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
-
Is bacon full fat? Cuz I want some right now1
-
MsHarryWinston wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »Full fat. I also eat the whole damn egg. None of this egg white business for me unless I'm making angel food cake.
Lol I looove eggs. But I've actually come to really love liquid egg whites. On the other hand, to me 1% milk is a fundamental crime against nature it's so thin and watery. My husband bought some the other week because I was making mashed potatoes and I was SOO mad. The potatoes weren't nearly as rich and creamy as my normal recipe. It was so sad.
Skim milk is even worse - like water that a white crayon has been dipped in...4 -
menotyou56 wrote: »menotyou56 wrote: »Humanity ate full fat for eons until some jerkoff scientist with an agenda came along in the 50's with false data and claimed fat was bad and would kill you.
He was full of you know what and is the father of the obesity/type 2 diabetes epidemic now sweeping the entire planet.
Why is this true? How is low fat food the father of obesity/type 2 diabetes? Or Mr. jerkoff scientist 4 that matter?
Google Ancel Keys and the Seven Nations study.
That study, with all its shortcomings, was scientifically sound and the correlation did show up, but even if we throw that out completely and butcher it in the comical way people like to butcher Ancel Key's work, it still wouldn't matter and would not lead to your obesity/diabetes conclusion. You're talking as if the low fat craze was anything other than the flavor of the year just like low carb is now, where people "know" they "shouldn't be eating this" but they eat it anyway. The actual average fat consumption was not much influenced by that craze, in fact in some countries it increased (ironically "proving" the correlation Ancel observed).
(Wonder why all Tanzanians haven't turned into rolling fat blobs yet with such a low fat consumption)
You know what else increased that would be one of the real contributing factors to the increase in obesity/type 2 diabetes? Food availability.
It really doesn't matter if you choose to eat low fat or full fat items. As long as you have your calories and hunger in check you will be fine.7 -
MsHarryWinston wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »Full fat. I also eat the whole damn egg. None of this egg white business for me unless I'm making angel food cake.
Lol I looove eggs. But I've actually come to really love liquid egg whites. On the other hand, to me 1% milk is a fundamental crime against nature it's so thin and watery. My husband bought some the other week because I was making mashed potatoes and I was SOO mad. The potatoes weren't nearly as rich and creamy as my normal recipe. It was so sad.
Skim milk is even worse - like water that a white crayon has been dipped in...
Noooooooo! So gross.
0 -
menotyou56 wrote: »Humanity ate full fat for eons until some jerkoff scientist with an agenda came along in the 50's with false data and claimed fat was bad and would kill you.
He was full of you know what and is the father of the obesity/type 2 diabetes epidemic now sweeping the entire planet.
This is a misunderstanding of what happened.
I do think that Keys was wrong (at least to some extent) in his views on fat but he acted in good faith. (On the other hand, many more knowledgeable than me or you, like Walter Willett and David Katz, believe the evidence as a whole continues to support the concern about excessive consumption of sat fat.) Here is a really good piece on the allegations against Keys: http://www.thenutritionwonk.com/single-post/2016/04/13/Ancel-Keys-and-the-Seven-Country-Study-A-Response-to-The-Sugar-Conspiracy
More significantly, blaming Keys for the obesity epidemic is absurd, especially since in real terms we did not reduce fat consumption and did not follow dietary advice much at all. A good piece on this: http://www.stephanguyenet.com/did-the-us-dietary-guidelines-cause-the-obesity-epidemic/If the Dietary Guidelines caused us to gain weight by putting us on a low-fat diet, there should be evidence that we actually began eating less fat in response to the Guidelines. If not, the hypothesis cannot be correct.
Two independent lines of evidence suggest that our absolute fat intake did not decline after the publication of the Guidelines (5, 6). Proponents of the hypothesis invariably cite the fact that the percentage of fat in the US diet declined, which is true (although the change was rather small). The reason the percentage changed is not because our fat intake decreased, but because our carbohydrate intake increased, along with our total calorie intake. Does this count as a low-fat diet?
As an analogy, imagine a man named Jim who has obesity. Jim wants to lose weight, so he decides to eat a low-carbohydrate diet. Rather than reducing his intake of carbohydrate, Jim adds fat to all his meals so that the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases. Jim’s calorie intake increases from 3,000 to 4,000 Calories per day, and his absolute carbohydrate intake remains the same. Yet the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases from 45% to 34%. Is Jim on a low-carbohydrate diet, and should we expect him to lose weight?
Of course not. Jim isn’t eating a low-carbohydrate diet, and neither have Americans been eating a low-fat diet....
If the Guidelines caused the obesity epidemic, then the people who actually followed the advice should have gained more weight than the people who didn’t. Yet the evidence shows precisely the opposite (9).
To elaborate on that last, the guidelines recommend whole grains vs. refined, limiting added sugar, and especially consuming recommended amounts of vegetables and fruits. The changes in the US diet suggest that we did this even less after the publication of the advice than before. Those who did these things, according to such things as the Nurse's Study, were less likely to be obese. (I think this is because attention to health advice correlates with likelihood to do healthful things in general, but it's what we have.)6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »menotyou56 wrote: »Humanity ate full fat for eons until some jerkoff scientist with an agenda came along in the 50's with false data and claimed fat was bad and would kill you.
He was full of you know what and is the father of the obesity/type 2 diabetes epidemic now sweeping the entire planet.
This is a misunderstanding of what happened.
I do think that Keys was wrong (at least to some extent) in his views on fat but he acted in good faith. (On the other hand, many more knowledgeable than me or you, like Walter Willett and David Katz, believe the evidence as a whole continues to support the concern about excessive consumption of sat fat.) Here is a really good piece on the allegations against Keys: http://www.thenutritionwonk.com/single-post/2016/04/13/Ancel-Keys-and-the-Seven-Country-Study-A-Response-to-The-Sugar-Conspiracy
More significantly, blaming Keys for the obesity epidemic is absurd, especially since in real terms we did not reduce fat consumption and did not follow dietary advice much at all. A good piece on this: http://www.stephanguyenet.com/did-the-us-dietary-guidelines-cause-the-obesity-epidemic/If the Dietary Guidelines caused us to gain weight by putting us on a low-fat diet, there should be evidence that we actually began eating less fat in response to the Guidelines. If not, the hypothesis cannot be correct.
Two independent lines of evidence suggest that our absolute fat intake did not decline after the publication of the Guidelines (5, 6). Proponents of the hypothesis invariably cite the fact that the percentage of fat in the US diet declined, which is true (although the change was rather small). The reason the percentage changed is not because our fat intake decreased, but because our carbohydrate intake increased, along with our total calorie intake. Does this count as a low-fat diet?
As an analogy, imagine a man named Jim who has obesity. Jim wants to lose weight, so he decides to eat a low-carbohydrate diet. Rather than reducing his intake of carbohydrate, Jim adds fat to all his meals so that the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases. Jim’s calorie intake increases from 3,000 to 4,000 Calories per day, and his absolute carbohydrate intake remains the same. Yet the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases from 45% to 34%. Is Jim on a low-carbohydrate diet, and should we expect him to lose weight?
Of course not. Jim isn’t eating a low-carbohydrate diet, and neither have Americans been eating a low-fat diet....
If the Guidelines caused the obesity epidemic, then the people who actually followed the advice should have gained more weight than the people who didn’t. Yet the evidence shows precisely the opposite (9).
To elaborate on that last, the guidelines recommend whole grains vs. refined, limiting added sugar, and especially consuming recommended amounts of vegetables and fruits. The changes in the US diet suggest that we did this even less after the publication of the advice than before. Those who did these things, according to such things as the Nurse's Study, were less likely to be obese. (I think this is because attention to health advice correlates with likelihood to do healthful things in general, but it's what we have.)
should we trust blogosphere or actual peer reviewed scientific papers?
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(15)00077-5/fulltext0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »menotyou56 wrote: »Humanity ate full fat for eons until some jerkoff scientist with an agenda came along in the 50's with false data and claimed fat was bad and would kill you.
He was full of you know what and is the father of the obesity/type 2 diabetes epidemic now sweeping the entire planet.
This is a misunderstanding of what happened.
I do think that Keys was wrong (at least to some extent) in his views on fat but he acted in good faith. (On the other hand, many more knowledgeable than me or you, like Walter Willett and David Katz, believe the evidence as a whole continues to support the concern about excessive consumption of sat fat.) Here is a really good piece on the allegations against Keys: http://www.thenutritionwonk.com/single-post/2016/04/13/Ancel-Keys-and-the-Seven-Country-Study-A-Response-to-The-Sugar-Conspiracy
More significantly, blaming Keys for the obesity epidemic is absurd, especially since in real terms we did not reduce fat consumption and did not follow dietary advice much at all. A good piece on this: http://www.stephanguyenet.com/did-the-us-dietary-guidelines-cause-the-obesity-epidemic/If the Dietary Guidelines caused us to gain weight by putting us on a low-fat diet, there should be evidence that we actually began eating less fat in response to the Guidelines. If not, the hypothesis cannot be correct.
Two independent lines of evidence suggest that our absolute fat intake did not decline after the publication of the Guidelines (5, 6). Proponents of the hypothesis invariably cite the fact that the percentage of fat in the US diet declined, which is true (although the change was rather small). The reason the percentage changed is not because our fat intake decreased, but because our carbohydrate intake increased, along with our total calorie intake. Does this count as a low-fat diet?
As an analogy, imagine a man named Jim who has obesity. Jim wants to lose weight, so he decides to eat a low-carbohydrate diet. Rather than reducing his intake of carbohydrate, Jim adds fat to all his meals so that the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases. Jim’s calorie intake increases from 3,000 to 4,000 Calories per day, and his absolute carbohydrate intake remains the same. Yet the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases from 45% to 34%. Is Jim on a low-carbohydrate diet, and should we expect him to lose weight?
Of course not. Jim isn’t eating a low-carbohydrate diet, and neither have Americans been eating a low-fat diet....
If the Guidelines caused the obesity epidemic, then the people who actually followed the advice should have gained more weight than the people who didn’t. Yet the evidence shows precisely the opposite (9).
To elaborate on that last, the guidelines recommend whole grains vs. refined, limiting added sugar, and especially consuming recommended amounts of vegetables and fruits. The changes in the US diet suggest that we did this even less after the publication of the advice than before. Those who did these things, according to such things as the Nurse's Study, were less likely to be obese. (I think this is because attention to health advice correlates with likelihood to do healthful things in general, but it's what we have.)
should we trust blogosphere or actual peer reviewed scientific papers?
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(15)00077-5/fulltext
I usually prefer peer reviewed scientific papers whose data shows the same thing they're saying in text.
The only difference between the 1976 and 1988 reading is that people started eating 50 grams MORE of carbs, not decreasing fat. Exactly what the "blogosphere" article said. I'll go start a low carb diet by eating 5000 calories of coconut oil exta to everything else I'm already eating, that'll do the trick.Your own link wrote:However, without specific recommendations from the AHA or the USDA/DHHS on total caloric intake on an absolute basis, the shift in the share of fat and carbohydrate is primarily due to an almost 65 g, or about a 260 kcal, daily increase in Americans' intake of carbohydrate from 1965 to 2011. For fat, Americans' consumption on an absolute basis fell between 1965 and 1971 by >25 g, but has since remained largely flat. As shown in Figure 6, the average adult American consumed about 109 g/d of fat and 213 g/d of carbohydrate in 1965. Daily fat consumption fell to 83 g in 1971, and remained at approximately the same level through 2011. In contrast, carbohydrate consumption, although basically flat from 1965 to 1971 in terms of total calories, has risen to 278 g/d since 1965, an increase of 30.6%.5 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »menotyou56 wrote: »Humanity ate full fat for eons until some jerkoff scientist with an agenda came along in the 50's with false data and claimed fat was bad and would kill you.
He was full of you know what and is the father of the obesity/type 2 diabetes epidemic now sweeping the entire planet.
This is a misunderstanding of what happened.
I do think that Keys was wrong (at least to some extent) in his views on fat but he acted in good faith. (On the other hand, many more knowledgeable than me or you, like Walter Willett and David Katz, believe the evidence as a whole continues to support the concern about excessive consumption of sat fat.) Here is a really good piece on the allegations against Keys: http://www.thenutritionwonk.com/single-post/2016/04/13/Ancel-Keys-and-the-Seven-Country-Study-A-Response-to-The-Sugar-Conspiracy
More significantly, blaming Keys for the obesity epidemic is absurd, especially since in real terms we did not reduce fat consumption and did not follow dietary advice much at all. A good piece on this: http://www.stephanguyenet.com/did-the-us-dietary-guidelines-cause-the-obesity-epidemic/If the Dietary Guidelines caused us to gain weight by putting us on a low-fat diet, there should be evidence that we actually began eating less fat in response to the Guidelines. If not, the hypothesis cannot be correct.
Two independent lines of evidence suggest that our absolute fat intake did not decline after the publication of the Guidelines (5, 6). Proponents of the hypothesis invariably cite the fact that the percentage of fat in the US diet declined, which is true (although the change was rather small). The reason the percentage changed is not because our fat intake decreased, but because our carbohydrate intake increased, along with our total calorie intake. Does this count as a low-fat diet?
As an analogy, imagine a man named Jim who has obesity. Jim wants to lose weight, so he decides to eat a low-carbohydrate diet. Rather than reducing his intake of carbohydrate, Jim adds fat to all his meals so that the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases. Jim’s calorie intake increases from 3,000 to 4,000 Calories per day, and his absolute carbohydrate intake remains the same. Yet the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases from 45% to 34%. Is Jim on a low-carbohydrate diet, and should we expect him to lose weight?
Of course not. Jim isn’t eating a low-carbohydrate diet, and neither have Americans been eating a low-fat diet....
If the Guidelines caused the obesity epidemic, then the people who actually followed the advice should have gained more weight than the people who didn’t. Yet the evidence shows precisely the opposite (9).
To elaborate on that last, the guidelines recommend whole grains vs. refined, limiting added sugar, and especially consuming recommended amounts of vegetables and fruits. The changes in the US diet suggest that we did this even less after the publication of the advice than before. Those who did these things, according to such things as the Nurse's Study, were less likely to be obese. (I think this is because attention to health advice correlates with likelihood to do healthful things in general, but it's what we have.)
should we trust blogosphere or actual peer reviewed scientific papers?
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(15)00077-5/fulltext
stevencloser covered it. The article I linked was an analysis of the evidence.
It's really absurd to point to percentages as evidence that the US followed the recommendations and that the recommendations are why obesity is high. We did not reduce TOTAL fat calories, and reducing fat as a percentage of total intake is not following the recommendations. Moreover, the idea that the slight shift in percentages (and men and women continue to eat different percentages) is the key thing makes no sense when there are countries that are much better off than we are when it comes to obesity that are higher carb and lower fat. Looking at global evidence does not at all support the idea that percentages of macros is all that significant, let alone slight changes like this. (I'd even guess that on average high protein correlates with obesity -- not because eating more protein makes a diet less satisfying, but because a country's wealth and high protein and western diet and high protein would be correlated.)
If people in the US followed the dietary guidelines, we would eat less added sugar and, especially, more vegetables and fruit.
What tracks with the dietary shift and the increased calories is the (a) increasing availability of inexpensive and hyperpalatable food options that are also extremely convenient and non time consuming (which tend to be high in fat and refined carbs, but especially the latter); and (2) a decline in cultural means by which diet was formed and eating amounts/times/choices more limited.
It seems to me that to blame it on the US Dietary Guidelines recommending a certain carb percentage, reducing fat, and eating lots of grains (and, btw, whole grains, legumes, and vegetables) vs. these other changes that actually track more with how Americans eating style has changed (weird that fast food consumption has increased when people are supposedly trying to eat low fat, for example), requires that one be on the "it's all the carbs" bandwagon already. And it's not consistent, again, with results in other countries.5 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »CornflakeGirl01 wrote: »I have done a great deal of personal research on this topic and definitely have an opinion, which can be substantiated by numerous scientific research. Fat in your diet is essential for energy, healthy tissue, controlling inflammation, absorption of fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E, & K), and regulation of many hormones. It can even help with weight loss, by providing enough calories and energy to keep you feeling satiated and your energy levels even.
The trick is to eat the right kind of fat, which is mainly plant based, from nuts, seeds, avocados. In addition to plant based polyunsaturated fats, fats found in fish like salmon, tuna, and sardines contain essential fatty acids, omega-3 and omega-6 that help reduce heart disease. Vegetable based fats help with insulin resistance and body inflammation, which contributes to multiple chronic diseases.
Fats from animal sources are called saturated fats and are okay in moderation. You get these from beef, cheese, ice cream, and eggs.
Trans fats are found in processed foods and should be avoided at all costs. Cookies, cakes, and fast food contain trans fats. If it comes in a box, it has trans fats most likely and is artificially created! Additionally, "low fat" foods are often created with increased sugar and other processed items like refined substances (flour, starch). They do this to make the "low fat" taste good, but end up jacking up our blood sugar, spiking our insulin levels and even causing weight GAIN!
So, I personally, so not eat anything "low-fat". It is better to choose half and half for your coffee than processed, sugary creamers. To me, "low-fat" equals high sugar, high insulin body spikes, low nutritionally value, and possible weight gain.
I hope this helps!
Yes! this was what I wanted to know!
I knew there was something "bad" about low fat items but weren't sure what it applied to!
There is nothing wrong with low fat items. food is food. I have to be on a low fat diet due to a health issue.low fat does not mean high sugar or high insulin spikes.I have read labels on low fat and regular fat products and there isnt much difference in the sugar content,a lot of the regular fat items tend to be higher in sugar a lot of the time,but not always.
insulin spikes happen in healthy people too. its how insulin works,if you have an insulin issue and have to watch your sugar/carbs thats one thing. but you can eat regular fat or low fat foods, its up to as long as you dont have a health issue.weight gain also only happens in a surplus of calories.
This is completely off topic, but I love your hair color!1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »CornflakeGirl01 wrote: »I have done a great deal of personal research on this topic and definitely have an opinion, which can be substantiated by numerous scientific research. Fat in your diet is essential for energy, healthy tissue, controlling inflammation, absorption of fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E, & K), and regulation of many hormones. It can even help with weight loss, by providing enough calories and energy to keep you feeling satiated and your energy levels even.
The trick is to eat the right kind of fat, which is mainly plant based, from nuts, seeds, avocados. In addition to plant based polyunsaturated fats, fats found in fish like salmon, tuna, and sardines contain essential fatty acids, omega-3 and omega-6 that help reduce heart disease. Vegetable based fats help with insulin resistance and body inflammation, which contributes to multiple chronic diseases.
Fats from animal sources are called saturated fats and are okay in moderation. You get these from beef, cheese, ice cream, and eggs.
Trans fats are found in processed foods and should be avoided at all costs. Cookies, cakes, and fast food contain trans fats. If it comes in a box, it has trans fats most likely and is artificially created! Additionally, "low fat" foods are often created with increased sugar and other processed items like refined substances (flour, starch). They do this to make the "low fat" taste good, but end up jacking up our blood sugar, spiking our insulin levels and even causing weight GAIN!
So, I personally, so not eat anything "low-fat". It is better to choose half and half for your coffee than processed, sugary creamers. To me, "low-fat" equals high sugar, high insulin body spikes, low nutritionally value, and possible weight gain.
I hope this helps!
Yes! this was what I wanted to know!
I knew there was something "bad" about low fat items but weren't sure what it applied to!
There is nothing wrong with low fat items. food is food. I have to be on a low fat diet due to a health issue.low fat does not mean high sugar or high insulin spikes.I have read labels on low fat and regular fat products and there isnt much difference in the sugar content,a lot of the regular fat items tend to be higher in sugar a lot of the time,but not always.
insulin spikes happen in healthy people too. its how insulin works,if you have an insulin issue and have to watch your sugar/carbs thats one thing. but you can eat regular fat or low fat foods, its up to as long as you dont have a health issue.weight gain also only happens in a surplus of calories.
This is completely off topic, but I love your hair color!
thank you0 -
The two figures posted by Stevencloser are interesting for a number of reasons but I wonder why they chose to use a none linear scale on the x axis? Why such a big gap between '76 and '88 compared to earlier and later?lemurcat12 wrote: »...and, especially, more vegetables and fruit.
Why is this part people always seem to miss?
2 -
.0
-
I think there is some confusion over the concept of dairy having added sugar. It isn't that the sugar is added, it's that it is concentrated. If you measure the same amount of skim milk and whole milk, skim milk will likely have a higher sugar content because the lactose is concentrated since it isn't mixed with the same ratio of fat. This is fine for some people, and could be bad for others.
For instance, my husband has some lactose issues. If he drinks 8 ounces of skim milk he will feel terrible, whereas if he drinks 8 ounces of whole milk he'll feel fine. This is because of the concentration of lactose in the skim milk.
If someone is watching their sugar intake or their carbohydrate intake, it would make sense to have the full fat items since their sugar levels are not concentrated and, therefore, higher. However, if somebody is trying to adhere to a lower fat diet or trying to cut their calories, it may make more sense to have the reduced fat items.
There are some prepackaged or pre-bottled items that have added sugar in the low-fat form, for instance, I know some salad dressings do this. I've done the label comparison. That said, if you're more concerned about cutting calories, that might not be a big deal to you, especially since it is often a minor difference. If you have concerns about sugar, it may be a big deal.
In our home, we eat full fat dairy, bacon, full eggs etc. because it fits into our WOE. We also watch our carbs and cals, make sure we are getting vitamins and minerals, and make sure that were eating taste good!
1 -
megdnoorman wrote: »I think there is some confusion over the concept of dairy having added sugar. It isn't that the sugar is added, it's that it is concentrated. If you measure the same amount of skim milk and whole milk, skim milk will likely have a higher sugar content because the lactose is concentrated since it isn't mixed with the same ratio of fat. This is fine for some people, and could be bad for others.
I suspect you are right, but it's still not that big a difference. I did a comparison a while back with Fage yogurt, all in the same size containers:
full fat (200 g): 10 g fat, 8 g sugar, 18 g protein
2% (200 g): 4 g fat, 8 g sugar, 20 g protein
0% (170 g): 0 g fat, 7 g sugar, 18 g protein
So no more sugar in the lower fat options (a very small amount more if you control for weight in the skim). For the same calories, however, you'd get more sugar in the lower fat, of course (plus more protein also).
Looking for milk, I looked at Dean's, and the break down is:
full fat (1 cup, 240 mL): 8 g fat, 11 g sugar (but 12 g carbs, weird), 8 g protein
2% (1 cup, 240 mL): 5 g fat, 12 g sugar (12 g carbs), 8 g protein
1% (1 cup, 240 mL): 2.5 g fat, 12 g (13 g carbs -- must be a rounding thing), 8 g protein
0% (1 cup, 240 mL): 0 g fat, 12 g sugar (13 g carbs), 8 g protein2 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »The two figures posted by Stevencloser are interesting for a number of reasons but I wonder why they chose to use a none linear scale on the x axis? Why such a big gap between '76 and '88 compared to earlier and later?lemurcat12 wrote: »...and, especially, more vegetables and fruit.
Why is this part people always seem to miss?
Probably lack of data.
I'm more confused why they chose a stacked bar graph for individual gram amounts. That makes it hard to compare the carb and protein development.0 -
@lemurcat12 yeah, those are pretty minor differences.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I suspect you are right, but it's still not that big a difference. I did a comparison a while back with Fage yogurt, all in the same size containers:
full fat (200 g): 10 g fat, 8 g sugar, 18 g protein
2% (200 g): 4 g fat, 8 g sugar, 20 g protein
0% (170 g): 0 g fat, 7 g sugar, 18 g protein
So no more sugar in the lower fat options (a very small amount more if you control for weight in the skim). For the same calories, however, you'd get more sugar in the lower fat, of course (plus more protein also).
I think when people are talking about added sugar in dairy isn't it more about the flavored varieties where the macros vary quite a bit. I was surprised looking it up at how much less protein there can be for instance.
Ski Smooth Strawberry & Raspberry Yogurt which is described as low fat (3%) 200g: 5.4g fat, 15.2g Sugar, 6.6g protein.
Now you'd have to be pretty silly to expect a Strawberry and Raspberry Yogurt to have the same ratio's as a natural version but unless you read the labels in the yogurt isle you could get a few surprises.
Ingredients
Raspberry: Low Fat Yogurt (from Milk), Sugar, Raspberry Puree from Concentrate (2.5%), Rice Starch, Red Beetroot Concentrate, Concentrated Lemon Juice, Natural Flavouring, Thickener (Guar Gum), Strawberry: Low Fat Yogurt (from Milk), Sugar, Strawberry Puree from Concentrate (2.5%), Rice Starch, Natural Flavouring, Concentrated Lemon Juice, Beetroot Red Concentrate, Thickener (Guar Gum)1 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I suspect you are right, but it's still not that big a difference. I did a comparison a while back with Fage yogurt, all in the same size containers:
full fat (200 g): 10 g fat, 8 g sugar, 18 g protein
2% (200 g): 4 g fat, 8 g sugar, 20 g protein
0% (170 g): 0 g fat, 7 g sugar, 18 g protein
So no more sugar in the lower fat options (a very small amount more if you control for weight in the skim). For the same calories, however, you'd get more sugar in the lower fat, of course (plus more protein also).
I think when people are talking about added sugar in dairy isn't it more about the flavored varieties where the macros vary quite a bit. I was surprised looking it up at how much less protein there can be for instance.
No, I don't think so, although maybe they are confused. There is a ton of added sugar in some flavored dairy, obviously, but they focus on things like skim milk (which is not normally flavored) or cottage cheese (same). Plus, flavored yogurt is no more likely to be skim than full fat, and the assertion is that they add the sugar to make up for the reduced fat (when instead they add the flavoring because lots of people want to buy dessert-style or other flavored yogurt).
I went to try some new full fat yogurts yesterday at my local store -- got this Icelandic skyr which was tasty -- and was surprised at how hard it was to find non flavored ones other than the Fage I knew about. It was harder than finding plain low fat (both were ridiculous, though -- I normally just buy Fage or at the green market, so didn't fully appreciate that).
If your point is that there are a bunch of extra ingredients in the yogurt that is flavored, I'm sure that's true -- agree that there's a huge diversity in what's in flavored yogurts -- but again that has nothing to do with the argument that was being made about full fat vs. low fat. It's the case with both.
(Indeed, if one wants flavored without added sugar, then it's low fat/0% that will have it, as many of those are supposed to be low cal and so use artificial sweeteners. I don't normally buy them personally, but it's just not true that low fat are inherently higher sugar.)2 -
@lemurcat12 I wasn't really thinking about the op's question really!
I picked the Ski Yogurt as the last time I was back in the UK at my parents place, who are both in their 60s, my Mother brought these out as a "healthy" dessert as they are low fat. She was the person I specifically had in mind when I spoke about confusion I guess LOL
I posted the ingredients as I was shocked at the list for what I thought was a yogurt.
Here in Sweden we are really lucky for unflavoured yogurts/milk cultures. The are loads of different types let alone brands. Skyr is good and so are filmjölk, Kefir, Långfil and Bollnäsfil. The cultures are slightly different to the ones in yogurt.
0 -
Hawaiian_Iceberg wrote: »@lemurcat12 I wasn't really thinking about the op's question really!
Heh, I just find the "low fat dairy has added sugar" a pet peeve. I totally agree that flavored yogurts can have a crazy amount of sugar and various other ingredients, although I am not familiar with the one you mentioned and not opposed to long ingredient lists inherently.
On other matters, I'd love to try all those Swedish yogurts!2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 897 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions