91–100 of 126 posts
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):
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 real problem is the rate of consumption. This is why fruit juice is about as bad for you as soda. It's like eating several oranges, without the fiber that would fill you up quickly.
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…
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.
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
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: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocuments...
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…
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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 sta…
Stick to black coffee or switch to tea if you want to reduce calorie counts. Most teas are under 10 calories which is fantastic.