| |
Main
Date: 03 Aug 2007 11:12:28
From:
Subject: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
Hello. After many years of going to Starbucks 7 times a week, I have
quit the habit ... cold turkey.
My wife and I were spending about $5 each time we went. That was just
for a coffee for me, and a tea or other drink for my wife.
The reason: We looked at out budget and were spending about $100+/
month at the darn place. Just NUTS.
I started a while ago when I did not roast my own as I do now. It was
a habit that I could not break ... until now.
I am now drinking even more home roast, but thats a good thing. But
believe it or not, I already have a caffeine withdrawal headache (from
the lack of Starbucks caffeine-laced coffee).
Like I ask, congratulate the wife and me. I think we've done good.
Len
=======================
http://www.CoffeeRoastersClub.com
my blog: http://coffeeroastersclub.caffeblog.com
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 11:22:41
From: TK
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, spamalert!
|
On Aug 9, 9:43 am, lockjaw <davebo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Posting thickly LACED with spam, using starbucks as an attention
> getter.
>
> Mr. "coffeeroastersclub.com" just now getting off of starbucks --
> what a laugh!!!
>
> tsk.
>
> d
Agreed. I currently drink about 40 oz a day of 1/2 caf SB vac pack
coffee I brew at home; = Decaf Verona + Sidamo caf right now for
example, and if on vacation I'll get a venti half calf of whatever
they are brewing, because it's convenient and consistent, and keeps
the headache at bay; but one of those mini cokes would be enough as
well to stop a headache, and I am very sensitive to caffeine. Five
days of withdrawal from one TALL coffee a day???! Sounds pretty
preposterous, unless you were adding extra shots! (Maybe you had West
Nile virus, that causes an excruciating headache in some people, LOL!)
I had MORE trouble with caffeine withdrawal when drinking my own home
roasts (I've been roasting since 1998, many different varietals,
emphasis on Indonesians and bold Africans) than with *$ coffee.
Caffeine will vary according to your extraction methods. If your water
temp is not 195 + degrees, you are not getting proper extraction, not
in either flavor or other elements, including caffeine, whether you
are using a press, an ibrik, or a standard drip brewer. A home roaster
should know that. I use a Technivorm, one of 2 or 3 home brewers that
consistently brews at the proper temperature for extraction. I had
several others that I tested, one was as low as 165 degrees! Try to
get either proper flavor or caffeine out of that...
I like neighborhood coffee houses as well, I dislike the *$ on every
corner philosophy, but at least they keep their milk pitchers clean,
the milk cold and fresh, wipe their steam wands immediately, and even
the decaf is usually fresh and not sitting for more than an hour tops.
I used to work as a barista there years ago, we had to dump a whole
pot of decaf even if only one cup was sold, after an hour. (Even then
if it is on the last five minutes, the crew will usually offer you the
chance to wait a few minutes for fresh brewed.) Milk in a pitcher can
only be added to and resteamed once, then the pitcher is washed. The
thermometer stays in, the milk has to stay at a certain temp, so
you're talking just over the course of a very few minutes, if not
immediately to service a run of milk based drinks. So I'd say that the
quality control makes for a safer beverage at minimum, something to
think about over a standard issue coffee house, from my observations.
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 16:43:19
From: lockjaw
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, spamalert!
|
Posting thickly LACED with spam, using starbucks as an attention
getter.
Mr. "coffeeroastersclub.com" just now getting off of starbucks --
what a laugh!!!
tsk.
d
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 20:29:01
From: ( ) David De Cristoforo
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
> Hello. After many years of going to Starbucks 7 times a week, I have
> quit...
Good. Starbucks does not deserve to be called a "coffee house".
Regardless of how much caffeine the swill they serve contains. And
their arrival usually means the end of whatever local shops the
neighborhood they invade has to offer. The fewer people who do
business with them, the better.
DD
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 12:03:05
From:
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:12:28 -0700, admin@coffeeroastersclub.com
wrote:
>Hello. After many years of going to Starbucks 7 times a week, I have
>quit the habit ... cold turkey.
>
>My wife and I were spending about $5 each time we went. That was just
>for a coffee for me, and a tea or other drink for my wife.
>
>The reason: We looked at out budget and were spending about $100+/
>month at the darn place. Just NUTS.
>
>I started a while ago when I did not roast my own as I do now. It was
>a habit that I could not break ... until now.
>
>I am now drinking even more home roast, but thats a good thing. But
>believe it or not, I already have a caffeine withdrawal headache (from
>the lack of Starbucks caffeine-laced coffee).
>
>Like I ask, congratulate the wife and me. I think we've done good.
>
>Len
>
I agree. Congratulations!
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 19:01:55
From:
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
On Aug 6, 8:43 pm, Espressopithecus (Java Man)
<ri...@letterectomyTELUS.net > wrote:
> In article <1186273712.818912.126...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> ad...@coffeeroastersclub.com says...> Just a personal observation on my part here: I gave up my one tall
> > Starbucks House blend per day, and substituted my own roasts in its
> > place. I am having caffeine withdrawal symptoms, even with my own
> > roast substitution. I don't roast dark, so I know I am not blasting
> > all the caffeine out of my beans.
>
> Are you sure it isn't charcoal withdrawal symptoms?
>
> ;-)
>
> Java
LOL. That is a good one! Every coffee origin that Starbucks had
tasted the same to me. Of course they serve their coffee so damn hot
who can tell the difference. The only one that I actually enjoyed was
their Espresso blend, which every now and then they would do a drip
on. I got the House because it was ok also.
BTW, my dull caffeine withdrawal headaches are starting to diminish.
Only has taken 5 days.
Len
=================
http://www.CoffeeRoastersClub.com
my blog: http://coffeeroastersclub.caffeblog.com
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 13:55:02
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
On Aug 5, 11:06 am, "*alan*" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
> "Hefty reading"?! You're calling Flasherly's impressionistic stream of
> semi-consciousness and his total disregard of basic grammar "hefty reading"?
> You really read it all and you think you got his "point"? Damn, you're
> polite . . .
> --
> Alan
I don't see reason not to side with Starbucks drink being large, that
the coffee "experience" and a consequence of caffeine is also within a
valuation of successful promotion Starbucks largely markets. I'd also
expect 12, 16, or 24 oz. Starbucks milk drinks to be within a norm
value ceded, potentially at some higher magnitude of caffeine from
what a home espresso machine extracts. Mote points, perhaps, aside
trade information Starbucks isn't likely to release for methods they
employ, obviously in order duplicated for ready means from an
inconclusive set of variables given. I simply wouldn't rule out,
across greater averages, that patrons of Starbucks are more likely to
imbibe more caffeine as part of a premium marketed coffee experience.
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 13:07:35
From:
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
On Aug 5, 11:06 am, "*alan*" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> <ad...@coffeeroastersclub.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1186284083.970370.225680@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 10:15 pm, Flasherly <gjerr...@ij.net> wrote:
> >> On Aug 3, 5:44 pm, ad...@coffeeroastersclub.com wrote:
>
> >> > On Aug 3, 3:45 pm, "daveb" <davebo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > "Starbucks caffeine-laced coffee"
>
> >> > > I thought ALL coffee was "caffeine-laced" unless it has been
> >> > > decaf-ed!!??
>
> >> > My thoughts were along the line of indicating an overabundance of the
> >> > stuff.
>
> >> > Len
>
> >> > =========================http://www.CoffeeRoastersClub.com
> >> > my blog: http://coffeeroastersclub.caffeblog.com
>
> >> Could be a change in lifestyle was indicated. If Starbucks coffee is
> >> affecting a closed-in, expectant feeling, precipitous nervousness or
> >> insularity, it's probably in part an ambiance of transference within
> >> social mechanism, rather than a specific inculcation expressive of a
> >> caffeine-induced consequence. I quit coffee cold turkey and switched
> >> to tea, in retaining the same surroundings, years ago. At least for
> >> awhile. Although the establishment became an eventuality deemed
> >> inappropriate, in all likelihood an inconsequential event apart from
> >> any quality its beverage impressed.
>
> >> Always a social event, coffee was never a household consideration
> >> until lately, a greater part of an espresso experience, inclusive of
> >> requisite equipment and staples, so to distinguish that end. Similar
> >> to forgoing fine-tasting spirits, in alcohol bars and social leeway
> >> now given over to intolerance, notably after and while driving, wheres
> >> there's a certain parameters to a stigma best noted through
> >> association in proximity.
>
> >> The morning rush aside and in passing fare through a McDonalds is
> >> perhaps a fitting example of worth derived. Very little when seen for
> >> a pit-stop of commuting workers, for in so much what preoccupies
> >> souls, in as little more than means to a convenience solely derived
> >> from a modicum of cleanliness provided bathroom facilities, whence to
> >> evacuate their bowels.
>
> >> Ostensibly the social event, nevertheless, wholly in congregates for
> >> functionary phenomena channeled within behaviorism.
>
> >> Of late, among the Dogs of the DOW, there exists a growing headwind of
> >> scowls facing the top ninety-percent allocated national wealth assets,
> >> respectively among a five- to ten-percent representative, for whom,
> >> trading concerns most conspicuously appertain. Among pressing
> >> decisions they immediately face, from indiscreet hedge fund interests
> >> in volatility, real estate adversely impressed, are now whether
> >> consumer discretionary practises will, in some sense, be an upsetting
> >> factor in a continuum of capital reserves allocated future measure.
>
> >> Your decision to withdraw one-hundred-dollar weekly stipends from
> >> Starbucks' profitabilty reports is, precisely, an extensible
> >> contingency of such immediacy, although opposing a saving grace the
> >> FED continues to argue;-- of course, any negative sentiment spending
> >> evinces will be amplified, to be no less likely exemplified across
> >> farther economic measures of decline, a likes of which haven't been
> >> seen nigh five years. Nevertheless interesting, indeed, what might
> >> consumer discretionary spending indices and FED moments confer a sense
> >> of closure, both being near at hand.
>
> > Did you think of that yourself, or did you copy it from the back cover
> > of Mercks Medical Dictionary?
>
> Of course he thought of it himself --- who else in their right mind would
> claim responsibility for that drivel?
> (If the Merck Manual had been written in Flasherly's "style", it would have
> never made it past the first edition).
>
>
>
> > Thats some hefty reading. I did read it all, mind you, and I do get
> > your point. Just maybe a little "BANG .... ZOOM" every once in a
> > while and it would make it a little breezier read.
>
> "Hefty reading"?! You're calling Flasherly's impressionistic stream of
> semi-consciousness and his total disregard of basic grammar "hefty reading"?
> You really read it all and you think you got his "point"? Damn, you're
> polite . . .
> --
> Alan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
When you are in the midst of caffeine withdrawal, reading such a
congested message as Flashery's would be considered hefty.
Someone tell me my headache and over-tiredness is not caused by sudden
withdrawal of the over-caffeinated Starbucks House Blend. And, being
a bit sarcastic, of course such over-caffeination is done with regular
beans, no robusta. Just a little magical tinkle on the beans from the
Siren.
Len
===================
http://www.CoffeeRoastersClub.com
my blog: http://coffeeroastersclub.caffeblog.com
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 10:27:48
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
On Aug 4, 11:21 pm, ad...@coffeeroastersclub.com wrote:
>
> Did you think of that yourself, or did you copy it from the back cover
> of Mercks Medical Dictionary?
>
> Thats some hefty reading. I did read it all, mind you, and I do get
> your point. Just maybe a little "BANG .... ZOOM" every once in a
> while and it would make it a little breezier read.
>
> Len
Ruminating over what's in store on the playing field this week. Time
to take stock. Not especially a breezy subject, being I'm a
contestant not yet into cash or contrarian means. I'm betting against
market sentiments. Budgetary constraints needn't then be too
overriding a factor among the Starbucks crowd, and $5 beverages will
continue, as usual, to be in order. A manner of mortgage payments
belongs aside among less pressing considerations. Perhaps not along a
generous magnitude of $100 weekly provisions, but scaled back for some
forward contingency. Cold turkey is analogous to a continued downward
spiral into recessionary territory.
Bring on the dancing women, aye, let us drink and be merry.
Were I to frequent Starbucks, which I haven't, the going rate does
seem stiff. Not inordinately so, but what rates aren't as far as
general outings go. . . I'd pay it to be with people I like upon
occasions, and preclude the event from overriding care given to
composing beverages at home. Provided indeed I found Starbucks
agreeable. Their stock is down for the quarter, although I've read
Starbucks have added musicians for entertainment. Be no less a
challenge to drink a single cup of coffee as a single beer, rather
than four or five servings if the music were enjoyable. Can't say
I've spent $25 drinking, come to think of it, either, when I drank in
public, no matter how drunk I was.
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 20:21:23
From:
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
On Aug 4, 10:15 pm, Flasherly <gjerr...@ij.net > wrote:
> On Aug 3, 5:44 pm, ad...@coffeeroastersclub.com wrote:
>
> > On Aug 3, 3:45 pm, "daveb" <davebo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Starbucks caffeine-laced coffee"
>
> > > I thought ALL coffee was "caffeine-laced" unless it has been decaf-ed!!??
>
> > My thoughts were along the line of indicating an overabundance of the
> > stuff.
>
> > Len
>
> > =========================http://www.CoffeeRoastersClub.com
> > my blog: http://coffeeroastersclub.caffeblog.com
>
> Could be a change in lifestyle was indicated. If Starbucks coffee is
> affecting a closed-in, expectant feeling, precipitous nervousness or
> insularity, it's probably in part an ambiance of transference within
> social mechanism, rather than a specific inculcation expressive of a
> caffeine-induced consequence. I quit coffee cold turkey and switched
> to tea, in retaining the same surroundings, years ago. At least for
> awhile. Although the establishment became an eventuality deemed
> inappropriate, in all likelihood an inconsequential event apart from
> any quality its beverage impressed.
>
> Always a social event, coffee was never a household consideration
> until lately, a greater part of an espresso experience, inclusive of
> requisite equipment and staples, so to distinguish that end. Similar
> to forgoing fine-tasting spirits, in alcohol bars and social leeway
> now given over to intolerance, notably after and while driving, wheres
> there's a certain parameters to a stigma best noted through
> association in proximity.
>
> The morning rush aside and in passing fare through a McDonalds is
> perhaps a fitting example of worth derived. Very little when seen for
> a pit-stop of commuting workers, for in so much what preoccupies
> souls, in as little more than means to a convenience solely derived
> from a modicum of cleanliness provided bathroom facilities, whence to
> evacuate their bowels.
>
> Ostensibly the social event, nevertheless, wholly in congregates for
> functionary phenomena channeled within behaviorism.
>
> Of late, among the Dogs of the DOW, there exists a growing headwind of
> scowls facing the top ninety-percent allocated national wealth assets,
> respectively among a five- to ten-percent representative, for whom,
> trading concerns most conspicuously appertain. Among pressing
> decisions they immediately face, from indiscreet hedge fund interests
> in volatility, real estate adversely impressed, are now whether
> consumer discretionary practises will, in some sense, be an upsetting
> factor in a continuum of capital reserves allocated future measure.
>
> Your decision to withdraw one-hundred-dollar weekly stipends from
> Starbucks' profitabilty reports is, precisely, an extensible
> contingency of such immediacy, although opposing a saving grace the
> FED continues to argue;-- of course, any negative sentiment spending
> evinces will be amplified, to be no less likely exemplified across
> farther economic measures of decline, a likes of which haven't been
> seen nigh five years. Nevertheless interesting, indeed, what might
> consumer discretionary spending indices and FED moments confer a sense
> of closure, both being near at hand.
Did you think of that yourself, or did you copy it from the back cover
of Mercks Medical Dictionary?
Thats some hefty reading. I did read it all, mind you, and I do get
your point. Just maybe a little "BANG .... ZOOM" every once in a
while and it would make it a little breezier read.
Len
===============================
http://www.CoffeeRoastersClub.com
my blog: http://coffeeroastersclub.caffeblog.com
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 15:06:41
From: *alan*
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
<admin@coffeeroastersclub.com > wrote in message
news:1186284083.970370.225680@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 4, 10:15 pm, Flasherly <gjerr...@ij.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 3, 5:44 pm, ad...@coffeeroastersclub.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Aug 3, 3:45 pm, "daveb" <davebo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > "Starbucks caffeine-laced coffee"
>>
>> > > I thought ALL coffee was "caffeine-laced" unless it has been
>> > > decaf-ed!!??
>>
>> > My thoughts were along the line of indicating an overabundance of the
>> > stuff.
>>
>> > Len
>>
>> > =========================http://www.CoffeeRoastersClub.com
>> > my blog: http://coffeeroastersclub.caffeblog.com
>>
>> Could be a change in lifestyle was indicated. If Starbucks coffee is
>> affecting a closed-in, expectant feeling, precipitous nervousness or
>> insularity, it's probably in part an ambiance of transference within
>> social mechanism, rather than a specific inculcation expressive of a
>> caffeine-induced consequence. I quit coffee cold turkey and switched
>> to tea, in retaining the same surroundings, years ago. At least for
>> awhile. Although the establishment became an eventuality deemed
>> inappropriate, in all likelihood an inconsequential event apart from
>> any quality its beverage impressed.
>>
>> Always a social event, coffee was never a household consideration
>> until lately, a greater part of an espresso experience, inclusive of
>> requisite equipment and staples, so to distinguish that end. Similar
>> to forgoing fine-tasting spirits, in alcohol bars and social leeway
>> now given over to intolerance, notably after and while driving, wheres
>> there's a certain parameters to a stigma best noted through
>> association in proximity.
>>
>> The morning rush aside and in passing fare through a McDonalds is
>> perhaps a fitting example of worth derived. Very little when seen for
>> a pit-stop of commuting workers, for in so much what preoccupies
>> souls, in as little more than means to a convenience solely derived
>> from a modicum of cleanliness provided bathroom facilities, whence to
>> evacuate their bowels.
>>
>> Ostensibly the social event, nevertheless, wholly in congregates for
>> functionary phenomena channeled within behaviorism.
>>
>> Of late, among the Dogs of the DOW, there exists a growing headwind of
>> scowls facing the top ninety-percent allocated national wealth assets,
>> respectively among a five- to ten-percent representative, for whom,
>> trading concerns most conspicuously appertain. Among pressing
>> decisions they immediately face, from indiscreet hedge fund interests
>> in volatility, real estate adversely impressed, are now whether
>> consumer discretionary practises will, in some sense, be an upsetting
>> factor in a continuum of capital reserves allocated future measure.
>>
>> Your decision to withdraw one-hundred-dollar weekly stipends from
>> Starbucks' profitabilty reports is, precisely, an extensible
>> contingency of such immediacy, although opposing a saving grace the
>> FED continues to argue;-- of course, any negative sentiment spending
>> evinces will be amplified, to be no less likely exemplified across
>> farther economic measures of decline, a likes of which haven't been
>> seen nigh five years. Nevertheless interesting, indeed, what might
>> consumer discretionary spending indices and FED moments confer a sense
>> of closure, both being near at hand.
>
> Did you think of that yourself, or did you copy it from the back cover
> of Mercks Medical Dictionary?
Of course he thought of it himself --- who else in their right mind would
claim responsibility for that drivel?
(If the Merck Manual had been written in Flasherly's "style", it would have
never made it past the first edition).
>
> Thats some hefty reading. I did read it all, mind you, and I do get
> your point. Just maybe a little "BANG .... ZOOM" every once in a
> while and it would make it a little breezier read.
"Hefty reading"?! You're calling Flasherly's impressionistic stream of
semi-consciousness and his total disregard of basic grammar "hefty reading"?
You really read it all and you think you got his "point"? Damn, you're
polite . . .
--
Alan
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 20:12:24
From:
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
On Aug 4, 9:40 pm, "*alan*" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> > ========================
>
> That's an interesting observation, particularly since (I'm assuming) you're
> preparing the Starbucks House Blend exactly the same way you're preparing
> your own roast.
>
> Just to play devil's advocate, though, I'd say it'd be even more interesting
> if it were known which beans Starbucks was roasting and which beans you were
> roasting.
>
> If it can be shown that the beans Starbucks uses have consistently
> significantly higher caffeine content compared to other beans, it would also
> be interesting to find out if Starbucks had purchased those beans on the
> basis of high caffeine content or on some much more mundane and practical
> basis, such as cost.
>
> I'm certainly not ruling out a nefarious caffeine-addiction conspiracy being
> perpetrated by Starbucks --- there certainly is documented proof that the
> tobacco industry consciously and purposefully did the same with
> icotine --- I'm just saying that the actual proof has not yet been
> presented.
>
> The statistics that have been presented so far really prove nothing. A more
> meaningful comparison could be made if caffeine measurements were made from
> coffees all identically brewed and with the same coffee to water ratios.
> And, since method of delivery also needs to be taken into consideration, one
> should also compare the products sold for home-brewing to the coffee as
> actually brewed on-site by the retailers. A lot of variables . . . .
>
> --
> Alan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Remember the past tobacco industry issue of "naturally enhancing" the
nicotene content of their tobacco? It was not an urban legend, there
was actual proof of them doing such. Can't remember the complete
details, however, just the headline of it is stuck in my head.
In any rate, Starbucks House blend claims to be made from South
American coffees. They also claim that no robusta beans are used.
Also, the House Blend is roasted "mild", not dark. My beans
(Bolivian) are also roasted "mild". I am preparing my coffee as
either a Brikka (4 1/2 tablespoons of fine grounds), a French Press (3
tablespoons of fine grounds steeped 4 minutes), or an Aeropress (5
tablespoons of fine grounds).
All the above methods of mine still do not hold a candle to the
caffeine kick I used to get from a Starbucks House Blend (tall size,
with about 1 1/2 inches of room in the top for extra milk to cool the
f*cker down to drinkable temp).
Len
=======================
http://www.CoffeeRoastersClub.com
my blog: http://coffeeroastersclub.caffeblog.com
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 04:17:38
From: Coffee for Connoisseurs
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
>Remember the past tobacco industry issue of "naturally enhancing" the
>nicotene content of their tobacco?
It's still "urban legend" bullshit. No way SB's (or anyone else in the
industry, for that matter) would even be bothered adding extra caffeine,
when simple bean choice can do it for you. See
http://coffeefaq.com/site/node/23 . I will say that one of the few correctly
brewed drip coffees (i.e. not the usual weak swill) that I've ever had in
the USA was a Kenya AA from SB's, so perhaps, as a previous poster said,
they simply use more coffee of better grades.
--
Alan
alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au
www.coffeeco.com.au
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 19:15:11
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
On Aug 3, 5:44 pm, ad...@coffeeroastersclub.com wrote:
> On Aug 3, 3:45 pm, "daveb" <davebo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Starbucks caffeine-laced coffee"
>
> > I thought ALL coffee was "caffeine-laced" unless it has been decaf-ed!!??
>
> My thoughts were along the line of indicating an overabundance of the
> stuff.
>
> Len
>
> =========================http://www.CoffeeRoastersClub.com
> my blog: http://coffeeroastersclub.caffeblog.com
Could be a change in lifestyle was indicated. If Starbucks coffee is
affecting a closed-in, expectant feeling, precipitous nervousness or
insularity, it's probably in part an ambiance of transference within
social mechanism, rather than a specific inculcation expressive of a
caffeine-induced consequence. I quit coffee cold turkey and switched
to tea, in retaining the same surroundings, years ago. At least for
awhile. Although the establishment became an eventuality deemed
inappropriate, in all likelihood an inconsequential event apart from
any quality its beverage impressed.
Always a social event, coffee was never a household consideration
until lately, a greater part of an espresso experience, inclusive of
requisite equipment and staples, so to distinguish that end. Similar
to forgoing fine-tasting spirits, in alcohol bars and social leeway
now given over to intolerance, notably after and while driving, wheres
there's a certain parameters to a stigma best noted through
association in proximity.
The morning rush aside and in passing fare through a McDonalds is
perhaps a fitting example of worth derived. Very little when seen for
a pit-stop of commuting workers, for in so much what preoccupies
souls, in as little more than means to a convenience solely derived
from a modicum of cleanliness provided bathroom facilities, whence to
evacuate their bowels.
Ostensibly the social event, nevertheless, wholly in congregates for
functionary phenomena channeled within behaviorism.
Of late, among the Dogs of the DOW, there exists a growing headwind of
scowls facing the top ninety-percent allocated national wealth assets,
respectively among a five- to ten-percent representative, for whom,
trading concerns most conspicuously appertain. Among pressing
decisions they immediately face, from indiscreet hedge fund interests
in volatility, real estate adversely impressed, are now whether
consumer discretionary practises will, in some sense, be an upsetting
factor in a continuum of capital reserves allocated future measure.
Your decision to withdraw one-hundred-dollar weekly stipends from
Starbucks' profitabilty reports is, precisely, an extensible
contingency of such immediacy, although opposing a saving grace the
FED continues to argue;-- of course, any negative sentiment spending
evinces will be amplified, to be no less likely exemplified across
farther economic measures of decline, a likes of which haven't been
seen nigh five years. Nevertheless interesting, indeed, what might
consumer discretionary spending indices and FED moments confer a sense
of closure, both being near at hand.
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 17:28:32
From:
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
On Aug 4, 5:39 pm, "*alan*" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> "WindsorFox" <windsorfo...@SPAMcox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:r13ti.21019$lZ7.20915@newsfe20.lga...
>
>
>
>
>
> > ad...@coffeeroastersclub.com wrote:
>
> >> Following is an article on Starbucks VS. its addicts, which focuses on
> >> its main product that it sells. No, not coffee, but caffeine:
>
> >>http://www.slate.com/id/2107807/
>
> >> Len
>
> > My, my, that *is* interesting. To quote for those who didn't want to
> > wade:
> > "The Wall Street Journal earlier this year sent samples of coffee from
> > Starbucks, 7-Eleven, and Dunkin' Donuts to Central Analytical
> > Laboratories. The lab reported that a 16-ounce Starbucks house blend
> > coffee contained 223 milligrams of caffeine, compared with 174 and 141
> > milligrams in comparable amounts of Dunkin' Donuts and 7-Eleven coffee,
> > respectively. According to the Journal, the average Starbucks coffee drink
> > contains 320 milligrams of caffeine."
>
> > The chart referenced in the article was gone, but this has a nice
> > comparison http://www.guarana.com/cafchart.html showing extra strength
> > Vivarine and NoDoz with 200, apparently 120 less than a Starbuck's coffee.
> > w0w!
>
> > Here is one other that seem to back up the info...
> >http://www.energyfiend.com/the-caffeine-database/
>
> If by "backing up the info", you mean the statement that "the average
> Starbucks coffee drink contains 320 milligrams of caffeine", if you really
> take a good look at that chart
> (http://www.energyfiend.com/the-caffeine-database/), you'll see that it
> actually *contradicts* that statement. From info on that chart, you'll see
> that the "average Starbucks coffee drink", *excluding* the milk drinks,
> contains 241.75 mg caffeine. The "average Starbucks coffee drink",
> *including* the milk drinks (which really makes it more average) is 148.25.
> Of course, since "drink" size varies, comparing Starbucks drinks to
> non-Starbucks drinks is statistically meaningless anyway.
> The more significant measure would be mg of caffeine per fluid oz.
> But again, using your "caffeine database", it looks like there's no
> significant difference between Starbucks and (an admittedly undefined and
> generic) "coffee". Even filtering out all the Starbucks milk drinks,
> Starbucks caffeine content looks about the same.
>
> Take a look at the "caffeine database" info summarized and averaged which I
> just posted on alt.binaries.coffee to see what I mean.
>
> Also, comparing mg of caffeine per tablet of NoDoz to mg of caffeine per "a
> Starbucks coffee" is also pretty misleading.
>
> I'm not by any means placing myself in the position of apologist for
> Starbucks, but the "evidence" offered so far that Starbucks coffee is
> "higher in caffeine" (and that they may even be "lacing" their coffee with
> extra caffeine) is pretty slim.
> Sounds a bit like an "urban legend" to me . . . .
>
> As they say: "Statistics don't lie, but statisticians do".
>
> --
> Alan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Alan,
Just a personal observation on my part here: I gave up my one tall
Starbucks House blend per day, and substituted my own roasts in its
place. I am having caffeine withdrawal symptoms, even with my own
roast substitution. I don't roast dark, so I know I am not blasting
all the caffeine out of my beans.
Len
========================
http://www.CoffeeRoastersClub.com
my blog: http://coffeeroastersclub.caffeblog.com
|
| | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 00:43:53
From: Espressopithecus (Java Man)
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
In article <1186273712.818912.126930@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com >,
admin@coffeeroastersclub.com says...
> Just a personal observation on my part here: I gave up my one tall
> Starbucks House blend per day, and substituted my own roasts in its
> place. I am having caffeine withdrawal symptoms, even with my own
> roast substitution. I don't roast dark, so I know I am not blasting
> all the caffeine out of my beans.
>
Are you sure it isn't charcoal withdrawal symptoms?
;-)
Java
|
| | |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 18:40:05
From: *alan*
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
<admin@coffeeroastersclub.com > wrote in message
news:1186273712.818912.126930@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 4, 5:39 pm, "*alan*" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "WindsorFox" <windsorfo...@SPAMcox.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:r13ti.21019$lZ7.20915@newsfe20.lga...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > ad...@coffeeroastersclub.com wrote:
>>
>> >> Following is an article on Starbucks VS. its addicts, which focuses on
>> >> its main product that it sells. No, not coffee, but caffeine:
>>
>> >>http://www.slate.com/id/2107807/
>>
>> >> Len
>>
>> > My, my, that *is* interesting. To quote for those who didn't want to
>> > wade:
>> > "The Wall Street Journal earlier this year sent samples of coffee
>> > from
>> > Starbucks, 7-Eleven, and Dunkin' Donuts to Central Analytical
>> > Laboratories. The lab reported that a 16-ounce Starbucks house blend
>> > coffee contained 223 milligrams of caffeine, compared with 174 and 141
>> > milligrams in comparable amounts of Dunkin' Donuts and 7-Eleven coffee,
>> > respectively. According to the Journal, the average Starbucks coffee
>> > drink
>> > contains 320 milligrams of caffeine."
>>
>> > The chart referenced in the article was gone, but this has a nice
>> > comparison http://www.guarana.com/cafchart.html showing extra strength
>> > Vivarine and NoDoz with 200, apparently 120 less than a Starbuck's
>> > coffee.
>> > w0w!
>>
>> > Here is one other that seem to back up the info...
>> >http://www.energyfiend.com/the-caffeine-database/
>>
>> If by "backing up the info", you mean the statement that "the average
>> Starbucks coffee drink contains 320 milligrams of caffeine", if you
>> really
>> take a good look at that chart
>> (http://www.energyfiend.com/the-caffeine-database/), you'll see that it
>> actually *contradicts* that statement. From info on that chart, you'll
>> see
>> that the "average Starbucks coffee drink", *excluding* the milk drinks,
>> contains 241.75 mg caffeine. The "average Starbucks coffee drink",
>> *including* the milk drinks (which really makes it more average) is
>> 148.25.
>> Of course, since "drink" size varies, comparing Starbucks drinks to
>> non-Starbucks drinks is statistically meaningless anyway.
>> The more significant measure would be mg of caffeine per fluid oz.
>> But again, using your "caffeine database", it looks like there's no
>> significant difference between Starbucks and (an admittedly undefined and
>> generic) "coffee". Even filtering out all the Starbucks milk drinks,
>> Starbucks caffeine content looks about the same.
>>
>> Take a look at the "caffeine database" info summarized and averaged
>> which I
>> just posted on alt.binaries.coffee to see what I mean.
>>
>> Also, comparing mg of caffeine per tablet of NoDoz to mg of caffeine per
>> "a
>> Starbucks coffee" is also pretty misleading.
>>
>> I'm not by any means placing myself in the position of apologist for
>> Starbucks, but the "evidence" offered so far that Starbucks coffee is
>> "higher in caffeine" (and that they may even be "lacing" their coffee
>> with
>> extra caffeine) is pretty slim.
>> Sounds a bit like an "urban legend" to me . . . .
>>
>> As they say: "Statistics don't lie, but statisticians do".
>>
>> --
>> Alan- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Alan,
>
> Just a personal observation on my part here: I gave up my one tall
> Starbucks House blend per day, and substituted my own roasts in its
> place. I am having caffeine withdrawal symptoms, even with my own
> roast substitution. I don't roast dark, so I know I am not blasting
> all the caffeine out of my beans.
>
> Len
>
>
> ========================
That's an interesting observation, particularly since (I'm assuming) you're
preparing the Starbucks House Blend exactly the same way you're preparing
your own roast.
Just to play devil's advocate, though, I'd say it'd be even more interesting
if it were known which beans Starbucks was roasting and which beans you were
roasting.
If it can be shown that the beans Starbucks uses have consistently
significantly higher caffeine content compared to other beans, it would also
be interesting to find out if Starbucks had purchased those beans on the
basis of high caffeine content or on some much more mundane and practical
basis, such as cost.
I'm certainly not ruling out a nefarious caffeine-addiction conspiracy being
perpetrated by Starbucks --- there certainly is documented proof that the
tobacco industry consciously and purposefully did the same with
icotine --- I'm just saying that the actual proof has not yet been
presented.
The statistics that have been presented so far really prove nothing. A more
meaningful comparison could be made if caffeine measurements were made from
coffees all identically brewed and with the same coffee to water ratios.
And, since method of delivery also needs to be taken into consideration, one
should also compare the products sold for home-brewing to the coffee as
actually brewed on-site by the retailers. A lot of variables . . . .
--
Alan
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 19:28:44
From:
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
On Aug 3, 8:45 pm, WindsorFox <windsorfo...@SPAMcox.net > wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:12:28 -0700, ad...@coffeeroastersclub.com
> > wrote:
>
> >> ... Starbucks caffeine-laced coffee).
>
> > Are you saying you think Starbucks' has extra caffeine? Is this an
> > urban legend in the making?
>
> > Marshall
>
> Nothing on Snopes yet.... ;-P
>
> --
> "....a couple of belts of .50 BMG individually
> engraved "Unsubscribe" - Cadbury Moose
Following is an article on Starbucks VS. its addicts, which focuses on
its main product that it sells. No, not coffee, but caffeine:
http://www.slate.com/id/2107807/
Len
=======================
http://www.CoffeeRoastersClub.com
my blog: http://coffeeroastersclub.caffeblog.com
|
| | |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 12:52:15
From: WindsorFox
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
admin@coffeeroastersclub.com wrote:
> Following is an article on Starbucks VS. its addicts, which focuses on
> its main product that it sells. No, not coffee, but caffeine:
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2107807/
>
>
> Len
>
My, my, that *is* interesting. To quote for those who didn't want to
wade:
"The Wall Street Journal earlier this year sent samples of coffee
from Starbucks, 7-Eleven, and Dunkin' Donuts to Central Analytical
Laboratories. The lab reported that a 16-ounce Starbucks house blend
coffee contained 223 milligrams of caffeine, compared with 174 and 141
milligrams in comparable amounts of Dunkin' Donuts and 7-Eleven coffee,
respectively. According to the Journal, the average Starbucks coffee
drink contains 320 milligrams of caffeine."
The chart referenced in the article was gone, but this has a nice
comparison http://www.guarana.com/cafchart.html showing extra strength
Vivarine and NoDoz with 200, apparently 120 less than a Starbuck's
coffee. w0w!
Here is one other that seem to back up the info...
http://www.energyfiend.com/the-caffeine-database/
--
"....a couple of belts of .50 BMG individually
engraved "Unsubscribe" - Cadbury Moose
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 21:39:28
From: *alan*
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
"WindsorFox" <windsorfoxNO@SPAMcox.net > wrote in message
news:r13ti.21019$lZ7.20915@newsfe20.lga...
> admin@coffeeroastersclub.com wrote:
>
>> Following is an article on Starbucks VS. its addicts, which focuses on
>> its main product that it sells. No, not coffee, but caffeine:
>>
>> http://www.slate.com/id/2107807/
>>
>>
>> Len
>>
>
>
> My, my, that *is* interesting. To quote for those who didn't want to
> wade:
> "The Wall Street Journal earlier this year sent samples of coffee from
> Starbucks, 7-Eleven, and Dunkin' Donuts to Central Analytical
> Laboratories. The lab reported that a 16-ounce Starbucks house blend
> coffee contained 223 milligrams of caffeine, compared with 174 and 141
> milligrams in comparable amounts of Dunkin' Donuts and 7-Eleven coffee,
> respectively. According to the Journal, the average Starbucks coffee drink
> contains 320 milligrams of caffeine."
>
> The chart referenced in the article was gone, but this has a nice
> comparison http://www.guarana.com/cafchart.html showing extra strength
> Vivarine and NoDoz with 200, apparently 120 less than a Starbuck's coffee.
> w0w!
>
> Here is one other that seem to back up the info...
> http://www.energyfiend.com/the-caffeine-database/
If by "backing up the info", you mean the statement that "the average
Starbucks coffee drink contains 320 milligrams of caffeine", if you really
take a good look at that chart
(http://www.energyfiend.com/the-caffeine-database/), you'll see that it
actually *contradicts* that statement. From info on that chart, you'll see
that the "average Starbucks coffee drink", *excluding* the milk drinks,
contains 241.75 mg caffeine. The "average Starbucks coffee drink",
*including* the milk drinks (which really makes it more average) is 148.25.
Of course, since "drink" size varies, comparing Starbucks drinks to
non-Starbucks drinks is statistically meaningless anyway.
The more significant measure would be mg of caffeine per fluid oz.
But again, using your "caffeine database", it looks like there's no
significant difference between Starbucks and (an admittedly undefined and
generic) "coffee". Even filtering out all the Starbucks milk drinks,
Starbucks caffeine content looks about the same.
Take a look at the "caffeine database" info summarized and averaged which I
just posted on alt.binaries.coffee to see what I mean.
Also, comparing mg of caffeine per tablet of NoDoz to mg of caffeine per "a
Starbucks coffee" is also pretty misleading.
I'm not by any means placing myself in the position of apologist for
Starbucks, but the "evidence" offered so far that Starbucks coffee is
"higher in caffeine" (and that they may even be "lacing" their coffee with
extra caffeine) is pretty slim.
Sounds a bit like an "urban legend" to me . . . .
As they say: "Statistics don't lie, but statisticians do".
--
Alan
|
| | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 20:06:24
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:28:44 -0700, admin@coffeeroastersclub.com
wrote:
>Following is an article on Starbucks VS. its addicts, which focuses on
>its main product that it sells. No, not coffee, but caffeine:
>
>http://www.slate.com/id/2107807/
>
>
>Len
Nope. It's milk.
Marshall
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 14:44:24
From:
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
On Aug 3, 3:45 pm, "daveb" <davebo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> "Starbucks caffeine-laced coffee"
>
> I thought ALL coffee was "caffeine-laced" unless it has been decaf-ed!!??
My thoughts were along the line of indicating an overabundance of the
stuff.
Len
=========================
http://www.CoffeeRoastersClub.com
my blog: http://coffeeroastersclub.caffeblog.com
|
| | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 19:34:19
From: North Sullivan
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:44:24 -0700, admin@coffeeroastersclub.com
wrote:
>On Aug 3, 3:45 pm, "daveb" <davebo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Starbucks caffeine-laced coffee"
>>
>> I thought ALL coffee was "caffeine-laced" unless it has been decaf-ed!!??
>
>My thoughts were along the line of indicating an overabundance of the
>stuff.
>
>Len
Which of Starbucks' beans are overabundant in caffeine? How is this
achieved?
North Sullivan
(tricky little coffee cherries)
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 14:41:52
From:
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
On Aug 3, 2:19 pm, Marshall <mrf...@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:12:28 -0700, ad...@coffeeroastersclub.com
> wrote:
>
> >... Starbucks caffeine-laced coffee).
>
> Are you saying you think Starbucks' has extra caffeine? Is this an
> urban legend in the making?
>
> Marshall
Hello. Do a search term on Caffeine and Starbucks. Lots of food for
the fodder.
Len
===================
http://www.CoffeeRoastersClub.com
my blog: http://coffeeroastersclub.caffeblog.com
|
| | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 16:06:45
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:41:52 -0700, admin@coffeeroastersclub.com
wrote:
>On Aug 3, 2:19 pm, Marshall <mrf...@ihatespamearthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:12:28 -0700, ad...@coffeeroastersclub.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >... Starbucks caffeine-laced coffee).
>>
>> Are you saying you think Starbucks' has extra caffeine? Is this an
>> urban legend in the making?
>>
>> Marshall
>
>Hello. Do a search term on Caffeine and Starbucks. Lots of food for
>the fodder.
>
>Len
"Laced" would mean Starbucks adds caffeine as an extra ingredient --
which it doesn't (and would be a pretty serious matter if they did
without disclosure).
There could be many reasons why a brewed cup of Starbucks coffee might
contain more caffeine than 7-11's or Dunkin Donuts' (per the 2004 WSJ
article). The most likely are that the Starbucks shop brewed its
coffee at proper strength, while the others were weaker, or that the
blend (or origin) that shop used on that particular day had more
natural caffeine than the others'.
Anyway, if you didn't like Starbucks, I'm glad you're saving your
money.
Marshall
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 15:45:52
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
"Starbucks caffeine-laced coffee"
I thought ALL coffee was "caffeine-laced" unless it has been decaf-ed!!??
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 11:19:09
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:12:28 -0700, admin@coffeeroastersclub.com
wrote:
>... Starbucks caffeine-laced coffee).
Are you saying you think Starbucks' has extra caffeine? Is this an
urban legend in the making?
Marshall
|
| | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 19:45:52
From: WindsorFox
Subject: Re: Congratulate me, I just kicked my Starbucks Habit ...
|
Marshall wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:12:28 -0700, admin@coffeeroastersclub.com
> wrote:
>
>> ... Starbucks caffeine-laced coffee).
>
> Are you saying you think Starbucks' has extra caffeine? Is this an
> urban legend in the making?
>
> Marshall
Nothing on Snopes yet.... ;-P
--
"....a couple of belts of .50 BMG individually
engraved "Unsubscribe" - Cadbury Moose
|
|
