Do "unfiltered wheat beers" or "white" beers have more calories than others?
- duckdown Jun 26, 2009 04:43 PM
Hi all, I'm a fat guy so I personally don't give a flying hell about this, but a female is asking me if these "white" beers like Hoegaarden, or Blanche de Chambly are significantly heavier/fattier beers than others... I admit when you hear "unfiltered wheat beer" it does have the "sound" that it could be heavy... so I can imagine why some might think that. Also when you have the yeast at the bottom or what not, I guess it has that appearance
How does it compare to say a Budweiser, or Canadian, or a Moosehead, or so on.
I'm not surprised that Draught Guinness (not the extra stout) has fewer calories than Bud because it contains less alcohol. I would expect, in general, that caloric content would be roughly proportional to alcohol content.
But if my conjecture is valid, then Hoegaarden would have about the same calories as Bud. So, I'm not sure what the heck is going on, and this conflicts with my (unscientific) view that filtering doesn't affect calories to any great extent.
re: Jim Dorsch
In general, yes, calorie content is proportional to alcohol content, but "heavy" beers also have a lot of residual poly-saccharide sugar that doesn't ferment out. Wheat beers can have a lot of dissolved starch and protein, which gives them both their cloudy appearance as well as a higher caloric value.
Guinness is so low in calories for two reasons- its low ABV (3.2% for draft, if I remember right), and the extremely low residual sugar. It's also loaded with essential minerals, so get that girl of yours on the Guinness bandwagon for health!