guinness and Smithwicks.

    Always thought Guinness was one of the lower calorie content beers, with 175kcals but was surprised to see Smithwicks was 150kcals per can.


Comments

  • #2
    Krusty_Clown
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,514 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    Smithwicks is only 3.8% on draught, isn't it? Not sure what it is in a can (4.5% in a bottle), but calories are loosely related to the beer's ABV. So if the canned beer also has a low ABV, it will similarly likely be pretty low in calories. Not sure if that's an absolute rule of thumb though. I'd imagine that some of those low-alcohol beers (for example Nanny State) have a high sugar content, and as a consequence are have higher calories.

    *Edit: Nanny State has 26 calories per bottle according to this source.


  • #3
    TallGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,908 ✭✭✭TallGlass


    Krusty_Clown wrote: »
    Smithwicks is only 3.8% on draught, isn't it? Not sure what it is in a can (4.5% in a bottle), but calories are loosely related to the beer's ABV. So if the canned beer also has a low ABV, it will similarly likely be pretty low in calories. Not sure if that's an absolute rule of thumb though. I'd imagine that some of those low-alcohol beers (for example Nanny State) have a high sugar content, and as a consequence are have higher calories.

    *Edit: Nanny State has 26 calories per bottle according to this source.

    It's also 3.8% in the can, anyone got an idea if any other companies plan to do this with there drinks, it's good to see the calorie content of the drinks.


  • #4
    BeerNut
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 12,061 Mod ✭✭✭✭BeerNut


    It's likely to be a legal requirement soon so they're doing it early. In March 2015, Brewers of Europe, of which Diageo is a member, announced that their members would voluntarily put nutritional information and ingredients listing on their packaging. So far they've been really lagging behind with the ingredients bit, presumably as they research how to continue making the same products without using the things they don't want you to know about. Diageo announced the other day that they've stopped using isinglass in Guinness. I'd guess that's part of a bigger project of recipe revision ahead of ingredients listing.

    There's a recent press release from Brewers of Europe on the subject here.

    My beer blog | Bluesky | My other beer blog



  • #5
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    TallGlass wrote: »
    Always thought Guinness was one of the lower calorie content beers, with 175kcals but was surprised to see Smithwicks was 150kcals per can.
    Guinness used to have it on their cans a few years back, guinness 4.2% draft was 170kcal back then. So if its 175kcal now they must have changed the recipe.

    170kcal is relatively low per unit alcohol.

    Krusty_Clown wrote: »
    Smithwicks is only 3.8% on draught, isn't it? Not sure what it is in a can (4.5% in a bottle)
    Bottles of normal smithwicks are showing as 3.8%

    https://www.obrienswine.ie/smithwicks-50cl-bottle.html

    many have no idea it is so weak, including a few people I know who drank it a fair bit.

    smithwicks pale ale is 4.5% which is probably what you saw
    https://www.obrienswine.ie/smithwicks-pale-ale-50cl-btl.html


Advertisement