nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Nutritional Info on Beer

c.p.w.g.w

So i've been looking to find nutritional info on a few beers...But unless its the likes of Coors, Guiness or Bud...Its near impossible

I'm currently practicing a low carb diet, so i'm looking for the carbs within certain beers and stouts...

I know, your going to say, "well if your low carb beer is out"

Yes it is, but with the country opening back up, i'm going to be out catching up with friends and i would like to see my options so i can at least enjoy a couple of pints/bottles while not going completely overboard

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

BeerNut

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

i'm looking for the carbs within certain beers and stouts

Might be easier to research if you told us which ones.

There is a trend among American breweries for low calorie beers, several of which are available here (Oskar Blues One-y, Lagunitas Daytime, Firestone Walker Flyjack), and O'Hara's now has their own Lo-Cal IPA, but I doubt you'll be able to find any of them reliably in the on-trade.

c.p.w.g.w

BeerNut wrote: »

Might be easier to research if you told us which ones.

There is a trend among American breweries for low calorie beers, several of which are available here (Oskar Blues One-y, Lagunitas Daytime, Firestone Walker Flyjack), and O'Hara's now has their own Lo-Cal IPA, but I doubt you'll be able to find any of them reliably in the on-trade.

Looking moreso for carb information not total calories...

Looking at largers or ales...

Like smithwicks is 1.7g per 100mls...

But most beers don't even have that information on their labels which is mad considering all the labelling laws and rules for food

the beer revolu

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Looking moreso for carb information not total calories...

Looking at largers or ales...

Like smithwicks is 1.7g per 100mls...

But most beers don't even have that information on their labels which is mad considering all the labelling laws and rules for food

Labelling laws around booze are bizarre, to say the least. Basically, if there is alcohol in the product, you don't need to list ingredients or nutritional information.

So, a can of tonic requires ingredients and nutritional information on the label but if you put some gin in the can.......... yup, no info required beyond the alcohol content!

I believe this is thanks to the French wine producers who campaigned heavily against ingredients on their product labels when Europe was standardising food labels.

Zaph

the beer revolu wrote: »

I believe this is thanks to the French wine producers who campaigned heavily against ingredients on their product labels when Europe was standardising food labels.

If you'd said it was Austrian wine producers I would totally understand that, but it now begs the question wtf are the French putting in their wine that they're trying to hide? :eek:

the beer revolu

Zaph wrote: »

If you'd said it was Austrian wine producers I would totally understand that, but it now begs the question wtf are the French putting in their wine that they're trying to hide? :eek:

Well it ain't just fermented grape juice, that's for sure.

BabysCoffee

Here's some info OP but you probably know this as it is very non-specific https://www.diabetes.co.uk/alcohol-and-blood-sugar.html

rubadub

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Looking moreso for carb information not total calories...

The calorires per unit of alcohol will give you a very good idea of carb content relative to other beers you think are low.

The bulk of the calories is coming from the alcohol, and then the carbs, there is neglible fat & protein in most beer.

e.g. heineken light has this figures.
Typical Values per 100ml
Energy (kJ) 94
Energy (kcal) 22
Fat (g) 0
of which saturates (g) 0
Carbohydrate (g) 1.4
of which sugars (g) 0
Protein (g) 0
Salt (g) 0.01

BUT it is only 3%

Regular heineken is 4.3%

Typical Values per 100ml
Energy (kJ) 152
Energy (kcal) 36
Fat (g) 0
of which saturates (g) 0
Carbohydrate (g) 2.8
of which sugars (g) 0
Protein (g) 0.4
Salt (g) 0.01

So if the heineken light was also 4.3% it would have 1.4333 times the value that it does now. So it would be
31.53kcal per 100ml
carbs 2.0066g

the beer revolu

I assume none of these "pastry" beers have nutritional information on them?

I'd say some are shockingly calorific!

Peregrinus

the beer revolu wrote: »

Labelling laws around booze are bizarre, to say the least. . . .

I believe this is thanks to the French wine producers who campaigned heavily against ingredients on their product labels when Europe was standardising food labels.

Not really down to the French, since the same is true in Australia, the US, etc. The two foodstuffs which, worldwide, have minimal requirements to identify their ingredients and/or nutritional information are alcoholic drinks and, for some reason, cheese.

I agree with what others have said. The OP's best bet is to look at beers which are actively marketed as being low-carb or low-cal, since the producers of those beers have an interest in promoting awareness of their nutritional information, even if not required to by law. Or he could drink straight whiskeys; no carbs at all (though possibly other drawbacks).

BeerNut

the beer revolu wrote: »

I assume none of these "pastry" beers have nutritional information on them?

I'd say some are shockingly calorific!

I saw a beer writer several years ago saying that in calorie terms you may as well be injecting cake icing.

Thelonious Monk

I don't think beer calories work the same as food calories, on me anyway. If that were the case I'd be a fat bastard.

the beer revolu

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I don't think beer calories work the same as food calories, on me anyway. If that were the case I'd be a fat bastard.

But if it has alcohol, the usual residual sugars AND a heap of added sugar?

Thelonious Monk

Well I bet if I replaced all the beer I drink with food that is supposed to be the same amount of calories, I'd put on loads of weight, but beer doesn't seem to affect me at all.
I know it sounds terribly unscientific but from my own experience with my own body, the calories just don't seem to have the same effect as food.

the beer revolu

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well I bet if I replaced all the beer I drink with food that is supposed to be the same amount of calories, I'd put on loads of weight, but beer doesn't seem to affect me at all.
I know it sounds terribly unscientific but from my own experience with my own body, the calories just don't seem to have the same effect as food.

I think it's well accepted that that can be the case. All the calories aren't, necessarily, "bioavailable". Also we burn calories heating up cold drinks.

But do you drink a lot of "pastry" (ie heavily sweetened) beers? I'd imagine these high sugar beers could do some damage.

rubadub

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well I bet if I replaced all the beer I drink with food that is supposed to be the same amount of calories, I'd put on loads of weight, but beer doesn't seem to affect me at all.

Studies were done doing exactly that, people drinking sugar water instead of alcohol (can't remember if it was beer or what).

I always knew this was the case myself, if my alcohol calories were processed the same I would be huge. Shane MacGowan would be morbidly obese. I have very heavy drinking friends who are likely underweight on a BMI scale.

The effect is meant to be more pronounced in heavy drinkers too, like your body gets used to it more.

Thelonious Monk

rubadub wrote: »

Studies were done doing exactly that, people drinking sugar water instead of alcohol (can't remember if it was beer or what).

I always knew this was the case myself, if my alcohol calories were processed the same I would be huge. Shane MacGowan would be morbidly obese. I have very heavy drinking friends who are likely underweight on a BMI scale.

The effect is meant to be more pronounced in heavy drinkers too, like your body gets used to it more.

I normally just drink lager and some IPAs.
I've had discussions about this online before and a lot of people just refuse to believe there can be any difference in calories, but I've drank 10 beers a day for weeks on holidays and not put any weight on!

Macy0161

A calorie is a calorie - it's a measure of energy. For most people in most circumstances, that applies to inputs too from food. However, there is a question mark over how much of the calories from Alcohol the body can process, and from my understanding there are very many variables between people, and even for the same person depending on the rest of the diet that day, how fast you drink etc.

But that can happen with food too - if you have a very calorific meal/ binge, your body may not be able to process all the calories contained in the food (where as it would if they were spread over the day) before it passes through.

fwiw my n=1 is that I find my food choices around beer have more of an impact than the beer itself, but beer does cause significant enough short term weight changes (presumably water retention from beer and/or salty snacks!).

rubadub

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I normally just drink lager and some IPAs.
I've had discussions about this online before and a lot of people just refuse to believe there can be any difference in calories, but I've drank 10 beers a day for weeks on holidays and not put any weight on!

There is an easy way to make these ignorant people see sense, petrol is highly calorific, used to fuel cars just like ethanol is. You can ingest petrol in small amounts, it is obviously not good for you but will not kill you in small amounts. Ask them if they think you will put on weight like any other calories.

I remember posting the sugar vs alcohol study before and people saying "aha!!! sugar causes an insulin response, it effects hormones like leptin, blah blah blah" -well I thanked them for proving the point that all calories are not going to have the same effect.

Macy0161 wrote: »

A calorie is a calorie - it's a measure of energy.

it is a scientific value, but food calories are calculated differently. I think the US calculates them differently too adding to confusion.

Macy0161 wrote: »

But that can happen with food too - if you have a very calorific meal/ binge, your body may not be able to process all the calories contained in the food (where as it would if they were spread over the day) before it passes through..

the "passes through" phrase is another good one to explain to the ignorant how calories are not an exact science. If you wolf down sweetcorn or nuts without chewing them properly they will pass through your system without the same effect as if they were totally liquidised and eaten. I would love to hear their response to that. Studies have been done on peanut butter vs nuts, total waste of time IMO as it is blatantly obvious, but maybe they just wanted figures.

Macy0161

rubadub wrote: »

it is a scientific value, but food calories are calculated differently. I think the US calculates them differently too adding to confusion.

But for most foods, most of the time, a calorie really is a calorie. Calories from alcohol is really the only exception I've found myself after a good few years of tracking.

It's a bit like people picking extremes to justify why BMI isn't a good measure (it's not usually a professional rugby player making the argument based upon it not working based upon a low body fat lock!)

L1011

The US includes calories from insoluble fibre which is, well, going to leave your body unprocessed shall we say.

Gorgeousgeorge

Hey if your doing keto/low carb ideally stay away from lager/ale etc. But the best I find is corona light. If you want a tipple to unwind i suggest vodka soda water and a wedge of lime

rubadub

Macy0161 wrote: »

But for most foods, most of the time, a calorie really is a calorie. Calories from alcohol is really the only exception I've found myself after a good few years of tracking.

It's a bit like people picking extremes to justify why BMI isn't a good measure (it's not usually a professional rugby player making the argument based upon it not working based upon a low body fat lock!)

Most muscular people talking about BMI seem well aware of the issue. Most heavy drinking overweight people trying to cut calories are not aware of the difference. I know of guys who would think they are doing great knocking off 400kcal worth of beer from their usual night out, when they should have been knocking off one of the mulitple double cheeseburgers. Lots view it like is a irrefutable scientific fact. It does become an important point if a large % of your calories come from alcohol.

If you liquidise sweetcorn or peanuts you will also extract more energy from them than if they were eaten whole and passed through you pretty intact. That is just an example to try and prove it is not a exact science, some people really do think 3500kcal intake will always lead to 1lb of fat gain.

mispelling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058185025/nutritional-info-on-beer

Rockshore light is 3g carbs per pint, bulmers light is 3.5g per pint, tenants light is 1g per pint (but only sold in northern Ireland), vodka and slimline tonic is 0g.

They’ve brought out a new zero carb Bud in the USA as a trial, so hopefully that takes off and will arrive here someday, I tried to order online but was unable to.

I’m hoping to go up north and buy a few crates of tenants light when I have a bit of time as 1g per pint is amazing!