More sugar than chocolate: The best and worst alcohol-free beers for your health
However, before you knock them back with joyful abandon, it's worth having a closer look at the label, as many contain a lot more sugar and calories than you may think. There's that attractive-looking bottle of alcohol-free stout which contains more sugar than a Galaxy chocolate bar and enticing blonde beers with more calories than a packet of salty crisps.
Which are the best options and the ones to avoid then? From Guinness to Lucky Saint, we rank the leading brands and speak to the experts about how much is safe to drink.
The best and worst alcohol-free beers for your health
Rated by Sam Rice, Telegraph nutrition expert
Nøgne Ø Svart/Hvit Milk Stout
Innis & Gunn 0.0% lager
Leffe Blonde 0% Abbey Ale
Madrí Excepcional 0%
Brewdog Punk IPA Alcohol Free
Guinness 0.0
Lucky Saint Alcohol Free Lager
7. Nøgne Ø Svart/Hvit Milk Stout
Ingredients: water, malted barley, lactose, hops, yeast
Wowzers, this wholesome-looking bottle contains a whopping 23g of sugar, the highest by far of those tested. The clue is in the name; lactose is the sugar found in milk, and it has been added here to give the stout its characteristic creamy mouthfeel. Yeast cannot ferment lactose, so it remains in the finished beer, providing a distinct sweetness.
A 330ml bottle contains 23g of sugar, equal to a 42g bar of Galaxy chocolate. I think I know which I'd choose, but if you like this beer, then, like Galaxy, it's probably best kept as a treat.
Verdict: One point for the fact that it's alcohol free.
6. Innis & Gunn 0.0% lager
Ingredients: water, barley, oats, hops.
A simple ingredients list is always a great start when it comes to nutrition, but sadly, that's where the good news ends, as this beer is the second-highest in sugar, 4.5g per 100ml, compared with the minuscule 0.1g in Lucky Saint.
One 440ml can contains two thirds of the recommended daily sugar intake set by the NHS, which is 30g. Unless you absolutely love this for the taste, which is a valid reason to drink anything, I'd probably choose something else.
Verdict: Just the one point for being alcohol-free.
5. Leffe Blonde 0% Abbey Ale
Ingredients: water, barley malt, maize, barley, sugar, hops, natural aromas.
What this beer gives with one hand – it's pretty low in sugar – it takes with the other; it's the highest in calories of the beers featured, with almost three times that of the Brewdog Punk AF.
Blonde ales are an unfiltered beer style known for being high in silicon, or more specifically, orthosilicic acid, which helps the body to build and maintain healthy bones, and may help guard against conditions such as osteoporosis.
Each 250ml bottle contains 100 calories, so a couple of those and you're consuming more calories than a standard bag of Walker's ready salted crisps.
Verdict: An extra half a point for the silicon.
4. Madrí Excepcional 0%.
Ingredients: water, barley malt, wheat, barley, glucose syrup, sucrose, natural flavourings, hops.
This beer sits right in the middle of the pack for calories and sugar, so if you love that cool, crisp Spanish cerveza-style lager, then this might be the one for you. But before you pop the top, the addition of glucose syrup, sucrose, and natural flavourings raises a nutritional red flag – we are entering UPF territory here.
Verdict: The additives let this down.
3. Brewdog Punk IPA Alcohol Free
Ingredients: water, lactose, malted barley, hops, yeast, malted oats, malted wheat, lactic acid.
While Brewdog Punk IPA was the lowest in calories, just edging out Lucky Saint, it was much higher in sugar, presumably due to the lactose. This is a method for adding body to beer after the alcohol has been removed. With 6g of sugar per 330ml, this would add up pretty rapidly if you were to enjoy a few cans in the sun. Sometimes, even alcohol-free beers should be enjoyed in moderation.
Verdict: Shame about the sugar.
2. Guinness 0.0
Ingredients: water, malted barley, barley, roasted barley, fructose, natural flavourings, hops, yeast
I'm reliably informed by beer connoisseurs (my husband!) that Guinness 0.0 is the closest to the real thing of all the zero-alcohol beers. This is likely because it is brewed in the same manner as regular Guinness, utilising a cold filtration method to remove the alcohol. This preserves the flavour as well as plant compounds called polyphenols from the barley, which act as antioxidants in the body to protect cells against cancer-causing compounds called free radicals.
Polyphenols are also prebiotics, which feed our good gut bacteria, and they can even help improve circulation and blood pressure. Guinness famously contains energy-boosting iron, too.
A 440ml can contains only as many calories as a single Hobnob biscuit, which is half the calories of regular Guinness, and it's also very low in sugar. A win in my book.
Verdict: One of the best on the market.
1. Lucky Saint Alcohol Free Lager
Ingredients: water, malted barley, hops, yeast.
This is the alcohol-free lager I have in my fridge at home. It has a delicious fruitiness and a paltry 53 calories and 0.3g of sugar per can. This simple, unfiltered beer is made with just four ingredients and no additions, such as aromas or flavourings. You'll also be getting a hit of plant polyphenols for some extra gut goodness. Bravo Lucky Saint, you win!
Verdict: Not much wrong with this.
FAQs
How much is safe to drink?
A recent study by a research team from University of California San Diego, Knappschaft Kliniken in Germany and the University of the Basque Country in Spain, which was published in the journal Nutrients, suggests that even two bottles of non-alcoholic beer a day is enough to increase blood sugar levels.
The authors conclude: 'The consumption of non-alcoholic beverages has unfavourable effects on metabolism, mainly driven by their calorie and sugar contents.'
The researchers indicated a long-term risk of Type 2 diabetes and obesity. The study, however, was limited. The cohort was restricted to 44 healthy young men who drank either two 330ml bottles of alcohol-free beer or water every day for four weeks.
The team conducted regular tests to check for changes in glucose and lipid metabolism, liver enzymes, body composition, and the composition of the men's gut microbiome – and compared the results between the alcohol free beer drinkers and the water drinkers, so it was not surprising these drinkers fared worse.
Nevertheless, consuming alcohol-free beers with high levels of calories and sugar, over time and at volume could have more serious implications for health.
What are the main health risks?
Clearly, 'the biggest benefit to alcohol-free beer is cutting out the alcohol and typically they add fewer calories to your diet,' says Matt Coulshead, the research and development manager at Gaba Labs, which specialises in neuropsychopharmacology and synthetic chemistry. But the main problem is that the sugar and calorie content varies widely between the different types of beers.
The research findings revealed that mixed beer – alcohol-free beer with added lemon or orange soda, for example, raised long-term blood sugar levels and fats in the bloodstream, and wheat beer increased insulin and blood fats. And some lagers, such as one 440ml can of Innis & Gunn 0.0% lager beer, contains 20g of sugar, two thirds of the recommended daily intake. (The NHS recommends that adults consume no more than 30g of added sugar a day, approximately 7tsp.)
It's not all bad news, however. According to the NHS, it is not usually a serious problem if your blood sugar is slightly high for a short time – it is when it is sustained that high blood sugar can raise the risk of pre-diabetes and Type 2 diabetes.
Dr Federica Amati, the head nutritionist and global head of communications at Zoe, explains: 'If you consume these products every so often, they're unlikely to do much harm – or good. However, if you're having several cans every day, we don't really know what effects they might have, but it's unlikely to be neutral. These drinks are still providing liquid calories, which we know contribute to worse metabolic health outcomes compared with drinking water, tea or coffee, for example.
'Consuming any sugar and energy in liquid is more harmful for health,' says Dr Amati. 'This is because you can consume them quickly, and we know that the speed you eat – or in this case, drink – increases the risk of weight gain. One can every now and then is only contributing a small amount to our overall dietary pattern, but I wouldn't make this my main drink of choice. It's worth noting that low-alcohol beers do still contain some alcohol. It's in small amounts, but it may still have some negative effects.'
The verdict: are non-alcoholic beers really bad for you?
Dr Amati concludes: 'In nutrition, the most important question is 'what is it replacing?' If you swap standard beer for non-alcoholic beer, it's absolutely a healthier option. No question. If you swap regular fizzy pop for low-alcohol beer, that's probably a little better. But if you swapped low-alcohol beer for water or kombucha, that's even healthier.
'As with any soft drinks, moderation is key. But if you love the taste of beer, and it's replacing regular beer, you're making a solid choice.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
31 minutes ago
- BBC News
Yr Wyddfa hike raises £21k for Worcestershire hospital trust charity
More than £21,000 has been raised for a hospital trust thanks to a charity hike in what organisers described as tough challenge saw 58 people climb to the summit of Yr Wyddfa, Wales' tallest mountain, in the dark - facing torrential rain and 50mph raised will go to the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals Charity, towards improving care and experiences for patients in the area."My beautiful boy came into the world tiny and fragile," said Paige Cheshire, who climbed with her family to give back to the neonatal unit at Worcestershire Royal hospital, after her son was born at 30 weeks. "What followed was an emotional 47-day stay in the neonatal unit – intubation, sepsis and a cerebral palsy diagnosis."But throughout it all, the neonatal team stood by us with expertise, compassion, and unwavering support - they saved my boy and held me up when I needed strength the most." Husband and wife, Andy and Heather Asbury, climbed in the June trek to raise money for one of the charity's specialist funds - The Children of Worcestershire and Herefordshire Cancer is a cause close to their home because they said the group supported their son Josh during his walked along with Dawn Forbes, a children's cancer specialist nurse with the NHS trust."Without the support of Dawn and the charity, Josh's hospital journey would have been very different," said Mr Asbury."From little things like fresh fruit vouchers for the fruit stall outside the hospital to bigger things like Halloween parties, they helped us to make memories and to feel more comfortable during our hospital stays. "Even now, they're still there for us after Josh rang his end-of-treatment bell." Members of the trust's children's emergency department team also made the climb, raising money to buy toys and therapeutic resources - with the aim of helping young patients feel more at ease during visits."This support reduces anxiety and helps both children and their families feel more relaxed during their time with us," said Natalya Moore, from the trust. Follow BBC Hereford & Worcester on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
The Guardian
41 minutes ago
- The Guardian
People lacking good public transport more likely to feel lonely, UK study finds
People who depend on cars to get around are more likely to feel lonely and disconnected than those who have access to good public transport, a UK study has found. Analysing official statistics on loneliness and transport usage, researchers said there was a clear correlation between people without decent transport alternatives and those who describe themselves as feeling left out or without companionship. According to the findings from the Social Market Foundation (SMF), based on Department for Transport data, the trend appeared across Britain and was statistically significant in all but one region. Car dependency had the highest impact on loneliness in rural towns, the thinktank found, and the least in cities, where people are more likely to have reliable alternatives in terms of train, buses, trams, walking or cycling. A report last year for the DfT concluded that most people were 'no more or less likely to be lonely if they used public transport or not', with an exception for those with health conditions that stopped them driving. However, by cross-referencing the data with that from another major study, the DfT's national travel survey, the SMF concluded that when people were dissatisfied with their public transport, they were more likely to also be lonely. The thinktank said: 'Our first-of-its-kind analysis shows a very clear and statistically significant link between car dependency and loneliness, with results indicating that loneliness increases by 5% for every 20% fall in satisfaction with public transport and active travel. Put another way, failing to provide alternatives to cars is making people more lonely and more isolated.' The report says the correlation was found across every region of the country, but car dependency was shown to have the highest impact on loneliness in rural towns. Gideon Salutin, a senior researcher at the SMF, said the study showed that people in car-dependent areas were lonelier even if they were able to drive. Among possible explanation for the link was that people had 'fewer ways to reach others, cutting them off from job sites, pubs and other social spaces'. 'It might also be that the infrastructure we build to support motoring builds more barriers in what might have been walkable neighbourhoods and green spaces,' he said. 'Given that driving tends to poorly affect stress and health, it's also possible that it leaves people more vulnerable to loneliness and isolation. Driving also means you can't drink, which can be an exclusionary factor in many social settings.' Salutin said that while the data did not show that cars themselves caused loneliness, a recent US academic study had found that relying on a car more than 50% of the time was associated with a decrease in life satisfaction. A number of UK thinktanks and charities have expressed concern about increased car dependency in new housing estates, as well as the decline in rural bus routes. A report by the New Economics Foundation in 2024 said newbuilds across Britain were leading to ever more car dependency, relative to existing homes. Steve Chambers, the director of Transport for New Homes, said: 'It's not surprising to learn that people are lonely. When we visit housing estates, it's very rare that we see many people outside at all. When they leave the house, they have to get in their car – there are very few trips that are possible on foot.' He said examples such as Derwenthorpe, on the edge of York, built around walking and cycling with open spaces and people interacting, were few. 'That vibrancy of life is in really stark contrast to many places where people have no reason to set foot outside their home, bar maybe to wash their car.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Weedkiller ingredient widely used in US can damage organs and gut bacteria, research shows
The herbicide ingredient used to replace glyphosate in Roundup and other weedkiller products can kill gut bacteria and damage organs in multiple ways, new research shows. The ingredient, diquat, is widely employed in the US as a weedkiller in vineyards and orchards, and is increasingly sprayed elsewhere as the use of controversial herbicide substances such as glyphosate and paraquat drops in the US. But the new piece of data suggests diquat is more toxic than glyphosate, and the substance is banned over its risks in the UK, EU, China and many other countries. Still, the EPA has resisted calls for a ban, and Roundup formulas with the ingredient hit the shelves last year. 'From a human health perspective, this stuff is quite a bit nastier than glyphosate so we're seeing a regrettable substitution, and the ineffective regulatory structure is allowing it,' said Nathan Donley, science director with the Center For Biological Diversity, which advocates for stricter pesticide regulations but was not involved in the new research. 'Regrettable substitution' is a scientific term used to describe the replacement of a toxic substance in a consumer product with an ingredient that is also toxic. Diquat is also thought to be a neurotoxin, carcinogen and linked to Parkinson's disease. An October analysis of EPA data by the Friends of the Earth non-profit found it is about 200 times more toxic than glyphosate in terms of chronic exposure. Bayer, which makes Roundup, faced nearly 175,000 lawsuits alleging that the product's users were harmed by the product. Bayer, which bought Monsanto in 2018, reformulated Roundup after the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a possible carcinogen. The new review of scientific literature in part focuses on the multiple ways in which diquat damages organs and gut bacteria, including by reducing the level of proteins that are key pieces of the gut lining. The weakening can allow toxins and pathogens to move from the stomach into the bloodstream, and trigger inflammation in the intestines and throughout the body. Meanwhile, diquat can inhibit the production of beneficial bacteria that maintain the gut lining. Damage to the lining also inhibits the absorption of nutrients and energy metabolism, the authors said. The research further scrutinizes how the substance harms the kidneys, lungs and liver. Diquat 'causes irreversible structural and functional damage to the kidneys' because it can destroy kidney cells' membranes and interfere with cell signals. The effects on the liver are similar, and the ingredient causes the production of proteins that inflame the organ. Meanwhile, it seems to attack the lungs by triggering inflammation that damages the organ's tissue. More broadly, the inflammation caused by diquat may cause multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, a scenario in which organ systems begin to fail. The authors note that many of the studies are on rodents and more research on low, long-term exposure is needed. Bayer did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Despite the risks amid a rise in diquat's use, the EPA is not reviewing the chemical, and even non-profits that push for tighter pesticide regulations have largely focused their attention elsewhere. Donley said that was in part because US pesticide regulations are so weak that advocates are tied up with battles over ingredients like glyphosate, paraquat and chlorpyrifos – substances that are banned elsewhere but still widely used here. Diquat is 'overshadowed' by those ingredients. 'Other countries have banned diquat, but in the US we're still fighting the fights that Europe won 20 years ago,' Donley said. 'It hasn't gotten to the radar of most groups and that really says a lot about the sad and sorry state of pesticides in the US.' Some advocates have accused the EPA of being captured by industry, and Donley said US pesticide laws were so weak that it was difficult for the agency to ban ingredients, even if the will exists. For example, the agency banned chlorpyrifos in 2022, but a court overturned the decision after industry sued. Moreover, the EPA's pesticides office seems to have a philosophy that states that toxic pesticides are a 'necessary evil', Donley said. 'When you approach an issue from that lens there's only so much you will do,' he said.
