3 ms·

> 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

> 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.