Calories for coffee on menu, and caffeine content

Western Lowland Gorilla

First, of all I'd like to ask how do Costa Coffees lattes seemingly have alot less calories than other coffee chains??? (nutrional values for Costa, Starbucks and Insomnia are attached)

Second of all, it would be good if more coffee chains list caffeine content and calorie information.

As if you are trying to manage your weight and your sleep, these things matter!

maxwell smart

I clicked on the first attachment and realised it's too much work!

Those are usually indicative numbers. There is no way all Costa's use the same milk for example. Therefore no way the calorie count is the same.

Also caffeine levels are hard to measure. Plenty of things can effect the level of caffeine before it gets to your cup.

It depends at what point in the cycle they are taking the measurements

The high horse brigade

Someone conscious of calories isn't going to order a latte. Nor is having the calorie count displayed going to be the defining item in someone deciding not to have one. An Americano is going to be the strength of a double espresso. I don't see the point in this crap.

J_E

Honestly, cut the calorie counting and just eat sensibly, you'll never have to think about coffee affecting this.

Caffeine in a double shot can vary but caffeine can last up to 8-10 hours in system, if you really feel it's affecting your sleep badly don't drink caffeinated beverages after 3 in the afternoon.

A lot of the chains use ridiculous drink sizes so the bulk of it is coming from milk. Stop going to chains, you're spoiled with much better coffee elsewhere!

Western Lowland Gorilla

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Someone conscious of calories isn't going to order a latte. Nor is having the calorie count displayed going to be the defining item in someone deciding not to have one. An Americano is going to be the strength of a double espresso. I don't see the point in this crap.

In case you didn't notice the world has a weight problem. So this is the point of this crap as you put it.

Some people may also be inclined to take in too much caffeine, thereby reducing the duration and or quality of their sleep, which reduces energy levels throughout the day and increases appetite, making it more difficult to maintain a healthy weight. SO THIS IS THE POINT OF THIS CRAP.

My main point is that I find it interesting that the calories listed by other chains for a latte is literally 3 to 5 times higher than Costas listing.

Peregrinus

Western Lowland Gorilla wrote: »

First, of all I'd like to ask how do Costa Coffees lattes seemingly have alot less calories than other coffee chains??? (nutrional values for Costa, Starbucks and Insomnia are attached)

Obvious answer is that lattes may be of different sizes. Plus chains may have different policies as to what kinds of milk to use.

Western Lowland Gorilla wrote: »

Second of all, it would be good if more coffee chains list caffeine content and calorie information.

There is such a thing as too much information.

If you're calorie-counting (or, more generally, concerned to lose weight) drink black coffees - negligible calorie content.

Sure, you may prefer milky coffees. But coffee is an acquired taste - your coffee preferences are easily changed, if you are motivated to change them. And if you're not motivated to change your eating habits, frankly, your weight-loss endeavours are very unlikely to succeed. So either switch to black coffees, or drink many fewer coffees - whichever works best for you. If you won't or can't do either of these things, preferring to shop at chains whose lattes have fewer calaries is probably not going to acheive very much. And offering you calorie counts for each different kind of coffee served may give the impression that micro-managing your calorie intake in this way is going to do the trick. It won't.

As for caffeine content, mg of caffeine per drink is more detail than you require, and probably promises greater precision than can realistically be delivered. Is your drink made with one shot, two shots or three shots? If you know that, that really gives you all the information that is useful to you in monitoring your caffeine intake. if you want to put a figure on it, assume 75mg per shot. You won't be that far out.

Western Lowland Gorilla

Thanks guys I realise I'm overkilling it a bit but I do find it very interesting too.

I usually drink Americanos but the past week or so I've dabbled in lattes. I'll probably stop that.

Yeah and cutting out caffeine as early as possible definitely improves sleep I've found, as I do drink Tea also.

J_E

Coffee ain't going to make you fat. Unless you're guzzling several 16oz milk drinks with syrup every day.

Western Lowland Gorilla

J_E wrote: »

Coffee ain't going to make you fat. Unless you're guzzling several 16oz milk drinks with syrup every day.

A little bit over a long time adds up to alot.

So let's imagine on top of your daily maintenance food that you have ONE large latte from Starbucks with whole milk (NO syrup), at 298 kcals each, every day for a year thats 108,770 kcals for the year (298*365).

Divide by the figure of 3500 calories for a pound of fat and this gives you 31 pounds.

Obviously an extreme example but nonetheless..!

The most extreme example is having a daily Grande Oat White Chocolate Mocha on top of your food....

(465 calories x 365days) / 3500 kcals per pound = 48.6 pounds of fat i.e. 3.47 stone or 22kg over the course of a full year.

Anyway I'm rambling now.

Melodeon

Coffee on its own contains negligible calories.
Debasing it by using it as an ingredient of a coffee based dessert is where the calorie count ramps up.

J_E

Western Lowland Gorilla wrote: »

A little bit over a long time adds up to alot.

So let's imagine on top of your daily maintenance food that you have ONE large latte from Starbucks with whole milk (NO syrup), at 298 kcals each, every day for a year thats 108,770 kcals for the year (298*365).

Divide by the figure of 3500 calories for a pound of fat and this gives you 31 pounds.

that is 100% not how weight gain works and you are entirely forgetting calories your body naturally burns, without you doing anything at all. This train of thought makes me worried to be honest.

caviardreams

J_E wrote: »

that is 100% not how weight gain works and you are entirely forgetting calories your body naturally burns, without you doing anything at all. This train of thought makes me worried to be honest.

That's pretty much exactly how it works - the poster clearly stated their example was on the basis of it being above an individual's maintenance level i.e. in excess of their calorie level of equilibrium of calories in versus calories burned:

"imagine on top of your daily maintenance food that you have ONE large latte from Starbucks with whole milk (NO syrup), at 298 kcals each, every day"

A little extra every day over time can add up to significant weight gain imo.

Peregrinus

caviardreams wrote: »

That's pretty much exactly how it works - the poster clearly stated their example was on the basis of it being above an individual's maintenance level i.e. in excess of their calorie level of equilibrium of calories in versus calories burned:

"imagine on top of your daily maintenance food that you have ONE large latte from Starbucks with whole milk (NO syrup), at 298 kcals each, every day"

A little extra every day over time can add up to significant weight gain imo.

Except in real life that's not how it works. Uou're unlikely to start consuming an extra 300 kcal per day but make no other changes to your diet or exercise. If someone suddenly develops a tast for large lattes and has one daily, they're going to feel less hungry (or even more full) at other times of the day, and there likely will be some compensating calorie reduction elsewhere. It may not fully offset the 300 kcal from the latte, but it will at least partly offset it.

I recall reading about a study a couple of years back which aimed to test a popular (at the time) "diet tip" that drinking more milk would help you lose weight. For reasons already pointed out, the conventional wisdom is that drinking more milk would tend to cause weight gain, not weight loss. Various groups of test subjects were asked to consume milk in varying quantities and with various other diet or exercise rules, but one group was told to drink (I think) half a litre a day while eating as normal and making no change to their exercise habits. Contrary to expectation this group showed no weight gain (but also no weight loss). The answer was that, having been told to "eat as normal" was intererpreted to mean "eat as you please, eat when you feel like it", and they felt like reducing their calorie intake from other sources, because they were less hungry. So they were eating smaller portions, and/or snacking less, than they used to.