Hello and welcome. As nearly everyone who has viewed this article recently arrived via Google using the search “how many calories in Molson 67″ (or something along those lines), here’s the answer. 67. As in, there are 67 calories per bottle. Please feel free to continue reading this post, or one of my many others, but I won’t be offended if you take that news and leave. Enjoy.
Okay. What’s the deal with drinking a beer that has basically no flavour, for the sake of no calories? I guess if you want to get hammered regularly, and also don’t want to be fat it’s not a bad option. And you also need a healthy disregard for your own health, as there is likely some pretty gnarly chemicals in there.
Sigh
I constantly find myself lamenting the very poor quality of beer consumed by most of my countrymen. I had gotten to a place where I was sort of okay with it, understanding that these people are drinking what they like, they just don’t like beer. But I am now starting to question that. I believe that many of them might just enjoy a decent lager, maybe even a tasty ale. But I’m getting off track, I was here to review a truly spectacular accomplishment.
The good folks at Molson’s have successfully produced a beer that is only 67 calories per 341ml bottle. This is a wonderful feat, when you consider one of the main calorie contributors is also one of the main flavour contributors. I am uncertain exactly how they pull this off, but I can speculate, after my review:
This beer pours from the bottle a fairly pale yellow, crystal clear. There is a good carbonation, though nearly no head. The aroma has some hints of grain, which surprised me, though it had to work it’s way through a noticable wet-cardboard aroma.
Strangely, the flavour was nearly nothing. My exact notes say “it reminds me of soda water with a splash of tonic”. The grain taste is gone, and the wet cardboard is lessened, but now there is a hint of something that might be hops. Or tonic. I believe this beer displays what macrobrewers call a “dry” finish. Not a hoppy-dry, nor a cocoa-dry finish, just not-wet dry. And I can’t really quantify this, but for some reason my tongue feels like I’ve been eating American chocolate. Sort of waxy-coated. Mouthfeel is thin to say the least. Remember the soda water comment? The overall drinkability is, I guess, very drinkable, save for the tongue thing. That isn’t to say I would drink much of it. Or any more. Except I still have a second bottle.
So for this one I added a 2oz shot of Havana Club dark rum. Here’s the weird thing: the beer sucked up the taste. There was some hints of rum in the flavour, but not much. Very very strange. The good news is, I can still see and feel and touch and love, so it wasn’t too bad.
So here is my theory on how they managed to produce a tasty beer that is only 67 calories per bottle:
They didn’t. It doesn’t taste particularly bad, it just doesn’t taste.
Should you buy this beer? Yes, if you want to drink something that will eventually make you drunk, doesn’t have many calories or flavour, and might shorten your life. Will I ever buy this beer again? Absolutely not. I wouldn’t accept them for free. If somebody offered me money to take them off their hands, I would, but I would just pour them out. And they would have to give me at least a fiver.
I regularly describe myself as an "ardent supporter of beer", which pretty well sums it up. While I'm not working or busy being a husband and dad (okay, honestly, sometimes while I'm doing those things), I am drinking beer, attending events, visiting pubs, and thinking about beer. I work at Castro's Lounge, my local bar in the Beach, where I host beer events and take part in most things beer-related.
6 Comments
Why even try, is there really a markey for low carb beer or do they just need to spend R&D money for the hell of it ??
Why even try, is there really a markey for low carb beer or do they just need to spend R&D money for the hell of it ??
To be honest, as much as I dislike the big 3, they know their stuff. Sometimes, it’s knowing what they can tell the public they want (see Bud Light Lime), and other times, it’s knowing what the public actually want. I don’t know which case this is, but I would be surprised if 67 turns out to be a miss. That being said, with the “dent” micro/craft is making, more people are aware of what beer “should” taste like, and will happily pass over 67, and any other ultra-light beers that pop-up (fingers crossed….). Thanks for weighing-in!
To be honest, as much as I dislike the big 3, they know their stuff. Sometimes, it’s knowing what they can tell the public they want (see Bud Light Lime), and other times, it’s knowing what the public actually want. I don’t know which case this is, but I would be surprised if 67 turns out to be a miss. That being said, with the “dent” micro/craft is making, more people are aware of what beer “should” taste like, and will happily pass over 67, and any other ultra-light beers that pop-up (fingers crossed….). Thanks for weighing-in!
I agree with you on this Chris. It is hard to fathom that a company with all that money will produce a beer with no flavour. They just don’t get it. I watch a lot of sports on tv and the commercial for this so called beer is very annoying. They sure spend money promoting this poor effort. Why don’t they put all that money wasted on commercials toward a nice craft beer with flavour?
I agree with you on this Chris. It is hard to fathom that a company with all that money will produce a beer with no flavour. They just don’t get it. I watch a lot of sports on tv and the commercial for this so called beer is very annoying. They sure spend money promoting this poor effort. Why don’t they put all that money wasted on commercials toward a nice craft beer with flavour?