Brewing Master

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – On another issue raised by Curt, he claims that contrary to what one might guess, Guiness is LC.  I’ve seen this claim made many times, but with no specific numbers to back it up, which means it’s just about worthless.  I did find this on a website: Worthless?  As you just posted, it is LC compared to many beers.  If you want to kick back and have a Guiness, you can and keep your carbs under 30 or so.  Not bad IMHO.  I can certainly eat 100g of carbs every day and not gain, so I am in luck when it comes to this beer. Yes, that’s right, it’s worthless claiming something is low carb without knowing what the specific carb count is.  BTW, if you’ve researched 100’s of beers, why didn’t you just tell us what the carb count of Guiness actually was when you made the claim that it was LC?

Because it has been posted so many times on here.  I have been around here too long I guess.  I get tired of reading the same old crap and the Guinness carb postings have been plentiful in the past. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s nice that your carb budget is so generous.  However, if you look at the typical thread here, people are worrying about the rounding of carbs in a spoon of product like Splenda or Ketchup.  So, I think for you to make the blanket statement that a beer with 10g of carbs is LC, is misleading at best. Especially when many of the best selling regular beers consumed in America are in that range. http://www.briansbelly.com/beerbelly/guinness.shtml Guinness is often thought of as a high calorie beer but the official word from Guinness is that it is less than 11 calories per ounce. A 12oz serving has 125 calories, 9.8 grams of carbs and it’s alcoholic content is 4.2%. For comparison, 12 ounces of Budweiser is 150 calories and 11 grams carbs, 12 ounces of Heineken is 150 calories and 12.2 grams of carbs, 12 ounces of Corona Extra is 148 calories and 14.1 grams of carbs, and SURPRISE… a Sam Adams Light has 126 calories and 10.9 grams of carbs. Of course, I don’t know anyone who only drinks 12 ounces of Guinness (or any beer for that matter) so your mileage will vary. If this is correct, it shows a number of things.  First, that with about 10 carbs, Guiness is like a regular Bud or Heineken and not a LC beer. Um, you are missing a big point here.  You can not compare Guinness with Bud and the like.  You are comparing apples and oranges with this statement. As far as a real beer goes, Guinness is LC. Following this twisted logic, I could claim that a regular crust pizza is LC too, simply by comparing it to "real" sicilian thick crust pizza.  Does that make it LC or a good choice for someone looking for a LC snack?

Sorry, but bread is not LC.  I don’t consider 12 oz’s of beer with 10g of carbs high.  If you are on permanent Induction that is your deal.  Not mine. Many people that work out like myself can eat more carbs that 20.  That to me is not a lifestyle. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Second, with 11 carbs, Sam Adams Light has as many carbs as a Bud or Heineken which shows that all light beers are not LC.  As I recall, even Coors Light has about twice the carbs that a Miller Lite or Michelob Ultra has.  Of course, one could argue whether 5 carbs vs 2.6 really mattters and that really depends on how many you drink. Personally, for a LC beer, I like the taste of Ultra and since it’s also the lowest out there, it’s my choice.  I also like the idea of supporting companies that put all the info on the label, instead of keeping it a secret. I think this shows what I have known all along.  The safest and true LC beers are the ones that are labeled with the carb count.  For those wishing to drink other beers, they can either do it without knowing how many carbs are in there or obtain an accurate reference that lists them. Once again, you are talking about crap beers.  You can’t compare what you are trying to compare.  If you go out and buy a good micro sometime and try real beers, you will understand what I am talking about.  I guess I take it for granted that people have tried some real beer. Curt OK, so now BUD, Heneiken, Sam Adams Light, Miller Lite, and Mich Ultra are all crap beers.  Thanks a lot for your opinion, Mr. Beer snob. Like I and the rest of the world haven’t tried micro brews.  Guess what, we have.  I like some of them from time to time.  And I think many of them are pure crap, but perhaps appealing to beer snobs like you.  The same expert, who a few posts back, claimed that carbs in beer come from the alcohol.  The fact remains that the major pilsner companies have the majority market share, that is what people drink the most, regardless of what you think of it.

I could care less what MOST people do.  Most people are uneducated and don’t know what good beer is.  They just look at the pretty bottle on T.V. or they drink what everyone else is drinking. Michelob created and defined the LC beer market with Ultra at 2.6g. Miller lite is 3.2.  When people use the term LC beer today, I think there is general agreement that it covers those and similar beers. You could even extend it up to 5g or so, which gets you to Coors Light.  But, I don’t think when people use the term LC, they are referring to beers with 10g, since in that range you have beers like regular Bud, Coors and Heneiken.  None of those are being marketed or called LC beers by anyone, are they?

You are clueless.  There has been LC beers out from the beginning.  Ultra (tastes like Sprite without the sweetness), was just the first one that followed the LC craze and capitalized on it.  Get a grip you idiot. So, you can have your own little definition of what’s LC, but your terminology isn’t consistent with the rest of the world.

My terminology isn’t consistent with yours.   Not the rest of the world. You just watch too much T.V. and the ads.  You really don’t know anything about beer and just drink what the masses drink.  I could sell you anything in a pretty package.  You are just a follower and can’t think for yourself. JMHO. Enjoy, Curt

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – On another issue raised by Curt, he claims that contrary to what one might guess, Guiness is LC.  I’ve seen this claim made many times, but with no specific numbers to back it up, which means it’s just about worthless.  I did find this on a website: Worthless?  As you just posted, it is LC compared to many beers.  If you want to kick back and have a Guiness, you can and keep your carbs under  30 or so.  Not bad IMHO.  I can certainly eat 100g of carbs every day and  not gain, so I am in luck when it comes to this beer. Yes, that’s right, it’s worthless claiming something is low carb without knowing what the specific carb count is.  BTW, if you’ve researched 100’s of beers, why didn’t you just tell us what the carb count of Guiness actually was when you made the claim that it was LC? Because it has been posted so many times on here.  I have been around here too long I guess.  I get tired of reading the same old crap and the Guinness carb postings have been plentiful in the past. It’s nice that your carb budget is so generous.  However, if you look at the typical thread here, people are worrying about the rounding of carbs in a spoon of product like Splenda or Ketchup.  So, I think for you to make the blanket statement that a beer with 10g of carbs is LC, is misleading at best. Especially when many of the best selling regular beers consumed in America are in that range. http://www.briansbelly.com/beerbelly/guinness.shtml Guinness is often thought of as a high calorie beer but the official word from Guinness is that it is less than 11 calories per ounce. A 12oz serving has 125 calories, 9.8 grams of carbs and it’s alcoholic content is 4.2%. For comparison, 12 ounces of Budweiser is 150 calories and 11 grams carbs, 12 ounces of Heineken is 150 calories and 12.2 grams of carbs, 12 ounces of Corona Extra is 148 calories and 14.1 grams of carbs, and SURPRISE… a Sam Adams Light has 126 calories and 10.9 grams of carbs. Of course, I don’t know anyone who only drinks 12 ounces of Guinness (or any beer for that matter) so your mileage will vary. If this is correct, it shows a number of things.  First, that with about 10 carbs, Guiness is like a regular Bud or Heineken and not a LC beer. Um, you are missing a big point here.  You can not compare Guinness with  Bud and the like.  You are comparing apples and oranges with this statement.  As far as a real beer goes, Guinness is LC. Following this twisted logic, I could claim that a regular crust pizza is LC too, simply by comparing it to "real" sicilian thick crust pizza.  Does that make it LC or a good choice for someone looking for a LC snack? Sorry, but bread is not LC.  I don’t consider 12 oz’s of beer with 10g of carbs high.  If you are on permanent Induction that is your deal.  Not mine. Many people that work out like myself can eat more carbs that 20.  That to me is not a lifestyle.

Nor is all beer, but that distinction obviously went right over your head. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Second, with 11 carbs, Sam Adams Light has as many carbs as a Bud or Heineken which shows that all light beers are not LC.  As I recall, even Coors Light has about twice the carbs that a Miller Lite or Michelob Ultra has.  Of course, one could argue whether 5 carbs vs 2.6 really mattters and that really depends on how many you drink. Personally, for a LC beer, I like the taste of Ultra and since it’s also the lowest out there, it’s my choice.  I also like the idea of supporting companies that put all the info on the label, instead of keeping it a secret. I think this shows what I have known all along.  The safest and true LC beers are the ones that are labeled with the carb count.  For those wishing to drink other beers, they can either do it without knowing how many carbs are in there or obtain an accurate reference that lists them. Once again, you are talking about crap beers.  You can’t compare what  you are trying to compare.  If you go out and buy a good micro sometime and  try real beers, you will understand what I am talking about.  I guess I take  it for granted that people have tried some real beer. Curt OK, so now BUD, Heneiken, Sam Adams Light, Miller Lite, and Mich Ultra are all crap beers.  Thanks a lot for your opinion, Mr. Beer snob. Like I and the rest of the world haven’t tried micro brews.  Guess what, we have.  I like some of them from time to time.  And I think many of them are pure crap, but perhaps appealing to beer snobs like you.  The same expert, who a few posts back, claimed that carbs in beer come from the alcohol.  The fact remains that the major pilsner companies have the majority market share, that is what people drink the most, regardless of what you think of it. I could care less what MOST people do.  Most people are uneducated and don’t know what good beer is.  They just look at the pretty bottle on T.V. or they drink what everyone else is drinking.

The correct term is "I couldn’t care less", but then that’s just another thing MOST educated people understand and use when communicating.   You don’t have to care what most people do, but it does set the standard for how we communicate.  Like, if someone on long island says "I’ll meet you in the city tonight", you’d have a pretty tough time if you insist by your convention that would mean Farmingdale, LI instead of NYC, which everyone else would agree it means. Michelob created and defined the LC beer market with Ultra at 2.6g. Miller lite is 3.2.  When people use the term LC beer today, I think there is general agreement that it covers those and similar beers. You could even extend it up to 5g or so, which gets you to Coors Light.  But, I don’t think when people use the term LC, they are referring to beers with 10g, since in that range you have beers like regular Bud, Coors and Heneiken.  None of those are being marketed or called LC beers by anyone, are they? You are clueless.  There has been LC beers out from the beginning.  Ultra (tastes like Sprite without the sweetness), was just the first one that followed the LC craze and capitalized on it.  Get a grip you idiot.

The point, which obviously went over your head, is that by creating the LC market, Mich defined what the term means to most people.   And LC means 2 -3 maybe 5g.  It’s not 10g, because not onlyu is that 4 times the carbs in a Mich Ultra, but at that point, not only can you have a Guiness or a Bud, but many other regular Pilsners as well. So, you can have your own little definition of what’s LC, but your terminology isn’t consistent with the rest of the world. My terminology isn’t consistent with yours.   Not the rest of the world. You just watch too much T.V. and the ads.  You really don’t know anything about beer and just drink what the masses drink.  I could sell you anything in a pretty package.  You are just a follower and can’t think for yourself. JMHO. Enjoy, Curt

So the rest of the world thinks Guiness at 10g is LC?  And 10g is being generous; as was pointed out to you, the carbs in Guiness vary all over the place depending on draft vs bottled, brewery, etc., 10g is the low.    Let’s take a poll here.  How many agree with Curt that Guiness or Bud at 10g fit the defintion of a low carb beer, or should be recommended as LC beers to others, as opposed to Mich Ultra or Miller Lite? Haven’t you seen posts from all the folks here that drink Mich Ultra or Miller Lite and think it’s fine as a LC alcohol choice?   And yet, you claim we are all uneducated and just watch too many ads, unlike you the beer expert. As for thinking and education, it was YOU who thought carbs in beer came from the alcohol.  And, no, Curt, you can’t sell me anything, including your weasling BS.  You need to get down off your high elitist horse and realize you just don’t know what’s right for other people, or even much about beer at all.  Oh, and for further evidence of that, I could take you back to your comments that light beers have hardly any alcohol in them.  Must I further expose your ignorance, or have you had enough?

Response:

If we take, for instance, Rochefort 8 or 10, which is a superb beer and contains about 9.2 and 11.3 % vol. alcohol respectively. How much do they contain then?

The only way to tell the carb counts is to get the breweries to analyze their beer for carbs, calories, etc. or do a lab analysis which can get a wee bit expensive after a couple of beers are tested. I’ll tell you right now, however, that you’ll almost never get a carb analysis from a brewer of Belgian beers. Blending of young and old beers and an attitude of "who cares?" when asking for carb counts, is common among Belgian brewers. The U.S. micro industry had the same attitude until low-carb beers came on line. You might note that beer sales for regular-brewed beers are way down, attributed to beer drinkers moving to LC beers or giving up beer in general. In the last few months, micros have suddenly become very responsive to my inquiries as brewers realize that it’s not what they believe about LC diets that counts, it’s what their customers believe. There is also one thing that seems, it’s a bit more complicated. If you take a standard calorie-index book, beer doesn’t contain that much carbohydrate, but if you take an index from Atkins, then it contains 12.5 grams of digestable carbohydrate per 33 cl (standard beer size, I guess that it then must be about the same as 12 oz, why don’t you just use the metric system?). So if a beer contains x grams of carbohydrate, can you be sure that this number really is the one to go for?

The problem with a "standard calorie-index" book or even Atkins is that they give you averages—which are worthless. That’s the whole purpose of my research and subsequent books. If you look in a detailed nutritional index book of foods, you can often find pizza (or bread, cookies, apples, etc.), for instance, with an average carb count, followed by more detailed listings for the carb counts of particular brands. Would you use the average carb count or the more precise carb count for a particular brand? The same principal applies to beer. You can settle for an "average" carb count or get the accurate carb counts for particular brands. How many carbs are in a beer are, in a large degree, irrelevant. If you’re way past Induction and are taking in 60/80/100 carbs a day, are one or two beers going to blow your weight loss or maintenance—especially if you know the real carb counts and not the average carb counts—and can accurately work these numbers into whatever phase you’re on? Moderation, not deprivation

Response:

Does that mean that dark ales, for instance Belgian ales and in particular Trappist-beers, contain much carbohydrate? If we take, for instance, Rochefort 8 or 10, which is a superb beer and contains about 9.2 and 11.3 % vol. alcohol respectively. How much do they contain then? There is also one thing that seems, it’s a bit more complicated. If you take a standard calorie-index book, beer doesn’t contain that much carbohydrate, but if you take an index from Atkins, then it contains 12.5 grams of digestable carbohydrate per 33 cl (standard beer size, I guess that it then must be about the same as 12 oz, why don’t you just use the metric system?). So if a beer contains x grams of carbohydrate, can you be sure that this number really is the one to go for? If beers really contain that much sugar, then it’s a shame. I guess it’s the thing that’s hardest to stay away from. I’d rather stay away from icecream, chocolate etc. but beer? And I mean beer!   – Morten – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well since you have read so much on the subject, you would know that 90% of the time a high alcohol beer has more carbs.  I NEVER said alcohol was the reason, I just stated that they have more carbs.  I have not researched why, but have done lots of searches on the Internet and that is my findings.  I don’t drink Bud and the like to be honest.  I don’t call that beer.  LC beer is crap as well.  Pretty much no alcohol at all in it.  Just light crap. Now a good Belgium beer like Piraat or maybe a micro knock-off like Golden Monkey, these are real beers and they have plenty of carbs. As far as your books go, I have not read them.  I have not seen them.  Are they published or just like a school book report? Curt

<snip

Response:

Michelob created and defined the LC beer market with Ultra at 2.6g. Miller lite is 3.2.  When people use the term LC beer today, I think there is general agreement that it covers those and similar beers. You could even extend it up to 5g or so, which gets you to Coors Light.  But, I don’t think when people use the term LC, they are referring to beers with 10g, since in that range you have beers like regular Bud, Coors and Heneiken.  None of those are being marketed or called LC beers by anyone, are they?

All right boys. Let me throw some more gas on the fire. A-B with their Mich Ultra was the first brewery that tried to equate that beer with the term "low-carb." At the time, the term "low-carb" in beer was nothing more than marketing spin. There was no legal definition of what constituted a low-carb alcoholic beverage. The only legal definition of a beer with less carbs and/or calories was the term "light." All a brewer had to do was show a reduction in the calories or carbs in their alternative product—as compared to their regular-brewed beer—to classify the beer as "light," i.e. Bud vs. Bud Light, Coors vs. Coors Light, Sam Adams vs. Sam Adams Light, etc. When Mich Ultra came out, soon followed by others, you might have noticed that this beers was still labeled "light," usually in small print. Legally, A-B was required to do this. In April of this year, bowing to market demands, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau made an interim ruling that a "low-carb" alcoholic beverage could be legally defined as low-carb if it contained 7 carbs or less per serving (serving size was also an issue. It was resolved with the following: beer-12 ounces, wine-5 ounces, distilled products-1.5 ounces). That being said, many of the "light" beers now fall under the low-carb banner. There will be a subsequent ruling on all of this once it’s observed how all of this plays out, with further classifications such as "reduced-carb" for products over 7 carbs to an undetermined top end of a range. In addition, a manufacturer of adult beverages who wishes to place the carb count on all their products must use a "nutritional analysis statement" on the product (either can, bottle, or package) exactly as we have seen on "light" beers since 1994, i.e., carbs, calories, protein, and sodium listed—not just a carb count. This doesn’t take effect until this month (September), not sure of the exact date. Brewers (and others), however, can use up their remaining stocks of non-conforming labels, cans, and packaging (with applied for permission from the TTB), so you probably won’t see full compliance of this nutritional analysis requirement for some time. Now you can argue all day as to what someone personally thinks constitutes a "low-carb" beer, but it doesn’t really matter. The TTB’s legal definition is all that matters. Once again, for those who missed it—Youngs Chocolate Stout   12 oz   16.8 g Bob Skilnik The Low-Carb Bartender

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Michelob created and defined the LC beer market with Ultra at 2.6g. Miller lite is 3.2.  When people use the term LC beer today, I think there is general agreement that it covers those and similar beers. You could even extend it up to 5g or so, which gets you to Coors Light.  But, I don’t think when people use the term LC, they are referring to beers with 10g, since in that range you have beers like regular Bud, Coors and Heneiken.  None of those are being marketed or called LC beers by anyone, are they? All right boys. Let me throw some more gas on the fire. A-B with their Mich Ultra was the first brewery that tried to equate that beer with the term "low-carb." At the time, the term "low-carb" in beer was nothing more than marketing spin. There was no legal definition of what constituted a low-carb alcoholic beverage. The only legal definition of a beer with less carbs and/or calories was the term "light." All a brewer had to do was show a reduction in the calories or carbs in their alternative product—as compared to their regular-brewed beer—to classify the beer as "light," i.e. Bud vs. Bud Light, Coors vs. Coors Light, Sam Adams vs. Sam Adams Light, etc. When Mich Ultra came out, soon followed by others, you might have noticed that this beers was still labeled "light," usually in small print. Legally, A-B was required to do this. In April of this year, bowing to market demands, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau made an interim ruling that a "low-carb" alcoholic beverage could be legally defined as low-carb if it contained 7 carbs or less per serving (serving size was also an issue. It was resolved with the following: beer-12 ounces, wine-5 ounces, distilled products-1.5 ounces). That being said, many of the "light" beers now fall under the low-carb banner. There will be a subsequent ruling on all of this once it’s observed how all of this plays out, with further classifications such as "reduced-carb" for products over 7 carbs to an undetermined top end of a range. In addition, a manufacturer of adult beverages who wishes to place the carb count on all their products must use a "nutritional analysis statement" on the product (either can, bottle, or package) exactly as we have seen on "light" beers since 1994, i.e., carbs, calories, protein, and sodium listed—not just a carb count. This doesn’t take effect until this month (September), not sure of the exact date. Brewers (and others), however, can use up their remaining stocks of non-conforming labels, cans, and packaging (with applied for permission from the TTB), so you probably won’t see full compliance of this nutritional analysis requirement for some time. Now you can argue all day as to what someone personally thinks constitutes a "low-carb" beer, but it doesn’t really matter. The TTB’s legal definition is all that matters. Once again, for those who missed it—Youngs Chocolate Stout   12 oz 16.8 g Bob Skilnik The Low-Carb Bartender

No need to argue.  I already won that.  The decision on what is LC and not LC is an individual decision.  I could care less what the advertisers say. I look at the actual carbs and decide if it is in my own carb allotment. For me Guinness is a LC beer.  Some of the Belgium’s I drink are not. Enjoy, Curt

Response:

Guinness is often thought of as a high calorie beer but the official word from Guinness is that it is less than 11 calories per ounce. As far as your books go, I have not read them.  I have not seen them.  Are they published or just like a school book report?

Guinness is brewed in 51 countries and the carbohydrate count for this product varies from an anecdotal 5.20 grams of carbohydrates per 12-ounce serving (from Stout by Michael J. Lewis; Brewers Publications, 1995), up to a documented 17 grams or so, depending on where it’s brewed. The home office for Guinness (Diageo) says a 12-ounce serving comes in at around 10 carbs. The Guinness in Australia, however, hits the high end, though with no understanding as to why. A recent check was just done with the Lion-Nathan Brewery for their version of Guinness Draught for New Zealand-5.50 carbs in a 12-ounce serving. In Nigeria, Africa, however, where three Guinness breweries are located, local grains such as maize and sorghum are used in the dark brew. No numbers from their brews. Analyses of Guinness Stout done in 1995 and 1998 at the lab services division of the Siebel Institute of Technology in Chicago (the oldest school for professional brewers—1875 or so), puts the carb count for a 12-ounce serving at 13.79 and 09.98 respectively. Take all of this with the understanding the the U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) allows a variance of up to 20 + or – on stated carb counts of beer labels. How yeasts act and the extraction of sugar from grains from various regions—-and successive harvests affected by weather conditions and such, all contribute to the somewhat non-precise measurement of carbohydrates in beer. So how many carbs in Guinness? Which Guinness and from where? I give up! My suggestion? When in doubt, remember that the draught (draft) version hits the lower end of the carb range. As for my books (book reports don’t get you on ESPN2, Fox News Channel or ABC’s ‘The View’), God forbid if I put a link to them on this ng to my books or websites. Some of my ‘favorite’ posters have already had my ISP chase me when I did. A simple Google search will lead you to further information. Bob Skilnik The Low-Carb Bartender

Response:

Does anyone happen to know the carb/calorie count on Youngs Double Chocolate Stout?

Young’s Chocolate Stout   12 oz   16.8 g brought to you by The Low-Carb Bartender

Response:

As for my books (book reports don’t get you on ESPN2, Fox News Channel or ABC’s ‘The View’), God forbid if I put a link to them on this ng to my books or websites. Some of my ‘favorite’ posters have already had my ISP chase me when I did. A simple Google search will lead you to further information. Bob Skilnik The Low-Carb Bartender

LOL, I was kidding about the book report part.  I am glad you are not promoting as much as you used to.  No need with the LC craze going on. I will take a look at your books.  I drink most all micros and imports, so I don’t know if your books would help in knowing for me.  I will be interested if my findings about amount of alcohol and carbs are correct.  Keeping in mind, I never said alcohol was the cause, just that they seem to rise and fall together. Curt

Response:

On another issue raised by Curt, he claims that contrary to what one might guess, Guiness is LC.  I’ve seen this claim made many times, but with no specific numbers to back it up, which means it’s just about worthless.  I did find this on a website: Worthless?  As you just posted, it is LC compared to many beers.  If you want to kick back and have a Guiness, you can and keep your carbs under 30 or so.  Not bad IMHO.  I can certainly eat 100g of carbs every day and not gain, so I am in luck when it comes to this beer.

Yes, that’s right, it’s worthless claiming something is low carb without knowing what the specific carb count is.  BTW, if you’ve researched 100’s of beers, why didn’t you just tell us what the carb count of Guiness actually was when you made the claim that it was LC? It’s nice that your carb budget is so generous.  However, if you look at the typical thread here, people are worrying about the rounding of carbs in a spoon of product like Splenda or Ketchup.  So, I think for you to make the blanket statement that a beer with 10g of carbs is LC, is misleading at best. Especially when many of the best selling regular beers consumed in America are in that range. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – http://www.briansbelly.com/beerbelly/guinness.shtml Guinness is often thought of as a high calorie beer but the official word from Guinness is that it is less than 11 calories per ounce. A 12oz serving has 125 calories, 9.8 grams of carbs and it’s alcoholic content is 4.2%. For comparison, 12 ounces of Budweiser is 150 calories and 11 grams carbs, 12 ounces of Heineken is 150 calories and 12.2 grams of carbs, 12 ounces of Corona Extra is 148 calories and 14.1 grams of carbs, and SURPRISE… a Sam Adams Light has 126 calories and 10.9 grams of carbs. Of course, I don’t know anyone who only drinks 12 ounces of Guinness (or any beer for that matter) so your mileage will vary. If this is correct, it shows a number of things.  First, that with about 10 carbs, Guiness is like a regular Bud or Heineken and not a LC beer. Um, you are missing a big point here.  You can not compare Guinness with Bud and the like.  You are comparing apples and oranges with this statement.  As far as a real beer goes, Guinness is LC.

Following this twisted logic, I could claim that a regular crust pizza is LC too, simply by comparing it to "real" sicilian thick crust pizza.  Does that make it LC or a good choice for someone looking for a LC snack? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Second, with 11 carbs, Sam Adams Light has as many carbs as a Bud or Heineken which shows that all light beers are not LC.  As I recall, even Coors Light has about twice the carbs that a Miller Lite or Michelob Ultra has.  Of course, one could argue whether 5 carbs vs 2.6 really mattters and that really depends on how many you drink. Personally, for a LC beer, I like the taste of Ultra and since it’s also the lowest out there, it’s my choice.  I also like the idea of supporting companies that put all the info on the label, instead of keeping it a secret. I think this shows what I have known all along.  The safest and true LC beers are the ones that are labeled with the carb count.  For those wishing to drink other beers, they can either do it without knowing how many carbs are in there or obtain an accurate reference that lists them. Once again, you are talking about crap beers.  You can’t compare what you are trying to compare.  If you go out and buy a good micro sometime and try real beers, you will understand what I am talking about.  I guess I take it for granted that people have tried some real beer. Curt

OK, so now BUD, Heneiken, Sam Adams Light, Miller Lite, and Mich Ultra are all crap beers.  Thanks a lot for your opinion, Mr. Beer snob. Like I and the rest of the world haven’t tried micro brews.  Guess what, we have.  I like some of them from time to time.  And I think many of them are pure crap, but perhaps appealing to beer snobs like you.  The same expert, who a few posts back, claimed that carbs in beer come from the alcohol.  The fact remains that the major pilsner companies have the majority market share, that is what people drink the most, regardless of what you think of it. Michelob created and defined the LC beer market with Ultra at 2.6g. Miller lite is 3.2.  When people use the term LC beer today, I think there is general agreement that it covers those and similar beers. You could even extend it up to 5g or so, which gets you to Coors Light.  But, I don’t think when people use the term LC, they are referring to beers with 10g, since in that range you have beers like regular Bud, Coors and Heneiken.  None of those are being marketed or called LC beers by anyone, are they? So, you can have your own little definition of what’s LC, but your terminology isn’t consistent with the rest of the world.

Response:

Well since you have read so much on the subject, you would know that 90% of the time a high alcohol beer has more carbs.  I NEVER said alcohol was the reason, I just stated that they have more carbs.  I have not researched why, but have done lots of searches on the Internet and that is my findings.  I don’t drink Bud and the like to be honest.  I don’t call that beer.  LC beer is crap as well.  Pretty much no alcohol at all in it.  Just light crap. Now a good Belgium beer like Piraat or maybe a micro knock-off like Golden Monkey, these are real beers and they have plenty of carbs. As far as your books go, I have not read them.  I have not seen them.  Are they published or just like a school book report? Curt – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Maybe you’ve drunk hundreds of beers, but I’ve researched and written 2 books on the subject. Think about how wrong your premise is. Whether it’s in beer, wine, or distilled products…ethanol is ethanol (you do know what ethanol is, don’t you?) There are NO carbs in alcohol…ethyl alcohol, ethanol… Since it took me years of correspondence with 100s of breweries, I’d sure like to know how you’ved "looked at 100’s of beers and the carb counts and alcohol%?" It’s not something you can do on a casual basis. That would also be pretty amazing considering that the carb counts of beers are not available on the labels, advertising, or promotional literature of these regular-brewed products. What most often makes SOME high alcohol beers high in carbs is the yeast and the way the high alcohol affects it. Some high alcohol beers are brewed with yeasts that cannot handle the higher-alcohol environment they create during fermentation. In other words, they’re so efficient that they actully create a toxic environment of too much alcohol—and die. This leaves plenty of unfermented simple sugars laying around that give the beer a high carb count. So once again…the alcohol itself has nothing to do with the carb counts of beer. It’s what’s left over after fermentation, in other words, residual sugar/carbs, that affect the total carbohydrate count. P.S. Before whiskey and vodka are distilled, they must be fermented in the same process as brewing beer. The low-alcohol liquid is often referred to as "beer" by distillers until it heads to the distillation process. You do understand the difference between fermentation and distillation, don’t you? You are wrong.  When it comes to beer the higher the alcohol the higher the carbs.  I don’t know about non-alcoholic beer, but if you look at carb counts and alcohol you will see they are directly related in beer. Vodka and Whiskey is not beer nor are they made the same way. I have looked at 100’s of beers and the carb counts and alcohol %’s and they are related. Curt Generally beers carbs come from how much alcohol it has. Totally wrong. There are NO carbs in alcohol. Are there carbs in vodka, whiskey, etc? Of course not. As another example of how wrong this statement above is…NA (non-alcohol) beers are much higher in carbs that a standard American pilsner (Bud, MGD, Coors, etc.) By your reasoning, since they have no (almost no) alcohol in them, it would stand to reason that these beers would also be lower in carbohydrates. Ain’t so. As a matter of fact, they are typically much higher in carbs. BTW, I described this no alcohol/high carb phenomonon in my first two books on the subject and believe I also mentioned this on my recent appearance on ‘The View.’ Bob Skilnik The Low-Carb Bartender

Response:

On another issue raised by Curt, he claims that contrary to what one might guess, Guiness is LC.  I’ve seen this claim made many times, but with no specific numbers to back it up, which means it’s just about worthless.  I did find this on a website:

Worthless?  As you just posted, it is LC compared to many beers.  If you want to kick back and have a Guiness, you can and keep your carbs under 30 or so.  Not bad IMHO.  I can certainly eat 100g of carbs every day and not gain, so I am in luck when it comes to this beer. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – http://www.briansbelly.com/beerbelly/guinness.shtml Guinness is often thought of as a high calorie beer but the official word from Guinness is that it is less than 11 calories per ounce. A 12oz serving has 125 calories, 9.8 grams of carbs and it’s alcoholic content is 4.2%. For comparison, 12 ounces of Budweiser is 150 calories and 11 grams carbs, 12 ounces of Heineken is 150 calories and 12.2 grams of carbs, 12 ounces of Corona Extra is 148 calories and 14.1 grams of carbs, and SURPRISE… a Sam Adams Light has 126 calories and 10.9 grams of carbs. Of course, I don’t know anyone who only drinks 12 ounces of Guinness (or any beer for that matter) so your mileage will vary. If this is correct, it shows a number of things.  First, that with about 10 carbs, Guiness is like a regular Bud or Heineken and not a LC beer.

Um, you are missing a big point here.  You can not compare Guinness with Bud and the like.  You are comparing apples and oranges with this statement.  As far as a real beer goes, Guinness is LC. Second, with 11 carbs, Sam Adams Light has as many carbs as a Bud or Heineken which shows that all light beers are not LC.  As I recall, even Coors Light has about twice the carbs that a Miller Lite or Michelob Ultra has.  Of course, one could argue whether 5 carbs vs 2.6 really mattters and that really depends on how many you drink. Personally, for a LC beer, I like the taste of Ultra and since it’s also the lowest out there, it’s my choice.  I also like the idea of supporting companies that put all the info on the label, instead of keeping it a secret. I think this shows what I have known all along.  The safest and true LC beers are the ones that are labeled with the carb count.  For those wishing to drink other beers, they can either do it without knowing how many carbs are in there or obtain an accurate reference that lists them.

Once again, you are talking about crap beers.  You can’t compare what you are trying to compare.  If you go out and buy a good micro sometime and try real beers, you will understand what I am talking about.  I guess I take it for granted that people have tried some real beer. Curt

Response:

Does anyone happen to know the carb/calorie count on Youngs Double Chocolate Stout? I probably ought to just drink it in blissful ignorance….. Robyn

Response:

|| Does anyone happen to know the carb/calorie count on Youngs Double || Chocolate Stout? || || I probably ought to just drink it in blissful ignorance….. Yes, either that or don’t drink it.

Response:

|| Does anyone happen to know the carb/calorie count on Youngs Double || Chocolate Stout? || || I probably ought to just drink it in blissful ignorance….. Yes, either that or don’t drink it.

I drank it & it was YUMMY. Since I didn’t know how many calories/carbs it had I just assumed it was a buttload and called it a dessert instead of a beverage:) I’ve had it in the fridge for about 6 months waiting for the moment when I wanted a beer. After 2.5 years without a beer, I sure as heck wasn’t going to drink anything boring and ordinary:)Robyn

Response:

|| ||| |||

||||| Does anyone happen to know the carb/calorie count on Youngs Double ||||| Chocolate Stout? ||||| ||||| I probably ought to just drink it in blissful ignorance….. ||| ||| Yes, either that or don’t drink it. ||| ||| || || I drank it & it was YUMMY. || || Since I didn’t know how many calories/carbs it had I just assumed it || was a buttload and called it a dessert instead of a beverage:) || || I’ve had it in the fridge for about 6 months waiting for the moment || when I wanted a beer. || || After 2.5 years without a beer, I sure as heck wasn’t going to drink || anything boring and ordinary:)Robyn I think you’ve more than earned that beer, dear!  Besides, those extra carbs will help you push just a bit harder in your next workout.

Response:

Yum, that is a good winter or fall beer.  I don’t know that carb count, but it may not be as high as you think.  Generally beers carbs come from how much alcohol it has.  For example Guinness is low alcohol so the carbs are pretty low.  Amazingly not much higher than a so called low carb beer.  All lite beers are low carb and always have been.  Are they low carb enough to drink on a LC diet?  That depends on you I guess.  I retain quite a bit of water when I drink.  I have been having trouble controlling my drinking lately.  Oh well. Curt

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does anyone happen to know the carb/calorie count on Youngs Double Chocolate Stout? I probably ought to just drink it in blissful ignorance….. Robyn

Response:

 Generally beers carbs come from how much alcohol it has.

Totally wrong. There are NO carbs in alcohol. Are there carbs in vodka, whiskey, etc? Of course not. As another example of how wrong this statement above is…NA (non-alcohol) beers are much higher in carbs that a standard American pilsner (Bud, MGD, Coors, etc.) By your reasoning, since they have no (almost no) alcohol in them, it would stand to reason that these beers would also be lower in carbohydrates. Ain’t so. As a matter of fact, they are typically much higher in carbs. BTW, I described this no alcohol/high carb phenomonon in my first two books on the subject and believe I also mentioned this on my recent appearance on ‘The View.’ Bob Skilnik The Low-Carb Bartender

Response:

 You are wrong.  When it comes to beer the higher the alcohol the higher the carbs.  I don’t know about non-alcoholic beer, but if you look at carb counts and alcohol you will see they are directly related in beer.  Vodka and Whiskey is not beer nor are they made the same way. I have looked at 100’s of beers and the carb counts and alcohol %’s and they are related. Curt – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Generally beers carbs come from how much alcohol it has. Totally wrong. There are NO carbs in alcohol. Are there carbs in vodka, whiskey, etc? Of course not. As another example of how wrong this statement above is…NA (non-alcohol) beers are much higher in carbs that a standard American pilsner (Bud, MGD, Coors, etc.) By your reasoning, since they have no (almost no) alcohol in them, it would stand to reason that these beers would also be lower in carbohydrates. Ain’t so. As a matter of fact, they are typically much higher in carbs. BTW, I described this no alcohol/high carb phenomonon in my first two books on the subject and believe I also mentioned this on my recent appearance on ‘The View.’ Bob Skilnik The Low-Carb Bartender

Response:

On another issue raised by Curt, he claims that contrary to what one might guess, Guiness is LC.  I’ve seen this claim made many times, but with no specific numbers to back it up, which means it’s just about worthless.  I did find this on a website: http://www.briansbelly.com/beerbelly/guinness.shtml Guinness is often thought of as a high calorie beer but the official word from Guinness is that it is less than 11 calories per ounce. A 12oz serving has 125 calories, 9.8 grams of carbs and it’s alcoholic content is 4.2%. For comparison, 12 ounces of Budweiser is 150 calories and 11 grams carbs, 12 ounces of Heineken is 150 calories and 12.2 grams of carbs, 12 ounces of Corona Extra is 148 calories and 14.1 grams of carbs, and SURPRISE… a Sam Adams Light has 126 calories and 10.9 grams of carbs. Of course, I don’t know anyone who only drinks 12 ounces of Guinness (or any beer for that matter) so your mileage will vary. If this is correct, it shows a number of things.  First, that with about 10 carbs, Guiness is like a regular Bud or Heineken and not a LC beer.   Second, with 11 carbs, Sam Adams Light has as many carbs as a Bud or Heineken which shows that all light beers are not LC.  As I recall, even Coors Light has about twice the carbs that a Miller Lite or Michelob Ultra has.  Of course, one could argue whether 5 carbs vs 2.6 really mattters and that really depends on how many you drink. Personally, for a LC beer, I like the taste of Ultra and since it’s also the lowest out there, it’s my choice.  I also like the idea of supporting companies that put all the info on the label, instead of keeping it a secret. I think this shows what I have known all along.  The safest and true LC beers are the ones that are labeled with the carb count.  For those wishing to drink other beers, they can either do it without knowing how many carbs are in there or obtain an accurate reference that lists them.

Response:

Maybe you’ve drunk hundreds of beers, but I’ve researched and written 2 books on the subject. Think about how wrong your premise is. Whether it’s in beer, wine, or distilled products…ethanol is ethanol (you do know what ethanol is, don’t you?) There are NO carbs in alcohol…ethyl alcohol, ethanol… Since it took me years of correspondence with 100s of breweries, I’d sure like to know how you’ved "looked at 100’s of beers and the carb counts and alcohol%?" It’s not something you can do on a casual basis. That would also be pretty amazing considering that the carb counts of beers are not available on the labels, advertising, or promotional literature of these regular-brewed products. What most often makes SOME high alcohol beers high in carbs is the yeast and the way the high alcohol affects it. Some high alcohol beers are brewed with yeasts that cannot handle the higher-alcohol environment they create during fermentation. In other words, they’re so efficient that they actully create a toxic environment of too much alcohol—and die. This leaves plenty of unfermented simple sugars laying around that give the beer a high carb count. So once again…the alcohol itself has nothing to do with the carb counts of beer. It’s what’s left over after fermentation, in other words, residual sugar/carbs, that affect the total carbohydrate count. P.S. Before whiskey and vodka are distilled, they must be fermented in the same process as brewing beer. The low-alcohol liquid is often referred to as "beer" by distillers until it heads to the distillation process. You do understand the difference between fermentation and distillation, don’t you?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You are wrong.  When it comes to beer the higher the alcohol the higher the carbs.  I don’t know about non-alcoholic beer, but if you look at carb counts and alcohol you will see they are directly related in beer.  Vodka and Whiskey is not beer nor are they made the same way. I have looked at 100’s of beers and the carb counts and alcohol %’s and they are related. Curt Generally beers carbs come from how much alcohol it has. Totally wrong. There are NO carbs in alcohol. Are there carbs in vodka, whiskey, etc? Of course not. As another example of how wrong this statement above is…NA (non-alcohol) beers are much higher in carbs that a standard American pilsner (Bud, MGD, Coors, etc.) By your reasoning, since they have no (almost no) alcohol in them, it would stand to reason that these beers would also be lower in carbohydrates. Ain’t so. As a matter of fact, they are typically much higher in carbs. BTW, I described this no alcohol/high carb phenomonon in my first two books on the subject and believe I also mentioned this on my recent appearance on ‘The View.’ Bob Skilnik The Low-Carb Bartender

Response: