4 ms·

>I don’t eat breakfast...In fact, I’m rarely hungry until about lunchtime. So, other than a morning cup of coffee, I don’t eat much before noon. This is fairly

>I don’t eat breakfast...In fact, I’m rarely hungry until about lunchtime. So, other than a morning cup of coffee, I don’t eat much before noon. This is fairly amusing. First, coffee is a well known appetite suppressant. Second, unless coffee is black it is probably far from zero calories, with dairy and sugar maybe between 200-300 [empty] calories which would be in the ball park of bacon and an egg. Of course some starbucks drinks can easily be >600 calories so who knows, the author could be drinking a coffee every morning that is closer to the caloric equivalent of pancakes with syrup.

gutnor 10y ago
> This is fairly amusing. Or not. The effect of caffeine as an appetite suppressant is nowhere close to letting you skip a meal (that's what we are talking about when saying breakfast, not 5 corn flakes with a sip of milk). A lot of people take their tea/coffee without sugar and the calorie content of a table spoon of milk is negligible.
- will_brown 10y ago
  >The effect of caffeine as an appetite suppressant is nowhere close to letting you skip a meal I don't know what you mean by saying caffeine doesn't let someone skip a meal, no one is asking permission. Most can skip a meal with or without caffeine, but the caffeine would only help curb hunger pains in those few hours before lunch. I am not suggesting caffeine has some magical properties (though we all know it does). >A lot of people take their tea/coffee without sugar and the calorie content of a table spoon of milk is negligible. Ok lets use your example of how a lot of people take their tea/coffee. A Starbucks 16oz coffee with no sugar and just 2% milk still has over 100 calories (120), just shy of a 12oz coke (140). Clearly, whether or not that is negligible is sadly a matter of opinion more than science, because you say it is and I say its not. Consider this though, while sugar in coke is no doubt the larger health issue, you won't find to many people who say the amount of empty calories from a coke every day over a year is negligible (maybe just the Coke people themselves, but they will also say the sugar isn't an issue). Nevertheless, what you define as negligible calories is still more than an egg, still more than 2 pieces of bacon...and none of the nutritional value.
  - epimetheus 10y ago
    That's all milk though, and be sure you look at the unsweetened data. A 16oz, Ice Coffee (which is what I prefer so that's what I'm posting), is a mere 5 calories[0] - drip coffee with no sweetener or splenda or some other low/no calorie sweetener would be the same. [0] - http://www.starbucks.com/menu/drinks/iced-coffee/iced-coffee?foodZone=9999#size=106510&sweetened=0 http://www.starbucks.com/menu/drinks/iced-coffee/iced-coffee...
    - will_brown 10y ago
      I acknowledged that in my original post: >Second, unless coffee is black it is probably far from zero calories, with dairy and sugar maybe between 200-300 [empty] Notwithstanding the fact that you and I tend to drink coffee black, we likely are in the minority. The fact that starbucks beverages are over 200 calories at a ratio of 5:1 tend to support my assumptions about the demands of the market (based on a sample of 51 starbucks beverages). I think a lot of people took issue with my figures (200-300), but they are starbucks figures not mine. Still my point remains, even if an average coffee is 120 calories a number others have conceded who otherwise said I grossly exaggerated, I wouldn't consider that skipping breakfast insofar as one can have a very nutritious breakfast for that amount of calories (say 1 whole egg and 2-3 egg whites; even bacon and an egg).
  - gutnor 10y ago
    2% of 16oz of milk is a bit less than 10 ml of milk and that would only be 6 Calories even for the full-fat whole milk in sale here in Europe. Not sure how they manage to squeeze that amount of calories in their coffee but that is indeed some serious calories intake. People around me that take a breakfast take both a coffee and a breakfast. I wonder how much calories that would amount to at Starbuck, but I guess that would set me up for the whole day. edit: Just looked at the website. Indeed 120 calories for their 16oz Americano. The 2% you mentioned is 2% fat milk, i.e. skimmed here. Another reason not to go to Starbuck I guess.
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    > A Starbucks 16oz coffee with no sugar and just 2% milk still has over 100 calories (120), just shy of a 12oz coke (140). That is for a Cafe Misto, which is half-milk. Most people do not put nearly that much milk or cream in their coffee.
mynameisvlad 10y ago
You're grossly inflating those calorie numbers. A grande Starbucks cappuccino is 120 calories. Nonfat brings it down to 80. A grande dark roast at Starbucks is 5 calories, 1 tsp of sugar is 16 calories, and 1oz of milk is 12 calories. Unless you're drinking milk and sugar with a splash of coffee, you won't get anywhere near 200-300 calories. Even a peppermint mocha with whipped cream - pretty much one of the sweetest drinks you'll find at Starbucks - only has 440 calories, so you'd need to really add a lot of syrups to get to >600.
- will_brown 10y ago
  Honestly, I used starbucks website to get my numbers, so maybe they are grossly inflating those numbers. >Even a peppermint mocha with whipped cream - pretty much one of the sweetest drinks you'll find at Starbucks - only has 440 calories, so you'd need to really add a lot of syrups to get to >600. Example: Iced White Chocolate Mocha = 640 calories >A grande Starbucks cappuccino is 120 calories. I would say the 120 is fair for an average consumer on an average day and purposes of my point. I would still say that is a substantial amount of empty calories. Its really no different than having a 12 oz coke every morning from an empty calorie point of view. Again my main point is the calories from coffee didn't even enter the authors mind when even at 120 calories the coffee could easily replaced with a nutritious breakfast of say 1 whole egg and 2-3 egg whites (~120 calories). Edit: a Google Search of "Starbucks nutritional information" shows a menu of 51 drinks of those 40 go above 200 calories (most well exceed 300) and only 11 can't be made to order above 200.
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    > I would still say that is a substantial amount of empty calories. Its really no different than having a 12 oz coke every morning from an empty calorie point of view. So, in your opinion a glass of milk is empty calories, no different from a Coke?
    - will_brown 10y ago
      Unlike sugary starbucks drinks, I never said milk was no different than coke. Its not opinion, but by definition milk is not empty calories like sugary coffees and coke, because it contains nutritional value above food energy. But my opinion would be to avoid milk. Here is my quick analysis: 16 oz of milk is ~250 cal and ~25g of sugar, that is a lot of calories and sugar for the comparative nutritional value (minimal protein and vitamins). To put it in perspective that is 100% of the daily sugar intake suggested by the AHA yet only 1/3 the daily protein intake (for women). Again one would be much better off replacing that 250 calories in a glass of milk for a breakfast of say 3 egg omelette with spinach (~250) on a daily basis because they would get much better nutritional value and avoid an inevitable sugar surplus. Really this circles around to my original point, if people are consuming even 100 calories from coffee in the morning, they are not really skipping a meal, because a healthy breakfast could come in 100 calories...that is an egg and slice of bacon or one egg omelette with a green vegetable. So let me ask you if someone has a 120 calorie sugary coffee or 250 calorie glass of milk (100% daily sugar, 1/3 daily protein) in the morning, is that really the same as skipping a meal?

gutnor 10y ago

> This is fairly amusing. Or not. The effect of caffeine as an appetite suppressant is nowhere close to letting you skip a meal (that's what we are talking about when saying breakfast, not 5 corn flakes with a sip of milk). A lot of people take their tea/coffee without sugar and the calorie content of a table spoon of milk is negligible.

will_brown 10y ago
>The effect of caffeine as an appetite suppressant is nowhere close to letting you skip a meal I don't know what you mean by saying caffeine doesn't let someone skip a meal, no one is asking permission. Most can skip a meal with or without caffeine, but the caffeine would only help curb hunger pains in those few hours before lunch. I am not suggesting caffeine has some magical properties (though we all know it does). >A lot of people take their tea/coffee without sugar and the calorie content of a table spoon of milk is negligible. Ok lets use your example of how a lot of people take their tea/coffee. A Starbucks 16oz coffee with no sugar and just 2% milk still has over 100 calories (120), just shy of a 12oz coke (140). Clearly, whether or not that is negligible is sadly a matter of opinion more than science, because you say it is and I say its not. Consider this though, while sugar in coke is no doubt the larger health issue, you won't find to many people who say the amount of empty calories from a coke every day over a year is negligible (maybe just the Coke people themselves, but they will also say the sugar isn't an issue). Nevertheless, what you define as negligible calories is still more than an egg, still more than 2 pieces of bacon...and none of the nutritional value.
- epimetheus 10y ago
  That's all milk though, and be sure you look at the unsweetened data. A 16oz, Ice Coffee (which is what I prefer so that's what I'm posting), is a mere 5 calories[0] - drip coffee with no sweetener or splenda or some other low/no calorie sweetener would be the same. [0] - http://www.starbucks.com/menu/drinks/iced-coffee/iced-coffee?foodZone=9999#size=106510&sweetened=0 http://www.starbucks.com/menu/drinks/iced-coffee/iced-coffee...
  - will_brown 10y ago
    I acknowledged that in my original post: >Second, unless coffee is black it is probably far from zero calories, with dairy and sugar maybe between 200-300 [empty] Notwithstanding the fact that you and I tend to drink coffee black, we likely are in the minority. The fact that starbucks beverages are over 200 calories at a ratio of 5:1 tend to support my assumptions about the demands of the market (based on a sample of 51 starbucks beverages). I think a lot of people took issue with my figures (200-300), but they are starbucks figures not mine. Still my point remains, even if an average coffee is 120 calories a number others have conceded who otherwise said I grossly exaggerated, I wouldn't consider that skipping breakfast insofar as one can have a very nutritious breakfast for that amount of calories (say 1 whole egg and 2-3 egg whites; even bacon and an egg).
- gutnor 10y ago
  2% of 16oz of milk is a bit less than 10 ml of milk and that would only be 6 Calories even for the full-fat whole milk in sale here in Europe. Not sure how they manage to squeeze that amount of calories in their coffee but that is indeed some serious calories intake. People around me that take a breakfast take both a coffee and a breakfast. I wonder how much calories that would amount to at Starbuck, but I guess that would set me up for the whole day. edit: Just looked at the website. Indeed 120 calories for their 16oz Americano. The 2% you mentioned is 2% fat milk, i.e. skimmed here. Another reason not to go to Starbuck I guess.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  > A Starbucks 16oz coffee with no sugar and just 2% milk still has over 100 calories (120), just shy of a 12oz coke (140). That is for a Cafe Misto, which is half-milk. Most people do not put nearly that much milk or cream in their coffee.

mynameisvlad 10y ago

You're grossly inflating those calorie numbers. A grande Starbucks cappuccino is 120 calories. Nonfat brings it down to 80. A grande dark roast at Starbucks is 5 calories, 1 tsp of sugar is 16 calories, and 1oz of milk is 12 calories. Unless you're drinking milk and sugar with a splash of coffee, you won't get anywhere near 200-300 calories. Even a peppermint mocha with whipped cream - pretty much one of the sweetest drinks you'll find at Starbucks - only has 440 calories, so you'd need to really add a lot of syrups to get to >600.

will_brown 10y ago
Honestly, I used starbucks website to get my numbers, so maybe they are grossly inflating those numbers. >Even a peppermint mocha with whipped cream - pretty much one of the sweetest drinks you'll find at Starbucks - only has 440 calories, so you'd need to really add a lot of syrups to get to >600. Example: Iced White Chocolate Mocha = 640 calories >A grande Starbucks cappuccino is 120 calories. I would say the 120 is fair for an average consumer on an average day and purposes of my point. I would still say that is a substantial amount of empty calories. Its really no different than having a 12 oz coke every morning from an empty calorie point of view. Again my main point is the calories from coffee didn't even enter the authors mind when even at 120 calories the coffee could easily replaced with a nutritious breakfast of say 1 whole egg and 2-3 egg whites (~120 calories). Edit: a Google Search of "Starbucks nutritional information" shows a menu of 51 drinks of those 40 go above 200 calories (most well exceed 300) and only 11 can't be made to order above 200.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  > I would still say that is a substantial amount of empty calories. Its really no different than having a 12 oz coke every morning from an empty calorie point of view. So, in your opinion a glass of milk is empty calories, no different from a Coke?
  - will_brown 10y ago
    Unlike sugary starbucks drinks, I never said milk was no different than coke. Its not opinion, but by definition milk is not empty calories like sugary coffees and coke, because it contains nutritional value above food energy. But my opinion would be to avoid milk. Here is my quick analysis: 16 oz of milk is ~250 cal and ~25g of sugar, that is a lot of calories and sugar for the comparative nutritional value (minimal protein and vitamins). To put it in perspective that is 100% of the daily sugar intake suggested by the AHA yet only 1/3 the daily protein intake (for women). Again one would be much better off replacing that 250 calories in a glass of milk for a breakfast of say 3 egg omelette with spinach (~250) on a daily basis because they would get much better nutritional value and avoid an inevitable sugar surplus. Really this circles around to my original point, if people are consuming even 100 calories from coffee in the morning, they are not really skipping a meal, because a healthy breakfast could come in 100 calories...that is an egg and slice of bacon or one egg omelette with a green vegetable. So let me ask you if someone has a 120 calorie sugary coffee or 250 calorie glass of milk (100% daily sugar, 1/3 daily protein) in the morning, is that really the same as skipping a meal?