Whole Milk vs 2%

[Cow Poke]

OK, I switched to 2% long ago because, supposedly, it was better than whole milk.

NOW I hear (just the other day, but only the tail end of it) that whole milk is healthier because the milk fat makes you less likely to want to snack on stuff....

I get so tired of "use salt so you don't get goiter -- no, salt is really bad" and "don't drink coffee cause caffeine is bad -- caffeine is good and you should drink 3 cups of coffee a day" stuff.

What's the science on this?

(Quite honestly, I've gotten used to 2%, but I remember when I first tried it I thought tasted 'watered down')

[Faber]

I got used to 2%. (I believe regular milk is about 4%.) But there's no way I'll drop to 1%. I think of it as nothing but chalk water.

[Jedidiah]

2% does taste watered down. Fat is what makes things taste good. I have seen so many conflicting "scientific reports" on what to eat I have decided to eat what I like. And I drink coffee and whole milk, though for a while I did use 2% because my true love thought it was better for me. The science is still out, way, way out. Don't use those silly biased reports to base your eating on.

Eggs is (not are) a good example. Eggs were bad for you because they contained cholesterol. When it was revealed that cutting eggs did not cut blood cholesterol the recommendation to skip eggs was dropped. Now we are to eat eggs in lower numbers. Ignored in all this science are two things: you can not absorb cholesterol because it is too large a molecule, and the cholesterol in eggs is the HD variety which is supposed to be good. Go figure.

[mossrose]

All things in moderation.

We have actually used 1% milk for many years now, and don't mind it. I grew up drinking un-homogenized milk from glass bottles. Mom used to skim the thick cream off the top and we drank the milk and put the delicious cream on our oatmeal. So 1% is ok in my book. And I use half-and-half in my coffee.

I too do not believe all the so-called scientific studies that tell us one thing one week and the opposite the next. I had a friend (she passed away last fall) who believed every study that came along, and changed her eating accordingly. I remember specifically how confused she was over the debate between wild and farmed salmon.

It's silly, really. God gave us such a myriad of foods and science has done more to destroy our health by their wishy-washy studies.

We can't cut out all fat from our diets. We need fat to keep our brains healthy.

All things in moderation.

[rogue06]

All things in moderation.



All things in moderation.

Including moderation?

[Cow Poke]

2% does taste watered down. Fat is what makes things taste good. I have seen so many conflicting "scientific reports" on what to eat I have decided to eat what I like. And I drink coffee and whole milk, though for a while I did use 2% because my true love thought it was better for me. The science is still out, way, way out. Don't use those silly biased reports to base your eating on.

Yeah, the "biased".... you have to wonder who's supporting or backing a lot of these claims and "studies".

Eggs is (not are) a good example. Eggs were bad for you because they contained cholesterol. When it was revealed that cutting eggs did not cut blood cholesterol the recommendation to skip eggs was dropped. Now we are to eat eggs in lower numbers. Ignored in all this science are two things: you can not absorb cholesterol because it is too large a molecule, and the cholesterol in eggs is the HD variety which is supposed to be good. Go figure.

And butter! We were supposed to avoid butter, now it's "ok" again!

I think maybe the missing ingredient is WORK. And sweat. If you eat, and don't burn off calories, you're gonna get fat! (or, as my granddaughter says - "fluffy")

[Sparko]

2% does taste watered down. Fat is what makes things taste good. I have seen so many conflicting "scientific reports" on what to eat I have decided to eat what I like. And I drink coffee and whole milk, though for a while I did use 2% because my true love thought it was better for me. The science is still out, way, way out. Don't use those silly biased reports to base your eating on.

Eggs is (not are) a good example. Eggs were bad for you because they contained cholesterol. When it was revealed that cutting eggs did not cut blood cholesterol the recommendation to skip eggs was dropped. Now we are to eat eggs in lower numbers. Ignored in all this science are two things: you can not absorb cholesterol because it is too large a molecule, and the cholesterol in eggs is the HD variety which is supposed to be good. Go figure.

EGGzactly.

My dietician told me I should eat more eggs because I needed protein. I asked her about cholesterol, and she said the consensus now is that eating cholesterol doesn't have much to do with your actual cholesterol levels (unless you seriously overdue it) because your body makes its own cholesterol and some people just have naturally high cholesterol.

I agree with that because about 10 years ago, my doctor told me my cholesterol was too high so I needed to cut out fat and cholesterol laden foods. So I did for two months and when my cholesterol was checked it had not gone down one iota. In fact my "bad" cholesterol had gone up a bit.

[Sparko]

Yeah, the "biased".... you have to wonder who's supporting or backing a lot of these claims and "studies".



And butter! We were supposed to avoid butter, now it's "ok" again!

I think maybe the missing ingredient is WORK. And sweat. If you eat, and don't burn off calories, you're gonna get fat! (or, as my granddaughter says - "fluffy")

Do you remember that old woody allen movie, "Sleeper?" where he wakes up in the future and everything bad for you in the 1970's was healthy for you? Like fudge and smoking?

[mossrose]

EGGzactly.

My dietician told me I should eat more eggs because I needed protein. I asked her about cholesterol, and she said the consensus now is that eating cholesterol doesn't have much to do with your actual cholesterol levels (unless you seriously overdue it) because your body makes its own cholesterol and some people just have naturally high cholesterol.

I agree with that because about 10 years ago, my doctor told me my cholesterol was too high so I needed to cut out fat and cholesterol laden foods. So I did for two months and when my cholesterol was checked it had not gone down one iota. In fact my "bad" cholesterol had gone up a bit.

Yes! That's what we learned when Mr. mossy had his bypass surgery. Drugs and exercise and diet only control about 25% of the cholesterol in our bodies. We make our own 75%, and some people make more.

[Catholicity]

I think it is your genetics and not one person has a clue to your genetic code except your own body. There are very few things that are truly "bad" for everyone with a few exceptions such as:
Smoking
Drunkeness
Raw meat
Street Drugs
And I think a couple more things fit in there too. Most foods are able to have a place in our diet although there are varying degrees of what we "should" and should not eat. For example most of us should have no issue recognizing that its perfectly ok to eat nearly unlimited amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables and only small amounts of chocolate cake. Of course different people will metabolically be able to consume different amounts of food and digest it without consequence. As long as I am exercising I can eat most foods I prefer though I limit sweets. If I go sedentary I gain weight. I think however that is typical of most people. There isn't some great secret to leanness, however there are SOME people that have endocrine disorders that propel them toward obesity, diabetes adrenal issues etc. And of course what you eat or take in can affect your genetics, but I'm not sure its this great scientific challenge some want it to be.

[Carrikature]

So, my wife's a dietitian, remember? A few things she's taught me (not an exhaustive list):

1) Scientific studies typically find correlations. It's extremely difficult to have control groups or to isolate individual factors when studying the effects of certain foods. It's often a case of "People who eat X have Y". That's correlation, though, not causation. After a lot of those sorts of studies are done, dietitians do literature reviews where they compare the various studies and see what filters out as reasonably reproducible effects.

2) Diet recommendations by registered dietitians (nutritionists aren't licensed) are rarely based on this sort of information. They do base them on things like the food pyramid (which gets updated but doesn't change drastically), and generally recommend portion-size control and more exercise.

3) There aren't 'bad foods' from a dietetic perspective. There are foods you want/need more of, and foods you need less of, but this is all based on organic chemistry (what foods are composed of). The most important thing is, as mossrose said, moderation. Vitamin C is good for you, but too much of it can kill you. Vitamin K might sound like a good idea except it will counter the effects of blood thinners.


Keep in mind that articles about the 'latest' food studies aren't any different from articles about any other science. They to go through levels of sensationalism until they've reached popular consumption. The base studies rarely, if ever, say anything close to what the article hypes. Most often, the study says something like "we found a possible link" while the article says "new study says you shouldn't do X". I dare say that food-related articles are even worse, not least because of all the fad diets and general diet ignorance despite everyone thinking they know what they're talking about.

[Carrikature]

Don't use those silly biased reports to base your eating on.

If you're going to claim something is biased, you should support the claim. Conspiracy theory nonsense isn't remotely helpful.

Yeah, the "biased".... you have to wonder who's supporting or backing a lot of these claims and "studies".

If you actually care, it's simple enough to find this information.

[Sparko]

So, my wife's a dietitian, remember? A few things she's taught me (not an exhaustive list):

1) Scientific studies typically find correlations. It's extremely difficult to have control groups or to isolate individual factors when studying the effects of certain foods. It's often a case of "People who eat X have Y". That's correlation, though, not causation. After a lot of those sorts of studies are done, dietitians do literature reviews where they compare the various studies and see what filters out as reasonably reproducible effects.

2) Diet recommendations by registered dietitians (nutritionists aren't licensed) are rarely based on this sort of information. They do base them on things like the food pyramid (which gets updated but doesn't change drastically), and generally recommend portion-size control and more exercise.

3) There aren't 'bad foods' from a dietetic perspective. There are foods you want/need more of, and foods you need less of, but this is all based on organic chemistry (what foods are composed of). The most important thing is, as mossrose said, moderation. Vitamin C is good for you, but too much of it can kill you. Vitamin K might sound like a good idea except it will counter the effects of blood thinners.


Keep in mind that articles about the 'latest' food studies aren't any different from articles about any other science. They to go through levels of sensationalism until they've reached popular consumption. The base studies rarely, if ever, say anything close to what the article hypes. Most often, the study says something like "we found a possible link" while the article says "new study says you shouldn't do X". I dare say that food-related articles are even worse, not least because of all the fad diets and general diet ignorance despite everyone thinking they know what they're talking about.

I hear eating rocks is good for your digestion! It works for chickens.

[Cow Poke]

If you actually care, it's simple enough to find this information.

Why would I not care?

The problem is not an inability to find "this information" - it's finding too much conflicting information.

[Sparko]

I think it is your genetics and not one person has a clue to your genetic code except your own body. There are very few things that are truly "bad" for everyone with a few exceptions such as:
Smoking
Drunkeness
Raw meat
Street Drugs

Hey that fits the life of every pirate! What's wrong with eating raw meat and being drunk? The alcohol kills any germs in the meat.

And I walked down the street and found these drugs on sale at walgreens, called "Tylenol" and unless I take a dozen at a time, I dont think they are bad for me. Smoking would be bad because it means you are on fire. I have to give you that one.