Low fat milk

Low-fat/Skim milk came about during the fat-is-bad-diet-fad of the mid 80 whilst the mild producers punted how good milk is for your teeth and bones. Today we know both to be BS.
 
kolaval said:
Jip this.
But sitting on a dairy farm and reading your comments on farmers being greedy, is just as insulting.
Clover and co makes life very difficult for farmers. Just google "clover collusion".
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know margins on dairy farming are very small. Should have said producers/distributors and not farmers further upthread.
 
All this BS about Full Cream vs Low Fat, UHT, Skimmed, etc...

Milk is meant for baby cows. End of. We aren't designed to digest it properly because, surprise-surprise, we're not cows.

It's still frikkin' awesome though :cry:
 
The Voice said:
All this BS about Full Cream vs Low Fat, UHT, Skimmed, etc...

Milk is meant for baby cows. End of. We aren't designed to digest it properly because, surprise-surprise, we're not cows.

It's still frikkin' awesome though :cry:
Click to expand...

So are you saying we should be milking women instead to get our milk fix? ;-)
 
diabolus said:
So are you saying we should be milking women instead to get our milk fix? ;-)
Click to expand...

"Sorry kids, no milk for breakfast this morning. Your cow of a mother says she doesn't feel like being milked today!"
 
diabolus said:
So are you saying we should be milking women instead to get our milk fix? ;-)
Click to expand...

Amen! That milk would be amazing for bodybuilding! But only if you can drink from the bottle!
 
diabolus said:
So are you saying we should be milking women instead to get our milk fix? ;-)
Click to expand...
That milk probably has much more sugar. It's also really thin and probably not that great in coffee.

diabolus said:
You can see that detail right on the box, Skim/Low Fat milk has more carbs in it to make up the loss in fat (you can actually spot this on ANY low fat vs. standard products) .
Click to expand...
Is it not perhaps simply that there's naturally more lactose in the same volume of liquid, so nothing is being deliberately added?

The Voice said:
Milk is meant for baby cows. End of. We aren't designed to digest it properly because, surprise-surprise, we're not cows.
Click to expand...
We're not designed for anything. The extent to which humans can digest cow's milk depends on age and genetics.
 
noxibox said:
Is it not perhaps simply that there's naturally more lactose in the same volume of liquid, so nothing is being deliberately added?
.
Click to expand...

Well with any low-fat/reduced-fat product , yes , logic would dictate that if something contains 10g fat out of 100g and you now remove the 10g fat (without adding anything) , then 100g of the product will be whatever the original 90g was consisting of. So 100g zero fat will obviously be 10g more of the original product without the fat.

So it really comes down to how much fat was removed and what exactly you will be getting instead of the fat. As was mentioned, in Milk's case the original fat content on full cream milk is like 3-4% , so we are talking like 3g out of 100g, which imho is almost nothing. I am not quite sure why we even have the 3 types of milk for "diet" reasons, as i can't imagine switching to 2% milk from full cream will do anything other than making your coffee less creamy...or maybe i am missing something.

I think it is case of if you are going to eat 100g of something to feel "full" , which is better?

1. 100g carbs 0g fat
2. 50g carbs 50g fat

I would suspect the whole idea behind all these banting dieting is that you are much better off taking #2 , and that the 50g fat is much better than the additional 50g of carbs.

I do know, some other food stuff they add salt/sodium to reduce the fat, i guess that's why we constantly have to read the labels on foods these days.
 
Last edited:
The difference in KJ/100ml between low fat and full cream is about 30, where as fat free is about 130KJ less than full cream. Plus you are more likely to get heartburn from full cream milk than from fat free milk.
 
Rouxenator said:
The difference in KJ/100ml between low fat and full cream is about 30, where as fat free is about 130KJ less than full cream. Plus you are more likely to get heartburn from full cream milk than from fat free milk.
Click to expand...

ScottulusMaximus said:
No? Higher concentration of lactose in low fat, therefore more likely to get heartburn from low fat.
Click to expand...


http://www.stevecarper.com/li/list_of_lactose_percentages.htm

Lets run the numbers:

%lactose: full cream milk: 4.8
%lactose: skim milk : 5.2

A typical cup of coffee has about 100ml of milk in it:
So in a cup of coffee with full cream milk there is 4.8ml of lactose whilst in skim milk there is 5.2 ml of lactose.

So to make a cup of skim milk coffee have the amount of lactose a cup of full cream coffee has, you would need to have 0.4ml less milk.

In practical terms they might as well be the same as I highly doubt anyone measures their coffee to a tenth of a ml.

tl;dr
If you get heartburn from milk, switching to full cream is not going to make a practical difference. You would do better just having less or no milk
 
diabolus said:
Well with any low-fat/reduced-fat product , yes , logic would dictate that if something contains 10g fat out of 100g and you now remove the 10g fat (without adding anything) , then 100g of the product will be whatever the original 90g was consisting of. So 100g zero fat will obviously be 10g more of the original product without the fat.

So it really comes down to how much fat was removed and what exactly you will be getting instead of the fat. As was mentioned, in Milk's case the original fat content on full cream milk is like 3-4% , so we are talking like 3g out of 100g, which imho is almost nothing. I am not quite sure why we even have the 3 types of milk for "diet" reasons, as i can't imagine switching to 2% milk from full cream will do anything other than making your coffee less creamy...or maybe i am missing something.

I think it is case of if you are going to eat 100g of something to feel "full" , which is better?

1. 100g carbs 0g fat
2. 50g carbs 50g fat

I would suspect the whole idea behind all these banting dieting is that you are much better off taking #2 , and that the 50g fat is much better than the additional 50g of carbs.

I do know, some other food stuff they add salt/sodium to reduce the fat, i guess that's why we constantly have to read the labels on foods these days.
Click to expand...
More salt, more high blood pressure risk factor, hmm.
 
Once again we can see that there is no universally applicable diet.

MR.C said:
More salt, more high blood pressure risk factor, hmm.
Click to expand...
Not so. It depends on the individual. Even those who already have high blood pressure can see no benefit from reducing salt intake and it can even be dangerous. For those who don't have high blood pressure lowered salt intake can too be beneficial, neutral or harmful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X