Warning: New Starbucks hot chocolates

I just though I'd pass this along. I was excited to try the new starbucks hot chocolates because I thought they would be lo-cal. Wrong! In order to enter my calories I looked up the values on the Starbucks homepage. I had a grande salted caramel hot chocolate with whipped cream, 620 calories! I should've stuck to my grande coffee based pumpkin spice frappucino with no whipped cream, 290 calories. I could've had 2 of those!!!

Sucks. I love hot chocolate, especially this time of year when people want to go to coffee shops when I don't like coffee, so thanks for the warning!

Tincognito: Don't like tea either? o:

I imagine the cal content would be lessened with no whipped cream, of a smaller size, and would still be satisfying. The Starbucks hot chocolates are quite rich, if memory serves.

OMG - that is ALOT of calories!  Yikes!  I had a skim milk plain latte from Starbucks last week and it was good and not too many cals.  From looking at the calorie sheet (they have one if you ask), it seems the plain cappuccino is lo-cal as well if you skip the whip cream.

Original Post by amdoc:

I was excited to try the new starbucks hot chocolates because I thought they would be lo-cal.

Why would you think it was low-cal?

Almost all Starbucks coffees are dessert coffees-- and people should treat them that way. Want super low cal? Order a black coffee with room for cream. 3 creams + splenda = 60 calories and good to go.

Dunno why hot chocolate would be any different.

Original Post by cellophane_star:

Original Post by amdoc:

I was excited to try the new starbucks hot chocolates because I thought they would be lo-cal.

Why would you think it was low-cal?

 

This is exactly what I wanted to say. Not to be rude, but hot chocolate is notoriously high-cal.

Original Post by starcrossdlovex:

Original Post by cellophane_star:

Original Post by amdoc:

I was excited to try the new starbucks hot chocolates because I thought they would be lo-cal.

Why would you think it was low-cal?

 

This is exactly what I wanted to say. Not to be rude, but hot chocolate is notoriously high-cal.

 Especially with whipped cream...

Original Post by lalabanana:

I imagine the cal content would be lessened with no whipped cream, of a smaller size, and would still be satisfying.

 You'd think right? lol... I checked it out and a Nonfat tall with no whip is still 400 cals, 15g fat, and 9g of saturated fat (etc etc..).

i order starbucks hot chocolate for 150 CALORIES

short, no whip, soy, regular hot chocolate

short is smaller than a tall. and the regular hot chocolate is better for you than the signature.

I've been dying to try those new hot chocolate's but I don't want to mess up my diet. Don't they have a size that's smaller than small that you can order that isn't on the menu? I think someone told me that once.

I don't see why you wouldn't be allowed to have one, try it out, and have that be that.

I loooove Starbucks and I intend to try the hazelnut and caramel hot chocolates. It won't ruin me if I try one of each.

HATE it when I underestimate like that.  Eating out is the worst.  I had a parfait once - it was YOGURT.  Yogurt and some granola and berries.  WELL.  SEVEN HUNDRED CALORIES LATER I just about fell off my chair when I saw the label on it.  Starbucks is good but it's not worth half my day's calories.

I really like starbucks grande skinny vanilla latte (it's made with sugar free syrup and skim milk) that chestnut racks in at 130, and I think it's a nice treat. Not too bad in the calorie department either. If I don't have that many calories to spare, I get a grande cappuccino with skim milk for only 80 calories. Both are super yummy. Sorry to hear about the hot chocolate though! I don't ever order hot chocolate, but that sucks if you're a fan. If you want low calorie hot chocolate there are some great diet hot chocolates at the grocery store. I really like nestle (only 25 calories). It really fulfills my chocolate craving, and hot stuff take long to eat...or drink, so it lasts longer.

Original Post by fairycarebearjig:

I've been dying to try those new hot chocolate's but I don't want to mess up my diet. Don't they have a size that's smaller than small that you can order that isn't on the menu? I think someone told me that once.

 You can try asking for a "short" hot chocolate. It's like a kid's size.

Original Post by lalabanana:

Tincognito: Don't like tea either? o:

I imagine the cal content would be lessened with no whipped cream, of a smaller size, and would still be satisfying. The Starbucks hot chocolates are quite rich, if memory serves.

I like tea! =) But in the winter I just crave hot chocolate. There is like a mental link going on there. And I've never bought tea at Starbucks because I don't see paying that much for it. ^^; But it's an excellent substitute suggestion, thank you! =)

Chocolate-flavored coffee at Dunkin Donuts is 20 calories plain. Their hot chocolate is 230 cals and their milky way hot chocolate is 200 cals.

All sizes/calories are for a small.

I prefer DD over Starbucks... because Starbucks is so expensive. T_T

Second Cup hot chocolate (Canada) is 10x better than Starbucks. I work at Second cup and i'll do my hot chocolates with only one pump of syrup in a small cup (1/2 sweet), do 1/2 skim milk and half hot water, topped with cinnamon.

Much better, and the cinnamon is a natural fat blocker!

I hate coffee in any form no matter how much sugar/cream/flavor you put in it, it still has that bitter aftertaste. Yuck! So I always get hot chocolate when I feel the need.

Just get it with skim milk, no whipped cream and it's a little over 200 calories and still pretty rich and chocolatey. I get one every so often if I'm having a chocolate craving and don't want to eat a candy bar or something. Where are people getting the 400 calories for that?

I tried the new hot chocolate, too, not thinking how many calories it would add, but it's good to know.

Original Post by cellophane_star:

Original Post by amdoc:

I was excited to try the new starbucks hot chocolates because I thought they would be lo-cal.

Why would you think it was low-cal?

 

I agree... I wouldn't assume it was low-cal, especially since it's from a chain coffee house.

Original Post by no_audience:

Much better, and the cinnamon is a natural fat blocker!

 Cinnamon isn't a "natural fat blocker". It's said to help stabilize your blood sugar levels so you'll feel more satisfied for longer (hunger-wise).