Dear Starbucks, please stick to the caffeine.

Let me start off by saying I like Starbucks. Whenever I'm in any part of America without an Oren's Daily Roast (which is anywhere outside of NYC) and I need a hardcore caffeine fix, I know where to go. And occasionally, I like their weird seasonal concoctions. I like the smell of peppermint or vanilla or pumpkin pie spice mix while I drink my caffeinated beverage of choice.

But think about that. It's coffee, milk, and a flavor. Pretty straightforward, right? Well, no longer. Starbucks is trying its hand at corporate smoothies. And they're billing them as healthy. I say bullshit. Let's take a look at the Banana Chocolate Blend which can be found here. Let's compare it to my banana peanut butter smoothie in terms of overall calories, fat, protein, carbs, fiber, and calcium. (I don't know why I picked fiber and calcium, but they're pretty important, so why not...)

I'm getting all my info from FoodFact.com. And I'm assuming that I use roughly one serving of everything, because it sounds about right.

1 cup of Trader Joe's Organic 1% milk
(I looked at Organic Valley because it looks about the same... and I think Danny uses closer to 1/2 cup when he makes this.)

Calories: 110
Fat: 2.5 g
Protein: 8 g
Carbs: 13 g
Fiber: 0 g
Calcium: 30%

2 tablespoons of Crazy Richard's creamy peanut butter

Calories: 190
Fat: 16 g
Protein: 9 g
Carbs: 6 g
Fiber: 2 g
Calcium: 2%

1 large banana

Calories: 121
Fat: 0.45 g
Protein: 1.48 g
Carbs: 31.06 g
Fiber: 3.5 g
Calcium: 1%

Totals:

Calories: 421 (with 1/2 c milk, 366)
Fat: 19 g (1/2 c milk, 17.75)
Protein: 18.5 g (1/2 c milk, 14.5)
Carbs: 50 g (1/2 c milk, 43.5)
Fiber: 5.5 g (1/2 c milk, same)
Calcium: 33% (1/2 c milk, 18%)

In overall calories, mine is wayyyy ahead, mainly in the fat department, but they're mostly unsaturated fats. 2 g sat. in the peanut butter, 1.5 g in the milk. I have one more gram of saturated fat than Starbucks, which I could nix by switching to skim milk. If I switch to skim, I keep the unsaturated fats from the peanut butter (which you do need; they keep you full and fat is good for brain cells), and my saturated fat content drops below the Starbucks' concoction.

Protein... let's see... Starbucks has 21 g, I'm rockin' 18.5 g, but if I round to the nearest whole number like Starbucks, then it's 19. We're about even.

Moving along to carbohydrates, SBux has 44 g, and I've got 50. 6 g of carbs? I'm not splitting hairs because those extra 6 grams ain't gonna make me fat. Also, we're even on sugars, at 28 g, which means my difference is made up in complex carbohydrates which are good for long-term energy, which means I've got 6 extra grams of crash-proof food. I'll take it.

Looking at fiber, SBux has 6 g, and I have 5.5, but if I round to the nearest whole number we're exactly even... interesting...

And last of all, calcium. I'm rocking 33%, and SBux? Sorry, 20% is just sad. It means they're not using a full serving of milk. Assholes.

A couple things I didn't post:

Sodium
(Higher is not necessarily better unless you're an endurance athlete.)
SB: 170 mg, Me: 125 mg

Potassium
(Higher is better, unless you're on a particular form of heart medication; potassium is hugely important for cardiac function, as well as neural and muscular function.)
SB: unlisted?!, Me: 487 mg, or 14%

Vitamin A:
SB: 10%, Me: 12%

Vitamin C:
SB: 15%, Me: 22%

Iron:
SB: 15%, Me: 4%
(Not worried bc iron and calcium compete for uptake; I'd rather load on calcium at one meal and load on iron - green leafy veggies, red meat - at another.)

According to the officially unofficial tasting of SB's Vivanno going on here, the chocolate wasn't chocolatey, there was a slight funny aftertaste, and it was gritty. My concoction is not gritty unless you use chunky peanut butter (but that's more crunch and less grit), it is emphatically peanutty and bananary, and it's quite smooth and creamy. The addition of ice to the blender chills it. I haven't taken price into consideration, but in that, I'm going to guess mine wins hands-down. Also, you don't burn gasoline running your blender.

I guess the biggest con of my concoction would be the 421 calories, but ingesting calorically dense food in the morning isn't awful (especially if it isn't crashable carbs or saturated junk), and 421 calories is less than 25% of a 2000 calorie diet (about 1/3 of a 1500 cal diet). Interestingly enough, the extra calories happen as good-for-you fats, and all the bad stuff is equal or could be adjusted to less than SB's offering. We're even on protein and fiber which keep you full, and I'd be willing to bet my thing will keep you more full for longer because of the unsaturated fats.

I guess it's a matter of opinion/taste, but I'll forgo SB for my own blender. :)