Health-conscious types are always worrying about the nutritional value of the food they consume. There's good reason for that. For instance, if you have tried to eliminate high fructose corn syrup from your diet, you have no doubt found that there is almost no prepackaged food available in regular supermarkets that lacks that substance.
The wine drinkers I know aren't losing too much sleep over how nutritious their favorite beverage is. In case you are wondering, the nutrition facts for wine, according to Calorie Count , are as follows:
One glass of wine - one 3.5-ounce glass of wine - contains 85 calories, none from fat, 5mg of sodium, no fat, no cholesterol, 2.8 grams of carbohydrates, less than a gram of sugar, almost no protein, no vitamin A or C, 1% Calcium and 2% Iron.
You won't find the familiar nutritional grid on a wine label like you do on other food and beverage items. Winemakers are not required to conform to that regulation. For one thing, the nutritional labeling you see on prepared food is the result of regulations from the Food and Drug Administration. Wine is governed by the Treasury Department's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). Rarely do federal agencies get a first-column check mark in "working and playing well together."
So, while not a particularly nutritious item to consume, wine does not appear to be harmful from a dietary standpoint. Aside from nearly 11g of ethyl alcohol - the major detriment which causes wine to receive a nutritional grade of "C" from Calorie Count - and some trace elements, the main ingredient is water, 89g per serving. How bad is that?
Obviously, the abuse of alcohol takes its toll in ways not measured by a simple nutritional profile. Also, some are allergic to alcohol and react to wine with flushing in the face and neck. Some people simply have no tolerance for alcohol and shouldn't drink at all. But let's go forward assuming no alcohol-related health problems and a healthy, light-to-moderate wine consumption level.
After water and alcohol, sugars come in a distant third place on wine's ingredients list. Sucrose, glucose, fructose and maltose are present, but at least there's no high-fructose corn syrup in there.
The type of wine has a lot to with the nutritional numbers. The nutritional profile above seems to be about the same as that for white table wine. Red wine shows far less sugar and sodium amounts. Dessert wines contain much higher levels of sugar but the numbers on other ingredients are pretty much the same as in a table wine.
All this attention to the nutritional aspect of wine is rather silly, of course. We don't drink wine for its nutritional value, we drink it for taste, for aromas, to complement a meal, for metaphysical or philosophical reasons. We drink it because we like the way it goes with a salad, with a cool night, a sunny day, a fireplace, Chet Baker, Chet Atkins, the news, a movie or haiku.
The bottom line is, there appear to be no nutritional roadblocks that would prevent you from enjoying a glass of wine. Conversely, there are no compelling reasons - nutritionally speaking - to include wine in your diet. If you need to focus on the nutritional value of the things you consume, your time would be better spent looking into high fructose corn syrup than into wine. Cheers!
The wine drinkers I know aren't losing too much sleep over how nutritious their favorite beverage is. In case you are wondering, the nutrition facts for wine, according to Calorie Count , are as follows:
One glass of wine - one 3.5-ounce glass of wine - contains 85 calories, none from fat, 5mg of sodium, no fat, no cholesterol, 2.8 grams of carbohydrates, less than a gram of sugar, almost no protein, no vitamin A or C, 1% Calcium and 2% Iron.
You won't find the familiar nutritional grid on a wine label like you do on other food and beverage items. Winemakers are not required to conform to that regulation. For one thing, the nutritional labeling you see on prepared food is the result of regulations from the Food and Drug Administration. Wine is governed by the Treasury Department's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). Rarely do federal agencies get a first-column check mark in "working and playing well together."
So, while not a particularly nutritious item to consume, wine does not appear to be harmful from a dietary standpoint. Aside from nearly 11g of ethyl alcohol - the major detriment which causes wine to receive a nutritional grade of "C" from Calorie Count - and some trace elements, the main ingredient is water, 89g per serving. How bad is that?
Obviously, the abuse of alcohol takes its toll in ways not measured by a simple nutritional profile. Also, some are allergic to alcohol and react to wine with flushing in the face and neck. Some people simply have no tolerance for alcohol and shouldn't drink at all. But let's go forward assuming no alcohol-related health problems and a healthy, light-to-moderate wine consumption level.
After water and alcohol, sugars come in a distant third place on wine's ingredients list. Sucrose, glucose, fructose and maltose are present, but at least there's no high-fructose corn syrup in there.
The type of wine has a lot to with the nutritional numbers. The nutritional profile above seems to be about the same as that for white table wine. Red wine shows far less sugar and sodium amounts. Dessert wines contain much higher levels of sugar but the numbers on other ingredients are pretty much the same as in a table wine.
All this attention to the nutritional aspect of wine is rather silly, of course. We don't drink wine for its nutritional value, we drink it for taste, for aromas, to complement a meal, for metaphysical or philosophical reasons. We drink it because we like the way it goes with a salad, with a cool night, a sunny day, a fireplace, Chet Baker, Chet Atkins, the news, a movie or haiku.
The bottom line is, there appear to be no nutritional roadblocks that would prevent you from enjoying a glass of wine. Conversely, there are no compelling reasons - nutritionally speaking - to include wine in your diet. If you need to focus on the nutritional value of the things you consume, your time would be better spent looking into high fructose corn syrup than into wine. Cheers!
















1 Bermejos Malvasia Seco 2009 - ($24) - Anna poured a white from Lanzarote, in the Canaries. It has a grassy nose, tastes crisp and dry with grapefruit and a nice acidity. 100% Malvasia.
2 Hermanos Peciña Crianza 2003 - ($20) - Pedro Peciña offered a Rioja Tempranillo with 2 years in oak instead of the one required. It has a beautiful violet nose with smooth and bright mouthfeel. Clove and coffee notes rest on big, fruity palate.
3 - Preto Picudo Tinto 2007 ($18) - Gregory showed a wine made from Preto Picudo, taken from 12-20 year-old vines. Clay soil on a 1000-meter plateau contributes to a Tierra de Leon terroir Gregory is particularly proud to call his. This Tinto gets three months in wood to calm the tannins. This is one of several wines featured that boast indiginous grapes not seen very much on these shores. It's a great summertime red which really tasted nice gently chilled. I can imagine how good it is with a lamb dish.
4 Guimaro B2M 2007 - ($45) - Pedro had the Ribeira Sacra covered, with a Mencia wine from Galicia. A lovely floral nose leads to some spice on the palate and a dark edge to the fruit.
5 Viñatigo Gual 2008 - ($24) - Elena poured an all-steel white with an extremely grassy nose and a big grapefruit taste from the volcanic soil of the Canary Islands.
6 Fronton de Oro Joven 2009 - ($18) - Pedro (there are three Pedros in the group) had an interesting blend of negra comon (I hope I have that right - the notes took a little wear and tear as the tasting went on) and Tintilla. The nose is a little tight, but some nice smokness comes through. It's a very dry wine; differently delicious.
7 Carballo Negramoll 2008 - ($20) - Eliseo poured his La Palma wine like it was the only one on earth. And like it deserved to be. The nose is a bit tight, but its very dark flavor was immense. Even so, it felt bright in my mouth.
8 Tacande 2006 - ($48) - Jose told me tacande means "volcanic soil." That's where the wonderful violet nose comes from. It's very dry and grippy with dark tones. the grapes in the blend are Babaso, Vijariego, Tintilla, Negramoll.
9 Primitivo Quiles Cono 4 2008 ($12) - Francisco was effusive about his 100% Monastrell (known elsewhere as mourvedre). It's a big local grape, as all the reds in Alicante must be at least 50% Monastrell.
10 Laureano Serres L'Abeueador 2008 ($25) - This wine is 100% macabeu. It is a very cloudy white with nice acidity and a big citrus palate. It hails from Tarragona, in northeast Spain.
11 Pedralonga Albariño 2008 - ($27) - Miguel was so apologetic that this was the only one of his wines he had to offer. He needn't have been. All steel, grapefruit and tropical flavors, it's one of the better Albariños I've had. From Galicia.


