Starbucks has 3x the sugar of a whole Coke in some drinks • Hacker News Board

Re: Starbucks has 3x the sugar of a whole Coke in some drinks

#31

Post by binarymax » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 5:13 PM UTC

switch007 wrote: post #27

S_A_P wrote: post #5

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.

According to Starbucks [1], their espresso 'solo' is 75 mg per shot and a 20 oz brewed coffee has 410 mg (not sure how because 410/75 = 5.46 shots) [1] https://news.starbucks.com/uploads/documents/nutrition.pdf

Maybe the 'solo' is ristretto and the 20oz is lungo?

Re: Starbucks has 3x the sugar of a whole Coke in some drinks

#32

Post by maxerickson » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 5:16 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #29

maxerickson wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A glass of milk has more sugar than it than a can of coke, and more fat also. 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 so…

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.

450 ml of milk would have 25 grams of sugar.

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.

Re: Starbucks has 3x the sugar of a whole Coke in some drinks

#33

Post by stuaxo » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 5:17 PM UTC

DarkTree wrote: post #2

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 coffe…

It helps to have coffee that is actually decent, which you don't get in Starbucks.

A lot of low quality food and drink seems way less satisfying, so people make it up with quantity.

Re: Starbucks has 3x the sugar of a whole Coke in some drinks

#34

Post by syntheticnature » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 5:17 PM UTC

DarkTree wrote: post #2

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 coffe…

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.

Re: Starbucks has 3x the sugar of a whole Coke in some drinks

#35

Post by dogma1138 » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 5:18 PM UTC

GordonS wrote: post #20

dogma1138 wrote: post #8

What a clickbate... 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…

> milk has quite a bit of sugar in it naturally 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.

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.

Re: Starbucks has 3x the sugar of a whole Coke in some drinks

#36

Post by merraksh » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 5:19 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #22

merraksh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sol…

>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…

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.

Re: Starbucks has 3x the sugar of a whole Coke in some drinks

#37

Post by ChrisArgyle » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 5:22 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #13

ChrisArgyle wrote: post #4

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. [1] https://news.starbucks.com/uploads/documents/nutrition.pdf Edit: incorrect quote

The picture says "18 teaspoons".

Updated, thanks

Re: Starbucks has 3x the sugar of a whole Coke in some drinks

#38

Post by makecheck » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

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.)

Re: Starbucks has 3x the sugar of a whole Coke in some drinks

#39

Post by teh_klev » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #22

merraksh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sol…

>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…

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.

Re: Starbucks has 3x the sugar of a whole Coke in some drinks

#40

Post by tracker1 » Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 5:49 PM UTC

makecheck wrote: post #38

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…

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.