Gulp. Starbucks announces largest cup size yet
Meet the 31-ounce "Trenta." The Seattle-based Starbucks announced Sunday that it would be unveiling its largest cup size yet. The rollout begins this week in 14 states, debuts in California on Feb. 1, and will be nationwide by May 3.
Click here to find out why Starbucks insists that the giant cup will not mean giant calorie counts.
What do you think? Do you have room in your coffee vocabulary for another Starbucks-ism?
-- Rene Lynch
Twitter / renelynch
RECENT & RELATED:
13 bread pudding recipes from the L.A. Times Test Kitchen
Destination: Cocktail -- Peach Tree Punch from Trader Vic's
Kitchen confidential: Silver Lake artists piece together a colorful home
Photo: KTLA
I drink tea, brewed at home.
Posted by: miss_msry | January 18, 2011 at 06:28 AM
What's up with all the Starbucks's haterz?
Posted by: Villaraigosa Homie | January 17, 2011 at 11:54 PM
Greed. that's all this is. A blatant disregard for the health of the consumer. I hope whatever the future of our healthcare is, it is one that is prepared to deal with a generation of diabetics.
Posted by: maxie | January 17, 2011 at 10:24 PM
Yet another stupid STOOPID name from Bucks. Wow, more caffeine, more fat, more stuff into your mouth. Go Americans....you obese cattle...pour this stuff down your throat and stimulate yourselves whilst growing that tummy even larger. Europeans think we are nuts and we ARE. Wonder how much this miracle of coffee will set you back? Sadly, Bucks is lost in the wilderness. I have yet to meet a single person who doesn't say their coffee is too bitter, yet the idiots are lined up in their $65,000 (zero down, forty year loans) to buy this junk. The pundits are right : impossible to underestimate the tastes of Americans.
Posted by: evad the slayer | January 17, 2011 at 09:22 PM
I just wish they would make a coffee that isn't so over cooked and bitter to put in that cup. Pike's Place is a horrible brew. You're a coffee company, at the very least *$'s should offer a decent cuppa.
Posted by: Jack Meoph | January 17, 2011 at 09:06 PM
Oink! Oink! Oink!
Posted by: Mr, Reed | January 17, 2011 at 08:54 PM
This is revolting. It's American gigantism - the culture of excess. The American motto is, if a little of something is good, a lot must be great. That's simply wrong thinking.
Posted by: Lou Bricano | January 17, 2011 at 08:52 PM
sheesh. the name is more absurd than the size. maybe i'll go in and order a bucket of coffee instead.
Posted by: zach | January 17, 2011 at 08:46 PM
In other news, Starbucks will train baristas to operate a defibrillator.
Posted by: Susan Isaacs | January 17, 2011 at 08:40 PM
The fattening of America continues. Y'know, in Europe, you only drink espresso one shot at a time. The concept of a giant cup of sugar-laden, cream-covered, sprinkled coffee is completely anathema to the ritual of European coffee drinking.
Unadulterated espresso has about as many calories as a stick of gum.
A trenta (31=trentuno, btw) caramel macchiato has nearly 600 calories, which is about as many calories as an average adult should eat for lunch.
Posted by: Rogue Epidemiologist | January 17, 2011 at 07:15 PM
Perfect for ignorant Americans. More is always better.
Posted by: Bdubb | January 17, 2011 at 07:05 PM
Sweet!
Posted by: Kittybarfola | January 17, 2011 at 06:38 PM
As far as the Starbucks-isms go, they didn't go far enough when they started out. Having two sizes with normal english names made the ones with the ersatz italian names sound ridiculous by comparison.
They should have never had the sizes "short" and "tall" on the menu (yes, I know that "short" is not on the menu, but it is available), they should have went all the way straight out of the gate and come up with "Starbucks-isms" for small and medium to go alongside " grande" and "Venti".
All that said, I can't imagine drinking anything other than drip coffee out of a 31-ounce cup, if I had a mocha that would be enough sugar/chocolate for several days for me.
Posted by: Brahma | January 17, 2011 at 06:26 PM