Molson 67 - Yeah, that's right.
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.
10 comments
Comments are closed. These are preserved from the original site.
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?
I disagree with these comments. I am diabetic and have to loose weight, and this is perfect, because I like beer
Beer with no flavour? Really?
Clearly you have never tried the NON IPA 67. It is disgusting.
The IPA version of 67 is not beer but it is very drinkable if you first drink a NON IPA 67 which is the worst beer or substitute beer I have ever drunk. ( That does include non alcoholic so called beers as well).
So why do I drink 67 at all?
CARBS. Now I am not talking about calories, although they are related. I am talking about CARBOHYDRATE content...( ie sugar).
Any 67 brew has the carb content on the BOX and I commend Molson for that.
It reads 2 grams carbohydrates per bottle or can. A regular IPA runs maybe 6 or 7 TIMES the carbs.. say maybe 13 or 14 grams. SO WHAT?
Well if you are anywhere on the diabetic spectrum, it is a big WHAT. It means you can drink or not. A 2 gram 67 plus 7 more could be traded out for a slice of bread ( 16 grams of carbs). Yep. So that is the market.
The IPA version of 67 is not beer and it isnt good but it is soooo much better than the disgusting swill of the original 67 that I have to compliment Molson.
BY the way, the competion in low carb beer includes Michelob Ultra ( which actually does taste like it purports to be ( wimpy American beer), Sleeman CLear ( not great but...), and now Molson IPA which I have to say, is moving to the front of the pack on taste but.. it is a small pack and it really isnt beer. Some of us need it though.
\
Well, this review is about the original 67. I haven't had the 67 Session IPA, though I daresay any hop additions would help the product out immensely. I understand dietary restrictions, but they don't change my subjective opinion. But I'm glad that the 67 Session IPA is working for you, and allowing you to continue enjoying beer!
Put me in a bar with quality taps, and I will surely try the unique and wonderful craft beers available. When I'm not training. Obviously, not everyone is interested in pounding fitness, hard workouts and radical weight loss, yet some of us are. Beer, is delicious, as are many other alcohols. When abstaining, one misses the choice of imbibing, getting slaughtered on beer and all the fun that goes with it! Thanks to Molson who created this product however tasteless and burpy it is to let a beer lover get a minor buzz and not blow their regime. I get it...it isn't yummy.