[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 25 KB, 601x354, Screen Shot 2015-07-25 at 23.02.45.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7420534 No.7420534 [Reply] [Original]

Can the wizards of /sci/ explain to a dumb /fit/izen how Sparking Wine can have less calories than Everclear or Whiskey? Did these get their stats wrong?

http://refrigerators.reviewed.com/features/how-to-get-drunk-without-getting-fat

>> No.7420542

>>7420534
Does everclear intentionally sound like cleaning fluid?
Anyway you actually metabolize ethanol for calories. Here's the details:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_metabolism

>> No.7420543
File: 44 KB, 1280x720, all gonna make it.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7420543

Almost all the calories from drinks come from alcohol, and wine is a lower proof, so it's got fewer calories/oz.

>> No.7420544

Because sparkling wine has less alcohol per liter

>> No.7420547

>>7420534
Pure alcohol actually has calories in it that your body can break down and use.

Sparkling wine's got more actual sugar in it, but it's also got way more water.

>> No.7420548

>>7420543
>>7420544
Not OP but that graph is per ounce of alcohol, not per ounce of fluid

>> No.7420549

>>7420548
OP here. I was about to say this.

What I'm saying is that there's more alcohol per calorie of sparking wine than Everclear or Vodka or whatever. How is this even possible?

>> No.7420559

>>7420549

that graph is shit is what'd going on. It's calories per ounce of drink, not alchol

>> No.7420563

>>7420559
The chart says calories per ounce of alcohol.

>> No.7420565

>>7420563
>that graph is shit is what'd going on. It's calories per ounce of drink, not alcohol

Pretty sure they mean "Per ounce of alcohol(ic beverage)"

>> No.7420568

>>7420565
Yea exactly. So it's saying that Sparkling Wine has fewer calories per ounce of alcohol than Everclear. Which means the most calorie efficient way to get drunk (least calories possible) is by drinking Sparkling Wine.

I just don't understand how Sparkling Wine has fewer calories few gram of alcohol than Everclear.

>> No.7420569

>>7420559

The calories in an ounce of alcohol (ethanol) is constant no matter where you get it from. Ergo he must mean per ounce of beverage

>> No.7420577

>>7420568
It doesn't. You're reading the chart wrong, that's what I'm trying to tell you.

It's saying that Everclear has more calories *per ounce of Everclear*. By "alcohol" they don't mean "ethanol", they mean "alcoholic beverage."

>> No.7420578

>>7420565
No, that doesn't give these results. For example one finds guiness draught to be about 124 calories at 12 fl. oz. which is about 12 weight ounces.

Maybe grain spirits have significant amounts of other digestible materials?

>> No.7420586

>>7420577
I still don't see the point your making here? Are you in agreement that the chart is saying Everclear has more calories per gram of alcohol than Sparkling Wine?

>> No.7420603

>>7420586
Another anon; no, what he's saying is that if you pour one glass of Everclear and one of Sparkling, the glass of Everclear will have more calories, period. Now, if you want to know which is the most calorie-efficient way to get drunk, you have to look at the alcohol percentage and divide it by the calories of the beverage.

>> No.7420605

>>7420586
Here is what I think the chart is saying:
>One ounce of Everclear has more calories than one ounce of Sparkling Wine.

If the chart is accurate, this is because while sparkling wine has more sugar in it, it also has much less ethanol - sparkling wine is much closer to water than Everclear is.

>> No.7420607
File: 23 KB, 628x426, WZuxHz6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7420607

>>7420603
After reading the page, I have to rectify, see pic related to see what those mongs who wrote the article meant. Jesus christ, my TA would lynch them for making such a shitty graph.

>> No.7420609
File: 112 KB, 3330x1410, motherfuckingburger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7420609

>>7420534
You can burn alcohol. Burn = calories.
You can't burn water. Wine is mostly water.

The more alcohol, the higher the calories.

>> No.7420611

>>7420607
That's exactly the same image in the OP.

What are you trying to say?

>> No.7420612

>>7420611
Read the subtitle.

>> No.7420614

>>7420607
Oh wow, that's an *incredibly* shitty chart. I was completely wrong about what that meant.

>> No.7420618

>>7420612
>Sparkling Wine....155 calories
>Everclear....159 calories
So, Sparkling Wine gets you drunker with fewer calories than Everclear.
>>7420614
It's the same chart as the OP, did you just ignore the OP completely before posting?

>> No.7420624

>>7420618
Apparently, most of us didn't bother to open the page until later on, but it's also your fault (assumig you are the OP) for not including the oh-so-fucking-explanatory subtitle in your pic. Anyways
>>Sparkling Wine....155 calories
>>Everclear....159 calories
>So, Sparkling Wine gets you drunker with fewer calories than Everclear.
Pretty much, yeah.

>> No.7420628

>>7420618
>It's the same chart as the OP.

No it's not. It's the same chart, plus a subtitle.

>Did you ignore the OP completely before posting.

Read the image and the OP text. I don't really give enough of a shit to check out whatever website he posted without a good reason.

>> No.7420631
File: 11 KB, 229x39, Screen Shot 2015-07-25 at 23.47.11.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7420631

>>7420624
>but it's also your fault (assumig you are the OP) for not including the oh-so-fucking-explanatory subtitle in your pic.
>>7420628
>No it's not. It's the same chart, plus a subtitle.

The subtitle says nothing more than the bib black text at the top of the image: Calories Per Ounce of Alcohol. Or did you miss that too?

In any case, how is it possible that Sparkling Wine has fewer calories per ounce of alcohol than Everclear which is like 95% alcohol or Vodka/Whisky etc. That was the point of this thread.

>> No.7420655

>>7420534

They fucked that up, you're right that makes no sense. First of all, "calories per ounce of alcohol" will always be 7 kcal/g*~28g/oz=196 kcal. If they meant "calories needed to be consumed to get one ounce of ethanol" then 196 is the minimum amount for an ounce of alcohol w/o carbs, so everclear should be ~196 kcal/oz. Then all the others should be more than that and wine contains sugar, so it definitely should be more cals than everclear, and vodka should be same as everclear

>> No.7420660

>>7420655
>they meant "calories needed to be consumed to get one ounce of ethanol" then 196 is the minimum amount for an ounce of alcohol w/o carbs, so everclear should be ~196 kcal/oz.
fuck, i never even thought of it like that