You would never confuse me for a jogger. I am big. I like that. I was over six foot at twelve. A small giant. I can pick up things others can't. Move large objects. I am often asked by little old ladies to reach the high shelf for them at the grocery store. But you have to watch it. Over two decades ago I took the advice of a doctor to watch my blood tests right after he told me I had the results of an 80 year old. In my family of Scots coffin nail puffers, whisky tipplers, fish 'n' chip eaters and sofa lobby dossers, well, the genes aren't that good and my 1980s fry pan diet was not helping. Twenty odd years later filled with daily salmon oil pills, soy and other bits and pieces of the good stuff has resulted in having the cholesterol and blood sugar levels of a daily runner. But I am still big. Good for leaning into the bumper of a car needing to be unstuck in the snow. Not so good for the second 45 years I consider my allotment in life.
So, what to do about that? What to do about the beer? Got me thinking. You know how you play the game of justifying beer. I knew a guy in undergrad who, as part of his "fit yet party" plan, made sure he had over 50% of his caloric intake dedicated to the beer. He didn't look real good. He invented new shades of grey with his body. Checking around the internet I found a few sources of information on calories and beer but not the real nugget I was searching for. I wondered what was the number of calories in a huge Belgian beer like a 750 ml Trappist quad. Hard to find out. Too much information is couched in the round about approach, in the comforting justification like those found in this article by Michael Jackson from 1994:
On the question of quality, I realised I was worrying unnecessarily: speciality beers would exclude anything as watery tasting as Miller Lite (96 calories per 12oz or 35cl, standard American bottle) or as bland as a regular Budweiser (150 calories). We could have a similar serving of a European-style lager or a pale ale for about 180 calories or less.And, curiously, a beer full of flavour and colour such as Guinness stout weighs in with only 140 calories per 35cl serving. The same amount of wine could rack up more than 240 calories, although we usually serve grape in smaller glasses. But whichever the accompaniment to a meal, the drink contributes far fewer calories than the food.
I mean, there is nothing wrong with that information but who really has the 200 ml glassware which that Jack Michaelson fellow set out with the meal he described? OK, let's just say I wouldn't. And what of that big Belgian bomb? Here are a couple of handy lists setting out the of beer to calorie ratio for a huge number of brands. They work on the 100 ml principle. Unfortunately I don't and neither do you. So let's think in terms of a 2000 ml scale which is roughly the equivalent of a North American six pack or four UK pints. What does the available data tell us?
- Guinness (4.1%) - 2000 ml equals a little under 840 calories.
- Blue Moon (5.4%) - 2000 ml is around 1026 calories.
- Anchor Porter (5.7%) - 2000ml equals 1180 calories.
- Dragon Stout (6.8%) - 2000 ml equals 1240 calories.
You can see where I am going with this. I feel like I am breaking some sort of guy rule. Some sort of unwritten law of the beer men. But we have to walk in this world in awareness. So you will not cringe when I note that one McDonalds Angus burger and medium fries is 950 calories or that the same number of calories in raw chopped red cabbage is found takes over 30 cups ...which is like 3 bushels, right? You can handle this information. Because you are strong. Because you really prefer a six of Anchor Porter to 46 cups of raw chopped red cabbage.
But how do you know what is in what you put in you? Bob Skilnik, author of Beer and Food, is on the job with his Drink Healthy Drink Smart project that goes along with his book Does My BUTT Look BIG In This BEER. I think it is a great idea, especially for those of us who are closer to (yes, I will say this) retirement than high school. I have not downloaded a copy of DMBLBITB but at only seven bucks you and I probably should. With any luck he'll tell you what's in that corked bomber of craft brew quad. Once you know, you may want to plan around it. You may want a few cups of cabbage after all.
Comments
ethan - February 21, 2009 12:07 pm
The calorie content for Guiness directly conflicts with their website:
http://www2.guinness.com/en-IE/Pages/food-calorie-guide.aspx?me=khvjbv4500ectv5542tndiud
By quite a bit!
Bob Skilnik - February 21, 2009 12:20 pm
The Guinness "problem" is the biggest pain in the ass in terms of measuring nutritional values for a number of reasons, all which are pointed out in the book. This was the #1 "Gotcha" when I wrote The Low Carb Bartender too.
1. You’ll probably notice disparities between the nutritional information for the same brands of beer, but brewed in different countries. Guinness or Beck’s comes to mind. Some worldwide breweries contract to have their beers brewed in satellite breweries, far from their home offices. The use of more easily available indigenous grains or accommodating known taste preferences of local beer drinkers can influence the use of different mixtures of grains in the mash, differently treated water sources, changing ratios of various types of hops in the kettle, and even yeast strains in the fermentor, which can account for variances in calories, carbohydrates and alcohol levels for the same brand of beers in different countries. Guinness, for instance, is extremely popular in Nigeria, yet the cost of shipping malted barley from Ireland would be prohibitive. As a result, indigenous grains such as sorghum and soybeans can also be added to the grain bill. As noted throughout the book, and reflective of different brewing practices in a host of countries, the nutritional values for Guinness will vary widely.
2. Serving size for beer is listed in the book as 12-ounces (with rare exceptions), even if the beer comes in 22-ounce “bombers” or half-liter bottles, as per the TTB and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) suggestions. If a site quotes "pints," all bets are off.
3. One more caveat. Breweries are changing, and tweaking their recipes all the time, skewing their beers’ nutritional values with any given batch. Also be aware that any measurement of the nutritional values of beer is based on an average analysis. No two batches of beer will ever be the same. That’s why the TTB gives an expected range (+, -) for calorie, carbohydrate and protein analyses (ranges explained in the book). Of the many breweries that contributed to this book, The Lion Brewery in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania was the only brewery that sent me their beer nutritional information with expected ranges, NOT as definitive numbers. That’s really how you have to look at the information in this book; numbers will fluctuate with each batch of beer. Keeping the nutritional data within an expected range and deriving an average analysis of product is what’s given here. It's what you see on a package of Twinkies or a 6-pack of Coors Light. There are NO absolutes in measuring the nutritional values of food, only ranges averaged out to a single number.
Alan - February 22, 2009 9:14 pm
Bob sent me the pdf of his book. So, now I know that the big bottle of Allagash Odyssey is 25.36 ounces and that there are 23.08 callories per ounce. Which makes 585.31 calories per bottle. I read that the UK Department of Health Estimated Average Requirements (EAR) are a daily calorie intake of 1940 calories per day for women and 2550 for men. So 4.36 big bottles of Odyssey is the full daily caloric requirement for an adult male. A six pack (or rather 2000 ml) would be 1560 calories.
Another reason for session ales?
Drew Brown - February 23, 2009 10:53 am
Thank you for your post, it was very interesting to read. I always like to read and write about this kind of craftsmanship.
Matt Dunn - February 24, 2009 11:16 am
Funny. I was just commenting on how many calories must be in a bottle of Three Floyd's Dark Lord. It's got to be at least twenty thousand.
Alan - February 24, 2009 12:08 pm
LOL!!! A man could live on one for two weeks.
kennhyn - February 24, 2009 9:30 pm
in term of health beer calories will not be a good one, the worst part is you never stop at 1 pint. You go on and on. I think the best is still exercise rather then looking out for the calories. If we look out for the calories in drinking beer, so what's the fun of drinking beer anymore?
Bob Skilnik - March 11, 2009 10:15 pm
Of course if you don't know how many calories are in a beer, you sure as hell don't know who many calories you're expending when you "exercise" either. Sort of like saying you don't need a speedometer in your car since driving's all about the fun.
I hear this line all the time. "I'll just exercise more." How much more? What duration? At what rate? Incline or not? Cardio or strength conditioning?
Jack Segar - May 22, 2009 12:48 am
Great post, unfortunately beer is high in calories and high in carbs and because of this it can really have an effect on your waist line. But I think for many it would be better, to cut back on the amount they drink and switch to a light beer rather than trying to cut out beer all together. Even though the difference between a regular beer and a light beer may not seem like much multiplying that number over several a week can really add up quickly.
bill keiser - August 21, 2009 8:44 am
I downloaded it. On page 10 is a link to http://www.DrinkHealthyTV.com which appears to be a non existent URL. Where would I find updates on the data?