STARBUCKS
it doesn't bother me now either. I'm not concerned about teens eating ice cream any more than I'm concerned that they might have an occasional frappucino or a 7-11 slurpee.
Maybe I'm a bad parent because my son used to go to Village Coffee and order vanilla lattes. Do you know how much sugar is in a vanilla latte, even if it's bought at a local mom and pop shop? A lot.
author said:
Interesting that you should note that such a condition exists in some of the deserts we are taking into our systems. That has never bothered you before you use it as a counter argument to my criticisms of Startrip?
It is a matter of degree. I have to think adding a shot of syrup to a cup of coffee adds less sugar than the tablespoons in Frapachinos, which gets it sugars from multiple sources.
But of course Starbucks is hardly alone. There is a major arms race between them and the likes of Dunkin and McDonalds to see who can put the most sugar into a drink.
ska said:
It is a matter of degree. I have to think adding a shot of syrup to a cup of coffee adds less sugar than the tablespoons in Frapachinos, which gets it sugars from multiple sources.
But of course Starbucks is hardly alone. There is a major arms race between them and the likes of Dunkin and McDonalds to see who can put the most sugar into a drink.
adding a shot of syrup basically turns a coffee drink into the equivalent of a sugared soft drink
One "pump" of syrup typically has about 4 grams of sugar, which is like putting in one sugar packet. A Grande Caramel Macchiato has 35 grams of sugar, almost 9 packets. This is where the ramping up of sugar content comes in.
a whole milk latte has calories from both fat and sugar and comes in at about the same caloric total as a soft drink.
but I'm not disputing that a frappucino has a lot of sugar. It's like drinking a milkshake.
But where's the outrage over milkshakes? Shouldn't we be consistent and not just bash one company? There's a BK over on Springfield Ave serving milkshakes to teens. Possibly some of them are ordering one nearly every day. There's are places in South Orange village serving milkshakes and ice cream to SOMS kids, possibly every day. Why isn't author going on about Coldstone or Carvel?
While some people may be getting a milk shake every day, most do not. But I know people who get a Caramel Macchiato every day, and some that get more than one a day.
these are adults? Who are able to read the calorie information that is posted right on the Starbucks menu board?
Our food economy, in general, is massively sugared up, including many things you don't think of as sweets such as salad dressing. Not understanding this Starbucks fixation other than as a stealth continuation of the Clarus thread naysaying.
ml1 said:
these are adults? Who are able to read the calorie information that is posted right on the Starbucks menu board?
I getcha. People should be aware. But largely they are in denial.
But I do not really want to make this about Starbucks. It is systematic. But Starbucks did provide the innovation to ramp up the sugar content in yet another area.
I do like a mocha frapachino. Probably have about one a month.
bub said:
Our food economy, in general, is massively sugared up, including many things you don't think of as sweets such as salad dressing. Not understanding this Starbucks fixation other than as a stealth continuation of the Clarus thread naysaying.
The interesting thing is that "low fat" versions of things like salad dressing invariably have more sugar than the standard version.
ml1 said:
ska said:
Actually Author has, after trying to throw everything at the wall to see if anything sticks, finally stumbled onto a valid point. While Starbucks started as a company dedicated to elevating coffee in America (yes really and to a large extent they have done so) most of their profit and growth these days comes from pushing high sugar items and they have become a big part of the problem of the massive over consumption of sugar. Many people are trading in their Cokes for a high sugar drink at Starbucks and are actually increasing their sugar consumption.
this is a legitimate issue to discuss. but my point is why just go after Starbucks? Every coffee shop in the U.S. serves some version of a mocha latte or a vanilla latte that is flavored with the same type of sugared syrup that Starbucks uses. If author cares about this issue so much, has he talked to Village Coffee about the mocha lattes they serve to teens?
it's just about bashing Starbucks because he's peeved that a new building went up next door to him.
Going after every coffee shop in America is just a bit much of a challenge at this point
But going after a particular chain that is so deleterious to the health of our little ones and has set up shop
right smack in the Village is fair game. Had they located at Leo's nails as they first wanted or managed to
buy out Village Coffee as was another one of their attempts, they would very much be a target for me.
Having said that, as I waited for a train in Starbucks South Orange and drank their Pike blend, I never once
saw groups of So. Orange middle school kids gathered. They found a rich vein to mine here. It continues
ml1 said:
a whole milk latte has calories from both fat and sugar and comes in at about the same caloric total as a soft drink.
but I'm not disputing that a frappucino has a lot of sugar. It's like drinking a milkshake.
But where's the outrage over milkshakes? Shouldn't we be consistent and not just bash one company? There's a BK over on Springfield Ave serving milkshakes to teens. Possibly some of them are ordering one nearly every day. There's are places in South Orange village serving milkshakes and ice cream to SOMS kids, possibly every day. Why isn't author going on about Coldstone or Carvel?
One battle at a time. I don't expect Starburst to change their formulations because of me. But any parents who read my poor writings and are influenced to tell their kids to avoid the sugary drinks...........that is my
goal. I have three grandsons, the thought of them drinking any of this stuff saddens me. Luckily their mom
has enough of a background in nutrition that she would never allow it. Their dad fancies himself a coffee
aficionado. He buys the beans, grinds them and then roasts them in his kitchen. Some day he will burn the
house down. But I have to admit he makes a fine tasting cup of coffee............without sugar.
author said:
The act of "stumbling" is a fine art confined to we zealots who are willing to take a shot at it and take our lumps at the same time. Going against the grain is never easy but sometimes necessary.
Personally, I don't take any lumps with my coffee. No shots, either.
I'm in favor of the grain, however. Make mine barley malt.
DaveSchmidt said:
author said:
The act of "stumbling" is a fine art confined to we zealots who are willing to take a shot at it and take our lumps at the same time. Going against the grain is never easy but sometimes necessary.
Personally, I don't take any lumps with my coffee. No shots, either.
I'm in favor of the grain, however. Make mine barley malt.
You might get carded.
author said:
DaveSchmidt said:You might get carded.
author said:Personally, I don't take any lumps with my coffee. No shots, either.
The act of "stumbling" is a fine art confined to we zealots who are willing to take a shot at it and take our lumps at the same time. Going against the grain is never easy but sometimes necessary.
I'm in favor of the grain, however. Make mine barley malt.
Never carded, and tossed out only when caught in the act of stumbling.
DaveSchmidt said:
author said:
DaveSchmidt said:You might get carded.
author said:Personally, I don't take any lumps with my coffee. No shots, either.
The act of "stumbling" is a fine art confined to we zealots who are willing to take a shot at it and take our lumps at the same time. Going against the grain is never easy but sometimes necessary.
I'm in favor of the grain, however. Make mine barley malt.
Never carded, and tossed out only when caught in the act of stumbling.
There is an art to it............I was never the big name player like some of my contempories but I studied under some of the best and learned more than a trick or two. I never wanted to be an accountant anyway.
bub said:
Our food economy, in general, is massively sugared up, including many things you don't think of as sweets such as salad dressing. Not understanding this Starbucks fixation other than as a stealth continuation of the Clarus thread naysaying.
this has been my point. There is a ton of sugar out there in all kinds of products. To single out Starbucks is absurd. Yes they have their milkshake-like drinks. But they also have a wide array of non-sugared items, unlike hamburger joints and ice cream shops that have mostly unhealthy choices.
and of course it's about the building more than it's about Starbucks.
ml1 said:
bub said:
Our food economy, in general, is massively sugared up, including many things you don't think of as sweets such as salad dressing. Not understanding this Starbucks fixation other than as a stealth continuation of the Clarus thread naysaying.
this has been my point. There is a ton of sugar out there in all kinds of products. To single out Starbucks is absurd. Yes they have their milkshake-like drinks. But they also have a wide array of non-sugared items, unlike hamburger joints and ice cream shops that have mostly unhealthy choices.
and of course it's about the building more than it's about Starbucks.
Whatever floats your boat.
author said:
I never wanted to be an accountant anyway.
That's surprising, for someone who's such a tea totaler.
author said:
ml1 said:
bub said:
Our food economy, in general, is massively sugared up, including many things you don't think of as sweets such as salad dressing. Not understanding this Starbucks fixation other than as a stealth continuation of the Clarus thread naysaying.
this has been my point. There is a ton of sugar out there in all kinds of products. To single out Starbucks is absurd. Yes they have their milkshake-like drinks. But they also have a wide array of non-sugared items, unlike hamburger joints and ice cream shops that have mostly unhealthy choices.
and of course it's about the building more than it's about Starbucks.
Whatever floats your boat.
seriously, man. where were you when they built a 7-11 right across the street from CHS? Do you ever look at all the unhealthy crap that place is serving to "our little ones" in lieu of a healthy lunch.
if you really gave a rat's *** about kids' health you wouldn't be going after a place that serves them a post-school snack. You'd be in an uproar about a place serving them microwave hot dogs, slurpees and energy drinks for a meal.
ml1 said:
author said:
ml1 said:
bub said:
Our food economy, in general, is massively sugared up, including many things you don't think of as sweets such as salad dressing. Not understanding this Starbucks fixation other than as a stealth continuation of the Clarus thread naysaying.
this has been my point. There is a ton of sugar out there in all kinds of products. To single out Starbucks is absurd. Yes they have their milkshake-like drinks. But they also have a wide array of non-sugared items, unlike hamburger joints and ice cream shops that have mostly unhealthy choices.
and of course it's about the building more than it's about Starbucks.
Whatever floats your boat.
seriously, man. where were you when they built a 7-11 right across the street from CHS? Do you ever look at all the unhealthy crap that place is serving to "our little ones" in lieu of a healthy lunch.
if you really gave a rat's *** about kids' health you wouldn't be going after a place that serves them a post-school snack. You'd be in an uproar about a place serving them microwave hot dogs, slurpees and energy drinks for a meal.
I fought the idea of the 7--11 along with other more immediate neighbors and parents. And lost.
Beyond that writing against the dregs served to high school kids would have little effect. They are on the edge of being young adults.......and there is a difference there between them and middle schoolers with
perennial sweet tooth's.
ml1 said:
author said:
ml1 said:
bub said:
Our food economy, in general, is massively sugared up, including many things you don't think of as sweets such as salad dressing. Not understanding this Starbucks fixation other than as a stealth continuation of the Clarus thread naysaying.
this has been my point. There is a ton of sugar out there in all kinds of products. To single out Starbucks is absurd. Yes they have their milkshake-like drinks. But they also have a wide array of non-sugared items, unlike hamburger joints and ice cream shops that have mostly unhealthy choices.
and of course it's about the building more than it's about Starbucks.
Whatever floats your boat.
seriously, man. where were you when they built a 7-11 right across the street from CHS? Do you ever look at all the unhealthy crap that place is serving to "our little ones" in lieu of a healthy lunch.
if you really gave a rat's *** about kids' health you wouldn't be going after a place that serves them a post-school snack. You'd be in an uproar about a place serving them microwave hot dogs, slurpees and energy drinks for a meal.
DaveSchmidt said:
author said:
I never wanted to be an accountant anyway.
That's surprising, for someone who's such a tea totaler.
"Do I contradict myself, very well then I contradict myself,
I am large I contain multitudes"
Walt Whitman
author said:
"Do I contradict myself, very well then I contradict myself,
I am large I contain multitudes"
Walt Whitman
And this Whitman sampler, presumably containing sugar-free multitudes, brings my interjections to a close. Whew.
There do seem to be healthier options for eating. In the village, Conscious Fork has opened and Sprouts is in development. BITE on Valley near CHS seems to have a healthy menu. These places don't seem to get a lot of attention, at least on the social media which I read. If people are going to spend all of there energies crying about Starbucks, or fawning over Wawa and Wegmans, or complaining how the towns are falling apart, it won't be surprising if those healthy local options go under before they build a following.
apple44 said:
There do seem to be healthier options for eating. In the village, Conscious Fork has opened and Sprouts is in development. BITE on Valley near CHS seems to have a healthy menu. These places don't seem to get a lot of attention, at least on the social media which I read. If people are going to spend all of there energies crying about Starbucks, or fawning over Wawa and Wegmans, or complaining how the towns are falling apart, it won't be surprising if those healthy local options go under before they build a following.
I am happy about the arrival of the various healthier alternative places. But I don't think my reminding the populace of the excessive amount of sugar in so many Star......products will impede their success. They will stand or fall on their own merits.
How about supporting them? Maybe you can report on how great and healthy these places are. Turn from negative to positive rants. Perhaps?
this is a legitimate issue to discuss. but my point is why just go after Starbucks? Every coffee shop in the U.S. serves some version of a mocha latte or a vanilla latte that is flavored with the same type of sugared syrup that Starbucks uses. If author cares about this issue so much, has he talked to Village Coffee about the mocha lattes they serve to teens?
it's just about bashing Starbucks because he's peeved that a new building went up next door to him.