Gluttony Starbucks Style

A few days ago, the Curmudgeon's first Gluttony Award--given out to a company or individual that promotes obesity--went to Southland Corp. for its Big Gulp. (See post dated 4/4/06). Comments on the award were generally in the category of "that's so obvious."

So, this week's Gluttony goes to someone not quite so obvious: Starbucks.

"Starbucks?!" you say, incredulously, "what has it got to do with obesity?" And that, precisely, is the problem. Starbucks is a sneaky glutton. (Unlike 7-Eleven, I happen to like Starbucks, but people need to know what they're getting into.)

Think about it: before Starbucks, most folks had one or two eight ounce cups of coffee a day, with maybe a spoonful of sugar and a shot of cream or milk added to take the edge off. At most, those couple cups of Joe would add 50-80 or so calories to the diet, not enough to tilt the scales against an otherwise healthy eater.

Starbucks has changed all that. First, Starbucks abolished the eight ounce cup of coffee. The smallest drink offered by the coffee giant (apart from an espresso) is a "tall", which is 12 ounces. Most customers opt for the "grande" (16 ounce) or "venti" (20 ounce). (If you're really bold, you can ask for a "short" drink, which is 8 ounces; you won't see it anywhere on the menu or price list.)

So, you say, what's wrong with a larger coffee--there's no calories in coffee, and even with a bit more sugar and cream it can't be all that bad. True enough. The real problem at Starbucks is not the coffee; rather, it begins with milk, the main ingredient in all those lattes, cappuccinos, frappuccinos, mochas, etc. Most people don't think a typical latte or cappuccino has all that many calories, and it is those drinks that Starbucks has accustomed its clientele to.

What does a little steamed milk add to the equation? A lot! Let's say you're being good: you order a tall skim latte, i.e., a 12-ounce single espresso shot mixed with steamed non-fat milk, no sugar added. You're getting 123 calories. (See: http://www.shapefit.com/starbucks) Make it a grande and you're up to 161 calories, with 204 calories for a venti. (A nonfat cappucino isn't too bad: 80 calories for a tall; 118 for a venti; iced drinks aren't so bad either--all that ice replaces the calorie laden milk).

From there, it only goes up. Here are just a few examples: tall whole milk latte: 212 calories (venti--348); tall mocha with low fat (2%) milk: 302 calories; grande caramel frappucino: 350 calories; venti whole milk mocha: 508 calories.

Add to your "coffee" at Starbucks a little snack and you're off to the obesity races. Like everyone else who sells "snack" items, Starbucks has supersized everything--cookies, muffins, scones (who can eat those things, anyway?), croissants, cake slices. I hate taking my kids into a Starbucks because there is nothing reasonably sized for them to snack on.

(An editorial note here: Starbucks' coffee is pretty good, worth a premium; Starbucks' food sucks, pretty much across the board. One of my favorite Starbucks baristas, noting my sandwich bag from Subway one day, tried to get me to try the Starbucks sandwiches sitting in a refrigerated case where they'd been since early in the morning. I patiently explained to him that I'd no more buy a sandwich from Starbuck than I would coffee from Subway. I did try a Starbucks sandwich once and it was, as expected, pretty lame, like the rest of Starbucks' food.)

That little snack with your 200-400 calorie drink will add quite a punch: try the "lowfat" apricot blueberry muffin: 360 calories; plain croissant: 380 calories; chocolate chip cookie: 438 calories; carrot cake: 600 calories.

In short, that quick mid-morning "coffee break" at Starbucks can easily pack nearly the same number of calories as a regular meal. Starbucks, of course, makes no real pretense of selling anyone a true meal, so this is virtually all gratuitous calories, easily overlooked. Getting fat? Blame your coffee break.

Here's to Starbucks, Glutton of the Week.