Being made from sugar, it more completely ferments. Beer has residual short-chain carbohydrates that leave calories and provide body.
It wouldn’t be much like rum unless it were brewed with dark sugar.
It wouldn’t be much like rum unless it were brewed with dark sugar.
Ethanol itself is most of the calories in any alcoholic drink.
A 12 oz can of 5% abv is .6 fluid ounces of ethanol. That's 14 grams, or 98 calories.
A Budweiser has 145 calories, White Claw has 100, Old Chub Scottish ale has 264.
Basically I see the benefit over most craft beer, but over macros it's not that big of a difference.
https://drinks.seriouseats.com/2013/10/cocktail-science-do-a...
https://www.quora.com/Do-calories-in-alcohol-really-exist-If...
I cant find an exact answer, but combining the ideas that: the metabolic pathways for ethanol take precedence over the metabolism of other food components, leading to fat conversion and storage of higher-kcal foods than would be expected if the energy for metabolism was not diverted to the alcohol; the extra energy needed to metabolize alcohol should become a net drain on energy reserves; and alcohol is almost never fully metabolized, but rather excreted as acetic acid - I think it is safe to assume that an ethanol calorie actually provides the body very little energy AND if youre not eating while you are drinking there isnt a way for the body to store the energy as fat for later.
The bigger difference between White Claw and rum, i would say, is that rum is distilled, whereas White Claw is only fermented. I'm not sure there are any traditional non-distilled drinks made from sugar, and Wikipedia is down so i basically have no way to fake being well-informed as i usually do.