While in London recently I spotted this array of WeightWatcher wines in a supermarket. Only "80 calories" a glass the bottle proudly stated. Somehow I could not bring myself to buy a bottle. What do you think?
Since coming back to New York I have browsed various websites that offer information on the topic of calories in wine. Unlike most other packaged foods, wines are not yet required to declare the nutritional value on the label.
So how many calories are in a glass of wine? Well it depends on two key factors, namely, the alcohol content of the wine and the residual sugar in the wine. Most of the websites I visited posted figures ranging from 85 calories for lighter wines to up to 180 to 200 for dessert wines with most dry styles hovering around the 100-calorie mark.
Higher alcohol wines will typically be higher in calories than lower alcohol wines. The riper the grapes at harvest, the higher the sugar levels, and thus the greater the potential alcohol.
Residual sugar also plays a role. Many wines that we buy as 'technically' dry may have anything from 2 to 6g/l of residual sugar. If the wine has high acidity we are less likely to perceive the wine has having any residual sweetness. For example, dry Brut styles of Champagne and sparkling wines contains anything from 6g to 15g/l of residual sugar. Most hover around the 10-12g mark. This addition of a sugar mixture to Champagne is called dosage and is added to balance the traditionally high acidity in the wine. So Champagne and sparkling wines will be more calorific than a light dry white or red wine.
Other wines contain residual sugar either because the fermentation was arrested before all the sugars were converted into alcohol, or like many entry-level wines, the wine was fermented dry, and a sweetening mixture added post fermentation to create the desired taste profile for the target market.
Obviously dessert and sweet fortified wines such as Port or Madeira are at the higher end of the calorie counter. Even Sherry, which is generally a dry wine, will have higher calories because of the added alcohol.
Wines with the fewest calories will typically be wines from cooler climate regions, which reach full physiological ripeness without soaring sugar levels. For example, there is probably significant calorie difference between a 12.5% alcohol Chardonnay wine from say Chablis, France and a full-bodied warm-climate Chardonnay at 14.5% alcohol.
For me, the best way to manage the alcohol-calorie dilemma is simply to drink less (but well), rather than relying on a manipulated "WeightWatcher" wine at 80 calories a glass. For a saving of circa 20 calories per glass I am not so inclined to risk compromising taste or quality.
What do you think? Have you ever bought low calorie wines? What did you think? Is there a market for such wines? Perhaps?
Meanwhile, this is what has been on our table over the weekend, enjoyed with friends who came over for dinner.
• NV Crémant du Jura, Domaine de Montbourgeau, Jura, France, $20 – Made from Chardonnay, this is a great value traditional method French sparkling wine. Persistent, creamy mousse, aromas of brioche, biscuit and orchard apple. Crisp, really lovely with a smooth finish. Enjoyed as an apéritif with thinly sliced wild boar saussison sec,
• 2007 Prager Grüner Veltliner Federsp[piel, Hinter der Burg, Wachau, Austria, $19 – A top quality classic Gruner Veltliner. Very minerally, taut palate with flavors of stone fruit, salad, spice and freshly cracked white pepper. We paired this with a fresh ripe tomato, feta, red onion and caper salad
• 2006 Domiane Mercouri Red Wine, Vin de Pays des Letrinon, Peloponnese, Greece, $22 – I reviewed the 1997 vinatage of this wine last July in my post on wines from the Peloponnese. Made from predominantly Refosco (an Italian variety) blended with the local Mavrodaphne grape. Obviously a much younger wine, showing more vibrant ripe fruit, black cherry, plums to the fore against a backdrop of spice, leather and earthy notes and a savory finish. Firm ripe tannins and refreshing bright acidity give the wine a lovely structure. This wine paired perfectly with our grilled dry-aged steak on a bed of polenta with wilted swiss chard and bacon.
Mary Gorman-McAdams, DWS, is a New York based wine educator, freelance writer and consultant. She holds the Diploma in Wine & Spirits from the Wine and Spirits Education Trust (WSET), and is a candidate in the Master of Wine Program.
(Image: Mary Gorman)

Comments (36)
That is disgusting on so many levels.
Um, not so much disgusting as a bit misleading. A 3.5 oz. serving of wine only had 80 or so calories. I think if calories are important to the drinker the secret is portion control -- as with any comestible.
The easiest place to overlook the calories consumed in your diet is through beverages - a mistake many people make.
That being said, I really think the only folks who would want to actually fuss over tracking the calorie content of their wine are folks who are sedentary, folks who are heavy drinkers, or folks who follow a closely-monitored diet due to body building, looking to lose weight, or (sadly) unhealthy obsessive eating patterns.
WeightWatchers wine?
Gross.
Weight Watchers, you have gone too far!
I prefer quality over quantity. If I need to start watching my calorie intake, I'll just drink less.
Wine is a sometimes treat, like cookies are a sometimes food. So, I'd rather have the sweet wines/mead I enjoy (and my fiancee teases me for) than some disgusting, no taste low calorie wine.
Absolutely not.
So gross.
Yes. I did Weight Watchers. I lost 40 lbs.
When you do Weight Watchers the first step is awareness of how much you are actually consuming (its a lot more than you should be). And one of the biggest sources of sneaky calories is drink - especially alcohol, which is full of sugar.
I don't think there is anything 'gross' or 'disgusting' or 'weird' about noting your calorie intake, especially if you're trying to lose weight. I changed the way I ate when I did WW, and I changed the way I drink.
"That being said, I really think the only folks who would want to actually fuss over tracking the calorie content of their wine are folks who are sedentary, folks who are heavy drinkers, or folks who follow a closely-monitored diet due to body building, looking to lose weight, or (sadly) unhealthy obsessive eating patterns."
I strongly disagree with this blanket statement. What's wrong with watching what you consume, particularly if its making you healthier?
It's only gross if the wine tastes lousy.
If one is counting calories -- which I don't -- surely one needs to know the calories in everything one consumes. Wine doesn't get a pass for being something afficionados snob over.
Personally, I'd tend to go with a smaller portion in order to have the greater variety of normal wines available, but I also don't eat "diet" foods with artificial sweeteners and fats. Some people find those same foods immensely helpful both in feeling satisfied and in reaching their desired weight.
I can't help it. I see that label and think freezer section with too much added salt and a freezer burnt taste. Blah! I am sure that it will be very popular though.
if I was concerned enough with 80 calories vs. 120 calories in my glass of wine, I think I'd be better off skipping it altogether. or learning to really limit my intake and actually stick to one glass. that said, I do think it is important to be aware of the amount of excess calories one can easily take in and not realize, as with alcohol or other beverages.
I don't do WW - I calorie count the old-fashioned (well, hi-tech old-fashioned) way. And I do count the calories in wine, using a generic 90 cal/glass. Being mindful of what you put in your body includes drink - when eating to lose weight, an entire day's calorie deficit can disappear with a bottle of wine over dinner.
What I find awful about this is that people are paying a premium for probably not-very-great wine that, if it's 80 cal. a serving, is no better for them (or at least not significantly lower in calories) than actual, good wine from anywhere. The weight-loss industry will slap its labels on anything, desperate folks will buy it because they think it must be better for them - and all they're doing is wasting their money for a generally-inferior product.
I don't count calories in wine, beer, bread and cheese.
If you go nuts on one day - work out the next! Have a salad and a multivitamin!
How can you ever enjoy yourself if that bottle of wine is staring at you judging you for every glass you drink?
I lawled.
Thanks Weight Watchers for helping me easily figure out how to use all of my points on wine!
"if I was concerned enough with 80 calories vs. 120 calories in my glass of wine, I think I'd be better off skipping it altogether. or learning to really limit my intake and actually stick to one glass."
If one was capable of limiting one's intake, wouldn't one...not need a diet wine?
True, the calorie difference in one glass of wine isn't much, but let's say someone has a glass of wine with dinner three or four times a week. If they're looking at a long-term weight loss goal, then making small changes like switching to a lower-calorie wine seems a smart way to eat healthier as part of a sustainable lifestyle rather than a crash diet.
I'd probably try this. I also use lower-calorie bread for my morning toast. When I eat cheese, I go for the full-fat stuff, because I really like cheese and I think diet cheese is vile. I think it's just a question of what's more or less important to the individual person's culinary tastes, and where he or she is willing to make compromises for a healthier diet.
I've drunk that. I was in grad school in England, and we periodically had a formal meal that featured things like boat races and pennying. It basically meant that each person drank an entire bottle of wine with dinner (you brought your own, and one bottle a person was the limit). I wasn't going to bother bringing something I wanted to savor, and while I was trying to lose weight, I didn't want to not participate in social activities because of it. This was a good solution for me.
So, uh, stop with the judgypants, people.
I second geoffrois in thinking that this is gross because many, many people will buy that wine because it's got the Weight Watchers label on it. I think they system itself is just fine, with its goal of teaching people about portion control and balanced eating. What I'm opposed to is the false belief WW cultivates among its adherents that anything with its label has some kind of added health benefit. Keeping track of how many calories come in through soda, juice and booze is a great idea, but I think this is just a marketing ploy to get the brand into another section of the grocery store where people will reach for a label they recognize.
If that is what you are serving, then this lady will have the water.
I'm all for portion control -- that is, after all (paired with exercise) part of a healthy lifestyle. It also helps with us enjoying all the gourmet recipes that're posted on this site that often, let's face it, have tons of calories.
I don't drink as much alcohol as I used to since I started counting calories because it's basically empty calories with negligible nutritional value and I can see the appeal of this brand of wine...but it's like "light" beer; the taste goes straight out the window, so why bother? If you're going to have a luxury item like this you might as well just enjoy it the full calorie and full flavored version!
Plus, I'd be embarrassed to be seen purchasing this...
I would look askance at this as I do at any diet food. If the #1 priority of a food isn't being as delicious as possible, I tend to pass. But as a calorie-counter, I do wish wine and beer carried caloric info!
That said, counting calories is often a sort of iffy proposition to begin with (it's not as if any two peaches have the same number of calories, or any two steaks), so a generic 100 calories per glass of wine works for me. I figure if I'm a little over with the wine today, I'll be a little under with something else tomorrow. And I work out to sort of smooth over any errors. It seems to be working. I'm down 23 lbs since mid-March!
There is no way I would use this product, not just because it's diet food, but because I have problems with WW as a company.
I eat ridiculously healthy, vegan, organic, home-made, local food the vast majority of the time so that when I do indulge in things like drink, decadent desserts, or homey comfort foods or even a snack bar I do so with impunity, knowing that overall, my diet is healthier for me and for the world than most people's. This way, I stay fit, and maintain the ethical lifestyle I desire. You just need to be honest with yourself about what you really eat, what you really need, and who you're going to make suffer for your indulgence. Mindfulness really does make these things easier.
whoa whoa whoa! so much negative sentiment towards calorie counters!
I'm a foodie, but I also enjoy wearing size 6 pants. I count calories (using caloriecounter.com, actually). And yes, I include all beverages. Wine does have that many calories anyway so WW is selling ignorance.
I would recommend tracking your eating to anyone, wanting to lose weight or not. I am a vegetarian, and discovered to my horror that while I was getting plenty of iron and B vitamins (usual veggie deficiencies), I was developing quite a potassium deficiency. It's been corrected and now I don't get migraines anymore (potassium is responsible for nervous system health).
So.. umm.. yeah!
I try to skip the drinking of everything Mon-Fri and then on the weekend I drink what I want (I gave up OVER-drinking many, many years ago so that ain't what I'm talkin' about).
I'm very happy to report that I monitor my intake, as I'm in my late 30's, have a full time job, and do not always honor my best intentions of going to the gym at the end of the day. It seems that in general most people have a prejudice against calorie-counting, and admonish it because it's related to the "D" word, but it can also be general lifestyle guidelines as well. Don't you think?
It's like balancing a checkbook! It just ensures what kind of choices you are making. And as for the comment about if you splurge then just eat a salad the next day, that's still monitoring your intake. You just have a personal system that isn't per day.
With that said, I would not drink WW wine. Only because, in general, wine is one of the least caloric drink choices available anyway.
But! Separate the product from the issue of maintenance, eh? As Truculence said, stop with the judgypants.
Hmmm. I've actually tried it, and it isn't all that bad. But I think it is misleading. It is also low alcohol for wine - at around 9%.
"Wine does have that many calories anyway so WW is selling ignorance." -bklynchic
Exactly. I don't have a problem with WW per se, I know the program has helped many of my friends, but now that they're into the prepared foods racket I feel they've lost some credibility.
I bought the WW wine for a family BBQ as a joke for my BIL's GF, as she and I both love drinking wine, but are trying to get back in shape, and it was actually really good!
Yep, Simonmiller, that's it. It's the low alcohol content that makes it a little lighter in the calories (it's watered-down!). So you have to drink twice as much (or one and a half times as much I guess) to get a little buzz going. I am assuming you're after the buzz if you're drinking wine with a Weight Watchers label on it, rather than the interesting bouquet and the way it pairs with your cedar-plank-smoked trout, right? There was a wine marketed a few years ago called ONE (or somesuch) that was supposedly lower carb than the standard variety - so it was shopped to the South Beach/Atkins/Zone craze. It tasted pretty much like crap, but not too much different than a really cheap grocery store variety wine.
I think calorie-counting is part of any healthy lifestyle. Not necessarily knowing an exact number in everything, but just having a general idea of what your daily limit is and making sure you stay within it.
But...I don't buy anything advertised as diet or part of a particular diet brand. I think those are scams. My eating motto is "moderation in all things, including moderation" (thank you, Mark Twain). So if I'm going to consume ice cream or butter or cheese or wine - I'm going to consume the best I can find and just not overindulge. A lot of people can't do that, so I guess this wine would help, but I don't see the point in it.
I used to eat all this light stuff (light beer - yuck) and I just got more and more unhappy. So one day I decided I'd eat whatever I like and just eat a little bit and that works much better for me.
austrianinchicago has it all figured out, that's how it should be.
"If one was capable of limiting one's intake, wouldn't one...not need a diet wine?"
so, anyone on a diet is incapable of limiting their intake? anyone looking to lose a few pounds has no control over themselves? that's silly. it is true that many people have a great deal of difficulty limiting their intake, but capability is quite different from ease.
it is my personal opinion that a better option for long-term weight loss or maintenance is to cut from four glasses of wine a week to three glasses, or just pour oneself a smaller glass each night (hardly a crash diet). that would be pretty much the same difference in calories as buying this gimmicky stuff. plus, it's probably more sustainable, because who wants to drink one brand of wine for the rest of their lives? who wants to take this to a party? and do you really think restaurants will start serving it? if one happens to really like this wine, then great, you're in luck. but to drink it just because it's a 'diet' wine is rather delusional: no wine is a diet food, and no one needs a specially labeled diet wine to cut those 40 calories out of their intake.
I don't even drink, and the thought of 'diet wine' is absolutely wrong. If you want watered down wine, just do it yourself!