Black coffee? Pretty healthy, just water and caffeine. 0 calories. 0g sugar. 0g sodium.
A Starbucks "White Chocolate Mocha"? 530 calories, 320mg of sodium, 69g of sugar per 20 oz "Venti" serving. That's twice as many calories as a 20 oz Coke, with twice as much sodium, and higher sugar levels.
Nobody is defending soda here. Just pointing out, this good idea needs to be applied consistently or people will switch from "unhealthy" soda to "healthy" coffee drinks or "healthy" fruit juices both of which can have scary-high sugar too.
I like the "color code" system they have in Europe[0]. You buy a soda and it has a red warning on the sugar/salt levels.
The "soda tax" in Philly doesn't apply to Starbucks, there was some suggestion that it may of been purposefully excluded due to lobbying efforts though I haven't looked too deeply.
Exemptions like these make me pause, I can see the point of such a law (though I'm libertarian and not in favor) but when exemptions like that are made I find it hard to take seriously. If the state was concerned with sweetened beverages they would apply the same measures to all of them. Taxing or applying warning labels to soda alone strikes me as a classist move as if the lower classes are too dumb to read the nutrition information.
Most sources list it as 0 or 1 calories. Additionally considering that caffeine may increase your RMR ("Resting Metabolic Rate") by 3% or more[0][1], if you want to be "precise" it may be more accurate to say that black coffee contains negative calories.
So how precise do you need it to be? 0, 1, <5, or -1, -5 calories? Or is this just pedantic nitpicking?
This makes me think of premature optimization. There is such thing as energy homeostasis in biology. Most things about diet are going to be imprecise, and the target system is adapted to imprecision.
Just imagine the calories in a Double Ristretto Venti Half-Soy Nonfat Decaf Organic Chocolate Brownie Iced Vanilla Double-Shot Gingerbread Frappuccino Extra Hot With Foam Whipped Cream Upside Down Double Blended, One Sweet'N Low and One Nutrasweet, and Ice.
This is the longest possible order you could order at Starbucks. Once you have ordered this, you cannot order anything larger.
Black coffee? Pretty healthy, just water and caffeine. 0 calories. 0g sugar. 0g sodium.
A Starbucks "White Chocolate Mocha"? 530 calories, 320mg of sodium, 69g of sugar per 20 oz "Venti" serving. That's twice as many calories as a 20 oz Coke, with twice as much sodium, and higher sugar levels.
Nobody is defending soda here. Just pointing out, this good idea needs to be applied consistently or people will switch from "unhealthy" soda to "healthy" coffee drinks or "healthy" fruit juices both of which can have scary-high sugar too.
I like the "color code" system they have in Europe[0]. You buy a soda and it has a red warning on the sugar/salt levels.
[0] https://www.nutrition.org.uk/images/cache/537bf3c6516df64581...