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

Add a tablespoon of half-n-half, and that's +20 calories - 50 calories per cup, which means you're still 3+ cups before you equal a can of Coke.

It's all relative. If you have a couple of cups a day with reasonable quantities of things added, it's not particularly egregious on its own.

(Doesn't count milk, but in small amount the inc

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 probably be going to an independent shop for their drink.

I think Starbucks' coffee isn't terrible, but I definitely prefer to brew it myself or spend the same amount at a smaller cafe, preferably if they roast their own beans.

My personal theory, anyway.

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

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.)

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.

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.

My normal morning coffee is brewed at home using fresh, but mass-produced beans (usually one of Trader Joe's varieties).

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.

McDonalds:{12oz:"$1.00" 16oz:"$1.50" 20oz:"$1.80"}

Starbucks:{12oz="$1.75" 16oz:"$1.95" 20oz:"$2.25"}

If I want to enjoy the drink on-location I'll pick Starbucks every time. The ambiance is generally pretty okay. If I just need a quick brew and can grab it in a drive-thru then McDonalds will do just fine.

Could you please go look this up? When I check at 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.

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 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.

But several type of processed milk have ranges of fat and sugar percentage that determine their classification, so the fact that these amount vary (by how much, anyway?) can only be measured against said classification.

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

It confirms that in order to make the beverage more drinkable there might be more sugar added. Again, the article reports on the total sugar intake.

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.

The point was that the proportion would make it for the amount of sugar in a mid-size bucket, which is also not considered healthy.

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

I don't find "drink coke instead" anywhere in the article. Not in the title (which is different from what posted on HN) and not in the article. Coke is used for comparison purposes.

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.

I consider this article useful in learning what fast-food restaurants are giving me in terms of sugar, so reading it was quite educational. There is of course much more material to be read.

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?

Glass of coke: 9g of sugar

Glass of apple juice: 10g

Glass of orange juice: 8g

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.

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.

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.