9 ms·

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. Wh

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 11y ago
>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 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    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 11y ago
      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.
- merraksh 11y ago
  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.

dogma1138 11y ago

>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 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    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.
merraksh 11y ago
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.