Milk

myvinki2010
myvinki2010 Posts: 15 Member
edited December 2024 in Food and Nutrition
2 percent milk is it really bad....never tried soy almond or vanilla...but I'm wanting a bowl of raisin bran!!
«1

Replies

  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,432 MFP Moderator
    Do you have a question?
  • CrabNebula
    CrabNebula Posts: 1,119 Member
    If you are purely interested in calories, probably your best bet is to go with Silk's 25 calorie cashew milk. Tastes fine to me in cereal, but all I really care about is that it is ice cold and thicker than water.

    I'm not sure exactly what your concern is about 2% milk though. IIFYM and all.
  • myvinki2010
    myvinki2010 Posts: 15 Member
    Is 2 percent milk bad compared to skim,almond,soy,vanilla
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Bad for what?
    Tasting bad compared to whole milk? Yeah, kinda.
    Bad for your health? No.
  • RWClary
    RWClary Posts: 192 Member
    2 percent milk is it really bad....never tried soy almond or vanilla...but I'm wanting a bowl of raisin bran!!
    I drink either unpasteurized whole milk or coconut milk.
  • King_Spicy
    King_Spicy Posts: 821 Member
    edited April 2016
    Whole milk is where its at, but 2% is what I usually drink. Soy was okay. Almond felt like I might as well drink water because it had almost no protein. (goes good in coffee, though). Coconut milk was good in coffee as well.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    Is 2 percent milk bad compared to skim,almond,soy,vanilla

    It has more calories but otherwise is not bad.
  • myvinki2010
    myvinki2010 Posts: 15 Member
    Thanks RW...I guess that's where I was going with this...New to mfp still learning
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,432 MFP Moderator
    Is 2 percent milk bad compared to skim,almond,soy,vanilla

    I like skim but rather drink it while I am losing weight. Just not worth the calories to me. And all the nut based milks taste like crap unless sweetened and at that point, it's fairly high in calories and really not worth it to me since there is little protein.
  • myvinki2010
    myvinki2010 Posts: 15 Member
    Thanks psulemon
  • myvinki2010
    myvinki2010 Posts: 15 Member
    Thanks everyone... :)
  • amyk0202
    amyk0202 Posts: 666 Member
    I like Fairlife Fat Free milk--same calories as regular fat-free, but more protein. What is bad about 2%? Are you switching from whole? I had a hard time moving from whole milk to 2% because it was so much thinner. That was probably 20 years ago though & now I can't drink whole milk because it's too thick--like I'm drinking it after it's started to spoil & chunk up. It's all what you're used to. I don't care for the taste of any of the milk alternatives & protein is the one macro I pay attention to & they are generally very short on it.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    Thanks RW...I guess that's where I was going with this...New to mfp still learning

    Oh, if you just wanted to know what we drink, I drink mostly almond milk. Occasionally soy.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,014 Member
    edited April 2016
    2% for me in smoothies, cereal or just to drink. Full fat for coffee, but I use less so the extra calories don't derail me. Anything under 2% just does not taste good to me. Of the nut milks, cashew is my favorite...
  • rsclause
    rsclause Posts: 3,103 Member
    I go for the unsweetened almond milk due to lactose issues but I like the taste. I would also go for quaker oats over raisin bran, lots of sugar in there.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,014 Member
    rsclause wrote: »
    I go for the unsweetened almond milk due to lactose issues but I like the taste. I would also go for quaker oats over raisin bran, lots of sugar in there.
    What wrong with the sugar in raisin bran?
  • GrinnyMae
    GrinnyMae Posts: 55 Member
    I love Fairlife milk--it is filtered so that it is lactose free, lower in sugar and higher in protein. And I just love the taste of it. I have bought both the Skim and 2% and I like them both. If you like milk and want some, choose which you like and have it. Just log it in and work it into your plan.
  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,487 Member
    I don't label foods as good or bad. They either fit your goals or they don't. If it has too many calories for me today or doesn't fit my goals that doesn't make it bad, it just isn't something I'm going to have right now. Also I like to look at my diet as a whole, not as each individual food. Does the food as a whole fit my goals? Then eat it, if not then don't.
  • WholeFoods4Lyfe
    WholeFoods4Lyfe Posts: 1,518 Member
    I personally would not drink any "fake" milks. We drink Whole Milk in my house, we just don't go crazy, usually just one serving per day and then try to get calcium through other food choices as well.
  • 6pkdreamer
    6pkdreamer Posts: 180 Member
    I've tried- full fat milk (best in coffee), 2% milk (ok for most thinks), skim milk (like dish water) ,almond and soy milk. Have also made almond milk and walnut milk- MUCH better than bought but a hassle more so with almond as you have to soak the nuts overnight and too popular (had to keep make it too often). So I've come full circle back to full cream milk and make it fit into my day.
  • Fuzzipeg
    Fuzzipeg Posts: 2,303 Member
    There is nothing wrong with full fat milk as long as you are neither casein or lactose intolerant. Scientist are saying fat is not the bad guy, we need it to ensure our hormones and enzymes keep well. As was stated back in the '70's its all the added sugars which do the harm turning into fat to be stored for the famine our bodies are programmed to expect.

    If you really don't like milk in that form make space for the form you do like in your day.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,014 Member
    Fuzzipeg wrote: »
    There is nothing wrong with full fat milk as long as you are neither casein or lactose intolerant. Scientist are saying fat is not the bad guy, we need it to ensure our hormones and enzymes keep well. As was stated back in the '70's its all the added sugars which do the harm turning into fat to be stored for the famine our bodies are programmed to expect.

    If you really don't like milk in that form make space for the form you do like in your day.

    Not if one is in a state of negative energy balance. In other word, in a calorie deficit, sugar will not turn into fat.
  • Crisseyda
    Crisseyda Posts: 532 Member
    Full fat milk all the way! Check out this article. NPR calls the newest evidence a "paradox" because mainstream nutriton science has been promoting low fat for weight loss for years. It's not a paradox, it's just true: fat is your friend when it comes to weight loss.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/02/12/275376259/the-full-fat-paradox-whole-milk-may-keep-us-lean
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,014 Member
    Low fat for weight loss is the same thing as low sugar for weight loss. Translation, low calorie for weight loss...
  • Crisseyda
    Crisseyda Posts: 532 Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    Low fat for weight loss is the same thing as low sugar for weight loss. Translation, low calorie for weight loss...

    really? then why would whole milk decrease obesity risk and fat free milk increase obesity risk? Fat free milk has fewer calories.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    2 percent milk is it really bad....never tried soy almond or vanilla...but I'm wanting a bowl of raisin bran!!

    I've found that cereals like Raisin Bran just don't fill me up and so are not worth the calories to me. No cereal = no need to fret about what type of milk to use in them. Problem solved for me.

    But when I do buy milk for cooking, I get full fat milk from the local dairy, because I like that I can see that these cows are well treated and because full fat milk tastes better to me.

    So that's what I do. But if you like 2% milk, use 2% milk, and make sure the calories of it and the cereal fit into your calorie budget.

  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,432 MFP Moderator
    edited April 2016
    J72FIT wrote: »
    Low fat for weight loss is the same thing as low sugar for weight loss. Translation, low calorie for weight loss...

    really? then why would whole milk decrease obesity risk and fat free milk increase obesity risk? Fat free milk has fewer calories.

    Its a meta data analysis and even they are unclear to why its happening, at least according to your article. There is some thought that it could either be the satiety factor or other complicated factors such as fat metabolism. Either way, they still recommend limiting dairy as there are still stronger linkages to saturated fat and cvd. At the end of the day, in an environment like mfp, it wont matter as we are in a controlled calorie environment, most here exercise and get nutrient dense foods. It might help some, who are satieted off a fats but it surely wont apply to everyone.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    Low fat for weight loss is the same thing as low sugar for weight loss. Translation, low calorie for weight loss...

    really? then why would whole milk decrease obesity risk and fat free milk increase obesity risk? Fat free milk has fewer calories.

    They don't know. And so this tangent would be best continued in the Debate Forum rather than here.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/02/12/275376259/the-full-fat-paradox-whole-milk-may-keep-us-lean

    ...It's not clear what might explain this phenomenon. Lots of folks point to the satiety factor. The higher levels of fat in whole milk products may make us feel fuller, faster. And as a result, the thinking goes, we may end up eating less.

    Or the explanation could be more complex. "There may be bioactive substances in the milk fat that may be altering our metabolism in a way that helps us utilize the fat and burn it for energy, rather than storing it in our bodies," Miller says.
  • Crisseyda
    Crisseyda Posts: 532 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    Low fat for weight loss is the same thing as low sugar for weight loss. Translation, low calorie for weight loss...

    really? then why would whole milk decrease obesity risk and fat free milk increase obesity risk? Fat free milk has fewer calories.

    They don't know. And so this tangent would be best continued in the Debate Forum rather than here.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/02/12/275376259/the-full-fat-paradox-whole-milk-may-keep-us-lean

    ...It's not clear what might explain this phenomenon. Lots of folks point to the satiety factor. The higher levels of fat in whole milk products may make us feel fuller, faster. And as a result, the thinking goes, we may end up eating less.

    Or the explanation could be more complex. "There may be bioactive substances in the milk fat that may be altering our metabolism in a way that helps us utilize the fat and burn it for energy, rather than storing it in our bodies," Miller says.

    Not a tangent. OP said, "2% milk is it really bad."
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,014 Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    Low fat for weight loss is the same thing as low sugar for weight loss. Translation, low calorie for weight loss...

    really? then why would whole milk decrease obesity risk and fat free milk increase obesity risk? Fat free milk has fewer calories.
    Really. Because the calories are just replaced somewhere else. CICO...
This discussion has been closed.