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

111–120 of 126 posts

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

#111

Post by rdancer »

talmand wrote: post #85
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 C…

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?

> 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!"

:-)

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

#112

Post by GordonS »

dogma1138 wrote: post #35
GordonS wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 di…

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.

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

#113

Post by GordonS »

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…

> 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.

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

#114

Post by teh_klev »

noondip wrote: post #93
teh_klev wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For example - most of the world's population is actually lactose intolerant.

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.

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

#115

Post by teh_klev »

anon4 wrote: post #102
noondip wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example - most of the world's population is actually lactose intolerant.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence

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

#116

Post by dragonwriter »

anon4 wrote: post #102
noondip wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example - most of the world's population is actually lactose intolerant.

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.

> 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.

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

#117

Post by alistairSH »

randycupertino wrote: post #105
alistairSH wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. How did you successfully cut down?

I cheated...

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.

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

#118

Post by stcredzero »

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…

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.

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

#119

Post by stcredzero »

navait wrote: post #47
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 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.

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

#120

Post by rdancer »

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…

> It's impossible to control the temperatures when they roast these large quantity of beans with much precision

You're trolling, right?

Post reply on HN