That's 48 spoonfulls of sugar for the price of 24... Super.:smile:

christmas mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Eggnog Latte: Espresso mixed with rich steamed eggnog, topped with ground nutmeg.



Gingerbread Latte: The flavour and aroma of a freshly baked gingerbread cookie swirled with smooth espresso and steamed milk; topped with ginger infused cream and wafer crumbs.



Toffee Nut Latte: The rich, buttery flavour of sweet toffee is combined with the warmth of toasted nuts and blended with our smooth espresso and velvety steamed milk; topped with whipped cream and Toffee Nut Sprinkles.



Honey and Almond Hot Chocolate: Mocha and Almond syrup blended with steamed milk; topped with chocolate whipped cream and finished with swirls of mocha and honey drizzles.

Don't see why these cups are all that bad? Honestly, People will kick up a fuss about anything.

christmas mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Eggnog Latte: Espresso mixed with rich steamed eggnog, topped with ground nutmeg.



Gingerbread Latte: The flavour and aroma of a freshly baked gingerbread cookie swirled with smooth espresso and steamed milk; topped with ginger infused cream and wafer crumbs.



Toffee Nut Latte: The rich, buttery flavour of sweet toffee is combined with the warmth of toasted nuts and blended with our smooth espresso and velvety steamed milk; topped with whipped cream and Toffee Nut Sprinkles.



Honey and Almond Hot Chocolate: Mocha and Almond syrup blended with steamed milk; topped with chocolate whipped cream and finished with swirls of mocha and honey drizzles.

That's 48 spoonfulls of sugar for the price of 24... Super.:smile:

Ahhhhh egg nog latte. My favourite.

Don't see why these cups are all that bad? Honestly, People will kick up a fuss about anything.

Chachi Deals :smiley:

Cheers chanchi, heat added :smiley:

Overrated

( BOGOF )

Proper sickly looking drinks, tall americano for me please

Could always get them skinny without the cream. Thanks OP. Will have one when out on the weekend.

Quality mate :smile:

Not even had time to find a gif :disappointed: ...but I will :man::laughing:

You must of also seen this morning erm this morning

I'm at center parcs this week anyone know if this offer will the offer be on there? tried to use a Starbucks card this morning but they wouldn't take it as it was a licensed store with center parcs tills, apparently -_-

Great deal chichi, thanks for sharing...if you will :laughing:

Is there any coffee in those under the cream and flavoring?

1 of these contains 24 spoons of sugar?! Are you serious?

At last, Ive been waiting for the 2 for 1 Xmas drinks to start, so Thursday it is, and i`m now amazed to see nthey start paying tax into the UK on Friday. Great stuff guys.

couldn't believe it when I saw 24 spoons of sugar in it. they can keep them

What exactly do you have to show the barista to get the 2 for 1 deal?

​your money if like last year

Lovelyyyyyyyy heat added :wink:

Cold i prefer when they do the half price between 3 and 6 lol :stuck_out_tongue:

Link nows works TY whoever fixed it!

you watched 'this morning' too haha! i was going to put this also.

Could be called sugarbucks

Heat op love these gingerbread lattes with the creAm to die for

Boycott Starbucks!

Please....PLEASE give generously. Starbucks are a "charity" you know. Give just £2.90 a day and some good thing might..happen......somewhere.....maybe. Please. *inserts some library film of a small child with tubes sticking out their nose*

If you visit TESCO first you can buy a Starbucks £10 gift card with 20% off at the moment, so will only pay £8 :smiley:

24 tsp of sugar down your throat,no thanks

Be getting some of these...


Ta Chanci.

68 grams of sugar in a large eggnog latte. No thanks, but hot deal anyway for those that like these treats :smiley:

Thanks OP! Can't wait!

Thanks

They don't but a pint of a Caramel Fudge Hot Chocolate at Costa does. If anyone is suprised that flavoured lattes, hot chocolates and frappes are full of calories and sugar, which of course should be consumed in moderation and not every lunch break, then I give up on humanity. :smile:

Disgusting stuff. But hot anyway and who cares about avoiding tax as long as it's legal.

How much are they?

Be careful that kind of common sense isn't allowed round here :wink:

​I fully expect these type of drinks to be loaded with sugar and full of fat but to get to those levels is a bit much I'd say. That said I'll be trying the black forest hot choc at Costa with all of its 60 odd grams of sugar.

do i just get these normally or do i need some sort of voucher or code? unfamiliar, im a costa kind of guy

Thank you :smiley:

A lot of the sugar in the milkier based ones is naturally occurring in the milk anyway. Milk is around 4g-5g per 100ml. If they are using 300ml of milk in a 500ml drink thats 12-15g just from the milk. Though all sugar is ultimately the same, for the drinks that contain 20-30g of sugar, it isn't like they are whacking in mountains of the white stuff like a lot of newspapers and people are suggesting - so chill out. Anything higher than this would indicate a high amount of artificially added sugars. Enjoy them anyway, i know i will be!

gaaaah 25 spoons sugar or 65....just chill people and appreciate the post. don't like it, vote cold but don't lecture. we all know how bad sugar is, but its common sense to have it in moderation.
thanks chanchi :smiley:

Had a toffee nut from a Starbucks down in Holborn, it was amazing. Had one yesterday in Preston, was garbage.

Re: boycotting Starbucks. They have changed the design of their red cups at Christmas from a festive one to a plain one and some think this is due to political correctness. I think that it is and ridiculous and shows a lack of Christmas spirit. No one likes a Bah Humbug this time of year so you could visit a different coffee shop.

In half a pint of skimmed milk alone, there's over 13g 'teaspoons' of sugar naturally occurring in the milk for a start.
People that bought into the 'sugar is the new fat and will kill us all' scaremongering should avoid milk based drinks generally, I would suggest :smiley:.
(Edit - beaten to it by JackBauerBoy )

starbucks don't pay tax, avoid

Better to avoid added sugars surely?

better to avoid all fats, sugar, carbs, protein and just eat fibre. When you're inside out on the toilet like an empty pillowcase, that's when you'll know you've reached the absolute pinnacle of healthy eating!

I boycotted my local one because it was full of flies. Then I googled it. Ew.

So before 2.00pm and after 5.00pm you will be refused offer, I guess? There is just a three hour 'window of opportunity'?

The body has no mechanism to tell if sugar has been 'added'. It doesn't use one to make you unhealthy and overweight and the other to give you 'healthy energy'.
However, if you're reasonably fit/healthy/active, most people shouldn't have an issue, presuming your calories are ok. (The protein and fat if it's not 'skinny' in the drink will also mean the overal 'Gi' is altered, which is the more important factor.)

That may be true but I think the implication is that nature will have put a lot less sugar into something on average than any mass food manufacturer would, and by having no added sugar, it automatically has less than it could and many other foods will.

That may be true but I think the implication is that nature will have put a lot less sugar into something on average than any mass food manufacturer would, and by having no added sugar, it automatically has less than it could and many other foods will.[/quote]I'm not aware of a "chocolate-caramel-latte" genus, so it's rather hard to compare.
Rather than worrying about sugar, for your average person, if they have insulin issues I'd instead suggest they try and address that (get fitter/healthier/lose weight etc) - otherwise it's like having a worn wheel bearing on a car and just driving slower so it's not so dangerous.

Right, so you couldn't get the general point I was making without specifically referring to a chocolate caramel latte?

Unless you're medically qualified, people shouldn't really be getting their main health advice from a poster on HotUKDeals. Of course exercise is one of the best things you can do, but the hugely important part that diet plays also means that cutting down on the vast amounts of sugar that companies add into their food would be a very, very smart thing to do.

That way it's a double whammy, instead of having to use exercise to combat bad diet.

Citations, please.
(Just to be clear, your link which doesn't cite and papers that I can see, states that sugar should be reduced to "reduce obesity risk and improve dental health." The former isn't limited to sugar and is for the most part (in healthy people) a case of calories in vs calories out. The latter, sure, though again can be mitigated by brushing teeth etc.
Are you medically qualified?
Does merely the act of being 'medically qualified' mean that you have a good understanding of the realities of nutrition and will definitely present those realities in a realistic manner (often advice is massively over simplified)?

As an idea of why I'm sceptical of many of the claims; one large study which was being used to justify such things a while ago you could see that the equivalent 'bad' from one can of coke could be 'cancelled out' by living in a country with a 1% lower GDP. So you could have 12 extras cans of coke if you moved to New Zealand from the UK and still be at the same 'risk'.
Obviously rubbish and instead suggests the algorithms they have used haven't properly accounted for external factors.

offer only vaild from 2 to 5pm right

None of the original or subsequent links work, please help

I now know why Starbucks is my version of a crack addiction...bring on the sugar baby yummmmmmm

But being a large company they're able to pay significantly less than the tax system was originally designed to make them pay and most would consider an amount that isn't 'moral'. Of course, our country also benefits from situations where we do this to other countries I believe.

As small businesses get into the act, it could get interesting!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crickhowell-welsh-town-moves-offshore-to-avoid-tax-on-local-business-a6728971.html

I'm still not seeing any evidence why you think you're qualified to be giving out nutritional advice to people. These are the people that gave the previously linked advice to the government - although for some reason, you seem to be talking about a completely different report which no-one mentioned.

It may surprise you to know that I agree with you about Starbucks only paying what they have to - which is one of two reasons your highly aggressive tone was completely unnecessary.

The second is that the argument is actually more nuanced than you've put forward - which is, if you're going to buy overpriced coffee, there's absolutely no moral problem in wanting to keep as much of that money in the UK as possible; for instance by buying it from UK-owned companies like Costa instead, and boycotting Starbucks as suggested.

This allows Starbucks to indeed fulfil their legal obligations by only paying as little tax as they possibly and legally can - while also creating UK jobs from UK companies, and taxes staying in the UK for unemployed UK citizens who genuinely need social welfare.

Here's a fun video for all you Starbucks lovers. Enjoy! :smiley:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gBM4ciJ5Oc

Never had one, never will. If dodging taxes and inducing sickness is a deal i've got a ton of **** to post.

never understood starbucks its not even good coffee, they have ruined new york, every street corner now has one

Equally funny that you've been hanging around for three pages of comments waiting to swoop. I love hukd.

How much are these at starbucks? -never been there so not a clue

good find, thanks

I'm not seeing any evidence a) that you're qualified to offer nutritional advice, b) of the studies on which your link is based, c)why being medically qualified means that you have a good understanding of the realities of nutrition and will definitely present those realities in a realistic manner?

I mentioned another study I had taken the time to read through fully, one which your link may have been based upon. I don't know, because it didn't offer citations; it may have been based upon unicorn dust and political aspirations for all I know.

The case of David Nutt being removed from his position on a similar body for presenting factual evidence (on the risks of illegal drugs vs other activities) is a good example of why you should read the studies on which advice is given, rather than take the word of governmental sponsered bodies, or worse those writing articles for popular publications (where "eat the right calories, do some exercise" doesn't really sell issues/clicks).

How much are they please?

I looked on the website but I'm not seeing any prices.

Googled the prices, they can do one!!

a cup of sugar yum

[url=http://youtu.be/-KG912GXSaI]104 year old drinks 3 Dr Peppers a day[/url

This 104 year old lady disagrees. 4 bottles of Dr Pepper and never had anything wrong with her.

I like the part how the doctors told her to stop drinking so much sugar as she would die young but outlived two of them.

[url]http://youtu.be/-KG912GXSaI Damn android phone.

I agree and the thing with the sugar crusade is how it seems to have been blown out of proportion. The WHO report recommended limiting sugar to 5% of energy intake but what the media/gurus/public health fail to mention is that this is based on reducing the risk of dental caries and is based on "very low quality evidence". This was also a conditional recommendation which is "...made when there is less certainty “about the balance between the benefits
and harms or disadvantages of implementing a recommendation”. :smirk:

The "strong recommendation" of limiting to 10% of energy intake is "based on moderate quality evidence from observational studies of dental caries." i.e. none of the recommendations are based on limiting obesity, diabetes etc.

The biggest point for me though, which imo basically said sugar isn't specifically to blame for obesity, was:

"Increasing or decreasing free sugars is associated with parallel changes in body weight, and the relationship is present regardless of the level of intake of free sugars. The excess body weight associated with free sugars intake results from excess energy intake".

The SACN report was an odd one. On one hand it found no significant relationship between sugar intake and coronary events, blood pressure, blood lipids, type 2 diabetes, blood glucose and blood insulin. On the other it found a relationship between sugary drinks and diabetes but not BMI, body fat etc. Then again most of these things were based on very limited evidence. However they also found "...that greater consumption of sugars is
detrimental to health. The effect is biologically relevant at a population level in free living individuals not subject to energy restriction" yet they came to the conclusion that a 5% limit was the way to go. :smile:

You don't need to be medically qualified to be a skeptic or criticise what you read and realise that moderation and a balanced diet are key. After all, you don't have to eat sugar rich foods and there usually are alternatives e.g sugar free drinks.

wasn't being aggressive but if you thought that I am sorry. Companies and morals is a difficult area, since legally a company has to maximise shareholders returns. Many have argued that they should be able too but reality is if they follow the rules of a country they are morally looking after their shareholders so technically they are. We could argue for years on this :disappointed: boycotting is not the answer, really isn't because every company, every successful company will be following tax legislation if they are not then they will be fined, receive bad press and have the tax man looking at their every move. Costa will be no different, the small guy down the street doing the same but not to the extent of big companies and we can also look at Café Nero a UK company following the rules.

Companies are doing what individuals are doing reducing their tax burden, plenty on here are doing the same taking tax law and helping reduce the amount of tax they pay. You may not be but you will know someone who uses tax law to pay less tax, they often don't see it but they see it as a perk but reality is they are reducing the tax or NI they pay by using tax laws.

Starbucks, and some others have paid the tax they owe, but as I said the governments of this country and others have done nothing to improve the legislation and though they are now talking of doing so nothing has happened.



small business already do, any accountant will be making sure they pay the least amount of tax they can, from small businesses, self employed, to small companies that's what they pay the accountant for :disappointed:

nope not hanging around waiting just when I went through the thread at that time. Wish I had time to sit on the site all day :smiley:

These cups insult my religion.

Your religion is stupid.

Obviously not 'seriously'. Lighten up dude. We've still got 167 days 14 hours and 37 minutes before the world gets blown up by aliens so smile :smiley:

Your video looked like you were posting it in seriousness. And if you're trying to tell me there aren't thousands of people who actually watch YouTube and believe that tripe, then I'm the real Chuck Norris and watch out, I'm coming to get my identity back.

That's why it's okay for everyone to smoke too, because there are some people it doesn't kill.

*facepalm*

Is there a reason why you're continually trying to the use the intellectually dishonest tactics of:

- Sidestepping every question I've asked you?
- Citing different studies to the ones that I've raised?
- Using weasel words like "may" which is far less valid than "may not" until you prove otherwise?
- Asking me to prove why I'm qualified to give nutritional advice when you're actually the one who's done from the start and still haven't remotely proved your qualifications (see first point)?

I am fully aware of the Dr. Nutt case, it's a dreadful shame but it's also highly irrelevant.

May I ask you more directly and again then - are you anything other than someone who's "done a bit of reading" online and thus now thinks they're qualified to dispense nutritional information to strangers and without formal qualifications in any relevant fields, particularly superior to those professors contributing to the advice presented to the government as cited in my given link?

And with full humility, in regards to the above question, if you are then I apologise in advance.

Questions you have asked me total 1 from what I can see...
I did not answer it I admit; I presumed it was rhetorical (if you do want to actually know the answer, I'll be happy to do so.)
>>Right, so you couldn't get the general point I was making without specifically referring to a chocolate caramel latte?<
Me, I've directly asked you the following:
Are you medically qualified?
Does merely the act of being 'medically qualified' mean that you have a good understanding of the realities of nutrition and will definitely present those realities in a realistic manner (often advice is massively over simplified)?
And - Citations, please.
☑ Sidestepping every question I've asked you?

Your first post I replied to...
>>That may be true but I think the implication is <<
☑Using weasel words like "may" which is far less valid than "may not" until you prove otherwise?

I don't believe you've 'raised' any studies at all, so I can't really do anything but cite different ones, this was one of my questions to you.

No, I do not have medical qualifications. I do know more about nutrition than some people who have however, thanks to the wonders of 'reading things' and having a naturally inquisitive mind that enjoys learning. I've also in the past advised police (a friend) on aspects of the law of which they were not aware as it wasn't their speciality.
I ask if you are because it seems you believe it is important and that's the test that should be used to judge the accuracy of the information presented.

Your BBC article does not cite any useful information about where these opinions are formed.
Due to the large amount of 'creative' conclusions often derived from studies, I find it's essential to read the results yourself before deciding if it's reliable information. Oddly enough, when I asked 'Action on sugar' (or a similar one, I forget) about the studies they had based their information on, they wouldn't respond, despite being happy to respond to another question - when I asked again, I got accused of 'trolling', which said plenty to me.

Finally; which, if any, aspects of what I have said do you believe to be untrue? I would genuinely be interested to hear if any good evidence that's the case; all part of 'learning'.

There's no way I'm going to spend time responding to that. Everything you've said is a distraction from this fundamental point: You're not qualified in any way to be giving out nutritional advice to strangers, despite the fact that's what you were doing.

That's all I needed to know and I'll be ending the discussion with you. Thanks and have a good day.

Anyone got a direct link please? The "Get Deal" link is being blocked for me lool

:stuck_out_tongue:

Your flouncing did actually brighten my day - had to stifle a laugh while eating my lunch at how easy you admitted defeat :smiley:.
Unfortunate that you can't even explain what you believe WOULD qualify someone to give nutritional advice.

For what it's worth, I've never completed training/qualifications in computing, yet I've been in positions where my time has been charged at considerably amounts per day, similarly I've offered services in the health and fitness industry (on the CO side of CICO.)

I'm guessing you think people like Andy Morgan ( http://rippedbody.jp/faq/) shouldn't be offering advice because they don't have medical qualifications.

:wink:

Starbucks is a rip off! Waitrose gives you free tea and coffee ! Free daily newspapers too in the week if you spend £5. No need to spend any money for the tea and coffee !

I went to the drive through and I didn't have to show the deal on my phone or anything else to get the deal!

Well said. What bugs me though never mind the whole morals side of it. But every Starbucks post gets jumped upon by the UK tax brigade. These same people who holler boycotting post away Amazon deals and other companies who also do the same.Also what about the old and still somewhat practice by the likes of Tesco etc of placing DVD's,CD's etc though the Channel islands to avoid the VAT. They don't jump upon every Amazon deal and say the same. Ironic also those hollering boycotting are probably doing so from a device powered with an Intel chipset or an Apple device both companies also at the "Tax dodge".

No abortion or gay marriage allowed either !