Um, it wasn’t the caffiene. I drink coffee and tea all the time and I don’t have a panic attack. But one small cup of Starbucks coffee and I spend the rest of the day on the toilet? I know this is not a normal response, and my stomach is pretty irritable at times, but that was pretty bizarre even so.
Really, the coffee is burnt. I know there are people who don’t agree with that, but it is. It’s like they put ashes into a coffee filter and poured hot bong water over that.
I’m just giving my opinion on why I hate Starbucks.
I wish I could remember the source of this, but someone said that the reason that people my age (25) tend to hate Starbucks is because that’s where we end up working when we fail at “real life”. Like after graduating with a BA in English and realizing that it’s all but impossible to get a job. That seems dead on to me; I don’t know a single person my age who hasn’t spent some time as a barista. Humiliatingly, I was not hired at a Starbucks despite my 3 years experience during college working at an indie coffee shop.
What’s fun though is when someone comes into an independant coffee shop and orders a grande mochacchino. I have honed my withering “I have no idea what you just said” glare to perfection.
ZJ
Oh, and Elysian, caffiene is a diuretic, so often it does cause one to poo. Not to dismiss your complaint; an day is a long time to spent toilet-ridden. Oddly, though, I too have had a panic attack after drinking a cup of Starbucks coffee. And I too drink coffee all the time, in great quantity. It might just be a coincidence, but it’s weird.
Ahh, the battle cry of the unapologetic capitalist.
This doesn’t apply in my town - Starbucks, taking advantage of monetary resources that a small café couldn’t hope to match, leased a building right out from under a much better (and highly successful) café in order to reduce competition with a Starbucks two blocks away. This is now a vacant storefront. Starbucks, in one fell swoop, managed to destroy a local business and do lasting harm to an already-struggling urban area.
This ain’t capitalism, and it ain’t competition.
Now, Jervoise, I’d argue that Starbucks exemplifies pretention. To quote Merriam-Webster, pretension is “making claims . . . to some distinction, importance, dignity, or excellence.” Now I’d say that exemplifies Starbucks. The place is the epitome of bland appeal to America’s bourgeoisie, but that appeal is based on creating a perception of quality and sophistication. Certainly Starbucks lacks both, but “pretentious” shares a root with “pretend”, and Starbucks pretends to offer something interesting and “distinct” even if the real sophisticates out there wouldn’t be caught dead sipping their bland coffee and listening to their bland music.
From one pretentious git to another. /me turns the avant-garde jazz up louder
Ahh, the battle cry of the unapologetic capitalist.
This doesn’t apply in my town - Starbucks, taking advantage of monetary resources that a small café couldn’t hope to match, leased a building right out from under a much better (and highly successful) café in order to reduce competition with a Starbucks two blocks away. This is now a vacant storefront. Starbucks, in one fell swoop, managed to destroy a local business and do lasting harm to an already-struggling urban area.
This ain’t capitalism, and it ain’t competition.
Now, Jervoise, I’d argue that Starbucks exemplifies pretention. To quote Merriam-Webster, pretension is “making claims . . . to some distinction, importance, dignity, or excellence.” Now I’d say that exemplifies Starbucks. The place is the epitome of bland appeal to America’s bourgeoisie, but that appeal is based on creating a perception of quality and sophistication. Certainly Starbucks lacks both, but “pretentious” shares a root with “pretend”, and Starbucks pretends to offer something interesting and “distinct” even if the real sophisticates out there wouldn’t be caught dead sipping their bland coffee and listening to their bland music.
From one pretentious git to another. /me turns the avant-garde jazz up louder
For all the companies I boycott, Starbucks isn’t one of them.
Some of the blended drinks are good.
The own Seattle’s Best, who sell organic, shade-grown coffee in grocery stores.
Now, why I don’t go there:
The atmosphere. It comes off as a sterile trendy. Like they WANT to be the Cool Place for College Kids to Hang Out, but they just can’t get it right because no one who runs the store has ever wandered around the city finding out the “vibe.”
Half the things I liked about them has been changed in the past few years. I LOVED their Writer’s Chai. Then they change to Tazo Chai, which tastes like nutmeg and milk. Nasty. And they switched from liquid Hershey’s chocolate to powdered crap for mochas.
The music sucks. Again, no personality. It seems to be what corporate tells them is In this month.
I don’t go to coffeeshops just to get coffee - I got to get something to drink, then sit and read or write or chat with friends for a few hours. Starbuck’s just isn’t a very comfortable place for that. Plus, I tend to be out and about past 10pm, when Starbucks is closed. Plus, well, I like local businesses.
Yeah, I been in those Starbuck’s places a couple times. Stank of coffee. I can’t abide coffee. Now, I wait ouside while whoever I’m with goes in for their coffee.
Starbucks’ coffee is passable. It’s not the best, but it’ll do. As for its chasing out the indies, I’m sure it’s guilty of that to an extent, but on the other hand I think their ubiquity in large cities is, by and large, a good thing. What you young whippersnappers need to remember is that until the whole idea of coffeehouses caught on around 1990, there was no such thing. There would probably be a cool coffee place on your college campus, but in the world at large, you had–Denny’s. That was what people called a coffeeshop. Coffeehouses hardly existed, at least in my part of the world.
Starbucks’ ambience is admittedly boilerplate, but hey, at least it is an ambience of some sort.
Though having said that, I don’t usually buy coffee there in bulk. I prefer Diedrichs, a small Orange County based chain which has made limited inroads into L.A., but probably was stopped from further advances by S-B.
I go through about 1 bag of Starbucks French Roast beans per month. I’ve tried coffee from coast to coast and several times in Europe. I love the consistancy of the product. I love the taste. I don’t care if they “burn” the beans with a 1920’s style Death Ray. It tastes the way I likes it and I get that caffeine jolt I crave.
Besides, I’m to dang busy to hang around the college coffee house trying to look hip and pretend I’m seriously interested in what the too-earnest-student of philosophy is saying anymore. I still love to try out those places but it’s rare.
Who are these people who deride the flavor of Starbuck’s? Oh well, to each his own.
My husband used to be an honest to god coffee roaster as well, and describes Starbucks as “burning their beans.” I prefer to say that they have “darker roasts” than I prefer and that even their “mild” and “smooth” roasts are a little dark for my taste.
That said, at work I can get foodservice coffee for free, or pay for Starbucks (just drip, nothing fancy) Starbucks is better than foodservice coffee - even when you have to pay for it. But I usually will go out of my way to find a Caribou (which is a local Minnesota company, so we have nearly as many of those), over a Starbucks.
Count me as another who just doesn’t like the way their store coffee tastes. I often say their coffee tastes burnt, but I think the main problem is that the coffee in stores have just sat around for too long and are past their shelf life. If you buy their coffee direct (or even from a grocery store on the day it is delivered), it’s much better.
You know, I don’t think I’ve ever set foot in a Starbucks in my life. I’m just not into coffee that’s dark-roasted or brewed really strong; it tastes nasty to me and makes my ulcer kick and scream for about twelve hours. Everyone who’s ever nagged me to go to a Starbucks has rapsodized about how strong and dark the coffee is, so I’ve declined. I mean, really, paying $3 or so for something I won’t enjoy drinking that will put me in pain the rest of the day? How stupid do I look? (Wait, don’t answer that.)
Zjestika, caffeine doesn’t stimulate defecation because it’s a diuretic. Diuretics cause one to pee, not to poo. Caffeine inhibits the action of antidiuretic hormone, which acts only on the kidneys. The kidneys are not connected with the intestines or defecation at all. However, caffeine also acts as an agonist on some pathway or other, and that pathway can stimulate defecation. So, caffeine stimulates defecation in addition to its diuretic affects, not because of them.
I’ll second the above. I’ve spent a TON of dough on coffee in my life and can pick good from bad rather easily. Bitter does NOT equal good and I’ve found Starbuck’s normal, dark, strong Joe to be universally bitter.
Further, I’ll have a cup or two a day. The local Good coffee shop charges $.75 a refill, the Local GREAT coffee cart charges $1.00, Starbucks charges $2.25.
This is coffee, you know, boiled beans in WATER. Sure, I need the fix, but I don’t need it $4.50 every goddamn day bad. (For the math challenged, that’s more $90 a month.)
Zjestika, caffeine doesn’t stimulate defecation because it’s a diuretic. Diuretics cause one to pee, not to poo. Caffeine inhibits the action of antidiuretic hormone, which acts only on the kidneys. The kidneys are not connected with the intestines or defecation at all. However, caffeine also acts as an agonist on some pathway or other, and that pathway can stimulate defecation. So, caffeine stimulates defecation in addition to its diuretic affects, not because of them.[/QUOTE]
That’s really interesting. Thanks for the info and correction.
Not a big fan of Starbucks because I’m a coffee drinker. You remember coffee, right? It’s that hot, wet, black stuff that you drink instead of eating breakfast to get you going in the morning.
If I wanted to stand in line for ten minutes behind people buying whipped cream, chocolate, cinnamon, nutmeg and milk, I’ll visit the local bakery.
I don’t believe you. I’ve never seen a Starbucks charge more than $1.75 for any of their normal drip coffees, and that was a venti in Times Square, where prices tend to be jacked up immensely.
The one around the corner from me charges $1.55 for a venti. $1.15 for normal 12oz.
I’m not thrilled with Starbucks because they sued San Francisco cartoonist Kieron Dwyer for making T-shirts parodying their logo without sending him so much as a cease and desist notice. See here for an eye-punishing and biased account of the story.
Sorry to hear about your bad experience, but I would like to suggest that the thing that caused your attack was a large dose of caffeine and nothing more.
I am a big coffee and tea drinker. The caffeine content in coffee can vary by species and variety (for example, Robusta, which Starbucks doesn’t use but others do, can have twice the caffeine content as Arabica, or something like that). The roasting and brewing technique can certainly affect caffeine content. And how your body deals with that caffeine dose can also vary. I almost vomitted on the train in Kawasaki because I had drunk a strong draft of tea on an empty stomach in the morning.
