Hacker News Reader

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 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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

> 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.

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.

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 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.

(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.