Calorie counts on menus?

MartyMcFly84

That is true and also not every alcohol is created equal. As far as I know beer tends to be worse than wine and spirits would be the least fattening. But unless you are alcoholic on liquid diet those are all supplements to food. Beer belly isn't called that for nothing and I think that a lot of people who drink at home couple of glasses 'to relax'do more damage than those going out for a meal every so often.

Beer belly is a fallacy, beer does not cause fattening. Its the eating habits that go along with it along with the excess calories that causes fat storage if the energy is not used. Pints with crisps and then chips and a late night kebab.

Alcohol is made from sugar so there is about 7 calories per gram of Alcohol. A large glass of wine (250ml) has 230 calories, about the same as a Cornetto. A bottle of wine = 3 Cornettos.

Roughly a glass of wine and a pint of beer have the same amount of calories, give or take 10-20. So in equal measurement wine has a lot more calories than beer.

This highlights the problem here. Many people have no idea of the calories they are consuming and make mistakes like thinking wine is lower calorie drink than beer.

gsi300024v

~Marty when you say beer and wine have same calories in equal measures, do you mean in litres? or units of alcohol?
Pints might add weight if you mean in litres their equal, the volume you'd have in beer if you had 3 pints being a lot more than if you had 3 glasses of wine.

MrWalsh

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

Roughly a glass of wine and a pint of beer have the same amount of calories, give or take 10-20. So in equal measurement wine has a lot more calories than beer.

No one is drinking wine and beer in equal measurement though - I hope!

MartyMcFly84

250mls of wine has roughly double the calories of 250mls of beer.

That's what I meant.

MartyMcFly84

No one is drinking wine and beer in equal measurement though - I hope!

Depends what you mean. You need much less wine to make up the same calories in beer about half the amount. One bottle of wine is the same as roughly 4 pints of beer.

I know plenty of people who have a bottle of wine every day with dinner between two. That's an extra 380 calories with your meal each - but maybe the same people would not drink two pints of beer each with dinner.

So if you were to have a drink with your meal, a bottle of beer would actually be a lower calorie option than a glass of wine.

gsi300024v

interesting. So one glass of wine though is less calories by a 1/3 than pint. Is cider different, I like the sweeter ciders.

JohnK

gsi300024v wrote: »

interesting. So one glass of wine though is less calories by a 1/3 than pint. Is cider different, I like the sweeter ciders.

The dry ciders seem to be best - the Stonewell ones are 31 calories per 100ml for their Medium Dry and 17 calories per 100ml for the Dry

MrWalsh

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

Depends what you mean. You need much less wine to make up the same calories in beer about half the amount. One bottle of wine is the same as roughly 4 pints of beer.

What I mean is the volume of wine drank is generally a lot less than the quantity of beer drank on a given night.

So two people might go out and one is drinking wine and the other is drinking pints of beer.

After some time the beer drinker has consumed 4 pints of beer but the wine drinker has consumed 4 glasses of wine - not 4 pints of wine.

At which point the calories consumed are roughly the same. But the volume of liquid consumed is vastly different.

In equal measurement wine has a lot more calories than beer but in practical terms people are not drinking pints of wine. So the amount of calories consumed in alcohol will be close to the same on a night out (if we use my example above) whether you drink beer or wine.

Which is definitely interesting, I wouldnt have realised wine was so calorific actually - it feels "lighter" to drink than beer.

MartyMcFly84

So one glass of wine though is less calories by a 1/3 than pint. Is cider different, I like the sweeter ciders.

175ml glass of wine - about 120 calories large glass 250ml - 230

568ml Pint of beer - 170

568ml Pint of sweet Cider (Bulmers) -240 calories

(330ml) Bottle of beer - 95

(250ml) Bottle of beer - 72

obviously there will be some variance depending on the type of beer, strength of wine etc.

MartyMcFly84

At which point the calories consumed are roughly the same. But the volume of liquid consumed is vastly different.

And who is consuming those calories? Not to be sexist in many cases on night out scenario the lads would stick to beer and ladies drinking wine.

So you could have a woman who has a much lower daily calorie maintenance than a man, consuming the same amount of calories as man on a night out although volume wise in taking less overall liquid.

MrWalsh

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

And who is consuming those calories? Not to be sexist in many cases on night out scenario the lads would stick to beer and ladies drinking wine.

So you could have a woman who has a much lower daily calorie maintenance than a man, consuming the same amount of calories as man on a night out although volume wise in taking less overall liquid.

Yes, very true.

Also, wine can be extremely misleading to buy in a pub. One of those little bottles of wine is 250ml - 3 of those is a full bottle of wine but lots of people think that they are only 1 drink. So both calories and alcohol consumed is higher than people realise. Theres a pub I occasionally frequent that has the measure for wine marked on the wine glasses. Its 187ml (if memory serves). People always think it looks like a small measure.

meeeeh

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

Beer belly is a fallacy, beer does not cause fattening. Its the eating habits that go along with it along with the excess calories that causes fat storage if the energy is not used. Pints with crisps and then chips and a late night kebab.

Alcohol is made from sugar so there is about 7 calories per gram of Alcohol. A large glass of wine (250ml) has 230 calories, about the same as a Cornetto. A bottle of wine = 3 Cornettos.

Roughly a glass of wine and a pint of beer have the same amount of calories, give or take 10-20. So in equal measurement wine has a lot more calories than beer.

This highlights the problem here. Many people have no idea of the calories they are consuming and make mistakes like thinking wine is lower calorie drink than beer.

As far as I know bear has more non alcohol calories from crabs that get absorbed. But I could be wrong. Neat spirits seem to be the least fattening.

hardCopy

meeeeh wrote: »

As far as I know bear has more non alcohol calories from crabs that get absorbed. But I could be wrong. Neat spirits seem to be the least fattening.

Those fat bears should stick to the salmon.

MartyMcFly84

As far as I know bear has more non alcohol calories from crabs that get absorbed. But I could be wrong. Neat spirits seem to be the least fattening

A shot of vodka 35mls is about the same as a small bottle of beer or half a pint of beer (250mls) 70 calories, a double 140.

Many people would drink that in one gulp or with a mixer. With a mixer unless sugar free you can throw another 100 cal on that and boom your back up to the same calories as a pint of beer or pint of cider.

its all relative, how much you are going to drink and what you will eat that night or the dirty fry the morning after.

MrWalsh

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

A shot of vodka 35mls is about the same as a small bottle of beer or half a pint of beer (250mls) 70 calories, a double 140.

Many people would drink that in one gulp or with a mixer. With a mixer unless sugar free you can throw another 100 cal on that and boom your back up to the same calories as a pint of beer or pint of cider.

its all relative, how much you are going to drink and what you will eat that night or the dirty fry the morning after.

What strikes me as odd is how there are such an amount of calories in alcohol but I get so hungry after a few drinks!!

meeeeh

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

A shot of vodka 35mls is about the same as a small bottle of beer or half a pint of beer (250mls) 70 calories, a double 140.

Many people would drink that in one gulp or with a mixer. With a mixer unless sugar free you can throw another 100 cal on that and boom your back up to the same calories as a pint of beer or pint of cider.

its all relative, how much you are going to drink and what you will eat that night or the dirty fry the morning after.

I don't know how reliable it is but this website has the percentage of calories from alcohol. It is clear that mixed drinks and beers are at the bottom. So no not all alcohol is created equal and beer belly is not just a consequence of crisps and visits to the chipper.
http://getdrunknotfat.com

runawaybishop

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't know how reliable it is but this website has the percentage of calories from alcohol. It is clear that mixed drinks and beers are at the bottom. So no not all alcohol is created equal and beer belly is not just a consequence of crisps and visits to the chipper.
http://getdrunknotfat.com

Alcohol calories are not fully absorbed so they are very misleading. Its usually the kebab after the pints that does the big damage. You also tend to eat far more if you have alcohol with your food, up to 30% more.

meeeeh

And again what has that to do with anything? Body absorbed calories from different alcoholic drinks differently. You get fatter drinking beer than drinking neat vodka when you drink the same quantity of pure alcohol.

runawaybishop

meeeeh wrote: »

And again what has that to do with anything? Body absorbed calories from different alcoholic drinks differently. You get fatter drinking beer than drinking neat vodka when you drink the same quantity of pure alcohol.

Alcohol calories are not absorbed in the same way across different types of booze, and they are drastically different to the absorption rate of food. A can of beer may say it has 250 calories but the difference between drinking 10 cans of beer and eating 10 moros is huge.

meeeeh

runawaybishop wrote: »

Alcohol calories are not absorbed in the same way across different types of booze, and they are drastically different to the absorption rate of food. A can of beer may say it has 250 calories but the difference between drinking 10 cans of beer and eating 10 moros is huge.

Thank you for repeating the same thing for the 100th time. Except it has nothing to do with the point I was making. Beer has also calories from carbs that get easily absorbed, spirtits have less. on the link above you have percentage of calories from alcohol in drinks and the higher the value the better. Beer is in general at the bottom of the list. No I am finished on this subject because either I can't explain properly or some are too dense to .understand.

MrWalsh

meeeeh wrote: »

Thank you for repeating the same thing for the 100th time. Except it has nothing to do with the point I was making. Beer has also calories from carbs that get easily absorbed, spirtits have less. on the link above you have percentage of calories from alcohol in drinks and the higher the value the better. Beer is in general at the bottom of the list. No I am finished on this subject because either I can't explain properly or some are too dense to .understand.

Well I must be in the too dense to understand camp then, because I dont understand the point you were making either.

Shenshen

MrWalsh wrote: »

Well I must be in the too dense to understand camp then, because I dont understand the point you were making either.

I think the point is that the alcohol constitues about 4 - 6% of your pint. The remaining 94 - 96%, however, are not pure water but contain other substances (sugar, carbohydrates, even some protein - good breakdown of it could be found here) which can also have a fattening effect.

Wine on the other hand seem to supply most of its calories through its alcohol content.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

MrWalsh

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This thread has caught me a bit off guard with regards to the calories in wine versus beer!

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

MrWalsh

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I could have, but for some reason I had an idea that beer was calorific and wine and spirits were not. So I never felt the need to look it up because I thought I already had a fair idea. This is exactly why providing this information is a good idea. Perhaps Ive lots of mistaken ideas about what has a lot of calories and what hasnt.

Carawaystick

Shenshen wrote: »

Wine on the other hand seem to supply most of its calories through its alcohol content.

The number for white wine seems awfully precise for a product with huge variability, and so should be taken with a grain of salt.

MartyMcFly84

Calories are calories at the end of the day.

An excess of calories will be stored as fat if not used. Alcohol is empty calories in that it does not have any nutritional value. It also slows down the rate in which your body absorbs nutrients from other foods.

So this could well explain why you feel so hungry as you are getting no nutritional benefit from the calories in alcohol and what you have eaten your body is not making the best out of, leading you to want to eat again or more than you normally would.

There would be some vitamins and minerals in the rest of the alcoholic beverage but nothing major.

rubadub

Faith wrote: »

Not to go too far off topic, but why isn't alcohol equal to food calories? Do you absorb less from alcohol?

Mellor posted most points I would have made. There actually was a guy in the fitness forum who thought drinking 500kcal of petrol per day would make you as fat as drinking 500kcal of soft drinks. This is how mixed up people can be, and how people treat it like a lab experiement burning fuel. If you put an equal calorific amount of diesel in your petrol car it will not go as far as it would if it was petrol - like the petrol car you are simply a machine that does not make particularly efficient use of that particular fuel.

Some people are under the impression that calorie values are calculated in labs with humans. e.g. they feed people an amount of food or alcohol, see how much fat they put on and then say "ok 500kcal of sugar is xyz grams, and 500kcal of alcohol is abc ml. But its not like that.

To further confuse things it seems heavy drinkers are less effected by calories from alcohol, its like your body flushes them out. I know this anecdotally from myself and many of my friends who are or were heavy drinkers. I did not really bother factoring in alcohol when counting calories, as I knew it had such little effect on me.


http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/04/health/why-the-body-may-waste-the-calories-from-alcohol.html

For example, weight gain was negligible in alcoholics who were given 2,000 calories of alcohol daily on top of the 2,500 calories from foods they consumed to maintain their weight. But when the same number of additional calories were fed as chocolate, a steady weight gain resulted.

meeeeh wrote: »

That is true and also not every alcohol is created equal. As far as I know beer tends to be worse than wine and spirits would be the least fattening.

yes clear unsweetened spirits are 100% alcohol, so per unit alcohol they have less calories. Just like crossaints have more calories per gram of butter in them than eating grams of butter on their own.

gsi300024v wrote: »

Is cider different, I like the sweeter ciders.

bulmers light is artificially sweetened, its the same % of alcohol as standard, the bulmers light is fermented until almost all the sugar is gone, bulmers regular will have sugar added or not be fully fermented in the first place, or a combination of both.

Heineken contains 3.5g of sugar per 100ml.

(from their site about 5% alcohol, its 4.3% here in most places)
This is a lot of sugar, ~1/3rd the amount of coke or orange/apple juice. So if drinking 9 pints in a night thats like 3 pints of coke.

For ease of calculation lets say normal bulmers is 300kcal per pint and bulmers light is 150kcal per pint, and lets say the light has 0% sugar and the regular bulmers only has additional kcals due to sugar. So you might say they are twice the calories, which is correct. But for a heavy drinker this will certainly not have twice the effect on weight gain. The 150kcal in the bulmers light will not have much effect on a heavy drinker weight wise. The 150kcal in regular bulmers due to alcohol will not have much of an effect, but the 150kcal of sugar certainly will. So by changing to a light/dry cider you are going to ingest far less "weight gaining calories", and might be more beneficial than you originally thought.

This is why I would not just like to see calories quoted on alcohol with this legislation. I would like to see full disclosure of ingredients just like any other drink. Also I would like to see kcal and sugar/protein/carbs per ml, but also kcal and sugar/protein/carbs per unit alcohol and values per serving size

Some people overestimate how much lower in kcal spirits are than beer, since they often quote them in typical serving sizes, so a beer might be 200kcal and a shot of vodka 900kcal, but they neglect to factor in the beer is twice the grams of alcohol as vodka.

By quoting per serving size you give people who just want a drink with dinner to see which may be lower. Quoting per unit alcohol gives the people aiming to get to a certain level of intoxication an idea of which is best.

To further confuse things, studies show diet mixers can cause higher blood alcohol levels in people drinking the same amount of alcohol. So if your aim is to "get to a certain blood alcohol level", be it tipsy or blind drunk, then spirits & diet mixers appear to be the best choice if you do not want to put on weight.