Calories...do they just make this stuff up?

[Borachio]

Add to that, I'm living in a culture that's not exactly known for our ability of chatting amongst strangers.

Sure. I appreciate that. My sister is always saying things to me like "What's the matter with you! Stop talking to all these people! You don't know them!"

I tell her I can't help it: that's it's this disease I have.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In theory sure, in practice I find it easier said than done (heh). Even though I'm not the least bit shy, I don't want to sound like a tard. "So, this floor sure is flat".

Going to try that one!

Follow with "People are so afraid to talk to strangers that it's always so hard to find something to say."

No apology needed for the derail as there is a pretty well developed answer to the Calorie thing already. On talking to strangers, the thing that made the difference for me was realizing that "Don't talk to strangers" is something my parents drilled into my head when I was five. It was no doubt a useful instruction...when I was five. Because a stranger could conceivably just tuck me under their arm and walk off with me...when I was five.

Like many "lessons learned" that one guides behavior long after it no longer applies, and when I applied "you are acting like a five year old here" to myself I stopped. It took about two months of actively chatting at strangers ten times a day, but I eliminated that programming pretty thoroughly.

 

[LucyDuke]

It's probably because the directions for a drink don't actually scale exactly.

For example a 12oz drink may have 2 pumps of syrup, to make a 16oz drink the same way you would need 2+2/3 pumps of syrup. But you can't have 2/3 a pump in your directions because an employee cannot reliably produce it. So instead they just say the 16oz drink has 3 pumps.

The sugary ingredients scale pretty cleanly.

It may have to do with rounding and with rather large legally allowed margins of error.

This is the right answer. It applies to caffeine content too.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It may have to do with rounding and with rather large legally allowed margins of error.

This is the right answer. It applies to caffeine content too.

Seems like the same rounding processes and errors would apply uniformly though. Let's use a specific example.

Caramel Frappachino vs Mocha Frappachino. These things only differ by a couple ingredients. The ingredients they have in common in the small should scale exactly the same to a large. The ingredients that differ should still scale the same to a large, so if two pumps of caramel is more Calories than two pumps of chocolate in a small then four pumps of caramel in a large should still be more than four pumps of chocolate in a large...and if the rounding process used in totaling up one is the same process used in totaling up the other there still shouldn't be any reversals.

I'm inclined to write this off as an inexplicable thing that doesn't matter, but I still think that it is inexplicable. Wherever those numbers come from, it is not from a consistent process of any kind.

 

[uppi]

Let me make an example (with numbers I just invented):

Coffee A and Coffee B have two additional ingredients, let us say milk and sugar, and for simplicity we assume that both ingredients have a food energy content of 4 kcal/g. Large A and large B have exactly the same amount of 41.6 g of these ingredients (when filled exactly to training by an average-strength Starbucks employee at 20 deg C and 1013 mbar air pressure).

Large A has 20.8 g of sugar and 20.8 g of milk. This gets rounded up to 21 g + 21 g = 42 g, which equals 168 kcal.
Large B has 20.3 g and 21.3 g of each. After rounding this becomes 20 g + 21 g = 41 g -> 164 kcal
We now say the small versions are exactly half of that:
Small A: 10.4 g + 10.4 g -> 10 g + 10 g = 20 g -> 80 kcal
Small B: 10.3 g + 10.65 g -> 10 g + 11g = 21 g -> 84 kcal

So you have large A > large B, but small A < small B, although they have exactly the same energy content and exactly the same rounding rule is applied.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Let me make an example (with numbers I just invented):

Coffee A and Coffee B have two additional ingredients, let us say milk and sugar, and for simplicity we assume that both ingredients have a food energy content of 4 kcal/g. Large A and large B have exactly the same amount of 41.6 g of these ingredients (when filled exactly to training by an average-strength Starbucks employee at 20 deg C and 1013 mbar air pressure).

Large A has 20.8 g of sugar and 20.8 g of milk. This gets rounded up to 21 g + 21 g = 42 g, which equals 168 kcal.
Large B has 20.3 g and 21.3 g of each. After rounding this becomes 20 g + 21 g = 41 g -> 164 kcal
We now say the small versions are exactly half of that:
Small A: 10.4 g + 10.4 g -> 10 g + 10 g = 20 g -> 80 kcal
Small B: 10.3 g + 10.65 g -> 10 g + 11g = 21 g -> 84 kcal

So you have large A > large B, but small A < small B, although they have exactly the same energy content and exactly the same rounding rule is applied.

This only works because you assigned the same Calorie density to both of the variable ingredients. If one or the other had a markedly higher caloric density the drink with that ingredient more heavily represented would always come out with the higher total, regardless of size.

So, the question becomes whether all the various additives have approximately the same Calorie density.

 

[uppi]

This only works because you assigned the same Calorie density to both of the variable ingredients. If one or the other had a markedly higher caloric density the drink with that ingredient more heavily represented would always come out with the higher total, regardless of size.

So, the question becomes whether all the various additives have approximately the same Calorie density.

If you plug in 1 kcal/g for milk and 5 kcal/g for sugar the effect is still there: 126>124 but 60<65. The difference is smaller, but it still reverses.

 

[civvver]

It's rounding. Check this out.

It's diet dew. A 20 oz serving has 10 calories. So it goes from:

8 fluid ounces = 0 calories
16 fluid ounces = 5 calories
20 fluid ounces = 10 calories


And it's not something that varies based on ingredients and recipes like a coffee made to order since it's the exact same product just more of it. It is rounding.

http://deesays.com/2012/11/diet-mt-dew-not-as-diet-as-you-think-who-knew.html

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If you plug in 1 kcal/g for milk and 5 kcal/g for sugar the effect is still there: 126>124 but 60<65. The difference is smaller, but it still reverses.

Hmmmm. I see how this is working. The rounding process you are using, being applied before the conversion from grams to calories, is making almost everything negligible in the final results. That could very well be the way they are doing it. Well done.

 

[The_J]

Any chance of getting a real example?
Would make things...er...not maybe easier, but we can narrow down the errors.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Any chance of getting a real example?
Would make things...er...not maybe easier, but we can narrow down the errors.

Maybe we could get two sets of recipes from Starbucks and the attendant totals from the menu board, but I don't know where we would get the Calorie data for the components.

 

[The_J]

Do they not have all that stuff online? (okay, I know, I'm too lazy to check :/ ).
And calories, should normally common enough to simply find them on the .net, I'd guess.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

It is rounding.

I more want to believe that once Diet Mountain Dew reaches a critical mass that it creates energy through very small scale fusion in the bottle.

This doesn't apply with smaller sizes of course, but as you add more Dew you get more energy.

 

[onejayhawk]

Starbucks is the first problem.

This is the sanest thing I read on this forum today.

J

 

[Borachio]

Is it? What's Starbucks like, then?

I've never been in one. I've walked past one or two. But I thought they were just ordinary coffee shops. Are they very much worse?

 

[warpus]

From what I've heard their coffee is overpriced and they don't have a small, medium, or large, but rather pretentious, grande pretentious, and uber pretentious.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They do insist on attaching sizes in...Italian I suppose...which is just f'ing silly. Price wise they don't seem out of the ordinary for the chain coffee house places. And they have wifi, which the homeless laptop user does appreciate, though most coffeehouse places do so that isn't a distinguishing feature. If there was any sort of local place near my gf's house I'd go there, but since there isn't Starbucks is the choice.

 

[onejayhawk]

Is it? What's Starbucks like, then?

I've never been in one. I've walked past one or two. But I thought they were just ordinary coffee shops. Are they very much worse?

"Thy state is the more gracious, for to know him is a vice."
Shakespeare - Hamlet

J

 

[Wolfbeckett]

They do insist on attaching sizes in...Italian I suppose...which is just f'ing silly.

Especially silly since Starbucks is mainly known for lattes, and the latte as we know it today is a thoroughly American invention. Ordering one in Italy gets you a glass of milk. It's just marketing designed to appeal to the sorts of pretentious hipsters that, not too long ago, were the primary customers of coffee houses. It's gone mainstream now so this isn't Starbucks' primary demographic anymore but they still hold on to the Old Ways.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Apparently the Starbucks sizes are as follows:

Short: 8 oz. The smallest size Starbucks offers, and not generally shown on the menu. If you ask for a &#8220;small&#8221;, you will get a Tall, not a Short.

Tall: 12 oz. The &#8220;small&#8221; size.

Grande: 16 oz. This is the &#8220;medium&#8221; size. Pronounced &#8220;GRAHN-day&#8221;, more or less.

Venti: 20 oz. hot, 24 oz. cold. For some reason iced Venti cups hold four more ounces.

Trente: 30 oz cold. Only some drinks are available in this size, mostly variations on iced tea.



Short and Tall are obviously English words, not Italian.
Grande means big in Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc.
Venti means the number 20 in Italian.
Trente means the number 30 in French.