I'm not surprised some Starbucks drinks have a ton of sugar, but the 3 cans of Coke worth definitely puts it into perspective.
I grew up drinking my coffee with sugar and cream, but eventually stopped using sugar, and then ultimately drinking it black. If you can wean off adding compliments to your coffee, you will most likely acquire a taste for the bitterness of coffee.
Once you begin loving the true taste of coffee, it becomes a much more fun experience to try different types of coffee, it's much healthier, and taste much better to me (now).
My body rejects processed foods nowadays, I'm somehow forced to eat raw everything. It's funny how so many tastes there are. Now I now there's enjoyable tastes outside the usual junk food. But, I miss the feel of carb + sugar + fat, it really does push all your brains button :)
Pretty fine, but it's not a common thing to eat though. Raw salad, carrots and tomato, with a pinch of salt and vinegar. A bit of meat. One thing I recently discovered is that whole grain mueslies do feel nice on your mouth without triggering pain in my case. Maybe more fibers that help feeling satiated.
I've tried weaning myself off strong milky coffee, but I like the taste of the milkiness. I get what you're saying, and will try to reduce the milk content over time.
The amount of sugar you were putting in your coffee is probably not close to comparable to that in these drinks.
> Once you begin loving the true taste of coffee
The "true" taste of coffee is how you prefer to drink coffee. Don't forget that a lot of people like to drink milk based drinks (latte, cap, macciato, etc) which are technically not showing the "true" taste of the coffee being used. Yet for someone reason no one thumbs their nose at them.
No one thumbs their nose exactly because they are "milk" based :-)
I agree with parent because I had a similar process, and I see the same difference in nature. I'd say that coffee-based drinks are more of a piano concerto, while milk-based products more of a strings trio, although I'm sure this is a terrible analogy.
> The amount of sugar you were putting in your coffee is probably not close to comparable to that in these drinks.
Even if you put just 2 teaspoons, that is 10gr of sugar. If you drink 3 coffees a day, that's 30gr or your entire daily recommendation as per WHO.
Unsurprisingly, I too drink my coffee black. While I can stand coffee with milk in it, and sometimes order cappuccinos at fancy coffee shops, sugar just ruins it. If you can get off it, you'll be much better off in every way.
> Even if you put just 2 teaspoons, that is 10gr of sugar.
Which is about 30 calories. Which means you'd have to drink 6 cups with that amount to equal the calories of 1 can of Coke.
Add a tablespoon of half-n-half, and that's +20 calories - 50 calories per cup, which means you're still 3+ cups before you equal a can of Coke.
It's all relative. If you have a couple of cups a day with reasonable quantities of things added, it's not particularly egregious on its own.
Italians find people who drink a cappuccino after about 11 in the morning a source of amusement. It's a dead giveaway that the person in question is a foreigner.
The good side: they're amused but not rude or snotty about it.
I once ordered a cappuccino after 11, I got something else instead (I believe an espresso/americano?) and I was really confused as I thought the barista had misheard me. Then someone explained it to me afterwards and I felt kind of silly
Why is that something to feel silly about? I would think that if it is your harmless custom it is rude for someone with a different custom to make something negative out of it.
That's ridiculous, coffee has a flavor and that flavor is the true taste of coffee. Well the true taste of the particular coffee you're drinking because different beans and brewing methods create different flavors. It's equally ridiculous to shame people about not enjoying black coffee but adding another liquid to your coffee definitely diminishes the amount of coffee you taste.
I don't drink Starbucks (too expensive for me) so this is a legitimate question: I thought Starbucks coffee was meant to be good/high quality? If it isn't why are people spending over $3/cup when McDonald's and others has $1/cup coffee?
I'm legitimately asking, I'm not into the whole Starbucks scene.
If you are really into coffee, mass produced is cool to hate on, and the best is what you make yourself. I enjoy the coffee, but it's not the best I ever had. Of course, in my area it's the only option over Dunkin Donuts or Mcdonalds, which I do not like.
Hacker Dojo used to have Dunkin Donuts coffee, along with a precise posted procedure for brewing it, which seemed to work quite well. ("How to brew coffee like a BOSS!")
For me, for DIY: Aeropress and recently roasted beans. Grind yourself.
>If it isn't why are people spending over $3/cup when McDonald's and others has $1/cup coffee?
I can't speak for every Starbucks customer out there, but I always assumed the reason is that it's a status symbol.
To some degree, they want to be seen with the cup. They haven't tried the competitors, so they assume Starbucks must be very good to justify the price. If they really enjoyed coffee for coffee's sake, they'd probably be going to an independent shop for their drink.
I think Starbucks' coffee isn't terrible, but I definitely prefer to brew it myself or spend the same amount at a smaller cafe, preferably if they roast their own beans.
That doesn't really make sense, it's like saying people want to be seen eating Big Macs. Starbucks isn't really a status symbol in the states, it is simply a guilty pleasure/luxury/drug to those who are addicted. They don't go to indies simply because it is not convenient (sbux is everywhere) and they know what they are getting. Believe me, would love to try an indie, but in my neighborhood, the only alternative is Costa and Pacific Coffee, which are just as bad UK and HK brands.
It makes perfect sense, if being seen eating Big Macs were to become trendy then you would see more people eating Big Macs. It happens for all kinds of things in popular culture. Why do people buy the expensive famous name brand stuff when the no-name clothing would be just as good for their needs?
You would be embarrassed if you were seen eating a Big Mac, the same is almost true with Starbucks. It is anti-status right now: better to be seen with a hipster indie coffee than the McDonalds-like Starbucks cup!
People buy the expensive branded clothes because...they know what they are getting. No one really wants to walk around with a swoosh on their chest! Going for no-name clothing, there is no reputation to go by, how can you tell if that shirt is going to feel good or wear well? Muji does no-name well, you can trust their quality even if they don't put their name everywhere, but even that is a "brand."
> if being seen eating Big Macs were to become trendy then you would see more people eating Big Macs
I grew up in a poor country. One Christmas Season, I took a part-time job at a bank's back office. The full-time employees would go to the McD across the street from the office building, and get a take-away. The journey cut their 60-minute lunch break by half. I remarked how expensive it was, but my colleague told me: "Remember how much they're making, they can probably afford it!"
I think the beans that they use are decent quality, but they seem to over-roast them, which leads to excessive bitterness, as well as killing some of the richer and more subtle flavors. Starbucks coffee does have MORE flavor than McDonalds/Tim Hortons/Dunkn' Donuts. Those other chains seem to just serve their coffee really weak. But the extra flavor you get from Starbucks is just a higher intensity of that burnt flavor. It makes you feel like you're getting a bigger caffeine hit (you're not), but it doesn't taste that great.
> I thought Starbucks coffee was meant to be good/high quality? If it isn't why are people spending over $3/cup when McDonald's and others has $1/cup coffee?
Starbucks is widespread enough to count on and convenient almost wherever you are, and for many good enough and better than McDonald's, etc.
Now, its been quite a while since I had a McDonald's coffee drinks, but when I have, its been bad, far worse than anything I've had a Starbucks.
At the same time, there are plenty of independent coffee shops that have better coffee, and, if I am someplace where I know one, I prefer them. But Starbucks is good enough, and reliable and consistent enough when I am somewhere where I don't know what the good local independents are (and, when I am near my home, its a lot more convenient than the nearest preferable independent.)
You're paying for the brand and for consistency. People love Starbucks because they know what there getting, you can order a Starbucks drink in Colorado and have it taste the same as if you ordered it in Tokyo or Prague etc. (so I've heard)
You can also end up with something that's pretty much a milkshake with caffeine but instead of walking around looking like a fatty with your DQ blizzard cup you can be cute and trendy with your Starbucks cup.
Funnily, ALDI/Trader Joes also roasts and sells coffee (they are only testing selling of freshly brewed coffee in some locations). They’re everywhere, and their quality is actually very high.
It will be interesting to see how Starbucks is going to react when a big player like ALDI is going to take their territory.
If you take a shot of espresso from Starbucks and compare it to a shot of espresso from a cafe which roasts their own beans, you'll taste the difference quite immediately. Starbucks beans are over-roasted by a large margin.
Their coffee has the same story. Grinding Starbuck beans results in what looks like ashes from a campfire, and doesn't release those wonderful smells from the oil. Just smell the difference when you grind a higher quality bean, never mind how much more appetizing the texture looks.
My understanding, from working in the industry for a short time, is that Starbucks roasts the largest quantity of beans in the world and that is why their coffee is so burnt. It's impossible to control the temperatures when they roast these large quantity of beans with much precision, so they compensate by over-roasting them.
That said, coffee snobbery isn't a good thing, and their drinks aren't that bad when you put in tons of sugar or milk. But without the dressings, it's pretty terrible quality.
Most people can't taste the difference between the two, that's the difference.
Third wave independent coffee shops harp on the idea it takes months of palette training for their baristas to calibrate tasting minute differences and somehow every other person comes in here to opine about how burnt or nasty tasting their cup of bean juice is.
Starbucks optimizes for different things than other shops. They over roast as a signature, to create bolder flavor. Over the past decade they have great control over their supply chain and beans yet they still over roast beyond the flavor signature because when most of their products are milk-based drinks the extra flavor of the espresso comes through.
It's meant to be that way, not because of some conspiracy to deliver mediocrity, but because it's their culture. And ignorance paired with pretentiousness in coffee culture is on whole other level cargo cult-iness.
Besides, when one really wants to talk about bad coffee and they're not mentioning Philz then they have no clue.
You realize that there is much more to roasting coffee than just heating them up to some pre-specified temperature, right?
You have your bean temperature, air temperature, and drum temperature, all of which are controlled separately. You also need to bring them up at the right speed. You also control how much you circulate the air versus venting it. And all of these things are interrelated, adjusting one will change the others. I help maintain the roaster at a small coffee company, and the head roaster likes to manually control each roast. The PLC can automate an entire roast, but since there are so many variables, he likes to run it manually.
I'm really sorry if not doing things by hand offends your artisan sensibilities. Why pick on Starbucks, though, there are plenty of coffee producers who have been roasting coffee on industrial scale for much longer than the company exist.
Personally, I drink Starbucks once in a blue moon as a treat - not for superior coffee flavor, but because I want a giant, sugary dessert beverage. At one time I drank a large cup/week, but then I came to my senses.
My normal morning coffee is brewed at home using fresh, but mass-produced beans (usually one of Trader Joe's varieties).
> At one time I drank a large cup/week, but then I came to my senses.
I'm going through this right now with trying to wean myself off a bubble tea habit. There are just so many amazing options near my office and I have at least one giant one per week. The struggle is real.
Last year, I was diagnosed with celiac disease, so I could no longer eat Starbucks food. I often grabbed my large coffee along with a pastry or sandwich.
Will power not required. Sorry I can't be of any help.
I'm not sure many people actually order just "coffee" at Starbucks. When I've been in one, virtually every order is some weird-ass fancy drink, to the point where I feel a little out of place just ordering a coffee.
It's better than all the available alternatives in about 99% of America by area. There's no shame in going to a Starbucks in the suburbs, or when traveling in another country without a good coffee culture.
The people who are snotty about it (including me) are generally located in the few enclaves, like Portland, where there's genuinely better alternatives. Going to Starbucks in Portland is like eating at the Olive Garden in Times Square.
No one is spending $3 on a cup of regular brewed coffee at Starbucks to my knowledge. Maybe there's a strong regional difference? I can't find anything online to support that, though.
If I want to enjoy the drink on-location I'll pick Starbucks every time. The ambiance is generally pretty okay. If I just need a quick brew and can grab it in a drive-thru then McDonalds will do just fine.
Mind you, if you like the taste of coffee, Starbucks isn't that great, unless you like burnt flavors even in your medium roasts. I've heard their new Clover machines, at some locations, offer better flavor -- but Starbucks' regular coffee seems tailor-made to at least drive you to their espresso products, if not well into the land of sweetened drinks.
I would have to sort of disagree that black coffee is always going to give you more of a "true" coffee taste.
Adding fat and sodium for most things generally exemplifies the taste and flavor (not sugar). For example adding tarragon mixed with butter and you can really taste that tarragon.
I have noticed this with coffee. Adding a little bit of cream definitely brings out more subtle flavors in the coffee (depending on the coffee and also no where near the level that starbucks adds.. just a little will do).
But I generally drink my coffee black as well for health reasons.
IIRC, the amount of sugar a typical drink has in it has gone up by 100% since the 80's. I'd swear that soft drinks had about 20 grams of sugar in them back then. Now there's typically almost 40 grams in a soft drink, and Honest Tea passes as a "lighter" drink with only 19 grams.
I really dislike this line of shock tactics. You can drink a hot chocolate. or a can of coke, or eat a chocolate bar every now and again with no real change in your risk of diabetes - assuming you aren't already ticking the other risk factors (genetic, overweight, etc).
Blanket calls for abstinence with threats of disease has not, typically, been as effective as helping people make properly informed decisions.
Their measurements appear to include whipped cream but this isn't mentioned in the article.
For example: the pictured Starbucks Venti White Chocolate Mocha is accused of 18tsp sugar but Starbucks nutrition info[1] says 15tsp (55g) sugar without whipped cream.
I don't know how you could drink some of those Starbucks "coffee" drinks and think they were anything other than milkshakes. There are also some misconceptions around the caffeine content of these coffee drinks. Most espresso is around 30-50mg caffeine per shot, so a 20oz frappacino will have 60-100 mg caffeine vs a 20 oz coffee which will have ~350-400 mg caffeine.
How sad it is that the can of coke is used as a comparison. It almost makes it look like a reasonable drink.
The World Health Organization has recently suggested cutting the recommended sugar intake for adults in half, to about 25 grams, around 6 teaspoons, of sugar for a normal weight adult a day.
Here is my favorite site that shows the amounts of sugar cubes in various unhealthy food: http://www.sugarstacks.com/
According to that information you can drink a half can of coke (most left one in the picture in the link) to satisfy that daily need. That implies that all other food you eat that day will not include any sugar! That is an impossible standard to reach. Solution, don't drink drinks with sugar.
I think it's the other way around; people have begun thinking of soda as problematic because of the sugar. So making it clear that a drink exceeds a coke in sugar puts the drink over in the problematic bracket.
I think that's referring to refined sugars... as a diabetic, I tend to pay more attention to glycemic load... making an effort to keep it under 40 (max) at any meal, and under 100 per day, which is hard... iirc, the sugars/day should be around or under 100g for most people, with at least half of that coming from natural, unrefined sources (fruit/veg).
Absorption is a big piece... fruit smoothies are much easier to absorb, for example than whole fruit, which contains fiber which inhibits absorption.
For the most part, if you don't get more than half your calories from any macro source (carb, protein, fat, alcohol), and have some variety to your diet, once you get enough protein to support your body, calories are calories. Some people have medical conditions that mean they should limit some sources... but that's the exception.
The issue is that people don't pay attention to these things.. or consider the calories of drinks and snacks in their daily input... if most people wrote down everything they consumed for a week, calculated the macros, and tracked their weight a couple times a day, it would be eye opening. I tend to reach for water more often than not (2-3 liters or so a day) and about 1 liters of other beverages a day.
> The World Health Organization has recently suggested cutting the recommended sugar intake for adults in half, to about 25 grams, around 6 teaspoons, of sugar for a normal weight adult a day.
The interesting thing about this sort of guideline is how quickly you exceed it with fruit. The most popular fruits are all packed with sugar: an apple has ~10 grams; a banana, ~12 grams; an orange, ~9 grams.
Since I entered the workforce a few years ago, I have gone from underweight to obese, and with no spontaneous trend-reversal in sight, I have recently decided to consciously monitor my intake. Four weeks and two negative kilos later, the most striking realization is precisely what you are saying, but viewed from two different perspectives:
A banana is about 105 kCal, 14g of sugars, 13g of complex carbs, and not much else[1]. My daily caloric budget is 19 bananas. I need 90g+ of protein a day, and I need some oil for cooking, so the discretionary budget is about a half. If I eat normally and budget the calories well, I will have about two bananas' worth of snacks which I can eat outside of my three main meals. That's the extent of my freedom. A banana is a big deal.
On the other hand, if I hypothetically only had bananas in my pantry, I would need to eat 19 of them to hit my calories (more if I didn't want to lose weight). That's not fun. It's hard work after the first five or six! In a less hypothetical situation of protein and fiber intake, I would need 400g+ of chicken breast meat and 1kg+ of kale (each being a good source of one and the other respectively). My stomach is turning just thinking that, and I really had to learn to balance my diet on many different foodstuffs.
In isolation, it can be crazy how much or how little of particular nutrient a food contains.
It's probably important to note that it's not only "flavored" drinks, milk has quite a bit of sugar in it naturally, the "special" milk which is used by some coffee places has about 9% fat and 2-3% carbohydrates which makes it worse than coke on it's own, normal whole/semi-skimmed/skimmed(skimmed usually have higher amounts of sugar to make it not taste like well the water it is) milk has about 5g per 100g of sugar which is more than half the sugar content in coke, so when you add even a "bit" of sugar to a milk based drink you get well more sugar than what coke has for the same volume.
It's also probably worth noting that a Starbucks "Venti" size is more than double the the volume of a coke can to begin with so about 680ml (espresso shot which is used as the base is only about 30ml) of milk + couple of sugar spoons to make it sweet can easily get to 2-3 times the amount of sugar in coke without even having to go overboard with crap like whipped cream and syrups.
I'm not sure where the click-bait is. The title of the article is consistent with the content, i.e., many beverages at Starbucks have a lot of sugar content. Whether that comes from adding sugar or adding ingredients which are naturally sweet is not the point of the article.
> It's probably important to note that it's not only "flavored" drinks, milk has quite a bit of sugar in it naturally,
True, but is milk the sole responsible for the high sugar content in a latte?
> the "special" milk which is used by some coffee places has about 9% fat and 2-3% carbohydrates which makes it worse than coke on it's own,
Well, if "special" means "processed", then this again proves the point of the article. No matter where or how the sugar is added, these drinks have quite a lot of it.
> skimmed usually have higher amounts of sugar to make it not taste like well the water it is
Confirms the point above.
> It's also probably worth noting that a Starbucks "Venti" size is more than double the the volume of a coke can to begin with so about 680ml (espresso shot which is used as the base is only about 30ml) of milk + couple of sugar spoons to make it sweet can easily get to 2-3 times the amount of sugar in coke
Perhaps not for the same volume. Many fast food chains sell sodas in cups that are 2-3 times the volume of a 33cl can.
> without even having to go overboard with crap like whipped cream and syrups.
Again, consistent with the article's point. The numbers are there, and they seem to be higher than the recommended daily amount of sugar intake.
>I'm not sure where the click-bait is. The title of the article is consistent with the content, i.e., many beverages at Starbucks have a lot of sugar content. Whether that comes from adding sugar or adding ingredients which are naturally sweet is not the point of the article.
A glass of milk has more sugar than it than a can of coke, and more fat also.
>the "special" milk which is used by some coffee places has about 9% fat and 2-3% carbohydrates which makes it worse than coke on it's own,
Not necessarily different breeds of cow have different amount of butterfat and sugar in their milk, the milk that you get in the store has for the most part been sifted for quite a bit of the goodies in order to make cream, cheese and other dairy products you are almost sold leftovers especially if you say buy skimmed milk.
>Confirms the point above.
No it doesn't skimmed milk will either have less sugar removed from it than whole milk, or the cow breeds that will be used are those which produce sweeter milk naturally
>Perhaps not for the same volume. Many fast food chains sell sodas in cups that are 2-3 times the volume of a 33cl can.
The article compared it to a can of coke which is 33cl not to some bucket you can buy at your local big belly burger joint.
>Again, consistent with the article's point. The numbers are there, and they seem to be higher than the recommended daily amount of sugar intake.
The article point was look Starbucks is worse than soda so you might as well drink coke instead.
I don't think any one thought that drinking a liter of milk is "healthy" or a good way to blow about half your caloric budget, if they did they need to be educated about nutrition in general not thought to stay away from Starbucks the local artisan latte that is served in what else would be considered soup mugs is just as bad at the end of the day doesn't matter if it has 2 teaspoons less of sugar than Starbucks.
Want to know what has even more sugar? that "sugar free" smoothie or freshly squeezed juice as it has over 2 times the amount of sugar as most soda per unit of volume as easily 4-5 times more sugar per serving.
Heck a decent sized apple or an orange have more sugar than a can of coke should we stop eating apples?
Could you? I said before that milk has slightly over half the amount of sugar than coke, the serving size differs a classical milk that people drink 450-600ml.
A glass of milk has more sugar than it than a can of coke, and more fat also.
5g of sugar and 1g of fat in 100ml of milk, 9g of sugar in a glass of coke. Fat is not metabolized by the body in the same way as sugar, so putting fat together with sugar is a bit misleading.
Not necessarily different breeds of cow have different amount of butterfat and sugar in their milk, the milk that you get in the store has for the most part been sifted for quite a bit of the goodies in order to make cream, cheese and other dairy products you are almost sold leftovers especially if you say buy skimmed milk.
But several type of processed milk have ranges of fat and sugar percentage that determine their classification, so the fact that these amount vary (by how much, anyway?) can only be measured against said classification.
No it doesn't skimmed milk will either have less sugar removed from it than whole milk, or the cow breeds that will be used are those which produce sweeter milk naturally
It confirms that in order to make the beverage more drinkable there might be more sugar added. Again, the article reports on the total sugar intake.
The article compared it to a can of coke which is 33cl not to some bucket you can buy at your local big belly burger joint.
The point was that the proportion would make it for the amount of sugar in a mid-size bucket, which is also not considered healthy.
The article point was look Starbucks is worse than soda so you might as well drink coke instead.
I don't find "drink coke instead" anywhere in the article. Not in the title (which is different from what posted on HN) and not in the article. Coke is used for comparison purposes.
I don't think any one thought that drinking a liter of milk is "healthy" or a good way to blow about half your caloric budget, if they did they need to be educated about nutrition in general not thought to stay away from Starbucks the local artisan latte that is served in what else would be considered soup mugs is just as bad at the end of the day doesn't matter if it has 2 teaspoons less of sugar than Starbucks.
I consider this article useful in learning what fast-food restaurants are giving me in terms of sugar, so reading it was quite educational. There is of course much more material to be read.
Want to know what has even more sugar? that "sugar free" smoothie or freshly squeezed juice as it has over 2 times the amount of sugar as most soda per unit of volume as easily 4-5 times more sugar per serving. Heck a decent sized apple or an orange have more sugar than a can of coke should we stop eating apples?
Glass of coke: 9g of sugar
Glass of apple juice: 10g
Glass of orange juice: 8g
I just googled this up, your numbers seem a bit off. Also, apple and orange juice have more to offer (vitamins, magnesium, calcium, iron...) so no, we should not stop eating apples.
> I just googled this up, your numbers seem a bit off. Also, apple and orange juice have more to offer (vitamins, magnesium, calcium, iron...) so no, we should not stop eating apples.
We do need to remind / persuade people that fruit juices are not a healthy option, and that fruit juices aren't an alternative to just eating the fruit.
There's a world of difference between naturally occurring sugars and fats in plain old pasteurised cow milk than the industrial processed sweetness that's in your coke or frapp.
I still find it absolutely incredulous that lactose intolerant people exist. I didn't meet an actual li person until I was 28! The concept that a person could not digest milk, one of the most basic foods, just never crossed my mind.
If you're from the upper hemisphere, northern Europe for example, then that's not surprising. I have a couple of friends who I've known for 30 years who are lactose intolerant and had no idea that lactose tolerance is an evolved thing in northern Europe.
> The concept that a person could not digest milk, one of the most basic foods, just never crossed my mind.
For most mammals, including, for most of history, most humans outside of a few particular regions, milk is only "one of the most basic foods" for infants.
Whilst I agree, what you just stated is a non sequitur. Lactose intolerance has nothing to do with the natural sugar content of milk, or any other naturally occurring sugar.
> Heck a decent sized apple or an orange have more sugar than a can of coke should we stop eating apples?
No - it's not that simple.
There is a significant different in how blood glucose levels are affected by eating an apple vs drinking apple juice (or indeed any other fruit).
Juice lacks the fibre that was in the fruit, along with some of the nutrients that were in the flesh and skin. Fibre slows absorption, so the GI of a piece of fruit is lower than that of fruit juice.
I don't know what you are drinking, but milk is typically around 5% sugar; I wouldn't classify that as 'quite a bit'.
Additionally, all sugars are not made equal. Lactose has a much lower glycemic index (~45) compared to those of refined cane sugar (68) or glucose (100), meaning that it increases your blood sugar much more slowly.
5% sugar by weight is quite a bit, GI is calculated for the "Food" not for the sugar it self.
Commercially available lactose comes with a GI of 45-50 granulated white sugar is 55-65, it's like saying that "brown" sugar is better than white sugar it isn't it has lower GI because it has more moisture in it so you have less actual sugar per volume/weight, but this is more about how they are refined and processed as a diabetic you don't want to use any of them.
I really don't think 5% by weight is that much. To add a bit of perspective, tomatoes are around 3% sugar, carrots 7.5%, apples 16%, bananas 30%.
I realise that GI is typically calculated for food; I'd stated the GI of lactose because the article was about sugar, and my intention was to compare different types of sugars - some are better for blood glucose levels than others. The GI of milk would be lower than that of pure lactose, at around 30.
I was never a big coffee drinker, but when I did I'd drink a "foo-foo" coffee drink which was usually a turtle latte or something similar. I figured if it was only once in a while I was fine.
630 calories, 65g of sugar, 21g of saturated fat, 195mg of caffeine.
If you do the conversion where 4g of sugar = 1 teaspoon, then this drink has 16.25 teaspoons of sugar which is pretty close to the figures in the article.
Needless to say once I read how much sugar was in these drinks, I promptly stopped drinking them altogether.
> Real chocolate - dark, milk or white - melted into steamed milk and combined with our rich espresso and caramel. Topped with whipped cream, caramel sauce and Snickers®
I think you can probably work out from the description that its not going to be a healthy drink.
What impresses me is decades ago a lot of food chemistry work went into figuring out weird tastes to mask the taste of caffeine and so on. So that's why Mt Dew and energy drinks taste the way they do, to cover up the bad flavors, make it drinkable.
More recently there must be a lot of research going into how to pack 25 spoons of corn syrup into a drink and still make it drinkable, or even taste good. It is impressive purely from a food science / chemistry standpoint, no matter how unhealthy it may be.
To be honest, food science has been making people survive and thrive on disgusting barely edible things since the first monkey threw a rat on fire. "Here we have some rotting carcasses and roots, dried seeds, with more rotten things for flavour. Let's have a feast!"
> Starbucks said it has committed to reduce added sugar in its "indulgent drinks" by 25% by the end of 2020.
IOW, not really. But come on, these drinks are non-necessary items. Who cares? And besides, who looks at something with whipped cream and doesn't imagine it being sugar and calorie laden?
The sugar or calories in any particular item generally isn’t a problem. The actual problem is the rate of consumption.
People drink stuff like this in ridiculous quantities, and then make it even worse by developing a daily habit. I also find it weird that you don’t often see people set aside “half” of their beverage to finish it later; rather, they sip and sip and sip until it’s gone. By that logic, simply reducing the size of the container that you order should let you drink “all” of it and still feel satisfied. (Or, pour some of it into a cup for immediate consumption, and put the rest away. Same with food.)
True enough... I always considered Starbucks as more of a "coffee flavored milk shake" more than coffee... it's easier to put into perspective that way. Then again, I tend to have maybe one every month or so.
I see so many people who drink fruit juice because they think its healthy. When I eat breakfast at hotels in Europe they often serve fruit juice and coffee, but not water!
I almost collapsed from drinking a white choc mocha from Starbucks about 5 years ago. Body went into full shock mode it was so sweet. Got dizzy, headache, the lot.
This is why I support the FDA's effort to get an "Added Sugar" section on the nutrition label. I think it would really help people control their sugar intake:
What exactly counts as "added sugar"? Would, say, juice count as "added sugar"? What if it was juice concentrate? What if it had very little of its' own flavor?
Another worthy effort would be including % of daily value for sugar, which is not normally present on nutritional labels. Seeing "350% daily value" might lead some to reconsider their purchase.
I've recently started a diet and one of the most helpful things I've been doing is looking up the nutritional facts of meals and drinks that'd I'd usually write-off as "too insignificant to matter". One of those was a medium Starbucks mocha which turned out to be ... ~360 calories without whip. That might seem like an insignificant amount but when you're going for a ~600 calorie deficit it's about two thirds of a standard meal.
Since then I've been sticking to a medium coffee which is ~5 calories, and the caffeine is a total appetite killer. Win win.
Really? You thought a Mocha would be insignificant? It's like 3 pumps of chocolate syrup plus a bunch of whole or 2% milk. That's calorie heaven right there.
Stick to black coffee or switch to tea if you want to reduce calorie counts. Most teas are under 10 calories which is fantastic.
It doesn't matter which way the calories come in (unless your diet is unhealthy). This concoction has about the same energy density as whole milk.
"Don't drink your calories"[1] is of course a wise maxim to live by.
Source: Starbucks is required by law to make available nutritional value of their drinks, and they do[2], just like any other food producer; use that data if you have problems with your diet.
125 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 209 ms ] threadI grew up drinking my coffee with sugar and cream, but eventually stopped using sugar, and then ultimately drinking it black. If you can wean off adding compliments to your coffee, you will most likely acquire a taste for the bitterness of coffee.
Once you begin loving the true taste of coffee, it becomes a much more fun experience to try different types of coffee, it's much healthier, and taste much better to me (now).
> Once you begin loving the true taste of coffee
The "true" taste of coffee is how you prefer to drink coffee. Don't forget that a lot of people like to drink milk based drinks (latte, cap, macciato, etc) which are technically not showing the "true" taste of the coffee being used. Yet for someone reason no one thumbs their nose at them.
You should come to Portland sometime. :)
I agree with parent because I had a similar process, and I see the same difference in nature. I'd say that coffee-based drinks are more of a piano concerto, while milk-based products more of a strings trio, although I'm sure this is a terrible analogy.
Even if you put just 2 teaspoons, that is 10gr of sugar. If you drink 3 coffees a day, that's 30gr or your entire daily recommendation as per WHO.
Unsurprisingly, I too drink my coffee black. While I can stand coffee with milk in it, and sometimes order cappuccinos at fancy coffee shops, sugar just ruins it. If you can get off it, you'll be much better off in every way.
Add a tablespoon of half-n-half, and that's +20 calories - 50 calories per cup, which means you're still 3+ cups before you equal a can of Coke.
It's all relative. If you have a couple of cups a day with reasonable quantities of things added, it's not particularly egregious on its own.
(Doesn't count milk, but in small amount the inc
The good side: they're amused but not rude or snotty about it.
Latte, etc are all their own drink. They contain coffee.
A lot of low quality food and drink seems way less satisfying, so people make it up with quantity.
I'm legitimately asking, I'm not into the whole Starbucks scene.
For me, for DIY: Aeropress and recently roasted beans. Grind yourself.
I can't speak for every Starbucks customer out there, but I always assumed the reason is that it's a status symbol.
To some degree, they want to be seen with the cup. They haven't tried the competitors, so they assume Starbucks must be very good to justify the price. If they really enjoyed coffee for coffee's sake, they'd probably be going to an independent shop for their drink.
I think Starbucks' coffee isn't terrible, but I definitely prefer to brew it myself or spend the same amount at a smaller cafe, preferably if they roast their own beans.
People buy the expensive branded clothes because...they know what they are getting. No one really wants to walk around with a swoosh on their chest! Going for no-name clothing, there is no reputation to go by, how can you tell if that shirt is going to feel good or wear well? Muji does no-name well, you can trust their quality even if they don't put their name everywhere, but even that is a "brand."
I grew up in a poor country. One Christmas Season, I took a part-time job at a bank's back office. The full-time employees would go to the McD across the street from the office building, and get a take-away. The journey cut their 60-minute lunch break by half. I remarked how expensive it was, but my colleague told me: "Remember how much they're making, they can probably afford it!"
:-)
My personal theory, anyway.
So, the prices aren't as different as you think.
Starbucks is widespread enough to count on and convenient almost wherever you are, and for many good enough and better than McDonald's, etc.
Now, its been quite a while since I had a McDonald's coffee drinks, but when I have, its been bad, far worse than anything I've had a Starbucks.
At the same time, there are plenty of independent coffee shops that have better coffee, and, if I am someplace where I know one, I prefer them. But Starbucks is good enough, and reliable and consistent enough when I am somewhere where I don't know what the good local independents are (and, when I am near my home, its a lot more convenient than the nearest preferable independent.)
You can also end up with something that's pretty much a milkshake with caffeine but instead of walking around looking like a fatty with your DQ blizzard cup you can be cute and trendy with your Starbucks cup.
It will be interesting to see how Starbucks is going to react when a big player like ALDI is going to take their territory.
Their coffee has the same story. Grinding Starbuck beans results in what looks like ashes from a campfire, and doesn't release those wonderful smells from the oil. Just smell the difference when you grind a higher quality bean, never mind how much more appetizing the texture looks.
My understanding, from working in the industry for a short time, is that Starbucks roasts the largest quantity of beans in the world and that is why their coffee is so burnt. It's impossible to control the temperatures when they roast these large quantity of beans with much precision, so they compensate by over-roasting them.
That said, coffee snobbery isn't a good thing, and their drinks aren't that bad when you put in tons of sugar or milk. But without the dressings, it's pretty terrible quality.
Third wave independent coffee shops harp on the idea it takes months of palette training for their baristas to calibrate tasting minute differences and somehow every other person comes in here to opine about how burnt or nasty tasting their cup of bean juice is.
Starbucks optimizes for different things than other shops. They over roast as a signature, to create bolder flavor. Over the past decade they have great control over their supply chain and beans yet they still over roast beyond the flavor signature because when most of their products are milk-based drinks the extra flavor of the espresso comes through.
It's meant to be that way, not because of some conspiracy to deliver mediocrity, but because it's their culture. And ignorance paired with pretentiousness in coffee culture is on whole other level cargo cult-iness.
Besides, when one really wants to talk about bad coffee and they're not mentioning Philz then they have no clue.
You're trolling, right?
You have your bean temperature, air temperature, and drum temperature, all of which are controlled separately. You also need to bring them up at the right speed. You also control how much you circulate the air versus venting it. And all of these things are interrelated, adjusting one will change the others. I help maintain the roaster at a small coffee company, and the head roaster likes to manually control each roast. The PLC can automate an entire roast, but since there are so many variables, he likes to run it manually.
My normal morning coffee is brewed at home using fresh, but mass-produced beans (usually one of Trader Joe's varieties).
I'm going through this right now with trying to wean myself off a bubble tea habit. There are just so many amazing options near my office and I have at least one giant one per week. The struggle is real.
How did you successfully cut down?
Last year, I was diagnosed with celiac disease, so I could no longer eat Starbucks food. I often grabbed my large coffee along with a pastry or sandwich.
Will power not required. Sorry I can't be of any help.
The people who are snotty about it (including me) are generally located in the few enclaves, like Portland, where there's genuinely better alternatives. Going to Starbucks in Portland is like eating at the Olive Garden in Times Square.
McDonalds:{12oz:"$1.00" 16oz:"$1.50" 20oz:"$1.80"}
Starbucks:{12oz="$1.75" 16oz:"$1.95" 20oz:"$2.25"}
If I want to enjoy the drink on-location I'll pick Starbucks every time. The ambiance is generally pretty okay. If I just need a quick brew and can grab it in a drive-thru then McDonalds will do just fine.
Adding fat and sodium for most things generally exemplifies the taste and flavor (not sugar). For example adding tarragon mixed with butter and you can really taste that tarragon.
I have noticed this with coffee. Adding a little bit of cream definitely brings out more subtle flavors in the coffee (depending on the coffee and also no where near the level that starbucks adds.. just a little will do).
But I generally drink my coffee black as well for health reasons.
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Diabetes-type2/Pages/Introducti...
When I feel like reaching for the sweets or over-sugared drinks I stop to wonder if it's worth losing my legs or my eyesight.
Blanket calls for abstinence with threats of disease has not, typically, been as effective as helping people make properly informed decisions.
For example: the pictured Starbucks Venti White Chocolate Mocha is accused of 18tsp sugar but Starbucks nutrition info[1] says 15tsp (55g) sugar without whipped cream.
[1] https://news.starbucks.com/uploads/documents/nutrition.pdf
Edit: incorrect quote
12oz Coke contains 39g sugar[1]
-> 39g/12oz = 3.25 g/oz
20oz White Chocolate Mocha contains 55g sugar
-> 55g/20oz = 2.75 g/oz
[1] http://www.coca-colaproductfacts.com/en/coca-cola-products/c...
edit: formatting
[1] https://news.starbucks.com/uploads/documents/nutrition.pdf
The World Health Organization has recently suggested cutting the recommended sugar intake for adults in half, to about 25 grams, around 6 teaspoons, of sugar for a normal weight adult a day.
Here is my favorite site that shows the amounts of sugar cubes in various unhealthy food: http://www.sugarstacks.com/
According to that information you can drink a half can of coke (most left one in the picture in the link) to satisfy that daily need. That implies that all other food you eat that day will not include any sugar! That is an impossible standard to reach. Solution, don't drink drinks with sugar.
http://www.nhs.uk/change4life/Pages/change-for-life.aspx
Absorption is a big piece... fruit smoothies are much easier to absorb, for example than whole fruit, which contains fiber which inhibits absorption.
For the most part, if you don't get more than half your calories from any macro source (carb, protein, fat, alcohol), and have some variety to your diet, once you get enough protein to support your body, calories are calories. Some people have medical conditions that mean they should limit some sources... but that's the exception.
The issue is that people don't pay attention to these things.. or consider the calories of drinks and snacks in their daily input... if most people wrote down everything they consumed for a week, calculated the macros, and tracked their weight a couple times a day, it would be eye opening. I tend to reach for water more often than not (2-3 liters or so a day) and about 1 liters of other beverages a day.
The interesting thing about this sort of guideline is how quickly you exceed it with fruit. The most popular fruits are all packed with sugar: an apple has ~10 grams; a banana, ~12 grams; an orange, ~9 grams.
A banana is about 105 kCal, 14g of sugars, 13g of complex carbs, and not much else[1]. My daily caloric budget is 19 bananas. I need 90g+ of protein a day, and I need some oil for cooking, so the discretionary budget is about a half. If I eat normally and budget the calories well, I will have about two bananas' worth of snacks which I can eat outside of my three main meals. That's the extent of my freedom. A banana is a big deal.
On the other hand, if I hypothetically only had bananas in my pantry, I would need to eat 19 of them to hit my calories (more if I didn't want to lose weight). That's not fun. It's hard work after the first five or six! In a less hypothetical situation of protein and fiber intake, I would need 400g+ of chicken breast meat and 1kg+ of kale (each being a good source of one and the other respectively). My stomach is turning just thinking that, and I really had to learn to balance my diet on many different foodstuffs.
In isolation, it can be crazy how much or how little of particular nutrient a food contains.
[1] http://www.fatsecret.co.uk/Diary.aspx?pa=fjrd&eid=2165694177...
It's probably important to note that it's not only "flavored" drinks, milk has quite a bit of sugar in it naturally, the "special" milk which is used by some coffee places has about 9% fat and 2-3% carbohydrates which makes it worse than coke on it's own, normal whole/semi-skimmed/skimmed(skimmed usually have higher amounts of sugar to make it not taste like well the water it is) milk has about 5g per 100g of sugar which is more than half the sugar content in coke, so when you add even a "bit" of sugar to a milk based drink you get well more sugar than what coke has for the same volume.
It's also probably worth noting that a Starbucks "Venti" size is more than double the the volume of a coke can to begin with so about 680ml (espresso shot which is used as the base is only about 30ml) of milk + couple of sugar spoons to make it sweet can easily get to 2-3 times the amount of sugar in coke without even having to go overboard with crap like whipped cream and syrups.
> It's probably important to note that it's not only "flavored" drinks, milk has quite a bit of sugar in it naturally,
True, but is milk the sole responsible for the high sugar content in a latte?
> the "special" milk which is used by some coffee places has about 9% fat and 2-3% carbohydrates which makes it worse than coke on it's own,
Well, if "special" means "processed", then this again proves the point of the article. No matter where or how the sugar is added, these drinks have quite a lot of it.
> skimmed usually have higher amounts of sugar to make it not taste like well the water it is
Confirms the point above.
> It's also probably worth noting that a Starbucks "Venti" size is more than double the the volume of a coke can to begin with so about 680ml (espresso shot which is used as the base is only about 30ml) of milk + couple of sugar spoons to make it sweet can easily get to 2-3 times the amount of sugar in coke
Perhaps not for the same volume. Many fast food chains sell sodas in cups that are 2-3 times the volume of a 33cl can.
> without even having to go overboard with crap like whipped cream and syrups.
Again, consistent with the article's point. The numbers are there, and they seem to be higher than the recommended daily amount of sugar intake.
A glass of milk has more sugar than it than a can of coke, and more fat also.
>the "special" milk which is used by some coffee places has about 9% fat and 2-3% carbohydrates which makes it worse than coke on it's own,
Not necessarily different breeds of cow have different amount of butterfat and sugar in their milk, the milk that you get in the store has for the most part been sifted for quite a bit of the goodies in order to make cream, cheese and other dairy products you are almost sold leftovers especially if you say buy skimmed milk.
>Confirms the point above. No it doesn't skimmed milk will either have less sugar removed from it than whole milk, or the cow breeds that will be used are those which produce sweeter milk naturally
>Perhaps not for the same volume. Many fast food chains sell sodas in cups that are 2-3 times the volume of a 33cl can.
The article compared it to a can of coke which is 33cl not to some bucket you can buy at your local big belly burger joint.
>Again, consistent with the article's point. The numbers are there, and they seem to be higher than the recommended daily amount of sugar intake.
The article point was look Starbucks is worse than soda so you might as well drink coke instead.
I don't think any one thought that drinking a liter of milk is "healthy" or a good way to blow about half your caloric budget, if they did they need to be educated about nutrition in general not thought to stay away from Starbucks the local artisan latte that is served in what else would be considered soup mugs is just as bad at the end of the day doesn't matter if it has 2 teaspoons less of sugar than Starbucks. Want to know what has even more sugar? that "sugar free" smoothie or freshly squeezed juice as it has over 2 times the amount of sugar as most soda per unit of volume as easily 4-5 times more sugar per serving. Heck a decent sized apple or an orange have more sugar than a can of coke should we stop eating apples?
Could you please go look this up? When I check at https://www.google.com/search?q=milk+nutrition I get a small glass of milk having ~1/3 the sugar of a can of coke.
An equal volume of that milk would have ~1/2 the sugar of a can of coke.
Of course the lack of fat in Coke makes that part true, any milk fat will be more than the fat in the soda.
12 fluid ounces of coke (a 'can') has 39 grams of sugar.
The 600 ml has less sugar than a can of coke too. Lots more calories though.
5g of sugar and 1g of fat in 100ml of milk, 9g of sugar in a glass of coke. Fat is not metabolized by the body in the same way as sugar, so putting fat together with sugar is a bit misleading.
Not necessarily different breeds of cow have different amount of butterfat and sugar in their milk, the milk that you get in the store has for the most part been sifted for quite a bit of the goodies in order to make cream, cheese and other dairy products you are almost sold leftovers especially if you say buy skimmed milk.
But several type of processed milk have ranges of fat and sugar percentage that determine their classification, so the fact that these amount vary (by how much, anyway?) can only be measured against said classification.
No it doesn't skimmed milk will either have less sugar removed from it than whole milk, or the cow breeds that will be used are those which produce sweeter milk naturally
It confirms that in order to make the beverage more drinkable there might be more sugar added. Again, the article reports on the total sugar intake.
The article compared it to a can of coke which is 33cl not to some bucket you can buy at your local big belly burger joint.
The point was that the proportion would make it for the amount of sugar in a mid-size bucket, which is also not considered healthy.
The article point was look Starbucks is worse than soda so you might as well drink coke instead.
I don't find "drink coke instead" anywhere in the article. Not in the title (which is different from what posted on HN) and not in the article. Coke is used for comparison purposes.
I don't think any one thought that drinking a liter of milk is "healthy" or a good way to blow about half your caloric budget, if they did they need to be educated about nutrition in general not thought to stay away from Starbucks the local artisan latte that is served in what else would be considered soup mugs is just as bad at the end of the day doesn't matter if it has 2 teaspoons less of sugar than Starbucks.
I consider this article useful in learning what fast-food restaurants are giving me in terms of sugar, so reading it was quite educational. There is of course much more material to be read.
Want to know what has even more sugar? that "sugar free" smoothie or freshly squeezed juice as it has over 2 times the amount of sugar as most soda per unit of volume as easily 4-5 times more sugar per serving. Heck a decent sized apple or an orange have more sugar than a can of coke should we stop eating apples?
Glass of coke: 9g of sugar
Glass of apple juice: 10g
Glass of orange juice: 8g
I just googled this up, your numbers seem a bit off. Also, apple and orange juice have more to offer (vitamins, magnesium, calcium, iron...) so no, we should not stop eating apples.
> I just googled this up, your numbers seem a bit off. Also, apple and orange juice have more to offer (vitamins, magnesium, calcium, iron...) so no, we should not stop eating apples.
We do need to remind / persuade people that fruit juices are not a healthy option, and that fruit juices aren't an alternative to just eating the fruit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence
For most mammals, including, for most of history, most humans outside of a few particular regions, milk is only "one of the most basic foods" for infants.
No - it's not that simple.
There is a significant different in how blood glucose levels are affected by eating an apple vs drinking apple juice (or indeed any other fruit).
Juice lacks the fibre that was in the fruit, along with some of the nutrients that were in the flesh and skin. Fibre slows absorption, so the GI of a piece of fruit is lower than that of fruit juice.
What?
I don't know what you are drinking, but milk is typically around 5% sugar; I wouldn't classify that as 'quite a bit'.
Additionally, all sugars are not made equal. Lactose has a much lower glycemic index (~45) compared to those of refined cane sugar (68) or glucose (100), meaning that it increases your blood sugar much more slowly.
I realise that GI is typically calculated for food; I'd stated the GI of lactose because the article was about sugar, and my intention was to compare different types of sugars - some are better for blood glucose levels than others. The GI of milk would be lower than that of pure lactose, at around 30.
Then I read the nutritional information and nearly fainted: https://www.cariboucoffee.com/menu-nutrition/beverage-food-d...
630 calories, 65g of sugar, 21g of saturated fat, 195mg of caffeine.
If you do the conversion where 4g of sugar = 1 teaspoon, then this drink has 16.25 teaspoons of sugar which is pretty close to the figures in the article.
Needless to say once I read how much sugar was in these drinks, I promptly stopped drinking them altogether.
I think you can probably work out from the description that its not going to be a healthy drink.
More recently there must be a lot of research going into how to pack 25 spoons of corn syrup into a drink and still make it drinkable, or even taste good. It is impressive purely from a food science / chemistry standpoint, no matter how unhealthy it may be.
And in Cuba where sugar is free, in most drinks there's almost as much sugar as there is espresso.
IOW, not really. But come on, these drinks are non-necessary items. Who cares? And besides, who looks at something with whipped cream and doesn't imagine it being sugar and calorie laden?
People drink stuff like this in ridiculous quantities, and then make it even worse by developing a daily habit. I also find it weird that you don’t often see people set aside “half” of their beverage to finish it later; rather, they sip and sip and sip until it’s gone. By that logic, simply reducing the size of the container that you order should let you drink “all” of it and still feel satisfied. (Or, pour some of it into a cup for immediate consumption, and put the rest away. Same with food.)
No, really?? Quick, revolt, share on Facebook and choke yourself on kale shakes for breakfast!
Welcome to America.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocuments...
How easy would it be to get around this division?
Since then I've been sticking to a medium coffee which is ~5 calories, and the caffeine is a total appetite killer. Win win.
Stick to black coffee or switch to tea if you want to reduce calorie counts. Most teas are under 10 calories which is fantastic.
Starbucks coffee has to be drowned in sugar and cream to mask the acrid acidity.
http://www.actiononsugar.org/News%20Centre/Surveys%20/2016/1...
For comparison, the recommendation from UK scientists is that no more than 5% of daily calories should come from added sugar (approx 7 teaspoons):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33551501
"Don't drink your calories"[1] is of course a wise maxim to live by.
Source: Starbucks is required by law to make available nutritional value of their drinks, and they do[2], just like any other food producer; use that data if you have problems with your diet.
[1] http://nutritioninmotionllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/d...
[2] http://globalassets.starbucks.com/assets/409e621c271444f8b63...