# What defies a low carb beer?



## hooper80 (10/5/17)

Hi guys, just wondering what is used or substituted in a low carb beer?


----------



## fdsaasdf (10/5/17)

hooper80 said:


> What defies a low carb beer?


If by 'what' you mean 'who' then I, for one, defy low carb beer. It's pointless and tasteless IMO.

For some general information on low carb beer and the relative benefits (if any) of drinking it, I suggest reading https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/media-and-resources/media-releases/australians-fooled-by-low-carb-beer-myths---report

As for how to do it, basically you need to select a recipe and mash process that results in minimal residual un-converted starches making it into your finished beer.

Google searching 'how to make low carb beer' yields a lot of results.


----------



## Lionman (10/5/17)

hooper80 said:


> Hi guys, just wondering what is used or substituted in a low carb beer?


Low carb from what I understand means low FG. 

The closer you get to a FG of 1.000, then the less sugars (carbs) remain. 

Of course this means no malt flavours, no body and poor mouthfeel too.

The easiest way to get low FG is to add amylase enzymes to your fermenting wort. These enzymes convert the more complex sugars that yeast struggle with into simple sugars that can be easily converted into alcohol.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (10/5/17)

I giggled at the title too. What defies a low carb beer is to make a high carb beer hehe...

But. I am fermenting one at the moment for the experiment to see if its better than the shelf product like Ultra Dry. No body and mouthfeel, very dry. Honestly they defy what beer really is but had to see if home brew turns out better than the shelf soda beer rubbish.
Lower the carb, calories means lowering everything including Opening gravity
Eg.1: (mine is 1.036). Will finish at FG 1.000. = 4.7% ABV
Using dry enzyme to get that low FG. Calories = 319.3 kcal/l.

Eg.2: was an Amber Ale I made that had a OG of 1.049 then didn't ferment out properly (stopped at 1.020) so I added enzyme to finish it lower but it also bottomed out at 1.000. = 6.4% ABV. To that higher gravity/abv beer It did not lose all of its body and mouthfeel which was interesting but the carb/cals are still up higher as being a higher gravity beer to start with.
Calories = 442.4 kcal/l.

Eg 3: I have done it without enzyme too just a single infusion mash at 62c.
OG = 1.040. FG = 1.002. = 5% ABV. Calories = 360 kcal/l. 
So basically lower everything including the grain bill to start with. *Lowest* carb beer would be the ultra dry light beer that's lower alcohol than my first example. 

Hope that helps...


----------



## Jack of all biers (10/5/17)

Defy low carb beer? Drinking water would probably defy it and be better for you... 

Seriously though, the low carb fad is just about as bullshit as the "no added sugar to our beer" fad that is even more recent. Low carb? Either that means, more water, or more alcohol, which means the calorie content is about the same, so what the F**k does it mean anyway.... :huh:

EDIT - 
hooper80, on 10 May 2017 - 4:29 PM, said:
Hi guys, just wondering what is used or substituted in a low carb beer?

To really answer your question though. Commercially they use lower mash temps and likely an enzyme (as intimated by Danscraftbeer above) to ensure that most complex sugars are converted to simpler sugars that can be consumed by the yeast and converted to alcohol and if it goes over the level they want they will water it down with de-oxygenated water (hence my sarcastic comments about more alcohol or more water).


----------



## Danscraftbeer (10/5/17)

yeah kinda but if you drink more higher final gravity beers, higher body beers that have a lot more unfermented residual sugars then it will more favour the growth of the beer belly gut thing. 
Which is why I usually mash at temps 62 to 65c.
Also because I really don't like sweet higher bodied beer, or cider etc. Or sweet anything like soft drinks, cordial etc. Sugar is bad for you that is a fact no doubt.
Hence the challenge to make low carb beer that tastes good.
Anyway the mass public drink that shite like low carb by the billions...
It was served up at the small few Christmas parties I went to. That shit was the choice etc.


----------



## Black Devil Dog (10/5/17)




----------



## Jack of all biers (10/5/17)

Danscraftbeer said:


> yeah kinda but if you drink more higher final gravity beers, higher body beers that have a lot more unfermented residual sugars then it will more favour the growth of the beer belly gut thing.
> Which is why I usually mash at temps 62 to 65c.
> Also because I really don't like sweet higher bodied beer, or cider etc. Or sweet anything like soft drinks, cordial etc. Sugar is bad for you that is a fact no doubt.


Umm... Not quite. Go to http://www.calorieking.com.au/calories-in-beer.html and see which has more calories and where those calories come from. Alcohol contributes to calories, not just sugar, or carbohydrates. Low carb is a con and you get fat from all the s*8t you eat along with the 10 beers you drink, not just because it's high gravity or low gravity OG or FG. calories are calories, whether from proteins, carbs, fats or alcohol.

Sugar is not necessarily bad for you, though the most recent scientific theories are that Fructose is probably not great in the amounts the typical Westerner consumes it in (Sucrose contains one molecule Fructose and one molecule glucose so alot of confusion exists out there).


----------



## labels (10/5/17)

Jack of all biers said:


> To really answer your question though. Commercially they use lower mash temps and likely an enzyme (as intimated by Danscraftbeer above) to ensure that most complex sugars are converted to simpler sugars that can be consumed by the yeast and converted to alcohol and if it goes over the level they want they will water it down with de-oxygenated water (hence my sarcastic comments about more alcohol or more water).


I can't see that as being an economical proposition for a large brewery. Malt is expensive so why go out of your way to put in place procedures to convert the malt into simple sugars - doesn't make sense. What does make sense is to use substitutes that are cheap and have little flavour and fermet out. So that means in the mash uses maize, rice etc. OR sugar is added further down the brewing process such as the boil or in the fermentation tank. I'm suggesting sugar is the driver behind 'dry' beers


----------



## Jack of all biers (10/5/17)

You are absolutely correct Labels. Sugar (sucrose) is added to thin out that nasty malt wort that the customer doesn't want. Well Hahn Super dry at least definitely is. The others are likely to do the same. 

EDIT - Asahi at least use maize and rice to thin theirs, like the American beers..... h34r:


----------



## Danscraftbeer (10/5/17)

Jack of all biers said:


> Umm... Not quite. Go to http://www.calorieking.com.au/calories-in-beer.html and see which has more calories and where those calories come from. Alcohol contributes to calories, not just sugar, or carbohydrates. Low carb is a con and you get fat from all the s*8t you eat along with the 10 beers you drink, not just because it's high gravity or low gravity OG or FG. calories are calories, whether from proteins, carbs, fats or alcohol.
> 
> Sugar is not necessarily bad for you, though the most recent scientific theories are that Fructose is probably not great in the amounts the typical Westerner consumes it in (Sucrose contains one molecule Fructose and one molecule glucose so alot of confusion exists out there).


Well that's looking pretty good then for my low carb beer experiment. I only have Beersmith for analysis though. With my knowledge of the ingredients. All Grain I say all the way. No adjunct/sugars.


----------



## captain crumpet (11/5/17)

Danscraftbeer said:


> Well that's looking pretty good then for my low carb beer experiment. I only have Beersmith for analysis though. With my knowledge of the ingredients. All Grain I say all the way. No adjunct/sugars.


So you don't use wheat or rye either?


----------



## klangers (11/5/17)

labels said:


> I can't see that as being an economical proposition for a large brewery. Malt is expensive so why go out of your way to put in place procedures to convert the malt into simple sugars - doesn't make sense. What does make sense is to use substitutes that are cheap and have little flavour and fermet out. So that means in the mash uses maize, rice etc. OR sugar is added further down the brewing process such as the boil or in the fermentation tank. I'm suggesting sugar is the driver behind 'dry' beers


That's right. Liquid sugar is common is aussie lagers, rice in asian lagers, corn in american lagers.


----------



## Bribie G (11/5/17)

Bud uses rice, from Louisiana grown crops.. y'all.


----------



## Bribie G (11/5/17)

"Bronzed Brews" discusses the use of sugar in Australian beers. A couple of reasons that this became the common style:

With not much of a manufacturing base, modern brewing equipment had to be nearly all imported and was eye poppingly expensive, so using sugar enabled bigger brew lengths to be obtained from limited plant. I'd guess that over gravity brewing helped as well.

Also a quote here from a brewer called MacCartie in the 1880s sums up the other main reason:

_It may be asked "why use any kind of sugar? Why not use cheaper material - malt alone ?". The answer is not far to seek. Colonial malts all contain large quantities of albuminous matter, therefore we use sugar in brewing to reduce the percentage of albuminous matter [nitrogen] in wort, and thus obtain a more stable resulting beer than if we used malt alone. _

In the earlier part of the 20th Century when lagers started to take over from ales and malts had improved, the public were pretty well accustomed to "sugar beers" and attempts to introduce all malt German style beers generally didn't work out too well. Still happens today, for example when Bluetongue (CUB) introduced an all malt lager on tap Bruers-Brite or something like that, it flopped famously. Tried a few at the Caboolture railway station pub. Tasted like shyte anyway so why waste good malt on it while the cane fields wave enticingly in the breeze.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/5/17)

Sucrose is widely used but un-pc nowadays due to the war on fructose (a part of sucrose molecule).

Maltose is two glucose stuck together so not so bad for you (apparently)... Anyway, that's a good excuse for all grain - I.e. stick with maltose.


----------



## fdsaasdf (11/5/17)

A number of years ago I took a tour of the XXXX brewery ($10 thanks to a Virgin Airlines promotion), and as there was cricket on that afternoon I figured that at the least I'd get 4 pots of something while we towelled up the visiting poms.

It was actually a pretty decent tour from the perspective that you get to really appreciate the enormous magnitude of the operation they run. From a process engineering perspective it is something to admire, despite my thoughts on the end product.

Anyways back to on topic, when we got to the brewhouse itself I couldn't help but let out a groan when the tour guide asked the small group 'who here knows the FIVE ingredients in beer'?


----------



## Bribie G (11/5/17)

Love that maltose:




edit: if you check the labels of a lot of cheap Dutch and other non reinheitsgebot Euroswills from the likes of Dans or BWS you'll find maltose listed, they use tonnes of the stuff.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/5/17)

Nice one.

I wonder if CUB and Lion are doing the same or whether they are dropping in refined cane sugar?


----------



## Lionman (11/5/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Nice one.
> 
> I wonder if CUB and Lion are doing the same or whether they are dropping in refined cane sugar?


I thought CUB beer was "made from beer"?

Probably after it has passed through a human?


----------



## klangers (11/5/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Nice one.
> 
> I wonder if CUB and Lion are doing the same or whether they are dropping in refined cane sugar?


I can't speak for CUB, but every brewery at Lion is a little bit different. Remember that Lion has a lot of smaller boutique breweries too.

You're right though, for a sugar source it's cane sugar. Typically liquid (50-60 degrees Brix) from bulk tankers for Tooheys. Malt Shovel and Little Creatures are all-malt I believe.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/5/17)

Hmmm maybe instead of low carb, a good marketing approach might be low fructose, or no fructose?

For that matter, I wonder how many commercial megaswills use gelatin (animal waste biproduct)to clarify. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, it's just whether the punters know or not. Personally I'm not too keen on using gelatin, but that's a personal choice - no judgment on those that do (I eat meat and I like it). Just prefer to have it in solid form is all.


----------



## klangers (11/5/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Hmmm maybe instead of low carb, a good marketing approach might be low fructose, or no fructose?
> 
> For that matter, I wonder how many commercial megaswills use gelatin (animal waste biproduct)to clarify. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, it's just whether the punters know or not. Personally I'm not too keen on using gelatin, but that's a personal choice - no judgment on those that do (I eat meat and I like it). Just prefer to have it in solid form is all.


I believe the GI of maltose to be far higher than glucose. Glucose is 100, maltose was around 120 from memory. So all of the sugars in malt impact more on your glycemic system more than glucose. I think fructose is ~110. 

"Low carb" is simply "high attenuation".

My view is that beer isn't a health drink. Just like "low fat" icecream doesn't suddenly make it a health food. Keep your diets balanced with your exercise, that's all there is to it.

Typical large breweries use PVPP (a synthetic polymer) as a flocculant. Then they also cold filter, typically through kieselguhr/diatomaceous earth (a very fine clay with enormous surface area) filters. Before PVPP, isinglass was used. I don't know any breweries that use gelatin.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/5/17)

Not sure if I like the thought of my beer treated with a polymer either..


----------



## barls (11/5/17)

klangers said:


> I believe the GI of maltose to be far higher than glucose. Glucose is 100, maltose was around 120 from memory. So all of the sugars in malt impact more on your glycemic system more than glucose. I think fructose is ~110.
> 
> "Low carb" is simply "high attenuation".
> 
> ...


de is gone, too many other health issues from it.
we use to use perlite which is similar but i have no idea whats in it.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/5/17)

Siliceous volcanic, wheras diatoms are sedimentary dead organisms (I assumed calcareous, but they are also siliceous).


----------



## Stouter (11/5/17)

Sorry, I misread the thread title as, "What *defiles* a low carb beer?" The very idea of a low carb beer is defilement enough for something so sacred.


----------



## labels (11/5/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Not sure if I like the thought of my beer treated with a polymer either..


PVPP is approved by just about every country for approval as a food processing aid including the German beer purity law (Reinheitsgebot). I use it as a fining agent in finished beer. The stuff is very safe and widely used in food, wine and beer. Also used in the manufacturer of tablets so you've probably ingested plenty of it anyway


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/5/17)

Microplastics are a hot topic in environmental fields at the moment.. . Some concern out there as to where they are ending up.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/5/17)

Interesting article about plastic in German beer:

http://m.beforeitsnews.com/environment/2014/11/beer-a-magical-mixture-of-hops-barley-and-tiny-pieces-of-plastic-2513924.html

Does not necessarily mean it's bad for you, or derived from PVPP ... But it does make you think..


----------



## Lionman (11/5/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Microplastics are a hot topic in environmental fields at the moment.. . Some concern out there as to where they are ending up.


I'll tell you where they are ending up, EVERYWHERE.

Unless producers are taking direct action to remove it from the final product, I would bet pretty much all processed foods contain plastic contaminants.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/5/17)

Ha. Ironically, I wonder what technology humans will come up with to flocculate out the microplastics in the ocean that are derived from plastics used to focculate the organics in our beer?

Amusing in a kind of terrifying and counterintuitive way.


----------



## Jack of all biers (11/5/17)

Most of the damaging (to marine life) small fibre plastics that end up in the ocean are from the fibres in our synthetic clothes washed out by our washing machines then getting through the various treatments and flushed out to sea (at least that was what they said on a Catalyst episode I once saw).


----------



## Bribie G (11/5/17)

There were experiments to make artificial blood plasma from PVPP, works quite well apparently. Also if you use hair conditioner you probably go through litres of the stuff over the life of your hair.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (12/5/17)

Synthetic plasma is probably a good use for it, would be much interest I imagine from the military.

Hopefully using rainwater there's not too much plastic ending up in our home brew. .. I just use a bit of muslin cloth to filter out the particulates if I'm dry hopping (which is rare).


----------



## klangers (12/5/17)

barls said:


> de is gone, too many other health issues from it.
> we use to use perlite which is similar but i have no idea whats in it.



Mmm, I was warned early on that it's rather carcinogenic when inhaled.

That said, West End, Malt Shovel use DE when I was last there (couple years ago). West End have a new brewhouse now, so I doubt very much that they still use DE. Vietnam Breweries (owned by Heineken) also used DE. Tooheys use membranes.

Newer breweries have moved to membrane filters, but sometimes there's just too much capital tied up in existing breweries to justify a switch.

We inhale so many natural fibres and all sorts that a few extra inert molecules can't hurt.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (12/5/17)

Yep breathing in fine Silica not too good for you ... silicosis and all that.


----------

