Is using full fat dairy a detriment to weight loss?

Satiation is highly individual: full-fat doesn't make me feel fuller than low-no fat. Try is yourself to find out?

I'm pretty sure I get adequate nutrients eating low/ no fat considering the amount of whole foods I eat. According to blood tests, I don't have any deficiencies (except vitamin D for which I take a supplement. I doubt full fat dairy would fix that).

I prefer low/no fat because it fits my calorie goal better. My personal preference 🤷‍♀️

Not worth the calories imo.

I personally don't think there's anything wrong with whole fat dairy, but like you, I've used low fat or fat free since my dad had a heart attack when I was 15. My appetite prefers fat much more than the other macros. I decided a long time ago that if I need to keep my fat low, and I already do low fat dairy, it only makes sense to continue low fat--mostly. Still enjoy butter and whipped cream occasionally.

I agree with lietchi that satiety is individual. If you're happy with your eating, and it's achieving your goals, why mess with a good thing because the blogosphere touts some generic theory?

Also, the blogsphere tends to be a trend-obsessed idiot, IMO and IME.

I prefer to use a large proportion of reduced fat or nonfat dairy . . . and I eat a lot of dairy, as a dairy-loving ovo-lacto vegetarian. Many people get enough fats without paying close attention; for me that's the macro where I'm most likely to come up short of my own nutritional goals. However, I'd still rather fix that with some nuts, seeds, peanut butter, avocado, or the occasional small serving of swoony-rich extra-full-fat cheese, rather than routinely using full-fat milk or yogurt. (I eat milk and yogurt daily. Plenty of 'em.)

For me as an individual, fats aren't particularly filling. Protein and volume (like veggies) are filling. Also, I don't like the mouthfeel of full-fat milk. But that's just me.

I'm curious about one thing: When you say "the claims are that there are increased vitamin and minerals available", how do you interpret that?

I understand that we need to consume some fats to metabolize certain micronutrients. It doesn't really matter what the fat source is, as far as I know, though timing may matter a bit.

But if the articles are claiming that full-fat milk or yogurt actually contain more micronutrients cup for cup than lowfat or nonfat, I don't believe that to be true. I'd actually expect it to be the opposite, since the space that fat takes up in a cup of full-fat whatever needs to be filled up with more of the other not-fat ingredients in the thing itself, to make an equivalent volume. (A quick look at relevant entries in the USDA Food Central Database generally confirms that theory, BTW. Milk, 3.25%, with added vitamin https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/746782/nutrients; Skim milk with added vitamin A & https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/746776/nutrients. Note that the whole milk listed has only vitamin D added, while the skim has both vitamin A and D added, so they aren't comparable for those entries. Skim is slightly higher in most of the micros.)

the lower the fat the higher the sugar
the higher the sugar, the lower the fat

Since you say you use milk for cooking I would use full fat in recipes. Low fat just doesn't reduce the same and skim milk is a hard no for cooking. Many recipes will state that whole milk (or cream if in recipe) should be used for it to turn out best. I do use whole milk (or real cream), full fat cheese etc for cooking. Since my DH has trouble keeping weight on we always have it in the house. I drink low fat milk and eat low fat yogurt and cottage cheese. No fat stuff is just gross to me. Have been maintaining just fine and lost my weight with no probblem doing this.

poodle_whisper wrote: »

the lower the fat the higher the sugar
the higher the sugar, the lower the fat

Sure, if the fat level is the only difference in ingredients, a cup of full fat yogurt has less lactose than a cup of lowfat/nonfat yogurt. So what? Lactose isn't poison (except to those allergic/sensitive).

If you're implying that lowfat/nonfat dairy necessarily has more added sugar . . . no.

sollyn23l2 wrote: »

poodle_whisper wrote: »

the lower the fat the higher the sugar
the higher the sugar, the lower the fat

While this can be true in ultra processed products, it's not generally true for dairy products such as milk or cheese. Because they don't have sugar added (even the low fat ones), they have the same amount of sugar. That being said, the good thing about the fat is that it slows the absorption of the sugar into your system.

To the bolded, actually, no. In a given volume of milk, nonfat milk generally has slightly more lactose (by weight or volume) than full-fat milk. But yes, it's not added sugar. Loosely, the cow put it there.

Unless processors added something inert to nonfat milk (such as water) to replace the volume of the fat that was removed, there has to be more of something(s) in nonfat milk than in whole milk. Not every nutrition item differs because in some cases the difference isn't a big enough increment, and in other cases because some/most milk - including this milk specifically - is supplemented. (There might even be some cases where it's because US labeling laws are weird.)

Take a look at labels from the same dairy:



But like I said, so what? That difference in lactose content is silly-trivial, and lactose isn't dangerous in these quantities (to those who aren't allergic or sensitive), or even "a detriment to weight loss".

It's true that the glycemic index differs between skim and whole milk, but only by only a small number of points. Is that a difference that matters to someone who needs to manage blood sugar closely, such as someone insulin resistant or diabetic? Maybe. To someone without blood sugar management challenges? Unlikely, IMO, particularly in context of a complex meal.

The details (differences) may vary across product categories (milk, yogurt, cheese) and even by brand, but generally X amount of nonfat dairy will have more of certain things than X amount of a full-fat version of the same thing, because something replaces the weight/volume the fat would've occupied.

It's about making room for the calories you want. I cut calories where I can, but I balance it with taste. I don't want to waste any calories on a lower fat alternative that tastes yuck.

So I use 2% milk, low fat yogurt, reduced fat feta, and choose cheeses that have more flavour for a smaller serve (aged tasty, parmesan etc) but I won't compromise on flavour on full fat cottage cheese, full fat cheese etc. I'd rather not have them than go the gross fat reduced ones.

Dairy fat/calories won't affect your losses any more than other fat/calories. Make it fit your plan and have what works for you and keeps you consistent.