
Starbucks has 3x the sugar of a whole Coke in some drinks - obeone
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/17/news/companies/sugar-coffee-drinks/
======
DarkTree
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 coffee, it becomes a much more fun
experience to try different types of coffee, it's much healthier, and taste
much better to me (now).

~~~
TarpitCarnivore
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 one thumbs their nose at them.

~~~
davidw
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.

~~~
Rainymood
I once ordered a cappuccino after 11, I got something else instead (I believe
an espresso/americano?) and I was really confused as I thought the barista had
misheard me. Then someone explained it to me afterwards and I felt kind of
silly

~~~
talmand
Why is that something to feel silly about? I would think that if it is your
harmless custom it is rude for someone with a different custom to make
something negative out of it.

------
S_A_P
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.

~~~
switch007
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](https://news.starbucks.com/uploads/documents/nutrition.pdf)

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

------
asgfoi
How sad it is that the can of coke is used as a comparison. It almost makes it
look like a reasonable drink.

 _The World Health Organization has recently suggested cutting the recommended
sugar intake for adults in half, to about 25 grams, around 6 teaspoons, of
sugar for a normal weight adult a day._

Here is my favorite site that shows the amounts of sugar cubes in various
unhealthy food: [http://www.sugarstacks.com/](http://www.sugarstacks.com/)

According to that information you can drink a half can of coke (most left one
in the picture in the link) to satisfy that daily need. That implies that all
other food you eat that day will not include any sugar! That is an impossible
standard to reach. Solution, don't drink drinks with sugar.

~~~
tenpies
> The World Health Organization has recently suggested cutting the recommended
> sugar intake for adults in half, to about 25 grams, around 6 teaspoons, of
> sugar for a normal weight adult a day.

The interesting thing about this sort of guideline is how quickly you exceed
it with fruit. The most popular fruits are all packed with sugar: an apple has
~10 grams; a banana, ~12 grams; an orange, ~9 grams.

~~~
rdancer
Since I entered the workforce a few years ago, I have gone from underweight to
obese, and with no spontaneous trend-reversal in sight, I have recently
decided to consciously monitor my intake. Four weeks and two negative kilos
later, the most striking realization is precisely what you are saying, but
viewed from two different perspectives:

A banana is about 105 kCal, 14g of sugars, 13g of complex carbs, and not much
else[1]. My daily caloric budget is 19 bananas. I need 90g+ of protein a day,
and I need some oil for cooking, so the discretionary budget is about a half.
If I eat normally and budget the calories well, I will have about two bananas'
worth of snacks which I can eat outside of my three main meals. That's the
extent of my freedom. A banana is a big deal.

On the other hand, if I hypothetically only had bananas in my pantry, I
_would_ need to eat 19 of them to hit my calories (more if I didn't want to
lose weight). That's not fun. It's hard work after the first five or six! In a
less hypothetical situation of protein and fiber intake, I would need 400g+ of
chicken breast meat and 1kg+ of kale (each being a good source of one and the
other respectively). My stomach is turning just thinking that, and I really
had to learn to balance my diet on many different foodstuffs.

In isolation, it can be crazy how much or how little of particular nutrient a
food contains.

[1]
[http://www.fatsecret.co.uk/Diary.aspx?pa=fjrd&eid=2165694177...](http://www.fatsecret.co.uk/Diary.aspx?pa=fjrd&eid=2165694177&dt=16848)

------
VLM
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 purely from a food science / chemistry standpoint, no matter how
unhealthy it may be.

~~~
rdancer
To be honest, food science has been making people survive and thrive on
disgusting barely edible things since the first monkey threw a rat on fire.
"Here we have some rotting carcasses and roots, dried seeds, with more rotten
things for flavour. Let's have a feast!"

------
castratikron
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...](http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm)

~~~
infogulch
What exactly counts as "added sugar"? Would, say, juice count as "added
sugar"? What if it was juice concentrate? What if it had very little of its'
own flavor?

How easy would it be to get around this division?

------
makecheck
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.)

~~~
jkestner

      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.

~~~
montecarl
I see so many people who drink fruit juice because they think its healthy.
When I eat breakfast at hotels in Europe they often serve fruit juice and
coffee, but not water!

------
JustSomeNobody
> Starbucks said it has committed to reduce added sugar in its "indulgent
> drinks" by 25% by the end of 2020.

IOW, not really. But come on, these drinks are non-necessary items. Who cares?
And besides, who looks at something with whipped cream and doesn't imagine it
being sugar and calorie laden?

------
ChrisArgyle
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](https://news.starbucks.com/uploads/documents/nutrition.pdf)

Edit: incorrect quote

~~~
GrinningFool
Bloody hell - 5 tbsp of sugar in a single drink? How can you taste anything
beyond the sugar?

~~~
abrowne
You can't, that's the point.

------
at-fates-hands
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...](https://www.cariboucoffee.com/menu-nutrition/beverage-food-
detail?id=1475&type=drink)

630 calories, 65g of sugar, 21g of saturated fat, 195mg of caffeine.

If you do the conversion where 4g of sugar = 1 teaspoon, then this drink has
16.25 teaspoons of sugar which is pretty close to the figures in the article.

Needless to say once I read how much sugar was in these drinks, I promptly
stopped drinking them altogether.

~~~
feintruled
Wow. It certainly gives their "Life is short. Stay awake for it!" slogan a
rather dark twist!

------
ghouse
Yet here in the US we continue to think it's good public policy to subsidize
the production of sugar and corn syrup.

------
jonesb6
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 standard meal.

Since then I've been sticking to a medium coffee which is ~5 calories, and the
caffeine is a total appetite killer. Win win.

~~~
mynameisvlad
Really? You thought a Mocha would be insignificant? It's like 3 pumps of
chocolate syrup plus a bunch of whole or 2% milk. That's calorie heaven right
there.

Stick to black coffee or switch to tea if you want to reduce calorie counts.
Most teas are under 10 calories which is fantastic.

------
rorykoehler
I almost collapsed from drinking a white choc mocha from Starbucks about 5
years ago. Body went into full shock mode it was so sweet. Got dizzy,
headache, the lot.

------
rdancer
It doesn't matter which way the calories come in (unless your diet is
unhealthy). This concoction has about the same energy density as whole milk.

"Don't drink your calories"[1] is of course a wise maxim to live by.

Source: Starbucks is required by law to make available nutritional value of
their drinks, and they do[2], just like any other food producer; use that data
if you have problems with your diet.

[1] [http://nutritioninmotionllc.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/05/d...](http://nutritioninmotionllc.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/05/dont-drink-calories.jpg)

[2]
[http://globalassets.starbucks.com/assets/409e621c271444f8b63...](http://globalassets.starbucks.com/assets/409e621c271444f8b63474b4848ecb21.pdf)

------
chestnut-tree
Here's the link to the findings on the Action for Sugar website where you can
see the full list of drinks included in their survey:

[http://www.actiononsugar.org/News%20Centre/Surveys%20/2016/1...](http://www.actiononsugar.org/News%20Centre/Surveys%20/2016/170865.html)

For comparison, the recommendation from UK scientists is that no more than 5%
of daily calories should come from added sugar (approx 7 teaspoons):

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33551501](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33551501)

------
wodenokoto
I'm not saying starbucks drinks aren't sometimes overloaded with sugar, but
aren't large drinks at starbucks considerably larger than a can of coke?

------
Quanticles
You can dissolve up to 2 grams of sugar into every 1 gram of water, Starbucks
is just trying to help push the boundaries on that science.

~~~
awqrre
They are trying to solve planet warming by controlling population?

------
steanne
Why is this a surprise? They have nutrition information for all their products
on their website. Not news.

------
dogma1138
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 per 100g of sugar which is more than half the sugar content in
coke, so when you add even a "bit" of sugar to a milk based drink you get well
more sugar than what coke has for the same volume.

It's also probably worth noting that a Starbucks "Venti" size is more than
double the the volume of a coke can to begin with so about 680ml (espresso
shot which is used as the base is only about 30ml) of milk + couple of sugar
spoons to make it sweet can easily get to 2-3 times the amount of sugar in
coke without even having to go overboard with crap like whipped cream and
syrups.

~~~
merraksh
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 sole responsible for the high sugar content in a latte?

> 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,

Well, if "special" means "processed", then this again proves the point of the
article. No matter where or how the sugar is added, these drinks have quite a
lot of it.

> skimmed usually have higher amounts of sugar to make it not taste like well
> the water it is

Confirms the point above.

> It's also probably worth noting that a Starbucks "Venti" size is more than
> double the the volume of a coke can to begin with so about 680ml (espresso
> shot which is used as the base is only about 30ml) of milk + couple of sugar
> spoons to make it sweet can easily get to 2-3 times the amount of sugar in
> coke

Perhaps not for the same volume. Many fast food chains sell sodas in cups that
are 2-3 times the volume of a 33cl can.

> without even having to go overboard with crap like whipped cream and syrups.

Again, consistent with the article's point. The numbers are there, and they
seem to be higher than the recommended daily amount of sugar intake.

~~~
dogma1138
>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 9% fat and
2-3% carbohydrates which makes it worse than coke on it's own,

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.

>Confirms the point above. 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

>Perhaps not for the same volume. Many fast food chains sell sodas in cups
that are 2-3 times the volume of a 33cl can.

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.

>Again, consistent with the article's point. The numbers are there, and they
seem to be higher than the recommended daily amount of sugar intake.

The article point was look Starbucks is worse than soda so you might as well
drink coke instead.

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. 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?

~~~
maxerickson
_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](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 soda.

~~~
dogma1138
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.

~~~
maxerickson
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.

------
mrtron
Starbucks has 0% the sugar of a whole Coke in some drinks.

------
kazinator
To my taste buds, Nescafe Gold instant coffee blows Starbucks away.

Starbucks coffee _has_ to be drowned in sugar and cream to mask the acrid
acidity.

------
glossyscr
They tested the Venti size which is more like a bucket, click-baity header.

------
xiaoma
Starbucks wins on caffeine by a huge margin, too.

------
powera
I hate to be "That Guy", but how is this relevant to Hacker News? Is it just
because people who write code also drink coffee?

------
oliv__
'CNN discovers that Starbucks' "coffee" drinks have insane amounts of sugar in
them'

No, really?? Quick, revolt, share on Facebook and choke yourself on kale
shakes for breakfast!

Welcome to America.

------
TheOtherHobbes
It's maybe worth mentioning that Type 2 Diabetes - which is mostly avoidable -
can lead to blindness and lower limb amputation.

[http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Diabetes-
type2/Pages/Introducti...](http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Diabetes-
type2/Pages/Introduction.aspx)

When I feel like reaching for the sweets or over-sugared drinks I stop to
wonder if it's worth losing my legs or my eyesight.

~~~
Ntrails
I really dislike this line of shock tactics. You can drink a hot chocolate. or
a can of coke, or eat a chocolate bar every now and again with no real change
in your risk of diabetes - assuming you aren't already ticking the other risk
factors (genetic, overweight, etc).

Blanket calls for abstinence with threats of disease has not, typically, been
as effective as helping people make properly informed decisions.

