They claim it’s only 100 calories per bottle with only 2g of carbs, yet 4.7% alcohol and 22 IBU. That’s impressive. I’m curious as to how they get such a low amount of calories and carbs with that ABV.
Most light beers have between 95-110 calories but only 4-4.2% alcohol, and usually very little bitterness if any. (I like a good bitter brew).
It gets some decent reviews on RateBeer, but their info says it has 4.4% ABV and 132 calories. I’m thinking the brewers site would be more accurate, if they’re being truthful.
Some of the specialty liquor stores around here has some of this brewers offering so I’m going to look for it.
In the meantime I’m interested if anyone on these boards has had it. If so, do you recall what the label said regarding alcohol and calorie content? Thanks.
North Coast makes great stuff across the board. The recent thread about dark beers included numerous raves about their Old Rasputin.
At their restaurant in Fort Bragg, the use the Scrimshaw for the beer-batteries fish & chips. Best I’ve ever had, when the local rockfish is in season.
Same here. But my wife is trying the Keto diet and I told her I’d do it with her so she didn’t have to cook 2 things and also wasn’t tempted by what I was eating. 11 days and 14 pounds later I’m dying for a beer. The 2 grams of carbs means I could have 2 of them a night and still stay in Ketosis. Mich Ultra is too watery and has more carbs.
I found a sixer of Scrimshaw at the liquor store. My rating is here at Ratebeer. Beer #1099 for me.
North Coast Brewing! That’s the very first microbrew pub we ever went to, about thirty-three years ago during a vacation in northern California. They made Scrimshaw back then, and we loved it. We also loved their Red Seal Ale.
I’m a homebrewer that specializes in low alcohol beers (usually between 2-4% alcohol by volume). I just plugged some numbers into a beer recipe calculator with super high attenuating yeast. I think that the North Coast website very carefully does NOT mention the serving size that provides 100 calories and 2 carb. It’s probably more like 6 or 8 ounces serving to reach that 100 calories target. Rate Beer with 141 estimated calories is in line with the calculator I use. If you have an actual bottle, read the label for the serving size.
If in fact the North Coast numbers are correct for a 12 ounce bottle, I would guess they are adding in grain alcohol to boost the alcohol % and avoiding calories.
Maybe a more knowledgeable brewer than myself can enlighten, but in my experience they math doesn’t work using tradition traditional fermentable inputs of barley or even sugar to reach that alcohol level and those calories.
As you’ll recall, I was curious myself as to how they get such low calories/carbs from a 4.7% brew.
The bottle label says nothing about serving size. It would, however, be unusual for beer to have 2 servings in 1 twelve ounce bottle.
It would be illegal to add grain alcohol to a malt alcohol beverage and then not mention on the label that the product was fortified. So it’s probably not that.
I’ve had it but only on tap. I like it very much. A clean, fresh, pils. I live in Northern California but I wonder if it’s a bit pricey in bottles or cans in other parts of the USA.
If you have the actual bottle, then there should be a serving size somewhere on there.
The math simply doesn’t work for me to hit 4.7% at 100 calories. The calculator shows 4.7% alcohol with 1.1# dry malt extract/gallon equates to 140 calories
If solve for 100 calories in a 12 oz bottle, then it is .68# DME/gallon and only 3.4% alcohol
Me, I make a 2% beer that comes in at 65 calories.
So there is something definitely off in the claims. Me thinks it is marketing messing with the serving size
Grain alcohol is something like 180 cal/oz IIRC, besides cooking oils (at 220-240 cal/oz), it is one of the most calorie dense foods available. Hell both that and the oils can be used in vehicles as fuel.
At 4.7% what is the calories just from the alcohol?
Nope. Nowhere. Not on the card board bottle holder either.
Lots of beers don’t have serving sizes.
If the brewer is hiding what they consider a serving size just to stay at the 100 calorie claim they are being very dishonest. There are several sites recommending this beer for those on low carb diets.
Miller Lite pulls off 96 calories @ 4.2% ABV and 3.2 carbs. 100 calories @ 4.7% and 2 carbs is a tough sell.
It’s pretty good, and yes I remember the content being 4.something%. It’s not particularly expensive for us in stores, and at bars it is often budget-priced below other craft beers.
Beers in the US often don’t contain much nutritional information on the label. You’ll often – but nowhere near always – get an ABV on the label. You’ll sometimes – but not very often – get a calorie count on the label. Right now, looking in my recycling, I have a tallboy of Old Style which has neither ABV nor any calorie (or other nutritional) information on the can. I have some Bell’s Oberon, which has 5.8% ABV on the can, but no further info. I have a Sam Adams New England IPA, 6.8% ABV, but no further info. In my experience, it’s unusual to see calorie information on the label. And I’ve certainly never seen serving size info.
Yeah. I paid $5 for a pint. In San Francisco that’s pretty reasonable. The bar I was in is a bit less expensive than normal, $5 and $6 pints and pints of Bud for $4.
Carbs are 4 cal/g, as far as I’ve ever been taught for calorie counting purposes (protein and carbs are 4 each, fat 9, and alcohol 7.)
That leaves 2g of leeway, and that still seems pretty optimistic. Michelob Ultra is 95 calories with 2.6g of carbs and 4.2% ABV, and, if you’ve ever tasted it, it tastes like what you might get when you take a beer and cut it with seltzer water–it’s so light and “nothing” tasting. Scrimshaw actually does taste pretty reasonable, from what I remember (it’s been awhile since I’ve last had it), so I, too, am surprised and a bit skeptical of those numbers.