Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

money.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 126 posts

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

#51

Post by Kluny »

Someone1234 wrote: post #42
stuaxo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

My personal theory, anyway.

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

#53

Post by messick »

Someone1234 wrote: post #42
stuaxo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

At least in Los Angeles, the prices for a medium sized coffee at Starbucks vs. McDonalds is: $2.25 tax included vs $1.29 tax not included.

So, the prices aren't as different as you think.

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

#54

Post by dragonwriter »

Someone1234 wrote: post #42
stuaxo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> 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.)

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

#55

Post by ferrisford »

Someone1234 wrote: post #42
stuaxo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

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

#56

Post by cvwright »

TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #28
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…

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…

> Yet for someone reason no one thumbs their nose at them.

You should come to Portland sometime. :)

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

#57

Post by fsociety »

Someone1234 wrote: post #42
stuaxo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 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.

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

#58

Post by pklausler »

cvwright wrote: post #56
TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Yet for someone reason no one thumbs their nose at them. You should come to Portland sometime. :)

For a visit.

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

#59

Post by gavazzy »

VLM wrote: post #21

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…

I mean, most of Central America figured out how to cover the bitterness of coffee 50 years ago -- supersaturate it with sugar.

And in Cuba where sugar is free, in most drinks there's almost as much sugar as there is espresso.

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

#60

Post by pizza234 »

TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #28
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…

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…

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.

Post reply on HN