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
-
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 -
Low fat diet for me. Granted, I personally enjoy dietary fats from past experience, that ship has sailed now. Have been put on a low fat diet for medical purposes. No more than 30-40 grams a day (gastroparesis).0
-
An eye opener for me was reading "The Big FAT Surprise" by Nina Teicholz. After nine years of investigation, she reveals "the unthinkable: everything we've been told about fat is wrong." According to her research, ever since the government adopted the low fat, high carbohydrate recommendations, obesity and type 2 diabetes have increased steadily along with sugar consumption to where the average sugar consumption in America is well over 150# per year. Personally, since I have adopted a low carb (<30 grams a day) high fat and moderate protein I have lost 13 pounds in 6 weeks and have dropped my blood sugar levels to almost normal and have been taken off my diabetic meds. Other biomarkers have improved, too. There is a lot of evidenced-based information available on www.dietdoctor.com, also.2
-
An eye opener for me was reading "The Big FAT Surprise" by Nina Teicholz. After nine years of investigation, she reveals "the unthinkable: everything we've been told about fat is wrong." According to her research, ever since the government adopted the low fat, high carbohydrate recommendations, obesity and type 2 diabetes have increased steadily along with sugar consumption to where the average sugar consumption in America is well over 150# per year. Personally, since I have adopted a low carb (<30 grams a day) high fat and moderate protein I have lost 13 pounds in 6 weeks and have dropped my blood sugar levels to almost normal and have been taken off my diabetic meds. Other biomarkers have improved, too. There is a lot of evidenced-based information available on www.dietdoctor.com, also.
Please read further back in this thread.1 -
Sorry, no. I don't eat raw or partially raw meat.
I haven't eaten a burger less than well done since I read 'Toxin' by Robin Cook. ::noway::
Steaks I can do, but not ground meat. Even when I grind the meat myself I still get weirded out.2 -
I don't have a gallbladder and have a hard time processing fat, so while full fat is definitely yummier it's not something I can have. I do occasionally risk a full fat yoghurt or fattier meat but it normally leads to a lot of pain and extended visit to the toilet.0
-
I read this thread a while ago but forget most of it Just thought I'd weigh in. Fat doesn't satiate me and tends to give me heartburn. I have familial hypercholesterolemia and need to keep a low fat, low cholesterol diet to control it.
At any rate, the most satiating diet for me involves plenty of protein, starch, and fiber. That leaves little room for fat, and that is fine by me. I do supplement EFA's with a vegan supplement because my normal dietary intake is so low (usually around 20-25 grams or so of fat a day).
I'm not a big cheese eater, but I do eat a lot of yogurt and cottage cheese. The low fat varieties of those taste pretty much the same to me as their fattier versions.
When I eat eggs, I eat 1 whole egg supplemented with extra whites.
3 -
The one rule I was taught in my weight loss journey from Dr. Mark Hyman was "Fat don't make you fat, sugar makes you fat."4
-
EthanPierre wrote: »The one rule I was taught in my weight loss journey from Dr. Mark Hyman was "Fat don't make you fat, sugar makes you fat."
Neither make you fat. Overconsumption makes you fat.8 -
EthanPierre wrote: »The one rule I was taught in my weight loss journey from Dr. Mark Hyman was "Fat don't make you fat, sugar makes you fat."
It's neither or both in and of themselves.
It's excess calories.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »EthanPierre wrote: »The one rule I was taught in my weight loss journey from Dr. Mark Hyman was "Fat don't make you fat, sugar makes you fat."
It's neither or both in and of themselves.
It's excess calories.
Exactly.
And the low vs. high fat question comes down to what you like, goals, macros, and what else you eat. Fage 2% tastes as good to me as Fage total, has fewer calories, more protein, same carbs. Eating Fage 2% thus gives me more room for cheese.1 -
EthanPierre wrote: »The one rule I was taught in my weight loss journey from Dr. Mark Hyman was "Fat don't make you fat, sugar makes you fat."
And he would be wrong. Arguing one dogma with another is poor advice. Calories make us fat.4 -
So, if I'm on a weight loss regimen of exercise and 1,700 calories a day and I eat 2,700 calories of just lean protein and green vegetables while leaving out anything with processed sugar I'm going to get fat? My point is processed sugar is bad for our bodies and there's no denying that fact.3
-
EthanPierre wrote: »So, if I'm on a weight loss regimen of exercise and 1,700 calories a day and I eat 2,700 calories of just lean protein and green vegetables while leaving out anything with processed sugar I'm going to get fat? My point is processed sugar is bad for our bodies and there's no denying that fact.
If 2700 is over your maintenance calories and you do it repeatedly, then yes, you'll get fat. What's that got to do with processed sugar?4 -
EthanPierre wrote: »So, if I'm on a weight loss regimen of exercise and 1,700 calories a day and I eat 2,700 calories of just lean protein and green vegetables while leaving out anything with processed sugar I'm going to get fat? My point is processed sugar is bad for our bodies and there's no denying that fact.
If your maintenance levels are 2700 and you eat more than 2700, than you will gain weight regardless of macronutrient composition. Conversely, if your maintenance is 2700 and you eat a high sugar diet of 1900 calories, you will still lose.
But semantically, sugar will not convert to fat as easily as dietary fat. Its just more metabolically taxing. Sugar/carbs are more likely to be broken down into glycogen or burned off for immediate energistic needs.
Ultimately, energy balance is what determines weight control. Foods influence other things like satiety, energy and etc...
If you want to see what can happen under controlled studies, id recommend looking are some of the work from Kevin Hall.6 -
EthanPierre wrote: »So, if I'm on a weight loss regimen of exercise and 1,700 calories a day and I eat 2,700 calories of just lean protein and green vegetables while leaving out anything with processed sugar I'm going to get fat?
Is your maintenance below or above 2700 -- that's the question. The reason people are generally not going to "get fat" on a diet of only lean meat and green vegetables (interesting that you are picking a diet that is extremely low fat here) is that it's HARD for most people to eat above their maintenance calories on that, unless you start including butter and oil to cook with, less lean meats, starchier veg, sauces, etc. Not impossible, I'm sure some could. But most likely would not be able to do so. What they might find is that they miss more variety and so are more likely to have a high cal day because they go off plan, figure they blew it anyway, since they had a cookie or a potato or some cheese or whatever, and since the day/diet is ruined anyway, go nuts. You have to figure out if this is going to be a bigger issue or if controlling calories on a more indulgent/varied/flexible diet would be, I suppose.My point is processed sugar is bad for our bodies and there's no denying that fact.
The two statements have nothing to do with each other. Nor do they seem to have much to do with high fat vs. low fat. Again, classic example of high fat vs. low fat is dairy. No "processed" sugar is even involved.3 -
Also, whether or not sugar is good for you is based on context, not different than SFA and other things. Its not bad if you aren't esting too much of it and its not crowding out other more important nutrients, such as protein. Overall, it should be limited so you can get more important nutrients but some added sugar can be beneficial for you, especially if you need quick energy or for enjoyment which is also an important part of weight loss.1
-
0
-
Everything effects everybody differently so I have heard. I choose full fat 1
-
I prefer full fat products. Things like mayonnaise, cottage cheese, peanut butter, sour cream, and so on. Why? Low fat products has to compensate for the reduced "low fat" content by increasing sugar. Companies do this so their products doesn't taste bad. https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/truth-about-low-fat-foods0
-
I prefer full fat products. Things like mayonnaise, cottage cheese, peanut butter, sour cream, and so on. Why? Low fat products has to compensate for the reduced "low fat" content by increasing sugar. Companies do this so their products doesn't taste bad. https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/truth-about-low-fat-foods
Low fat dairy doesn't generally have added sugar..4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions