Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Full fat VS low fat
Replies
-
I like a patty with an egg -- often ground lamb when I have it -- but usually don't put it on a bun then. Definitely delicious, though.0
-
menotyou56 wrote: »menotyou56 wrote: »
It doesn't satiate everyone and not all low fat stuff is loaded with sugar. Completely over generalized.
Just about any 'food product' advertised as low fat has added sugar because it tastes like crap after taking the fat out.
Of course asparagus, green beans, broccoli, cauliflower, etc are low fat and fine but not man made processed 'foods'.
I don't mean to be argumentative, but no, they don't. Could you be more specific about what kinds of low fat foods you're talking about?
Low fat foods stuffed with 'harmful’ levels of sugar
Telegraph analysis finds many food and drink products marketed as "low fat" contain sugar levels which some leading campaigners and scientists warn are too high.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10668189/Low-fat-foods-stuffed-with-harmful-levels-of-sugar.html1 -
menotyou56 wrote: »menotyou56 wrote: »menotyou56 wrote: »
It doesn't satiate everyone and not all low fat stuff is loaded with sugar. Completely over generalized.
Just about any 'food product' advertised as low fat has added sugar because it tastes like crap after taking the fat out.
Of course asparagus, green beans, broccoli, cauliflower, etc are low fat and fine but not man made processed 'foods'.
I don't mean to be argumentative, but no, they don't. Could you be more specific about what kinds of low fat foods you're talking about?
Low fat foods stuffed with 'harmful’ levels of sugar
Telegraph analysis finds many food and drink products marketed as "low fat" contain sugar levels which some leading campaigners and scientists warn are too high.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10668189/Low-fat-foods-stuffed-with-harmful-levels-of-sugar.html
Most of this stuff seems no brainer to me...they're pretty much all highly processed food goods with added flavors and what not..no kidding they're going to add sugar.
Things like dairy...like milk, etc that doesn't have added flavorings and whatnot do not add sugar for lower fat versions which is more where I think people are coming from...i.e. low fat plain greek yogurt vs full fat...whole milk vs reduced fat milk, etc.4 -
menotyou56 wrote: »menotyou56 wrote: »menotyou56 wrote: »
It doesn't satiate everyone and not all low fat stuff is loaded with sugar. Completely over generalized.
Just about any 'food product' advertised as low fat has added sugar because it tastes like crap after taking the fat out.
Of course asparagus, green beans, broccoli, cauliflower, etc are low fat and fine but not man made processed 'foods'.
I don't mean to be argumentative, but no, they don't. Could you be more specific about what kinds of low fat foods you're talking about?
Low fat foods stuffed with 'harmful’ levels of sugar
Telegraph analysis finds many food and drink products marketed as "low fat" contain sugar levels which some leading campaigners and scientists warn are too high.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10668189/Low-fat-foods-stuffed-with-harmful-levels-of-sugar.html
Is the amount of sugar articulated in that chart from added sugar, or total sugar? It must be total sugar, since nutrition labels provide that information currently, and the article discusses that further down. So it's providing a sensationalized number of 2 tsp of sugar in a serving of M&S bolognese sauce, but much of that would likely come naturally from the tomatoes in the ingredients...
This is the kind of reporting that drives me crazy - they accurately quote the recommendations from the WHO, they talk about the challenges in measuring "free sugars", yet then provide an infographic that misrepresents the actual data...3 -
A systematic comparison of sugar content in low-fat vs regular versions of food
P K Nguyen, S Lin, and P Heidenreich...Journal ListNutr Diabetes v.6(1); 2016 JanPMC4742721
Obesity remains a significant public health concern. One of the primary messages from providers and health-care organizations is to eat healthier foods with lower fat. Many in the lay press, however, have suggested that lower fat versions of foods contain more sugar. To our knowledge, a systematic comparison of the sugar content in food with lower fat alternatives has not been performed. In this study, we compared fat free, low fat and regular versions of the same foods using data collected from the USDA National Nutrient Database. We found that the amount of sugar is higher in the low fat (that is, reduced calorie, light, low fat) and non-fat than ‘regular' versions of tested items (Friedman P=0.00001, Wilcoxon P=0.0002 for low fat vs regular food and P=0.0003 for non-fat vs regular food). Our data support the general belief that food that is lower in fat may contain more sugar.
Results
On the basis of the information collected by the USDA, we found that the amount of sugar is higher in the low-fat (that is, reduced calorie, light, low fat) and non-fat than regular versions of tested items (Friedman P=0.00001, Wilcoxon P=0.0002 for low-fat vs regular food and P=0.0003 for non-fat vs regular food). Subgroup analysis revealed that sugar content was higher in lower calorie versions of the following food categories: (i) dairy products, (ii) baked goods, (iii) meats, fish and poultry, and (iv) fats, oils and salad dressings (Figure 1 and Table 1). Results did not significantly differ between 2004 and 2014 (data not shown).
Discussion
Findings from this study suggest that consuming foods lower in fat have higher sugar content despite having lower calories. Although the increase in added sugar per serving appears to be small, the cumulative effect of consuming ‘empty calories' over several years could have important health consequences.
Consuming excess sugar even in small amounts (⩾10% of total calories) has been shown to be harmful, leading to weight gain, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4742721/3 -
menotyou56 wrote: »A systematic comparison of sugar content in low-fat vs regular versions of food
P K Nguyen, S Lin, and P Heidenreich...Journal ListNutr Diabetes v.6(1); 2016 JanPMC4742721
Obesity remains a significant public health concern. One of the primary messages from providers and health-care organizations is to eat healthier foods with lower fat. Many in the lay press, however, have suggested that lower fat versions of foods contain more sugar. To our knowledge, a systematic comparison of the sugar content in food with lower fat alternatives has not been performed. In this study, we compared fat free, low fat and regular versions of the same foods using data collected from the USDA National Nutrient Database. We found that the amount of sugar is higher in the low fat (that is, reduced calorie, light, low fat) and non-fat than ‘regular' versions of tested items (Friedman P=0.00001, Wilcoxon P=0.0002 for low fat vs regular food and P=0.0003 for non-fat vs regular food). Our data support the general belief that food that is lower in fat may contain more sugar.
Results
On the basis of the information collected by the USDA, we found that the amount of sugar is higher in the low-fat (that is, reduced calorie, light, low fat) and non-fat than regular versions of tested items (Friedman P=0.00001, Wilcoxon P=0.0002 for low-fat vs regular food and P=0.0003 for non-fat vs regular food). Subgroup analysis revealed that sugar content was higher in lower calorie versions of the following food categories: (i) dairy products, (ii) baked goods, (iii) meats, fish and poultry, and (iv) fats, oils and salad dressings (Figure 1 and Table 1). Results did not significantly differ between 2004 and 2014 (data not shown).
Discussion
Findings from this study suggest that consuming foods lower in fat have higher sugar content despite having lower calories. Although the increase in added sugar per serving appears to be small, the cumulative effect of consuming ‘empty calories' over several years could have important health consequences.
Consuming excess sugar even in small amounts (⩾10% of total calories) has been shown to be harmful, leading to weight gain, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4742721/
There are problems plucking something out of context.
1. Some things, particularly baked goods, may have more sugar in the low fat version.
2. This does not mean ALL things have more sugar in the low fat version.
3. Dairy products, particularly no added sugar varieties, may have higher lactose content (and protein content for what it's worth) due to displacement of fat.
4. Many low fat foods don't have higher sugar content, even the processed kind. Many low fat diet products also contain sugar alcohols to lower the calories.
5. Many low fat foods do have higher sugar content, but the difference is too small to matter.
6. Most people are capable of looking at the label and ingredients to judge if the sugar content is to their liking without having to go the roundabout highly unreliable way of judging sugar content by fat content.
7. Many high fat products are very high in sugar.
8. Consumption of excess sugar has only shown to correlate with the issues mentioned, and largely due to the overconsumption products that are high in both fat and sugar, not the less popular low fat varieties, leading to an overconsumption of calories in hyperpalatable foods.
9. Point 8 has little impact on people who are knowingly and successfully controlling their calories.5 -
I want to say this: I would not let anyone in this thread cook my burgers/steaks.11
-
I think this part is key. They didn't look at lowfat foods in general, just some of them.menotyou56 wrote: »We found that the amount of sugar is higher in the low fat (that is, reduced calorie, light, low fat) and non-fat than ‘regular' versions of tested items (Friedman P=0.00001, Wilcoxon P=0.0002 for low fat vs regular food and P=0.0003 for non-fat vs regular food).
Also, if you look at Table 1, the only foods they tested that weren't highly processed with a lot of additives were dairy products. There wasn't a great deal of difference with the hard cheeses. With the soft cheeses, sour cream, and yogurt, it wasn't just sugars that were higher - protein was higher too (except for cottage cheese, which had almost identical protein content). To me, that sounds like removal of milk fat made room for more milk solids that contain protein and lactose.
The meats were all hot dogs and cold cuts, which have a lot of fillers and additives. They didn't look at lean vs. fatty cuts of meat or poultry.
4 -
menotyou56 wrote: »menotyou56 wrote: »menotyou56 wrote: »
It doesn't satiate everyone and not all low fat stuff is loaded with sugar. Completely over generalized.
Just about any 'food product' advertised as low fat has added sugar because it tastes like crap after taking the fat out.
Of course asparagus, green beans, broccoli, cauliflower, etc are low fat and fine but not man made processed 'foods'.
I don't mean to be argumentative, but no, they don't. Could you be more specific about what kinds of low fat foods you're talking about?
Low fat foods stuffed with 'harmful’ levels of sugar
Telegraph analysis finds many food and drink products marketed as "low fat" contain sugar levels which some leading campaigners and scientists warn are too high.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10668189/Low-fat-foods-stuffed-with-harmful-levels-of-sugar.html
Let's see, in deciding whether something I want to buy has added sugar, I will:
(1) Avoid it and assume it must, because some random UK newspaper says that many products marketed as low fat do; or
(2) Read the label and see.
I vote for (2), and happily it tells me that none of the products that are low fat that I buy have added sugar.
Also, the yogurt example is pretty disingenuous, as yogurt has inherent sugar, plain yogurt doesn't really have more (and certainly no added sugar) just because lower fat -- I demonstrated this with some Fage in a past thread, and while flavored yogurt has added sugar (often, not always), it does not whether full fat or not. Flavored full fat yogurt is probably more likely to have added sugar, as the flavored low fat often uses artificial sugar because it's marketed as a low cal diet product.3 -
I really don't get this idea to generalize about something as varied as "low fat foods" when rather than just deciding "all low fat must be packed with sugar" (even though it's obviously false with many of the most common lower fat foods, like chicken breast or ground beef or dairy), you could read the label or simply understand what you are buying.
Again, menotyou, do you think it would be possible to explain this, and explain why one would spread the false claim that skim and 2% milk and plain 2% and 0% yogurt and so on have added sugar? It puzzles me.2 -
-
Sorry, no. I don't eat raw or partially raw meat.1 -
Sorry, no. I don't eat raw or partially raw meat.
Don't come to my house for steak then... Eye fillet, rare...mmmmm(oooooooooooo)2 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
Sorry, no. I don't eat raw or partially raw meat.
Don't come to my house for steak then... Eye fillet, rare...mmmmm(oooooooooooo)
The more rare the better.2 -
I did low fat for years but now I do full fat. (I actually don't like the taste of cow's milk so I don't drink that, but I use heavy cream in my coffee, eat regular cheese, regular bacon, etc.) With things like salad dressing I'd rather have the full fat version than the light/diet version which is often higher in sugar (unlike many other low fat foods
), since my body does better with lower carbs and higher fat. 0 -
-
Full fat only unless I'm cutting.0
-
menotyou56 wrote: »A systematic comparison of sugar content in low-fat vs regular versions of food
P K Nguyen, S Lin, and P Heidenreich...Journal ListNutr Diabetes v.6(1); 2016 JanPMC4742721
Obesity remains a significant public health concern. One of the primary messages from providers and health-care organizations is to eat healthier foods with lower fat. Many in the lay press, however, have suggested that lower fat versions of foods contain more sugar. To our knowledge, a systematic comparison of the sugar content in food with lower fat alternatives has not been performed. In this study, we compared fat free, low fat and regular versions of the same foods using data collected from the USDA National Nutrient Database. We found that the amount of sugar is higher in the low fat (that is, reduced calorie, light, low fat) and non-fat than ‘regular' versions of tested items (Friedman P=0.00001, Wilcoxon P=0.0002 for low fat vs regular food and P=0.0003 for non-fat vs regular food). Our data support the general belief that food that is lower in fat may contain more sugar.
Results
On the basis of the information collected by the USDA, we found that the amount of sugar is higher in the low-fat (that is, reduced calorie, light, low fat) and non-fat than regular versions of tested items (Friedman P=0.00001, Wilcoxon P=0.0002 for low-fat vs regular food and P=0.0003 for non-fat vs regular food). Subgroup analysis revealed that sugar content was higher in lower calorie versions of the following food categories: (i) dairy products, (ii) baked goods, (iii) meats, fish and poultry, and (iv) fats, oils and salad dressings (Figure 1 and Table 1). Results did not significantly differ between 2004 and 2014 (data not shown).
Discussion
Findings from this study suggest that consuming foods lower in fat have higher sugar content despite having lower calories. Although the increase in added sugar per serving appears to be small, the cumulative effect of consuming ‘empty calories' over several years could have important health consequences.
Consuming excess sugar even in small amounts (⩾10% of total calories) has been shown to be harmful, leading to weight gain, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4742721/
Ah, using the lack of maths knowledge of the general population to insinuate things that aren't true.
Okay, so if you take 100 ml of regular 3.25% fat milk, ( http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/69/2 ), that has 5 grams of sugar in it and 3.25 grams of fat. If you now reduce the amount of fat to 1% or even lower to 0.1%, you end up with still 5 grams of sugar, but only 97.75 ml / 96.85 ml of 1% or 0.1% milk respectively. 100 ml of that milk would have 5.11 grams / 5.16 grams of sugar respectively. Without adding any extra sugar, just from removing the fat, obviously the percentage of sugar per 100 ml increased. Maths. And then you can make a study saying "Breaking news! Low fat products have more sugar than non-low fat!"5 -
Since I've been losing weight (at the end of January), I've started to pay attention to low-fat dairy. I like low-fat or fat-free milk, Greek yogurt, farmer's cheese. These are WAY lower in calories than fuller fat counterparts and allow me to save those calories for snacks or eating out 1x per week. I don't mind the taste at all. For cereals and smoothies I use plant milks, usually almond or cashew now, as they're lowest in calories (Silk and Stop&Shop brands have 25-30cals per cup for some of those!). I buy ALL of the aforementioned products in PLAIN or UNSWEETENED, since it's less calories and less processed sugar for me.3
-
I tend to go full fat, although I prefer 1% in my coffee if I don't have access to soy milk. It tends to be gentler on my stomach than 2% or whole.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions