Question about a carb count on a beer

Robyn Rosenthal wrote:
|| 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.

Quoted message said:

From: "Roger Zoul" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Robyn Rosenthal wrote:
|| 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

Robyn Rosenthal wrote:
||| From: "Roger Zoul" [email hidden]
||
|||
|||
||| Robyn Rosenthal wrote:
||||| 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.

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

"Robyn Rosenthal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Chocolate

Quoted message said:

Stout?

I probably ought to just drink it in blissful ignorance.....

Robyn

Generally beers carbs come from how

Quoted message said:

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

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

"The Low-Carb Bartender" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:I6i4d.4229$He1.1414@attbi_s01...

Quoted message said:

Generally beers carbs come from how

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

in carbs.

BTW, I described this no alcohol/high carb phenomonon in my first two

books

Quoted message said:

on the subject and believe I also mentioned this on my recent appearance

on

Quoted message said:

'The View.'

Bob Skilnik
The Low-Carb Bartender

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?

"curt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:aei4d.2033$fa.1329@trndny09...

Quoted message said:

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

"The Low-Carb Bartender" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:I6i4d.4229$He1.1414@attbi_s01...

Quoted message said:

Generally beers carbs come from how

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

in carbs.

BTW, I described this no alcohol/high carb phenomonon in my first two

books

Quoted message said:

on the subject and believe I also mentioned this on my recent appearance

on

Quoted message said:

'The View.'

Bob Skilnik
The Low-Carb Bartender

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.

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 [censored] as well. Pretty much no alcohol at all in it. Just light [censored].
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

"The Low-Carb Bartender" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:J0j4d.136968$3l3.124334@attbi_s03...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

the way the high alcohol affects it. Some high alcohol beers are brewed

with

Quoted message said:

yeasts that cannot handle the higher-alcohol environment they create

during

Quoted message said:

fermentation. In other words, they're so efficient that they actully

create

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"beer" by distillers until it heads to the distillation process. You do
understand the difference between fermentation and distillation, don't

you?

Quoted message said:

"curt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:aei4d.2033$fa.1329@trndny09...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

"The Low-Carb Bartender" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:I6i4d.4229$He1.1414@attbi_s01...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

in carbs.

BTW, I described this no alcohol/high carb phenomonon in my first two

books

Quoted message said:

on the subject and believe I also mentioned this on my recent

appearance

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on

Quoted message said:

'The View.'

Bob Skilnik
The Low-Carb Bartender

"Chet Hayes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 [censored] 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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

or websites. Some of my 'favorite' posters have already had my ISP chase

me

Quoted message said:

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

"curt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<FoC4d.4704$kn2.4364@trndny07>...

Quoted message said:

"Chet Hayes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 [censored] 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 [censored] 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 [censored], 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.

"Chet Hayes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"curt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<FoC4d.4704$kn2.4364@trndny07>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Chet Hayes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or so. Not bad IMHO. I can certainly eat 100g of carbs every day and

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 [censored] and the Guinness
carb postings have been plentiful in the past.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and the like. You are comparing apples and oranges with this statement.

As

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 [censored] beers. You can't compare what

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are trying to compare. If you go out and buy a good micro sometime and

try

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

real beers, you will understand what I am talking about. I guess I take

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 [censored] 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 [censored], 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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

"The Low-Carb Bartender" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:e5V4d.106964$D%.80865@attbi_s51...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"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

Quoted message said:

and Trade Bureau made an interim ruling that a "low-carb" alcoholic

beverage

Quoted message said:

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:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

use up their remaining stocks of non-conforming labels, cans, and

packaging

Quoted message said:

(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

Quoted message said:

"low-carb" beer, but it doesn't really matter. The TTB's legal definition

is

Quoted message said:

all that matters.

Once again, for those who missed it---Youngs Chocolate Stout 12 oz

16.8

Quoted message said:

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

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

curt said:

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 [censored] as well. Pretty much no alcohol at all in it. Just light [censored].
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

"The Low-Carb Bartender" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:J0j4d.136968$3l3.124334@attbi_s03...

<snip>

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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