Fat free milk

Options
Hi everyone!

I have a question on fat free milk. I recently switched over from 2%. Is fat free milk better for you? Are there any disadvantages?

I ask because I know that some fat free food are actually worse for you because of the added in items.

Can anyone help?

Thanks!

Replies

  • tophat1
    Options
    Most fat free milks don't have anything "bad" added to them - just the fat is removed. So no, it's not bad for you, but I would still stick with 1% or 2% unless you are drinking a gallon a day. The fat in the milk will help satisfy you and keep you full longer. I drink my milk as part of a morning latte on the weekends. I could almost skip breakfast (but I don't!)
  • michellelay
    Options
    Thanks for the tip!
  • Nos150
    Nos150 Posts: 150
    Options
    i would just rather eat my fat then drink it... but there is not one right way or wrong way.

    :)
  • Nicola0000
    Nicola0000 Posts: 531 Member
    Options
    fat free milk to me tastes disgusting!! Id rather have less, but have the semi-skimmed milk.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,018 Member
    Options
    A little fat in milk helps with the absorption of some vitamins, plus it's always better to have not removed any nutrients that nature intended to be there.

    The downside to fat free milk is that almost all fat free milk would have had milk power added for viscosity and taste (real fat free milk is pretty much water without any taste, and very unappealing) and in the process to make powdered milk the cholesterol in it has been oxidated, and it's oxidized cholesterol that is not something we want to be consuming, ever.
  • seehawkmomma
    Options
    fat free milk to me tastes disgusting!! Id rather have less, but have the semi-skimmed milk.

    I have to agree here. Its like water but milky....

    I grew up on goats milk(weird right)

    So I stick with 1% so it its creamer but I dont feel bad about it.
  • Sidesteal
    Sidesteal Posts: 5,510 Member
    Options
    A little fat in milk helps with the absorption of some vitamins, plus it's always better to have not removed any nutrients that nature intended to be there.

    The downside to fat free milk is that almost all fat free milk would have had milk power added for viscosity and taste (real fat free milk is pretty much water without any taste, and very unappealing) and in the process to make powdered milk the cholesterol in it has been oxidated, and it's oxidized cholesterol that is not something we want to be consuming, ever.

    Interesting post sir. I was under the impression that generally speaking, dietary cholesterol doesn't really effect blood cholesterol. Is the above an execption or are there other reason that we shouldn't consume oxidized cholesterol?
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,018 Member
    Options
    A little fat in milk helps with the absorption of some vitamins, plus it's always better to have not removed any nutrients that nature intended to be there.

    The downside to fat free milk is that almost all fat free milk would have had milk power added for viscosity and taste (real fat free milk is pretty much water without any taste, and very unappealing) and in the process to make powdered milk the cholesterol in it has been oxidated, and it's oxidized cholesterol that is not something we want to be consuming, ever.

    Interesting post sir. I was under the impression that generally speaking, dietary cholesterol doesn't really effect blood cholesterol. Is the above an execption or are there other reason that we shouldn't consume oxidized cholesterol?
    Your right sidesteal, dietary cholesterol has very little effect on blood cholesterol for the majority of people. One of the big myths as far as cholesterol is concerned is that the cholesterol found in food will contribute to heart disease, therefore eat less or restrict it, but that is not understanding how cholesterol is metabolised.

    Cholesterol that we find in food like in eggs or milk for example doesn't come in the form of HDL's and LDL's it just raw cholesterol, which then signals the pancreas to produce less, compensating for the dietary source, and in the event that we don't eat any cholesterol our body produces more. Obviously cholesterol is a pretty important nutrient.

    The cholesterol in food is contained within it's normal matrix is protected from the sources that cause oxidation which for the most part is heat, light and oxygen. Also within a normal food matrix there are also other protective micronutrients like /vit E and other anti-oxidants which help to maintain the integrity of that dietary source of cholesterol. Milk powder on the other hand is a processed food product where in it's production the dietary cholesterol has been dried, heated and exposed to these oxidative elements and then we consume them........keep in mind I'm only posting this in response to the OP's original question, and in that respect having the cholesterol stay within milk as in 2% or higher is less prone to have been exposed to these oxidative elements......The popular medical term associated with oxidation is called free radical activity, which trans fats are so well known for. Basically it still comes down to eating whole unprocessed foods will be better than processed........raw milk being the gold standard.
  • 1grammie
    1grammie Posts: 163
    Options
    I use nothing but fat free milk and even 1% tastes gross to me. If you like the taste I don't think there are any downside effects to it.