Macros for a Social Lite
GrammaRhon
Posts: 13 Member
These are a light alcohol drink with 80 cal's .. does anyone know the macro counts on this?
0
Replies
-
The labels say no fat, carbohydrates, or protein so all the calories would be from alcohol.1
-
Nutritional labels found online here: http://www.sociallitevodka.com/ourdrinks
Update: One version has a little bit of carbohydrates. The others have none.0 -
I know that you can't just go by the label tho right .. there is a totally different calculation when it comes to alcohol .. just thought someone might have worked out the macro carb count on these .. so you'd take the 80 calories, and divide by 7 = 11.4 carbs??? I'm pretty much brand new at all this and I want to get the carbs for alcohol down pat!0
-
Alcohol is 7 calories per gram, but it is basically its own macro.2
-
thanks everyone .. I will count it as 11 carbs then .. a lot lower than a 5 oz glass of red at 26 carbs!2
-
janejellyroll wrote: »The labels say no fat, carbohydrates, or protein so all the calories would be from alcohol.
Not possible unless the drink is 100% ethyl alcohol (i.e., ~200 proof), such as Everclear. Vodka is usually around 40% alcohol (80 proof), so the other 60% of the calories would come from other macro sources (primarily carbs).
Manufacturers are probably getting around it on their nutrition labels by the fact that those drinks are mostly flavored water with a small amount of vodka, and they're allowed wiggle room on the accuracy of their labels. An ounce of vodka, at ~70 calories, with an alcohol content of 40%, would have 28 calories from alcohol and 42 from other sources (again, primarily carbs). So either they're playing games with their labeling, or there's considerably less than an ounce of alcohol in those drinks so that the carb content is negligible and they can get away with calling it zero.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The labels say no fat, carbohydrates, or protein so all the calories would be from alcohol.
Not possible unless the drink is 100% ethyl alcohol (i.e., ~200 proof), such as Everclear. Vodka is usually around 40% alcohol (80 proof), so the other 60% of the calories would come from other macro sources (primarily carbs).
Manufacturers are probably getting around it on their nutrition labels by the fact that those drinks are mostly flavored water with a small amount of vodka, and they're allowed wiggle room on the accuracy of their labels. An ounce of vodka, at ~70 calories, with an alcohol content of 40%, would have 28 calories from alcohol and 42 from other sources (again, primarily carbs). So either they're playing games with their labeling, or there's considerably less than an ounce of alcohol in those drinks so that the carb content is negligible and they can get away with calling it zero.
Thanks for the correction.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The labels say no fat, carbohydrates, or protein so all the calories would be from alcohol.
Not possible unless the drink is 100% ethyl alcohol (i.e., ~200 proof), such as Everclear. Vodka is usually around 40% alcohol (80 proof), so the other 60% of the calories would come from other macro sources (primarily carbs).
Manufacturers are probably getting around it on their nutrition labels by the fact that those drinks are mostly flavored water with a small amount of vodka, and they're allowed wiggle room on the accuracy of their labels. An ounce of vodka, at ~70 calories, with an alcohol content of 40%, would have 28 calories from alcohol and 42 from other sources (again, primarily carbs). So either they're playing games with their labeling, or there's considerably less than an ounce of alcohol in those drinks so that the carb content is negligible and they can get away with calling it zero.
Why couldn't it be a combination of alcohol, water, artificial sweeteners, and calorie-free flavors? The calories would still all be from alcohol, but the drink would not be 100% ethyl alcohol.
1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The labels say no fat, carbohydrates, or protein so all the calories would be from alcohol.
Not possible unless the drink is 100% ethyl alcohol (i.e., ~200 proof), such as Everclear. Vodka is usually around 40% alcohol (80 proof), so the other 60% of the calories would come from other macro sources (primarily carbs).
Manufacturers are probably getting around it on their nutrition labels by the fact that those drinks are mostly flavored water with a small amount of vodka, and they're allowed wiggle room on the accuracy of their labels. An ounce of vodka, at ~70 calories, with an alcohol content of 40%, would have 28 calories from alcohol and 42 from other sources (again, primarily carbs). So either they're playing games with their labeling, or there's considerably less than an ounce of alcohol in those drinks so that the carb content is negligible and they can get away with calling it zero.
Why couldn't it be a combination of alcohol, water, artificial sweeteners, and calorie-free flavors? The calories would still all be from alcohol, but the drink would not be 100% ethyl alcohol.
I agree. The calories in an 80 proof vodka are usually 100% from alcohol, but the vodka itself is not 100% alcohol - the rest is water.2 -
Because as I explained above, all the calories in the vodka itself are not from alcohol. So even though the calories in the drink may all be from the vodka, all the calories in the vodka aren't from alcohol.lynn_glenmont wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The labels say no fat, carbohydrates, or protein so all the calories would be from alcohol.
Not possible unless the drink is 100% ethyl alcohol (i.e., ~200 proof), such as Everclear. Vodka is usually around 40% alcohol (80 proof), so the other 60% of the calories would come from other macro sources (primarily carbs).
Manufacturers are probably getting around it on their nutrition labels by the fact that those drinks are mostly flavored water with a small amount of vodka, and they're allowed wiggle room on the accuracy of their labels. An ounce of vodka, at ~70 calories, with an alcohol content of 40%, would have 28 calories from alcohol and 42 from other sources (again, primarily carbs). So either they're playing games with their labeling, or there's considerably less than an ounce of alcohol in those drinks so that the carb content is negligible and they can get away with calling it zero.
Why couldn't it be a combination of alcohol, water, artificial sweeteners, and calorie-free flavors? The calories would still all be from alcohol, but the drink would not be 100% ethyl alcohol.
1 -
Because as I explained above, all the calories in the vodka itself are not from alcohol. So even though the calories may all be from the vodka, all the calories in the vodka aren't from alcohol.lynn_glenmont wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The labels say no fat, carbohydrates, or protein so all the calories would be from alcohol.
Not possible unless the drink is 100% ethyl alcohol (i.e., ~200 proof), such as Everclear. Vodka is usually around 40% alcohol (80 proof), so the other 60% of the calories would come from other macro sources (primarily carbs).
Manufacturers are probably getting around it on their nutrition labels by the fact that those drinks are mostly flavored water with a small amount of vodka, and they're allowed wiggle room on the accuracy of their labels. An ounce of vodka, at ~70 calories, with an alcohol content of 40%, would have 28 calories from alcohol and 42 from other sources (again, primarily carbs). So either they're playing games with their labeling, or there's considerably less than an ounce of alcohol in those drinks so that the carb content is negligible and they can get away with calling it zero.
Why couldn't it be a combination of alcohol, water, artificial sweeteners, and calorie-free flavors? The calories would still all be from alcohol, but the drink would not be 100% ethyl alcohol.
Made me double check because I questioned my info. They actually are all from alcohol.2 -
I'm open to being proven wrong on this one, I could be misunderstanding it. I'd be greatly interested to hear @Aaron_K123 's input on it, since he's the master chemistry wizard dude around these parts. We'd probably get some cool diagrams out of it too.
1 -
I'm open to being proven wrong on this one, I could be misunderstanding it. I'd be greatly interested to hear @Aaron_K123 's input on it, since he's the master chemistry wizard dude around these parts. We'd probably get some cool diagrams out of it too.
Sure yeah I'll think about it. So my take is that as has been mentioned alcohol has 7 calories per gram in and of itself but as Anvil mentioned most commercially sold alcohols are going to have additional carbohydrates on top of that in that alcohol is typically fermented with yeast from a carbohydrate source (I think for vodka it is potato right?). That reaction doesn't go to completion, the build-up of alcohol eventually stops its production by the microorganism and some carbohydrate is left over. Completion usually is going to happen around 10 or so percent and to get higher than that you have to concentrate it through various means. A product like vodka that is 40% alcohol almost assuredly has carbohydrate remaining within it which is why it is syrupy. If it was water and alcohol it would be very fluid.
Now, all of that said it is certainly possible to through purification remove the carbohydrate and purify the alcohol to get 100% ethyl alcohol and then take that 100% alcohol and add it to something that does not have carbohydrate but is flavored in some other way and end up with a zero carb alcoholic beverage....it just wouldn't have "vodka" or some other brand of alcoholic beverage in it, it would have alcohol in it.
But all of that is my assumption and first opinion. Let us do some math to actually find out.
We know alcohol has 7 calories per gram and we know that most fluids are roughly 1 gram per mililiter. Googling "Vodka nutrition" lists 80 proof Vodka (40% alcohol) as having 64 calories in 1 fluid oz which is 28 grams Vodka is 40% alcohol so if the calories in vodka were only from alcohol then we would expect (28 x 0.4 x 7) = 78 calories in it.
Huh...that is a bit weird. Lists as 40% alcohol but that 28 grams of it (which would be 11.2 grams of alcohol) has 64 calories in it. But even if that was only calorie from alcohol you would expect 78 calories. So now I am confused...I am writing this as I am doing it so not quite sure. That certainly suggests that all of the calories in vodka come from alcohol but it goes even further and suggests that either alcohol isn't 7 cal per gram or 80 proof vodka isn't 40% alcohol. Either way though seems like my assumption there would be calories from carbs in there was wrong.
Okay let me look up this Social Lite stuff and try that. Okay so Social Lite is 355 mL and 80 calories and 4% alcohol. So the alcohol alone should be (355*.04*7)=99 calories. Again...weird that the amount listed is below the minimum calculated but it is below in the exact same way Vodka is. So to me it looks like all they did was put regular vodka 1:10 into an artificial sweetened drink and all of the calories come from the alcohol itself. Nothing magical there.7 -
Apparently the carbohydrates are removed during distillation so anything that is a liquor or "distilled spirit" does not have carbohydrates in it. A liqueur has carbohydrates intentionally added to a liquor which is why a liqueur is distinguished from a liquor. Then you have your non-distilled drinks like wine or beer that still have their original carbs that were being fermented.
So long story short I think you are wrong Anvil. However I'm still confused why vodka and Social Lite have less calories listed than you would actually get just from the alcohol alone based on the 7 cal per gram and percent alcohol calculation. If anyone has an explanation for why the math doesn't work out I'd be interested.4 -
Nevermind I figured it out, it is because of the density of alcohol. Water is 1 gram per mL, but pure alcohol is 0.789 grams per mL....I hadn't taken that into account in my original calcs.
So if you have 355 mL and 4% alcohol you have 14.2 mL of alcohol but that isn't 14.2 grams it is (14.2*0.789)=11.2 grams which is 11.2*7=78 calories. So 2 calories left over for whatever else (probably the small amount in the artificial sweetener).
Taking vodka in the original example 1 fl oz is 29.6 mL so 40% being alcohol would be 11.84 mL which would be (11.84*0.789)=9.34 grams. 9.34 grams x 7 cal/g = 66 calories which is pretty close to spot on.
I was assuming vodka was 40% alcohol by weight but it isn't, it is 40% alcohol by volume. In otherwords if you have 100mL of vodka you have 40mL of alcohol. But if you have 100 grams of vodka then you have 31.5 grams of alcohol.
Sorry for the stream of consciousness posting, I suppose I could have actually read about it first then typed later.11 -
this explains so much why the nutritions folks i use have us log alcohol as a combo of carbs/fats (about a 50/50 ratio) except for shots which is all fat0
-
deannalfisher wrote: »this explains so much why the nutritions folks i use have us log alcohol as a combo of carbs/fats (about a 50/50 ratio) except for shots which is all fat
I assume because they use some calculator that doesn't have an "alcohol" button on it. Seems kind of lazy to me to be honest, I mean alcohol isn't fat nor is it carbs and those macros should have some meaning. One should get a certain amount of fat nutritionally and if someone logs shots of alcohol as fat and drinks regularly they could be way off.0 -
their explanation is that its about how the body metabolizes alcohol - by logging it as carbs/fats - rather than what most people call empty calories (those that aren't accounted for with the carb amount on the label but the calories) - i.e. cals are 200, but only 25g carbs...i would log that as 25g carbs and 11g fat
its not that they encourage drinking regularly - in face, they say to limit to what they call low days (higher fat/lower carb days) because it gives you more flexibility to have a drink (although personally, i save that day for a nice fatty cut of steak)
ETA - they do a lot of things that aren't within the traditional nutritional community belief patterns - high carb (my intake is 479g a day and i'm no where near the highest - they have some guys who are in the 6-700g club) - even for those who aren't highly active; focus on metabolic flexibility (different combinations of C/F over a 7 day cycle)0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »their explanation is that its about how the body metabolizes alcohol - by logging it as carbs/fats - rather than what most people call empty calories (those that aren't accounted for with the carb amount on the label but the calories) - i.e. cals are 200, but only 25g carbs...i would log that as 25g carbs and 11g fat
its not that they encourage drinking regularly - in face, they say to limit to what they call low days (higher fat/lower carb days) because it gives you more flexibility to have a drink (although personally, i save that day for a nice fatty cut of steak)
ETA - they do a lot of things that aren't within the traditional nutritional community belief patterns - high carb (my intake is 479g a day and i'm no where near the highest - they have some guys who are in the 6-700g club) - even for those who aren't highly active; focus on metabolic flexibility (different combinations of C/F over a 7 day cycle)
/shrug I mean I doubt people who are dieting are pounding back shots so it is probably not that relevant but I would have advised just logging them as strict calories with no macro content. Ethyl alcohol will be converted to acetate which will be converted to acetyl-CoA where it can go either into the citric acid cycle for energy or feed into fatty acid biosynthesis for storage so it is true that alcohol can be converted into fat...but then again so can the other macros so that isn't anything special. Still I guess that is why they want to treat it like it is fat? I mean I suppose that is fine, don't read my opinion here as being aghast at the idea or anything I can sort of see the logic there.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »their explanation is that its about how the body metabolizes alcohol - by logging it as carbs/fats - rather than what most people call empty calories (those that aren't accounted for with the carb amount on the label but the calories) - i.e. cals are 200, but only 25g carbs...i would log that as 25g carbs and 11g fat
its not that they encourage drinking regularly - in face, they say to limit to what they call low days (higher fat/lower carb days) because it gives you more flexibility to have a drink (although personally, i save that day for a nice fatty cut of steak)
ETA - they do a lot of things that aren't within the traditional nutritional community belief patterns - high carb (my intake is 479g a day and i'm no where near the highest - they have some guys who are in the 6-700g club) - even for those who aren't highly active; focus on metabolic flexibility (different combinations of C/F over a 7 day cycle)
/shrug I mean I doubt people who are dieting are pounding back shots so it is probably not that relevant but I would have advised just logging them as strict calories with no macro content. Ethyl alcohol will be converted to acetate which will be converted to acetyl-CoA where it can go either into the citric acid cycle for energy or feed into fatty acid biosynthesis for storage so it is true that alcohol can be converted into fat...but then again so can the other macros so that isn't anything special. Still I guess that is why they want to treat it like it is fat? I mean I suppose that is fine, don't read my opinion here as being aghast at the idea or anything I can sort of see the logic there.
i can probably dig through their literature and find out the logic - i didn't see that Brad had published any specific journal articles on it - but most of the recommendations they use are based on academic studies - so there must be something out there0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »their explanation is that its about how the body metabolizes alcohol - by logging it as carbs/fats - rather than what most people call empty calories (those that aren't accounted for with the carb amount on the label but the calories) - i.e. cals are 200, but only 25g carbs...i would log that as 25g carbs and 11g fat
its not that they encourage drinking regularly - in face, they say to limit to what they call low days (higher fat/lower carb days) because it gives you more flexibility to have a drink (although personally, i save that day for a nice fatty cut of steak)
ETA - they do a lot of things that aren't within the traditional nutritional community belief patterns - high carb (my intake is 479g a day and i'm no where near the highest - they have some guys who are in the 6-700g club) - even for those who aren't highly active; focus on metabolic flexibility (different combinations of C/F over a 7 day cycle)
/shrug I mean I doubt people who are dieting are pounding back shots so it is probably not that relevant but I would have advised just logging them as strict calories with no macro content. Ethyl alcohol will be converted to acetate which will be converted to acetyl-CoA where it can go either into the citric acid cycle for energy or feed into fatty acid biosynthesis for storage so it is true that alcohol can be converted into fat...but then again so can the other macros so that isn't anything special. Still I guess that is why they want to treat it like it is fat? I mean I suppose that is fine, don't read my opinion here as being aghast at the idea or anything I can sort of see the logic there.
i can probably dig through their literature and find out the logic - i didn't see that Brad had published any specific journal articles on it - but most of the recommendations they use are based on academic studies - so there must be something out there
Well I mean if you are in caloric surplus and you pound back a few shots then sure that alcohol will get converted into fat so I imagine that is the logic. Of course if you are in caloric surplus and you pound back some rice then that will get converted into fat as well but I don't see anyone advocating to log carbohydrates as fat macros.1 -
Thanks everyone for your responses on this esp Aaron for the science lesson! :-) ... because I AM trying to lose about 10-15 lbs and build some lean muscle I'm not planning on imbibing gallons of alcohol .. BUT .. I would like to have a glass of wine or two or a social lite on "cheat" day but still want to work within my macro budget, hence the question ..0
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »their explanation is that its about how the body metabolizes alcohol - by logging it as carbs/fats - rather than what most people call empty calories (those that aren't accounted for with the carb amount on the label but the calories) - i.e. cals are 200, but only 25g carbs...i would log that as 25g carbs and 11g fat
its not that they encourage drinking regularly - in face, they say to limit to what they call low days (higher fat/lower carb days) because it gives you more flexibility to have a drink (although personally, i save that day for a nice fatty cut of steak)
ETA - they do a lot of things that aren't within the traditional nutritional community belief patterns - high carb (my intake is 479g a day and i'm no where near the highest - they have some guys who are in the 6-700g club) - even for those who aren't highly active; focus on metabolic flexibility (different combinations of C/F over a 7 day cycle)
/shrug I mean I doubt people who are dieting are pounding back shots so it is probably not that relevant but I would have advised just logging them as strict calories with no macro content. Ethyl alcohol will be converted to acetate which will be converted to acetyl-CoA where it can go either into the citric acid cycle for energy or feed into fatty acid biosynthesis for storage so it is true that alcohol can be converted into fat...but then again so can the other macros so that isn't anything special. Still I guess that is why they want to treat it like it is fat? I mean I suppose that is fine, don't read my opinion here as being aghast at the idea or anything I can sort of see the logic there.
Depends what you call "dieting" and what you call "pounding back shots."
Right now it's Chartreuse and mineral water with artificial sweetener. Pretty good! 0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
Because as I explained above, all the calories in the vodka itself are not from alcohol. So even though the calories may all be from the vodka, all the calories in the vodka aren't from alcohol.lynn_glenmont wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The labels say no fat, carbohydrates, or protein so all the calories would be from alcohol.
Not possible unless the drink is 100% ethyl alcohol (i.e., ~200 proof), such as Everclear. Vodka is usually around 40% alcohol (80 proof), so the other 60% of the calories would come from other macro sources (primarily carbs).
Manufacturers are probably getting around it on their nutrition labels by the fact that those drinks are mostly flavored water with a small amount of vodka, and they're allowed wiggle room on the accuracy of their labels. An ounce of vodka, at ~70 calories, with an alcohol content of 40%, would have 28 calories from alcohol and 42 from other sources (again, primarily carbs). So either they're playing games with their labeling, or there's considerably less than an ounce of alcohol in those drinks so that the carb content is negligible and they can get away with calling it zero.
Why couldn't it be a combination of alcohol, water, artificial sweeteners, and calorie-free flavors? The calories would still all be from alcohol, but the drink would not be 100% ethyl alcohol.
Made me double check because I questioned my info. They actually are all from alcohol.
It's good some men could come along and 'splain it and eventually discover what distillation is and how it works, because your reference to data determined in lab tests by the USDA was clearly insufficient.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 438 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions