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

61–70 of 126 posts

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

#61

Post by jimmaswell »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #10

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. 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 o…

No need to be dramatic, there will be no real consequences to having these once in a while. These look good actually. I'll try to get one now.

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

#62

Post by goodJobWalrus »

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…

> 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.

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

#64

Post by sp332 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #54
Someone1234 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 anythi…

McDonald's coffee improved drastically when they switched to Newman's Own.

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

#65

Post by jsprogrammer »

fsociety wrote: post #57
Someone1234 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

Surely Starbucks can afford an engineer to design and manufacture a roaster that can properly handle their volume?

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

#66

Post by seanmcdirmid »

mattdotc wrote: post #48
Someone1234 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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 p…

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.

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

#67

Post by kuschku »

ferrisford wrote: post #55
Someone1234 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tr…

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.

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

#68

Post by davidw »

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…

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.

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

#69

Post by alaskamiller »

fsociety wrote: post #57
Someone1234 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

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.

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

#70

Post by DanBC »

merraksh wrote: post #36
dogma1138 wrote: post #22

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. 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 mo…

(I agree with you posts)

> 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.

Post reply on HN