4 ms·

> 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 abo

by 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.
  - will_brown 10y ago
    Iced coffee = 110 (with 2%, not whole milk or cream) http://www.starbucks.com/menu/drinks/brewed-coffee/iced-coffee-with-milk http://www.starbucks.com/menu/drinks/brewed-coffee/iced-coff... Notwithstanding the fact most people do not use half-milk, I think you can look at the fact the starbucks drinks are >200 calories at a rate of 5:1 as indicative of the market demands. Just look at their list of best beverages[1]: 1. 540 cal/16oz 2. 470 cal/16oz 3. 250 cal/16oz 4. 360 cal/16oz 5. 190 cal/16oz 6. 440 cal/16oz 7. 250 cal/16oz 8. 380 cal/16oz 9. 440 cal/16oz 10. 35 cal (1.5oz) [1]http://www.starbucksdrinks.com/best-starbucks-drinks-list http://www.starbucksdrinks.com/best-starbucks-drinks-list
    - vonmoltke 10y ago
      > Iced coffee = 110 (with 2%, not whole milk or cream) > http://www.starbucks.com/menu/drinks/brewed-coffee/iced-coffee-with-milk http://www.starbucks.com/menu/drinks/brewed-coffee/iced-coff... That drink is not just milk and coffee. It contains a flavored simple syrup and falls squarely in the realm of "coffee-flavored beverages". > Notwithstanding the fact most people do not use half-milk, I think you can look at the fact the starbucks drinks are >200 calories at a rate of 5:1 as indicative of the market demands. Honestly, the market demand is for coffee-flavored beverages, not for real coffee. Calling the majority of what Starbucks sells "coffee" is really pushing it. Conflating that shit with actual coffee, black or doctored, is ridiculous.
      - will_brown 10y ago
        >Conflating that shit with actual coffee, black or doctored, is ridiculous. Entirely my point...coffee can mean anything from zero calories black coffee to a 600+ calorie sugary sludge. Moreover, just because people claim they skip breakfast and only have coffee (such as the author), that does not mean they are consuming zero calorie black coffee. It shouldn't be controversial my asking if it is really skipping a breakfast if they are consuming a beverage that exceeds the calories found in a nutritious breakfast. I'm surprised my observation has resulted in down votes, then again I assume my comments about people - as you eloquently state - conflating that shit with actual coffee, probably hits very close to home for a lot of people, and no one likes hearing their habits are unhealthy.
- scotty79 10y ago
  > hunger pains Is that a real thing or just figurative speech? Only pain I ever got from hunger was headache.
  - will_brown 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_(motivational_state)#Hunger_pangs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_(motivational_state)#Hu... Pains is used interchangeably with pangs, but yes it is a real thing.

by gutnor 10y ago

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.
- will_brown 10y ago
  Iced coffee = 110 (with 2%, not whole milk or cream) http://www.starbucks.com/menu/drinks/brewed-coffee/iced-coffee-with-milk http://www.starbucks.com/menu/drinks/brewed-coffee/iced-coff... Notwithstanding the fact most people do not use half-milk, I think you can look at the fact the starbucks drinks are >200 calories at a rate of 5:1 as indicative of the market demands. Just look at their list of best beverages[1]: 1. 540 cal/16oz 2. 470 cal/16oz 3. 250 cal/16oz 4. 360 cal/16oz 5. 190 cal/16oz 6. 440 cal/16oz 7. 250 cal/16oz 8. 380 cal/16oz 9. 440 cal/16oz 10. 35 cal (1.5oz) [1]http://www.starbucksdrinks.com/best-starbucks-drinks-list http://www.starbucksdrinks.com/best-starbucks-drinks-list
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    > Iced coffee = 110 (with 2%, not whole milk or cream) > http://www.starbucks.com/menu/drinks/brewed-coffee/iced-coffee-with-milk http://www.starbucks.com/menu/drinks/brewed-coffee/iced-coff... That drink is not just milk and coffee. It contains a flavored simple syrup and falls squarely in the realm of "coffee-flavored beverages". > Notwithstanding the fact most people do not use half-milk, I think you can look at the fact the starbucks drinks are >200 calories at a rate of 5:1 as indicative of the market demands. Honestly, the market demand is for coffee-flavored beverages, not for real coffee. Calling the majority of what Starbucks sells "coffee" is really pushing it. Conflating that shit with actual coffee, black or doctored, is ridiculous.
    - will_brown 10y ago
      >Conflating that shit with actual coffee, black or doctored, is ridiculous. Entirely my point...coffee can mean anything from zero calories black coffee to a 600+ calorie sugary sludge. Moreover, just because people claim they skip breakfast and only have coffee (such as the author), that does not mean they are consuming zero calorie black coffee. It shouldn't be controversial my asking if it is really skipping a breakfast if they are consuming a beverage that exceeds the calories found in a nutritious breakfast. I'm surprised my observation has resulted in down votes, then again I assume my comments about people - as you eloquently state - conflating that shit with actual coffee, probably hits very close to home for a lot of people, and no one likes hearing their habits are unhealthy.
scotty79 10y ago
> hunger pains Is that a real thing or just figurative speech? Only pain I ever got from hunger was headache.
- will_brown 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_(motivational_state)#Hunger_pangs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_(motivational_state)#Hu... Pains is used interchangeably with pangs, but yes it is a real thing.