2% milk is over 35 Percent - That's right - 35% FAT!

It is called 1% milk because fat makes up 1% of the entire volume of milk. Whole milk is about 3.9%.

No, you're not seeing this right. Fat is controlled to alter the thickness of the milk. Whole milk is much creamier than nonfat, which has the consistency of water.

2% milk is 2% total milk volume. If you want to know the nutritional percentage of the fat, it's on the back of the label.

You can't make the oreo argument either, because the fat concentration is always the same no matter how much milk you're drinking. Eating an oreo with 6oz of milk will have a higher percentage of calories from fat and carbohydrates because of the concentration of the cookie. If you drink more milk, the total calories will go up, but the concentration of calories will go down because no matter what, 2% of the entire volume of milk will be fat.

Also, you might consider before flying off the handle, treating caloric measurements as guidelines more than anything else.

Fat and carbohydrates have important jobs in nutrition. It's less important to worry about the calories you get from drinking milk, which is from lactose and milk fat and proteins and more important to worry about the calories you get from eating an oreo which gets its calories from high fructose corn syrup and higher concentrations of fat and cholesterol per cookie and much less protein.

:P edited.

But if you're having 300ml of 2% milk on your cereal in the morning.

And you're keeping track of the fat content and making sure you don't have too much fat elsewhere.

What's the problem? Milk provides some other important nutrients like calcium that we also need, I don't think you can just throw milk away because it has fats/calories that we already know about, if you record stuff on here and read labels you know what's in milk already surely?



Edit:

I didn't mean this post to be offensive in any way, I just think that sometimes we over-react to things when we don't need to. Milk is important for us (though there are alternatives of course).

We ought not to be so fat-averse, even when it comes to saturated fats.

http://www.slate.com/id/2248754

"The foundation for the "fat is bad" mantra comes from the following logic: Since saturated fat is known to increase blood levels of "bad" LDL cholesterol, and people with high LDL cholesterol are more likely to develop heart disease, saturated fat must increase heart disease risk. If A equals B and B equals C, then A must equal C.

"Well, no. With this extrapolation, scientists and policymakers made a grave miscalculation: They assumed that all LDL cholesterol is the same and that all of it is bad. A spate of recent research is now overturning this fallacy and raising major questions about the wisdom of avoiding fat, especially considering that the food Americans have been replacing fat with—processed carbohydrates—could be far worse for heart health."

Boy, everyone has grown up being so brainwashed by the media, government and all of these other organizations.

I don't agree with that, high fructose corn syrup levels have been skyrocketing in foods for the past 20 years. I think a healthy fear of the consequences, especially since 1 burger at McDonalds has become half a day's portion of saturated fats.

McDonald's doesn't spend billions on advertising each year because it isn't effective. "Our food is delicious and you want it and we're projecting the image that we're making it healthier, even when our salads are more unhealthy than our burgers."

Organized responses to increasing nutritional imbalances tend to be emotionally charged instead of logically thought out, because in case you haven't noticed, appealing to emotion and desire is usually more successful than appealing to logic.